Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up one thing. It is not that I am objecting to the Stevens amendment. What I am trying to do is raise concerns about how it is going to be applied, whether it will be applied evenly to all bills, including Labor-HHS. Secondly, what I object to is the fiction that, after this cap gets raised to $637 billion, that somehow this Congress expects next year to drop back down to $551 billion. I think that the Committee on the Budget's procedures are forcing this Congress to live under a ludicrous fiction which, in essence, is a public lie which none of us should be participating in.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman misheard the distinguished minority leader. I did not hear a single word of criticism about the gentleman's work product.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I think there are many good things in this bill, and I especially want to say that I think that the debt relief provisions in this bill are long overdue. They will not cost the American taxpayers, because this is debt on the part of destitute countries that would never be repaid anyway. This is simply fessing up to the fact. I would simply like to take one moment to make a comment on one region of the world that is funded heavily in this bill. I do not believe that any Member of this House has been more supportive of the peace process or more insistent that the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians or the Arab world be brought into account in dealing with our problems in the Middle East, but I cannot begin to describe how dismayed I am at the way Mr. Arafat, and I believe even more so, a number of Arab governments have refused to recognize the opportunity presented to them by the extended hand of Mr. Barak, the leader of the State of Israel. This was the greatest opportunity for peace that that region has seen in the over 30 years that I have been following events in that region. I do not excuse the actions of Mr. Sharon in clumsily provoking antagonism in that region, and I recognize the concerns about the level of violence that has been inflicted by both sides in that region. But I believe that the Arab refusal to take Mr. Barak's hand is profoundly and tragically short-sighted, and I would hope that both sides, regardless of injustices perceived to be created by the other, I would hope that both sides recognize that it is not just they, but all of us who are at a precipice, and that is a precipice that we do not want to leap from. It is going to be virtually impossible to put together a civilized policy in that part of the world, unless both sides recognize that the overall imperative that they both have is to bring peace to the people that they are supposed to represent. With that, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for doing their usual, fine work.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee, my friend; but I would nonetheless like to set the record straight, because I view this issue quite differently than does he. He says that the argument is not about availability of money. He says the argument is simply about whether or not we are going to have Federal dictation to local school districts or whether they are going to have some flexibility. I would point out one simple fact: 93 percent of all of the money that is spent by every school district in the country, on average, is raised and spent in accordance with State and local wishes. That hardly sounds to me like Federal dictation. It is true that what we are trying to do on this side of the aisle is to assure that the other 7 percent is focused on what we regard to be critical national priorities. One of those priorities is school construction. Another is teacher training. A third is class size. We happen to believe that the research shows that children do a better job of learning if the classes are small enough so that teachers can have, from time to time, control of the classroom in which they are teaching and have some close personal relationship with those students. We also happen to believe that children do better if they are not in schools that are falling down. There is a $125 billion backlog on school construction in this country. The President is trying to fashion a program which meets at least 20 percent of that need, and we make no apology in trying to focus that 7 percent of Federal funds that we provide on those items. The third point I would make is simply this. With respect to class size, lest anyone in this Chamber believe that there is not a large degree of flexibility for local school districts, let me point out the following: school districts now have flexibility to spend up to 25 percent of the funds on training, existing teachers, testing new teachers, and providing high-quality professional development to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and schools to teach effectively. So if school districts have already reached the class size target at 18, they are free to move a significant portion of their funds to teacher training, as the majority demanded last year.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think to understand our concern about today people need to understand what the record was yesterday. And if my colleagues take a look at what our Republican friends in the majority have tried to do on education since the day that they took over control of this Chamber 6 years ago, my colleagues will see the following: Over that 6-year period, they tried to cut the President's budget request for education by a total of over $13 billion. They shut down the government twice to try to force the President to buy their priorities which included the elimination of the Department of Education. They will claim, well, you are just talking about cuts in the increase, you are not talking about cuts in actual spending levels. I have two responses to that. First of all, we will have a million more children in our schools, and so any budget that does not provide increases for education each year, in fact, results in less dollars being spent on every child each year, and that is not a way to promote educational quality. My second point is that even if you only measure the cuts, which our Republican friends tried to make in preexisting spending levels, you will find that they, on four occasions in the last 6 years, they tried to cut education spending below the amount that was being spent at the time to the tune of more than $5.5 billion. After we went through all of the arguments, we wound up, because of pressure from the White House and pressure from the Democratic side of the aisle, we wound up restoring some $15.5 billion to those education budgets. That is the track record. I was amused when I saw the Republican leadership yesterday in a media event brag about the fact that they should be trusted on education, because they had increased spending on education by over 50 percent since they had taken control of the House. That is true, but only after you shut down the government twice to try to avoid doing that, only after you tried to cut $5.5 billion below existing spending levels. The only reason that spending for education has risen by 50 percent over the last 6 years is because we made you do it. I find it ironic that you are now taking credit for the fact that you were beaten in previous years. That is an interesting trick, but the numbers that I am giving you happen to be true. Mr. Speaker, the record will bear them out. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following three charts demonstrating what I have just said:

