Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it takes no courage to vote for this bill today. All it takes is a capacity to ignore the greatest opportunity we have had in a generation to really fundamentally improve the quality of public services for every American family. It is incredibly short- sighted. We have two choices here today. We can either take every dollar of available surpluses available for the next 10 years, or close to it, and use that money to provide individual gratification through the Tax Code primarily for high income people, or we can make that tax cut modest enough in size so that we leave enough money on the table to fundamentally fix long-term our preexisting obligations in the area of Social Security, in Medicare, and in education. It is incredibly short-sighted and we will regret this moment more than any action that we have taken in the last 17 years. As far as the appropriations are concerned which will follow, we will probably be able to put enough patches on the innertube to get the car down the road for 2 or 3 miles for one year but in the outyears this package also destroys our ability to rebuild our science base. It destroys our ability to put our dollars where our mouths were just a few days ago on the education bill. It destroys our ability to really do something to deal with the fact that 40 million people in this country have no health insurance. This essentially says that in terms of providing quality public services, we are satisfied with the status quo and will remain so for the next 10 years. We can do better. We should have done better. If the majority party in this House had given anything but lip service to the idea of bipartisan cooperation, we would have done better. This deserves to be put together in the dead of night because that is the only way that this package looks good. This is the biggest mistake that we have made since 1981, and it destroys our ability to say to people at the end of this decade that we guaranteed them a secure retirement, we finally brought justice to this country on the health care front and we indeed did do things that were transformational with respect to education. All of that long-term is gone. So congratulations for the short-term thinking that this bill represents. It is a typical 2-year election vehicle which weakens the country long-term.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years we have increased the education budget, on average, 13 percent a year. This year, President Bush has cut that rate of increase in his budget in half to 5.8 percent. The House Republican budget resolution did the same thing that the President did. The Senate then said, that is woefully inadequate for education; and they added $240 billion for education over 10 years by taking it out of the jumbo-size tax cuts. This resolution not only eliminates the entire $240 billion add-on over 10 years for education, it also takes funding for education $25 billion below the President's own budget over the next 10 years, and for this coming year alone takes the education funding $1 billion below President Bush's budget. That is no compromise. That is returning to yesteryear. If this is the Republican idea of how we put education first, I would hate to see their idea of how we do not. Everything, including education, is being sacrificed to jumbo-size tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year. That does not represent the priority judgments of the American people. This bill should not only be voted down, it should be laughed down.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just been told that we are about to pass the President's budget today. That is simply not true. The President is not even planning to send his budget down to the Congress until a week from Monday, and yet the Congress is so hell-bent to pass a tax bill before the public understands the consequences of that tax bill that we are passing it before we even have the full budget sent down by the President. That to me is a disgraceful institutional advocation of responsibility. Mr. Speaker, there are three reasons why we should vote against this ``budget'' and this resolution. First of all, this so-called budget resolution and the tax cuts contained in it are based upon flimsy, foggy guesses about what we are going to have in the Treasury 10 years from now. We do not have the faintest idea what we are going to have by way of surpluses 10 years from now. The numbers on which this budget is based have changed by 75 percent in 1 year. To commit to 10-year tax cut numbers on the basis of a guess about how much money is going to be in the Treasury 10 years from now is patently ridiculous. Daffy Duck might pass that kind of budget; we should not. Secondly, I would like to point out, as has been pointed out by the gentleman from Texas, that the tax cuts contemplated in this budget are so large that they leave no room on the table to deal with fixing Social Security long term, to deal with fixing Medicare long term, both of which are going to be in deficit in the long term. They leave no money left on the table to have a real attack on educational inadequacy or do a real alternative on prescription drugs, or to meet many of the other national priorities that our people have. Mr. Speaker, worse, it risks repeating what happened in 1981, the last time this Congress rammed through a tax package before they had a budget. In 1981, we were told by President Reagan: ``If you just pass my tax bill, we will have a balanced budget in 4 years.'' The green bars on this chart demonstrate what we were told we would have. Deficits would go down to zero in 4 years. Instead, the red bars demonstrate that we wound up with deficits tripling and quadrupling over that time, and interest rates went up by two full percent, and 4 million people lost their jobs. This resolution risks making the same mistake that we made in 1981, and I do not think that we ought to do it again. This resolution makes a number of changes in the