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the fact is the administration asked for $1.3 billion in renovation funds. They asked for $1.75 billion for class size. You merged that into a block grant. They asked for $3 billion. You gave them $2.7 and block granted it. We have seen from the way you use the community service block grants and other programs that the first step on your side of the aisle is always to block grant funds. Then, after you block granted it so you do not have to take the heat for individual program cuts, then you cut the guts out of them in the second and third years. That is what has happened time and time again in social service programs, and we are not going to fall for it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, I would simply say the gentleman has asked why is it that local school districts do not recognize these same priorities. The fact is that they do, and that is why they are asking us to pass these programs. Take a look and see which educational organizations have supported these programs: the PTA, right on down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the gentleman get some time from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I would be happy to continue this exchange, but I prefer that some of it be on his time. But let me simply complete my thought. Directing that 7 percent of the education money that is spent in this country be spent on national priorities is not what I call running roughshod over local control. What we are saying is they control 93 percent of the funds. Spend it any way they want. But if they want us to use taxpayers' dollars at the Federal level, we want them used for areas that we know by research work, and in areas that have an extra problem. We know that the average school in this country is 43 years old. Some of them are so old we cannot even wire them anymore for modern technology. We ought to be helping to change that, instead of obstructing the efforts of the President to do something about it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just said is exactly on point. My friend Archie the cockroach said once that what happens to men or to mankind is not determined by the system that they have. He says, what happens to mankind is determined by what they do with whatever system they happen to have in hand. I think that is the case with the budget resolution. As the gentleman from Texas has said, the problem we are facing now is not due to defects in the budget resolution, per se, although it certainly has some giant ones. The problem is that the budget resolutions have been used to deceive the American people about the true intention of this Congress for over 10 months. They have been used to deceive the American people about what is intended, what is affordable, and what is doable under that resolution. Because those resolutions have been so deceptive, that is what has enabled the majority to pretend that there was enough room within their spending caps to provide the tax package that they tried to pass over the last 10 months. Most of the benefits in that tax package went to those in this society who were already the most comfortable and the most blessed. Now we have the chickens coming home to roost time. We have just seen the passage of a provision in the previous bill which admits that the fiction that this Congress is going to spend only $600 billion this year on discretionary spending was a giant public fib. So now we have proceeded to pass a number of bills, and we are down to two of them. The main issue that divides us on those two remaining appropriation bills is education. As the gentleman from Texas says, we are now being told that, after this Congress has exceeded the President's request on a number of those appropriation bills, after we have seen large amounts of money, $19 billion above last year put into the military budget, and, again, I find that amusing because the majority party said that there was not enough in that budget for readiness. Then they cut the readiness portion of the defense budget by $1.4 billion, either 1.4 or 1.6, I have forgotten which, in order to make room for congressional projects. Now we are told, after we have done all of that, that there is not room in the inn to meet the President's budget request on reduced class size so that teachers are teaching classes rather than zoos. We are told there is not enough room in the inn to train teachers, even though we are going to need well more than a million new teachers because so many are close to retirement nationally. We are told there is no room in the inn to have a significant school modernization construction program. We have a $125 billion backlog in the need for school reconstruction in this country. The President is asking us to support a proposal that pays for less than 20 percent, and we are being told by the majority there is no room in the inn. Well, I have to tell my colleagues something. There is no room in the schools, and we are going to have more than a million additional children attending our public schools and we are not ready for that challenge. We are not ready in terms of buildings, we are not ready in terms of technology, we are not ready in terms of teacher training. One out of every 10 teachers in this country is not qualified to teach the subject that they are teaching. We are certainly not meeting our responsibilities with respect to either Pell Grants so that we measure up to our pretense that we are providing equal opportunity for people to attend college, and we are certainly not meeting our obligations with respect to special education. I believe we are only spending about 17 percent, or at the 17 percent level in terms of the requirements in order to meet the mandates sent down by the Federal Government. So now we are here having to pass these day-after-day CRs because the majority refuses to meet our national needs in education, after we have seen so much money poured into other bills. That is our problem. That is what needs to change if we want to go home.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Are we supposed to meet with Senator Specter again who says there is no give? We were told we should meet with people at a higher level on Monday. That is what we are doing. As you well know, your leadership has kept you on a tight leash, and every time we try to negotiate something with the Committee on Appropriations, we are told it is vetoed by your leadership. If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) will be in town, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will be in town, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will be in town so the people with the real power over there can make some decisions, you bet I will be in town. But absent their participation in that room, I am not going to waste my time again waiting for a call that has not come. I have waited for three weeks, and I am tired of it.