budget process that further detaches this Congress from economic reality, and I do not think that we ought to do that. It is a shell game, as the gentleman from Texas has indicated. Mr. Speaker, thirdly and most importantly, this budget speaks to our values as much as it does to our accounting, and it tells a sad story. The fact is that this budget places supersize tax cuts for people over $200,000 ahead of our obligations, our prior obligations, to fix Medicare, fix Social Security or do anything significant on education. My colleagues know there is a direct link between how well you do in the classroom and how well you do in the world economy afterwards, and yet this President, while talking as though education is his priority, instead cuts in half the increases we have had in the last 5 years to strengthen education. He puts the needs of taxpayers who make more than $200,000 a year ahead of the needs of all of the school children of this country. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution, because it refuses to cap tax cuts at $6,700, because it insists giving people who make over $200,000 a year much larger tax cuts than $6,700 a year, because it insists on doing that for the 2.3 million taxpayers who make more than $200,000 a year, it gets in the way of our being able to revolutionize education for the 47 million kids who need it. Mr. Speaker, for the $280 billion that we could save by simply capping tax cuts at $6,700 for people who make over $200,000, we could do three things: We could, first of all, reduce the class size for every class in America down to 18. That is the size at which the research shows kids learn the best. Secondly, we could pay teachers enough so we could close the gap between what teachers get and other professionals. Thirdly, we could eliminate the construction backlog for every dilapidated school in America. We ought to put those priorities ahead of the tax cut, above $6,700 for the wealthiest 1 percent of people in the country. The fact that we do not says something very sad about the values of this Chamber.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not an accounting debate, this is a debate about the future of this country. I believe that every American ought to get a tax cut, and the kind of tax cut that I favor is one that will not eat up so much of the surpluses that there is nothing on the table to strengthen Social Security or Medicare or strengthen schools or pay for a prescription drug benefit or fill in the gaps in health care and pay down debt. That is why I believe that there should be no tax bill on this floor until we have a full, complete budget so we can see the entire game plan. For this Congress to proceed with taxes alone before they have the other pieces on the basis of promises about what will happen to the economy 10 years from now is as irresponsible as the action that this Congress took in 1981. In 1981, this Congress roared through President Reagan's budget and said ``If you pass that big tax cut, we will have a balanced budget in 4 years.'' This chart demonstrates, the green bar shows the promises and the red bar shows the results. Instead of getting to a surplus, we wound up with $600 billion of added debt in those 4 years, and over the next 10 years we more than quadrupled the national debt. Mr. Speaker, that is the route we are heading down again if you pass this bill. Fooled me once, shame on you. Fall for it twice, shame on me. Fall for it four times, please, bring on the adult supervision! Mr. Speaker, the only other point I want to make is to say that this bill demonstrates that the top priority of the majority party, with all of the problems Americans face on Social Security, education, health care and the lot, their top priority is to ease the tax burden on those who make more than $300,000 a year by huge amounts. If that is your top priority, I say pitiful.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a disgrace. I do not agree with every aspect of the rule that OSHA adopted; but if one disagrees with it, the proper way to change it is to have the Department of Labor propose changes, have an open hearing and comment process and then come up with changes to the rule. Instead, what this action does is it represents a blanket wipe-out of virtually every protection that workers have in this country from repetitive motion injuries. It was done without notice, without hearings, without consultation and without any spirit of compromise whatsoever. If there is any remaining illusion in this House that the House leadership is interested in bipartisanship, this is exhibit number one in the fact that that is pure fiction. It is very easy for Members of Congress to vote to do away with these protections for workers because the only repetitive motion injury that Members of Congress are likely to get is to their knees from consistent genuflecting to every special interest in this country. But the real workers of this country, the people who work with the sweat of their brows, the people who lift weight that is too heavy, the people who go through motions that are too injurious over time, the people I meet every day in plants as I go through my district, those are the people who expect us to do our duty and stand up for them because they are too busy to stand up for themselves. Do what is right. Vote no on this resolution.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this institution who work tirelessly and often thanklessly in order to improve the lives of the people we serve. Those who benefit from their work will never recognize their faces or know their names and day after day and year after year they produce a better country. Today, I rise to pay special tribute to one of them. I offer my most sincere gratitude to Mark Mioduski who has recently left the minority staff of the House Appropriations Committee after fourteen years of distinguished service to the federal government. For the past five years, Mark Mioduski has been my right-hand man on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill. He has applied a unique blend of technical know how from both budgetary and parliamentary standpoints, creativity and high energy to staffing this important bill. As many people know, the Labor, HHS bill is one of the most difficult appropriations bills to manage and is usually one of the last appropriations bills to pass. Mark has been instrumental in helping to navigate and negotiate numerous high profile and tricky issues affecting the Department of Labor, including funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the recently published ergonomics regulation. In fact, Mark has lived and breathed the ergonomics issue over the last five years and knows the issue better than virtually anyone else on Capitol Hill. In addition, Mark has made significant contributions to a wide range of health and education issues, including working to expand funding for health care access, for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, for AIDS and emerging infectious diseases, for Low-Income Energy Assistance, for Head Start, for the Social Services Block Grant, and for Pell Grants for disadvantaged students. The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education also owe him a debt of gratitude for his detailed attention to their programs and appropriations requests. Mark has spent most of his career in public service. He began his federal service after being selected to participate in the Presidential Management Intern Program, which is designed to attract the best and brightest to the federal government. He then spent four years with the Interior Department as a senior budget analyst before joining the staff of the House Appropriations Committee. For the last decade he has worked on the Appropriations Committee and, he has been of great assistance to many members and their staffs. I am sure a good many of you saw him as he wore a path to and from the Capitol often carrying his signature workbag which was passed down to him by his father. Mr. Speaker, I have greatly appreciated the job that Mark has done with humility and good humor over the years. Mark has been not only an outstanding public servant, but also he is an outstanding human being. He cares a great deal about the well being of this country and the people in it who rely on those of us in government to help make this a better place for everyone, especially the most vulnerable among us. Not many of those Americans know his name or know the countless hours he has devoted to his job, but he can leave this institution knowing that many, many Americans and their families have been benefitted from his efforts. He, like all of us, has been a public servant and he has measured up to the meaning of that term in the fullest possible measure. America's health care system with all its shortcomings provides more help for more deserving Americans because he has worked here. The National Institutes of Health are stronger and the research it oversees is better because he has worked here. Public health programs, not just in this country, but abroad provide more protection to millions of children and adults because he has worked here. Worker protection programs are better able to improve the safety and health of workers, and working families throughout this country have been able to take advantage of additional training and education to improve their livelihood because he has worked here. Mark's dedication to the Appropriations Committee and to his work has resulted in many long hours. There were weeks on end when I am sure that Mark did not see much of his family. Mark's departure is a great loss for me as well as the Committee, but I hope that he will be able to spend more time with his wife Lori Whitehand and his two young sons, Ryan and Eric. I wish him the very best in his new endeavors and much success in this new chapter of his career.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity, and I know he has to leave to take a plane for a very important event which his wife has set up involving a number of Florida children, but in addition to thanking the gentleman for his good cheer and courtesy throughout a tough year, I also want to take this opportunity to wish him in advance a happy birthday, which I understand is tomorrow.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my explanation of this bill, I want to take a moment to do something I think is very important. This institution takes a lot of abuse but there are some people in this institution who do a tremendous job on behalf of the taxpayers and they deserve, no matter how rushed the Members are, they deserve to be recognized. I want to start by thanking the committee staff on our side of the aisle, Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith, who have worked so incredibly hard all year on the Labor-Health bill. Cheryl not only handles education programs for the minority, but she does the transportation bill, as well. And I know that there were occasions when they went 2\1/ 2\ days or more without a single hour's sleep in order to serve this House, this committee, and its members; and I am very grateful. I want to thank Mark Murray, who does a terrific job handling both the Foreign Operations bill and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill; Dave Kilian, who has virtually single handedly handled the Defense bill on our side of the aisle; Tom Forhan, who handles both the Military Construction bill and the District of Columbia bill; Dave Reich and Mike Stephens, who worked together on VA-HUD. And, in addition, Dave handles the Agriculture bill and Mike handles the Interior bill. Sally Chadbourne and Pat Schlueter worked together on the Commerce-Justice- State bill. Sally also does the Energy and Water bill, and Pat does the Treasury-Postal bill. None of these people would be nearly as effective if it were not for the tireless efforts of Mr. Bonner, who undoubtedly works as hard as any human being on Capitol Hill, and Jade Brennan, who was been here early in the morning until early the next morning day after day and night after night. And I would also like to thank Kori Bernards, who has coordinated our communications efforts too and Norris Cochran and Christina Hamilton, who have helped out in numerous ways. This small group of people had to deal literally with every funding issue in every department and agency and program of the entire Federal Government. They have had to help Members with their particular problems with government programs and very often have had to deal with the wrath of authorizing issues that have nothing to do with the appropriations but nonetheless get dumped into our bills as a means of clearing them through both Houses. I think that the effort they put forth on behalf of this institution and particularly Members on my side of the aisle is remarkable, and I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for their long hours, their tremendous knowledge of our Government and legislative process and the enormous commitment that they have made to making this Government and this country a better place. I also want to pay special thanks to the clerk of the committee, Jim Dyer. I do not think there is a single person on Capitol Hill who is more patient, more fair or more pleasant to deal with on a daily basis in and out. I can say without reservation that, had it not been for his commitment and personal skill, this agreement and many others would never have come together. Also helping the chairman and the entire committee in the front office are John Mikel, a first rate professional, who for more than a decade has pulled the committee and the House through the thorny thickets of process and budget rules. And Chuck Parkinson has helped schedule our bills and coordinate with the Committee on Rules; and the leadership minority, Dale Oak, who manage the massive job of tracking the hundreds of extraneous items that various Members and other committees attempted to attach to this legislation; and Elizabeth Morra and John Schofield who have handled press for the majority. Dianne Kane, Sandy Farrow, Brian Mabry, and Theo Powell really make the committee work; and they are a big help not only to the majority but to all of us on the committee. And I want to especially recognize Tony McCann, the Subcommittee on Labor-Health clerk; Carol Murphy; Susan Firth; Geoff Kenyon; Francine Mack-Salvador; and Tom Kelly of the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS staff and all of the associate staff of the members of the Labor-HHS subcommittee on both sides of the aisle. And I also thank Steve Cartesi, the majority clerk on the Senate side, and Jim English on the minority side and all of the other clerks and ranking members' assistants as well on all of the other subcommittees who deal so well and with so much dedication. I know that there are few people in this country who appreciate how hard all of these people work and how much of a contribution they make to their country and this institution, but I want to say ``thank you'' to all of them. And I am sure that that feeling is shared on both sides of the aisle. Now I would simply like to say this, and I will say one more thing about one person before I move to substance: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is leaving this institution after a distinguished career which would make any American proud; and I have to say that, whether I have served with him on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations or on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Education, he has invariably brought a high degree of thoughtfulness, a high degree of fairness, uncommon good judgment and good sense, and immense dedication to the public good. I can think of no better phrase than to repeat the phrase that we have heard so often, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' John has truly been a credit to this institution, to his party, to his country and to his district. I want to lead us all in a round of applause for the wonderful work that he has done while he has been with us in this institution. And now, Mr. Speaker, on to the substance. On Wednesday night, the country heard two very good speeches on reconciliation from Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush. Both emphasized a need for bipartisanship. Unfortunately, we serve in the institution which has suffered the greatest erosion of bipartisanship in recent years. But this institution does, in my opinion, have a very good model for bipartisanship and that is the Committee on Appropriations. Even during the last 6 years, we have been able to produce a significant number of bills on a bipartisan basis. In all but one year, the Labor-HHS Education bill has not been one of those bills. That has not been the fault of the distinguished gentleman and my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the subcommittee chairman. Nor has it been the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or his predecessor as full committee chair, Bob Livingston. They have struggled in the best traditions of this committee to reach across the aisle and to build the broadest possible consensus for each bill. But because of the restrictions placed on them by the Committee on the Budget and their leadership, their efforts have not often succeeded in my judgment. This bill has been a poster child on how not to run a legislative body. And, in fact, in this process, a Member of the majority side of the aisle earlier correctly noted that there are dozens of items in this bill that have nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriations bill. In fact, there are well over a hundred different authorizations that are being added to this bill by reference. We did not negotiate those items. We are not responsible for them. All we can try to do with our limited staff is to try to make certain that they were not supremely objectionable to this or that faction in the House. And I have to say that this is a spectacular example of how not to run a railroad. This year has been especially frustrating to those of us who would like to see some of the most critical functions of Government funded on a bipartisan consensus. And the fact is that for 9 months of this year the deliberations of this committee were wasted on phoney budget resolutions that held funding for education, held research, worker protection and other critical programs in this bill at virtually last year's funding level with no adjustment for inflation, with no recognition of the new challenges facing this country and yet the majority passed the bill. The Senate recognized that was an unrealistic package when they passed a bill somewhat more in line with the Nation's needs. In October, we reached a bipartisan agreement that in my view met the needs of a changing and growing country, but then that bill was blocked from coming to the floor by the majority party leadership. Both parties then went out and campaigned for the education and the health and worker protection programs that were in this bill. But after the election, the majority party leaders then demanded that this bill be cut by more than $3.7 billion before it could be brought back to the floor. That is a demand they did not make of the interior bill that was almost 15 percent above last year, or the transportation bill that was similarly way above last year, and also a bill such as the energy and water bill which was substantially above last year. To get an agreement in the last week, we had to cut $3.7 billion from the earlier agreement, we had to take $1.4 billion from advance funding for LIHEAP, we had to take $257 million out of handicapped education, $127 million out of efforts to reduce class size, $180 million out of after-school programs and $200 million out of biomedical research. I dislike all of those cuts and would point out that they were unnecessary both in terms of meeting the budget limits that Congress imposed on itself in October and they were unnecessary in terms of passing this bill. But nonetheless, even with these changes, I will support this bill for two reasons: one, because I have in essence a ministerial duty to do so. Sooner or later we have to resolve our differences and this is the day; and, secondly, I think there are other good reasons to vote for this bill. It now provides funding on a program basis that is nearly 15 percent higher than last year for critical education and health programs. Some people are alarmed by that. I am delighted by it. The overall increase in education in this bill is 18 percent. It is a major step forward in providing local schools with the kind of resources that will facilitate the kind of change and improvement in our schools that the American people are anxious to see. Class size reduction efforts are increased 25 percent. Teacher quality efforts are increased 50 percent. School renovation is funded at a $1.2 billion level. For Pell grants, and I think this is perhaps the most important issue in the area of higher education in this bill, we have the biggest increase in 25 years, the Pell grant going from a maximum grant of $3,300 to $3,750. To the very deep regret of our friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), we did not provide the 15 percent increase for NIH that we had hoped to see. We provided almost that much, about 14 percent; and I am hopeful we will ultimately see our efforts against disease doubled within the 5-year time frame that will end in fiscal 2003. The most troubling cut in this bill for many Members on this side of the aisle is the advance funding for the low-income fuel assistance program which I just mentioned. Members need to recognize, however, that fuel assistance is funded for the current year not only at the full level provided last year, not only at the request, but at $300 million above the request. I am convinced that will not be enough, given current energy price increases and long-term weather forecasts; but it is 25 percent more than would be available if we had to go to a continuing resolution. The deletion of that advance funding is unfortunate. It carries with it certain risks that I am uncomfortable about. It does not give State and local governments as much assurance about program levels for next year as would be desirable for planning purposes. It does not assure that all of the money will be allocated next fall before cold weather hits. But we have in the statement of the managers very firm commitments to work to overcome those problems, and I intend to see that the leadership in Congress and the new President will keep those commitments. I would also note that there were over 400 authorizations which one party or another attempted to add to this bill. We rejected almost 300 of them. And of those that are in the bill, you will have to talk to the authorizing committees to get a balanced evaluation, because they largely negotiated them. I have just one additional statement to make. I love this institution. I respect every Member in it. I love what it can do when it is at its best in doing things that are needed to help the people we represent, but I honestly do believe that the way this bill was produced is a model of how not to proceed in the future. But in the end finally it has produced an honest product with honest numbers. I think it makes a significant advance forward in meeting the needs that it is supposed to meet. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to take note of the fact that the gentleman in the chair, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), is also leaving this institution. He has not served with us very long, but he has served with us very well. I was just remarking with one Member on the majority side of the aisle about the grace with which he handles his duties in the chair, which he does often. He handles the gavel lightly but firmly. I think everyone who has gotten to know him appreciates his character, his goodwill, and the quality of service to this institution. Secondly, I want to add one word about one additional staffer: Scott Lilly has served as my right arm for many years. He is the staff director on the Committee on Appropriations on the minority side. I do not know anyone who I have ever worked with who has had better judgment or is more dedicated both to this institution and to what this country is supposed to stand for. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of each and every Member on this side of the aisle, and I would also say on many occasions people on both sides of the aisle. I am profoundly grateful to the service he has provided this body. Lastly, I simply want to say that there are a number of items in this bill that Members will not agree with. There are many items that I do not agree with. There are a number of authorizations that have been added that I think are ill advised. There are some changes in the appropriation items themselves to which I do not agree. An example, in October, we had an agreement on snowmobiles; that has now, I understand today, been changed because the administration negotiated a new arrangement with the Senate leadership. I do not like it, but also at this late date there is not much that I can do about it. We certainly cannot hold up the entire bill because of it. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to urge every Member to recognize that the education funding, the health funding and the worker protection funding in this bill makes this a worthy enterprise; and even though the process by which we arrived here was one that I would recommend to absolutely no one in the future, I think that the contents are something which we can go home with justifiable pride, because they will, in fact, help meet the needs of a changing and growing Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this point engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy on the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, which I hope will address the concerns many Members have regarding the lack of an advanced appropriation for fiscal year 2000 in this bill. We are all aware of the drastic spike in price fuels that has occurred in the past year. Home heating fuels have doubled in the past year in many regions. In some areas it has increased fivefold. For many seniors and families who are struggling, that spike in energy costs have dealt a crushing blow to their family budgets just to provide the basic essentials of heating their homes. The LIHEAP program helps over 4 million low-income households by paying on average about half their home heating bills. But due to a lack of funds, this program has been serving only about 15 percent of federally income-eligible households. The recent jump in fuel costs will mean the relative value of that assistance will be cut in half this winter. Earlier this year, Congress provided an extra $600 million in the LIHEAP emergency fund that was required by the President in the 2000 supplemental appropriation bill. About $450 million of those extra dollars were released by September for this winter, and I hope that the administration will release the balance soon. The conference agreement for fiscal year 2001 contains $1.4 billion for LIHEAP, an increase of 27 percent, plus an additional $300 million for the LIHEAP emergency fund. Now, normally this appropriation bill would also provide an advance appropriation for LIHEAP for the next fiscal year so that States have time to plan their programs prior to the time that funds become available. However, as the gentleman knows, due to a provision in the budget resolution which places a cap on the total for advance appropriations, we were not able to include LIHEAP funding for the next fiscal year as an advance appropriation. It is my hope and understanding that next year we will finish our work on the Committee on Appropriations before the fiscal year starts on October 1. But in the event that we do not, I think we need to signal our intentions to the States now so that they can be assured that LIHEAP funds will be there when they need them despite the lack of an advanced appropriation in this bill. So I would, therefore, ask the chairman of the committee, is it your intention that we provide at least the same level of support for LIHEAP next year as is included in this bill?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for that response. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me ask further, in the event that we do not complete the Labor-H bill next year by October 1 and have to pass a continuing resolution after that date, is it your intention to include adequate funding in the first CR for LIHEAP so that States can adequately run their systems programs through the next winter heating season? If the committee can offer that commitment, I think Members on this side of the aisle will feel much more comfortable in supporting this conference agreement knowing that the normal operations of this program will not be interrupted.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members are anxious to leave, but we have one Member of this institution who is leaving for good. I feel that we are all going to miss him. I think he has a right to say to the House whatever is in his heart in this his last day of service in this institution. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), who has served his district and his country very well in the years that he has been in this institution.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for his strong support for the program and for his commitment to ensure that this lack of an advance appropriation in this bill will not result in the interruption of this critical assistance. I also want to take this opportunity to thank him for the patience that he has shown as we worked our way through some very troubling difficulties. Thank goodness that they now appear to be behind us, at least for a month.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests to speak on this turkey, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the 20th time, two-zero, the 20th time that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I have been forced to come to the floor and ask the Congress for an extension to keep the Government open while others in this institution and in the other body and folks in the administration decide what the budget ought to eventually look like by considering only macroeconomic numbers. After there is agreement between the leadership and the White House, I assume that we will be asked to work out how that money is allocated. So, in my view, the House leadership will be able to talk in very bright terms about what they have accomplished in macroeconomic terms, and then we will be asked to make the impossible choices within the dollar limits that are being suggested by the leadership around here. I cannot begin to tell the House how many times I have received letters from Members of this House, including the leadership on both sides of the aisle, asking that we increase funding for AIDS, special education, National Institutes of Health, title VI block grants, LIHEAP, Low- Income Heating Assistance Program. I cannot tell you how many times I have received letters asking us to vote for increases in those programs and demanding that we bring to this floor what they refer to as full funding for some of these programs, while at the same time those same Members vote and those same leaders demand that we provide an overall number for the bill which makes our ability to produce what they ask for at the micro-level an almost impossible act. That in my view is what is happening here. I am not going to vote for this continuing resolution. Not because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has not done his job, he and I were here all weekend, but because I believe that the numbers that will be produced in the end will have virtually no room for some of the main priorities which a lot of Members in this body claim that they have. I think that when people put together an agreement about what the overall spending number ought to be in the Labor-Health-Education bill, for instance, that they ought to have some idea what that number will really mean in terms of its impact on low-income heating assistance, its impact on the National Institutes of Health, its impact on Pell grants, its impact on special education, its impact on Head Start, its impact on child care, and its impact on a whole range of programs. Yet I think the way that this is proceeding, we are going to have a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, where the overall number is going to be agreed to, and then people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I are then going to have to take Members aside one by one and explain to them why we cannot provide the increases for NIH that we promised the country in the campaign we were going to provide, why we cannot provide the increases in the Pell grants that we told people we were going to provide, why we cannot provide the funding for special education that we told people we were going to provide. We have got a winter coming where the Federal contribution to help low-income elderly pay their home heating bills will drop by about 50 percent as a percentage of those folks' income because of the rapidly rising energy costs; and yet this bill is going to be asked to savage that program in the out years. And this has all come about because we are told by a number of Members on that side of the aisle that the agreement that was reached before the election is somehow too rich. I want to compare what that agreement would have done with Labor-H, with all the health and education and job programs, what that would have done with what we did in some other bills. This Congress passed an agriculture bill which was 2 percent above the President's request. This Congress passed an energy and water bill which was almost a billion dollars above the President's request. It passed an Interior appropriations bill which was $2.5 billion above the President's request, 15 percent above the President's request. It passed a transportation bill which is $2.3 billion above the President's request. And now we are being told that we have committed a mortal sin and we are all going to go to hell because we passed a Labor-Health-Education program that was a few billion dollars above the President's request. I make no apology for that. I make no apology for that. I think that those increases when compared to the increases in the energy and water bill or in the transportation bill are eminently defensible. Yet we are being told now, oh, we don't have enough room. We may add 7 or $800 million in more money for the Middle East; but, no, if we do, we have got to take that money out of education and health and worker protection programs. I have a funny feeling that is not going to go down well with the American people. I do not have any objection to our meeting our international responsibilities in the Middle East or any other area of the world, but I do think that if that is financed out of reductions in the people's bill for programs here at home, that that action will unnecessarily turn even more people in this country toward an isolationist track. And I think it will encourage more people out of frustration to say, Well, if we have to make those kinds of choices, then I'm not for providing funding for various regions of the world. That is the proposition that we are going to be backed into. I apologize to the House for taking this time. No, I do not. I do not apologize at all for taking this time. Because we were told that this debate would come up at 6, and instead it has come up at 5, so almost no one is here to discuss it. I really have not had a chance to think through what a more thoughtful response would be if I had an hour to look at what is going on around this town. But I do want to say that I think that this process of extending continuing resolutions time and time and time again has served only one purpose. It has enabled the majority party leadership to avoid voting on education and health until after the election. And having now escaped the election season, it is now free to pursue the cuts that it apparently wants to pursue in those programs. I think that that is unfortunate. So I will vote against this resolution. I do not expect that there will be many people who will. But I do not think I am going to like the kind of priorities that are going to come out of this shakedown. And this has been a shakedown. This is what it has been. I do not think I am going to like the priorities very much when I see that we are going to be asked to squeeze these programs because we have at an earlier date on other bills provided very large increases in the President's budget, and now people seem to feel that we have to recoup that on this bill. I just do not happen to agree with that. When I was walking the streets in Wisconsin Rapids or Wausau or Superior, Chippewa Falls or anywhere else, I did not find many people who were asking me to have large increases in military spending, to have large increases in the transportation budget, to have large increases in Interior while we were neglecting our child care needs, our family planning needs, our National Institutes of Health and medical research needs. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has provided a lot of needed leadership in the defense area, for instance, on the Subcommittee on Defense in providing supplemental funding for health programs, for bone marrow transplant and other programs. I am simply going to vote against this continuing resolution because I think that it is simply giving people more time to do bad things. That is not my bag.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 additional minutes. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that, what is happening both on this Labor, Health, Education bill and on the subject that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) just mentioned is a true test of our priorities, our character, our fairness, and our humanity. We all sit here in comfortable jobs. We fight like the devil to get them. We sometimes pay a heavy physical and emotional price for occupying these jobs because people are often not very fair in their assessment of public officials, and they will use the slightest weakness in any human being and try to use that weakness to define that individual rather than taking a look at the whole. So sometimes politics can be a very discouraging business and sometimes one wonders why one is in it. The answer to me, for myself, is that I came here because I thought this was the place to be more than any other--I never wanted to be a Member of the United States Senate, I never wanted to have any job at all except to be a Member of this House--because this is supposed to be the people's House. This is where we are supposed to be, because we have 2-year terms, we are supposed to be closest to the desires and the needs of the American people. When we come here and cast our votes, these votes are supposed to be about something bigger than just the differences between our parties. There are legitimate reasons to have political parties because we have honest, philosophical, and substantive differences. So we each make a choice about which of those two imperfect vehicles is the best in order to try to put forward the causes we believe in. To me, the glue that holds this country together is our ability to be concerned about what happens to every individual in this country, not just those who are well connected enough with us to be able to get through on a phone call or to grab us on the street and say, ``Dave'', or ``Clay'', or ``Bill'', how are you. When we come here, our priorities are supposed to represent a judgment about who needs help the most. The Labor, Health, Education bill is the bill that is supposed to help meet those shortcomings. We live in a capitalist system, and I think that is the best of any economic system that can be devised. We reward initiative. We reward imagination and hard work. Through entrepreneurship, we see people with talent and drive help build economic opportunities for themselves and for a lot of people who come to work for them in their firms or their businesses. I salute everyone with that talent. But there are a lot of people in this country who need help to get on that train to success. There are a lot of people in this country who need help when they fall off that train, sometimes for bad luck and sometimes for other reasons. We do not meet our responsibilities to those folks when we define ourselves going out the door at the end of this session as commanding cuts in agreements we have already reached in education and in health care. We certainly do not meet our obligations if we do not pass a significant minimum wage, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has just indicated. We do not meet our obligations if we have not completed action to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We do not meet our obligations if we do not find ways through a combination of public and private systems to provide decent health care for every person who needs it. The place where we come the closest to meeting those obligations is in this bill, and this is the bill that we are now being asked to shred so we can all go home early. I am not going to do that because I do not want to go through a Christmas season enjoying all of the pleasures of that season, being reminded every day of the opportunity that we took away from people in education, of the mercy help that we took away in terms of health care. I do not think that is what most Members of this House want to do. But if we continue on the course we are going, that is exactly what we will do in the Christmas season. That is exactly opposite of what the Christmas spirit is supposed to lead us all to do. That is why I am voting against this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. No. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?