Mr. OBEY. But they do make the choices, do they not? Do you deny that?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear I will be happy to cancel my plane in 5 minutes if the Republican leadership of this House will be here tomorrow so that every time we get a, well-we-have- to-check-with-upstairs response from the gentleman, we can get that response from the boys upstairs. We keep being told those issues are being kicked upstairs into different rooms, but we cannot find who is in those rooms.

Mr. OBEY. You got the offer. We are waiting for your response. We were told that we would get it on Monday. And I am relying on Senator Stevens, he is a man of good faith, and I am relying on you to be ready Monday to deal with it. But I have been here for a month. The Speaker has gone to his district; he has gone all over the country campaigning for people. The majority leader has. The majority whip has. I have been stuck here like a fugitive on a chain gang waiting for somebody in the leadership on your side of the aisle with the power to negotiate to actually engage in negotiations. And, as you know, all we get is no, no, no. We have moved 20 percent off our position. But we are not going to leave here, as the distinguished minority whip says, until we get a Labor-HHS bill that provides an additional ability to reduce class size, to train more teachers in a better fashion, to provide for after- school centers, to provide for the same level of Pell Grant funding that you yourself said you wanted in May, and to provide additional funding for the disabled. That is what we are asking for, along with the school construction. And we moved 20 percent from our position today. The only answer we got from your side is no movement. And so there is no point in meeting with the same four people all around because we get no new results. So what we are hoping is that we will get different results by moving it to a different level, and that is what we have been told would take place on Monday.

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman knows that I said on this floor and I said to you that I would be prepared to be here any day, Saturday, Sunday or Monday, if your leadership was prepared to be here. Because it is obvious they are the people making the decisions and they have stripped you of all ability to make decisions without checking with them and then they vetoed virtually every decision that you made.

Mr. OBEY. Would you name them, please. Mr. YOUNG Of Florida. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Could you say that again?

Mr. OBEY. Would you name who would be available tomorrow?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to take this opportunity to give the House a status report on what is probably the major bill that still remains before we get out of here on the appropriations front. We had yet another meeting of the Labor-HHS conference, the seventh meeting we have had, I believe. And at the beginning of the meeting, we were told by the Senate Chair of the conference that he would not sign a conference report one dime above the level contained in the conference report for Labor, Health, and Education. At that point, frankly, I asked if I could be pointed in the direction of whatever room or whatever person would be in a position to negotiate so that we could reach an agreement on that bill. And at that point the White House and those of us on our side of the aisle, myself and the Senator representing the Senate caucus, laid a compromise on the table which was in essence a 20 percent reduction in the amount of funding that we have been asking but insisting that we still meet the needs on school construction, on class size reduction, on teacher training, on after-school programs, on Pell, and on IDEA. We presented the offer, which is a 20 percent movement on our part, and we asked him to please be prepared to sit down at 10 o'clock Monday morning to deal with this issue so that we can get some movement. And it is my earnest hope that we do not have to wait until Wednesday or Thursday or Friday to begin serious negotiations on this. We have moved. And as far as I am concerned, we need to see movement on the other side.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman the only difference between his chart and mine is that his chart in the green gives credit for the entire day even if we have only been allowed to be in session for a couple of hours. So the charts are essentially in agreement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) says that the majority gave us a lot of time to talk about issues that concerned us. They gave us a lot of time, but they did not allow us to get any votes on the issues that demonstrated where we wanted to take this country on education, on health care and a whole range of other issues. The gentleman used the Committee on Rules and you used the budget resolution to prevent us from ever having votes on our alternatives while you were free to put yours on the floor. If you want me to change time for votes any time, I would be happy to do that. We would have had much the better deal. Secondly, I would point out, that is consistent with what you have done across the board. You did not give us an opportunity to have a vote on our version of a prescription drug bill under Medicare, so we wound up with your bill of goods rather than our bill being on the floor. On the tax bill, we were not allowed to have a vote on our alternative, so we had to reshape our alternative to fit it into your rules. The fact remains, in the last 6 years they have tried to cut education $13 billion below the President's budgets, and they have tried to cut education below previous year's spending levels by $5.7 billion over that time period, and it has been only because of the fights that we and the White House have waged that we were able to add $15 billion over that period of time to the various appropriation bills for education. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an insert on Republican attacks relating to education and a number of charts illustrating education numbers: