Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, again let me say that I am perfectly willing to work with the gentlewoman to try to find funding for the program that she is talking about. But when she describes this cutback in OSHA funding as a modest reduction, I would simply say, tell that to the families of the 48 workers in New Mexico who were killed last year in occupational fatalities, tell that to the 30,000 people in her State who were injured last year, tell that to the 65 workers in her State who suffered amputations last year. And I would also note that in her home State, on average, it takes 76 years for OSHA to get around to being able to inspect all of the plants in that State. And nationally, that bleak picture is much the same. Over 6,000 occupational deaths last year; almost 5 million occupational injuries. I do not think if you sweat 40 hours a week to earn a living for your family that you would regard a $25 million cut in the budget that protects your health, safety, and your very life as a modest reduction. For some individuals, it would literally be a life-or-death decision. I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the program that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) seeks to promote. The problem is that the bill itself to which you would offer this amendment eliminates the guarantee that we will continue on the road to produce 100,000 new teachers in the classroom, an initiative which the President began 3 years ago. Under the bill before us, that program guarantee would be eliminated because that program is tossed into a block grant and those funds could be gobbled up for other purposes. Under the President's proposal, which this committee walks away from, the gentlewoman's own State will receive over $14 million to assure the placement of additional teachers in the classroom. In contrast, this proposal, laudable though it is, would, as I understand the impact of the bill, produce only about $175,000 in funding for the home State of the gentlewoman. But a more serious problem is that, while the amendment itself in terms of what it would add would do no harm, what it would cut certainly would. There are a lot of people who work in a lot of places in this country who do not worry about fancy slogans like moving into 21st century learning and living in a 21st century modern world; they simply worry about getting through the day without getting hurt. And if you take a look at what this amendment does, it funds this laudable program by a whopping $25 million out of OSHA. OSHA is the agency charged with the responsibility to protect workers' health and safety. Right now it has only one inspector for every 3,100 businesses. Of the 13,000 most dangerous non-construction workplaces in this country, OSHA was able to inspect less than 2,200 last year. So it seems to me that the amendment of the gentlewoman, while laudable in terms of what it adds, is extremely troublesome in terms of where it gets the money; and I would say that, for that reason alone, the committee ought to turn it down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is absolutely right. I think that we should require of every other program administrator in government the same pristine perfection that we demonstrate in the Congress every day. I am being sarcastic. I assume people understand that. I mean, the gentleman is suggesting that because a tiny handful of stations allowed somebody to exchange fund-raising lists, that somehow they ought to pay a penalty for that by cutting back on funds which will assist them to deliver programming to every American. Now, if Members are satisfied with what they get on the private TV networks, then, fine, be my guest and vote for this amendment. But all I would say is that I think, in general, the quality provided on public television is considerably less violent, considerably less ridden with sexuality than the programs that we see on any of the major networks. I would simply say that if Members of Congress had 1 percent deducted from their office budgets every time we did something stupid, we would be operating on budgets of zero. So I think that public broadcasting has already paid a very large penalty for what happened. They lost the momentum of their reauthorization bill that they had been working on for the last three sessions. They lost $15 million for DTV conversion in 1999 that was appropriated contingent upon that authorization. So it seems to me that, while the gentleman is perfectly within his rights to offer the amendment, I think it is ill-advised, and I will urge its rejection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, we spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on education. We spend it on programs with various groups in the education community promoted as being good ideas. We spent a fraction of that amount to actually determine what works and what does not. Each Member brings to this floor his ideology, his biases, his prejudices. Once in a while, maybe a few facts. But the fact is that, without education research, we are flying blind. We are spending the taxpayers' money blindly, and we are more likely rather than less likely to put it in the wrong places. That is why I think the amendment is wrong and should be defeated.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not do this but because we have repeatedly heard the statements that it is the uncontrolled spending of the Democrats that have caused the deficits, I want to repeat a little history lesson. This graph shows that at the end of World War II our national debt, as a percentage of our total national income, was more than 100 percent because we fought World War II first and thought about paying for it afterwards. If we had not done that, Hitler flags would be flying all over the world. That dropped under a succession of Presidents, Republican and Democrat, until the debt was down to about 23 percent of our total national income. Then it stalled out between, say, 1973 and 1979 with the two energy crises under President Ford and President Carter. President Reagan got elected. The Congress passed his budgets which doubled the defense spending on borrowed money and which cut taxes by very large amounts at the same time. As a result, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out last night, the debt exploded as a percentage of our national income and in all other ways. We added over $4 trillion to the debt, and it was pushed back up to about 50 percent of our annual national income. Since that time, the President has recommended budget changes and the economy has resurrected itself at a remarkable rate, and at this point we are rapidly on our way to eating into that debt both as a percentage of our national income and in terms of its overall dollar amount. What we have been doing the last 18 years, we have been spending the last 18 years trying to eliminate this debt bubble that was caused by the irresponsible spending of the President and the Congress under the Reagan administration. President Bush signed a budget agreement that began the downturn and President Clinton got his budget package through the Congress by one vote in both houses, which substantially reduced that debt. So all I would say, in response to the gentlewoman, is that I will never again listen to any lectures on the other side of the aisle about being responsible in terms of spending and debt, because we have spent the last 18 years trying to get back to a budget which is reasonably in balance, and thankfully we now are. So the issue is not what happened yesterday but what we ought to do tomorrow. We think that since we have moved from an era of deficits to an era of surpluses that not all of those surpluses should be used for tax cuts; that some of them should be reserved to deal with Medicare, with education, with health care, with child care, and that is what we are trying to do in these amendments. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her question.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I will simply say this is the kind of amendment that should be supported if you believe that our young children are being exposed to too much quality television. If you think that they are not, then I think it is an amendment that one ought to oppose. Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the reason this bill is here is because 15 million kids go home every day to an empty house because so many of them have two parents working outside of the home. That is why we are providing after-school centers. If this amendment passes, we will be ignoring the fact that most of the juvenile crime in this country occurs between the hours of 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 7 in the evening. We will be ignoring the fact that this amendment would cut back by 27 percent each and every one of the grants that now serves some 3,000 centers in the United States. If we take a look at the way this program works that the gentleman is trying to cut, 28 percent of the kids who are participating in these after-school activities have been identified as kids with disabilities. In terms of need, if we want to measure it, just recognize the fact that there are 2,200 communities which have requested that we provide a total of $1.3 billion in assistance for after-school centers. The agency has been able to fund only 310 new grants. That is not enough to meet the problem. I would suggest to the gentleman, I appreciate where he wants to put the money, but where he wants to take the money from is a tremendously bad idea. If Members care about youth discipline, if Members care about crime, I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to call a spade a spade here today and recognize what is happening. The majority party in 1995 tried to shut down the government in order to force President Clinton to cut $270 billion out of Medicare and to make deep cuts in education and health care and a number of other domestic programs just to finance huge tax cuts which were primarily aimed at the highest income Americans. You got burned. Since then, you have been a little shy about attacking education. We have seen charts today that brag about what the Republican Party has done to raise Pell Grants. This chart shows in the blue graphs what the President has asked for in Pell Grants since 1985. The red chart shows what the Republicans have provided, or what the Congress has provided. As you can see, it has been the presidential demand that has driven the number up each year, except for 2 years when the President asked for more money and the majority party one-upped him by a tiny amount of money. So it has been the President driving this upward increase in Pell Grants. The question is not so much what you did yesterday; it is what you are going to do today and tomorrow. In 1976, Pell Grants paid for over 70 percent of the cost of sending a working family's kid to college. Today it pays for less than 40 percent. We think now that we have surpluses instead of deficits we ought to do something about that. We are afraid that you are not going to make higher education a priority because your standard bearer, George Bush, said on March 22: ``Higher education is not my priority.'' He also said when he came to my State, when he was asked by a student, what are you going to do about the huge debt overhang that kids have when they leave college, he said, and this is an exact quote: ``Too bad. That is what loans are; they are to be paid back. There is a lot of money out there, if you just go looking for it. Some of you are just going to have to pay it back, and that is just the way it is.'' That is a ``let them eat cake'' attitude, and we do not subscribe to it. I urge that the House recognize the wisdom of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that, again, we are all in support of special education on this side of the aisle but not at the expense of taking away educational opportunity for kids who need it just as much. The difference between TRIO and Talent Search is that the program the gentleman seeks to cut tries to identify children at a much younger age, sixth, seventh grade, and tries to put them on the right course so that they understand, number one, that there is such a thing as a college education. And, number two, how to prepare for it at an early enough time to make a difference, and help build a support structure between the child and the family so that they understand that financial aid will be available to them. There are a lot of families in this country who never dreamed that they could afford to send their kids to college. This is one of the few programs around that helps. It intervenes at an earlier age than the other programs mentioned by the gentleman. That is why the budget increases for programs such as TRIO are irrelevant. What we are trying to do is to intervene at an early enough time so that we reverse the trend of minority students getting less higher education than they were 5 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has said that we are trying to break the budget process. The majority party has already obliterated the budget process. Last year alone, the majority provided $40 billion worth of budget gimmicks to hide $40 billion worth of spending in the budget. With respect to special education numbers that have been cited on the floor, let me simply state the facts. Under the Reagan and Bush presidencies, in nine of the 12 years, the Congress provided more money for special education than President Reagan and President Bush asked for. When the Republicans took over in 1996, they tried to provide $400 million less than the President provided in special education. And it has only been in the last 2 or 3 years that they have had a road-to- Damascus conversion. With respect to the overall education numbers cited by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the fact is all that chart shows is that he is bragging about the fact that his own party lost the budget fights with President Clinton the last 5 years. Because if you take a look at what you tried to do before the President forced you to change your mind, you tried to cut in fiscal 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; and now this year, you have tried to cut a total of over $14 billion from the President's education budgets. And then you have the gall to come to the floor and show what you have provided. You provided it after the President dragged it through the room. I know; I was in the room for the last 5 years. I was the Democratic negotiator. And each year he had to drag it to the table to drag those numbers up for education so you could finally do right by America's children. So let us not hear any more hurrah about either budget responsibility on your side or about how dedicated you are to education. You are the party that started out your stewardship here by trying to wipe out the Department of Education.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who are we trying to kid? I have been in this House 31 years, and there has not been a year when the Republicans in this House have not favored less funding for Federal education than Democrats. Over the last 5 years, first they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Then they tried to savage every education program that they can get their hands on. Now that the polls are showing that education is increasing in popularity, they are backing away. Now they act as though somehow the idea of the Federal Government helping local school districts with renovating buildings is a new idea. Franklin Roosevelt, for goodness sake, helped local school districts build 5,200 new schools when he was President in the 1930s. He helped them renovate 1,000 schools that needed renovation. My colleagues passed a minimum wage bill just a few weeks ago that gave $11 billion in wage benefits to low-wage workers but gave $90 billion in tax cuts to people making over 300,000 bucks a year. What does one have to do to finance this amendment? Cut back that $90 billion to their wealthy friends to $89 billion. Is not that a terrible thing to ask to them do? My colleagues ask why the administration opposed the Archer arbitrage position. It is very simple. Because that provision encouraged delays in construction because delaying construction would mean that schools could have earned additional interest by leaving the money in the bank rather than putting it in the school. That is why the administration opposed that provision and supports this one. If my colleagues are for education, if they are for helping kids in lousy school buildings get a better deal, support this amendment. I was in a school 2 weeks ago where the furnace room looked like it was in the Titanic, for God's sake. It is about time my colleagues recognize this is a growing population. There are some communities that do not have the financial power to do this job without Federal help. It is about time my colleagues give it to them.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes in part a good idea. It wants to take the concept of using retired military people in the classroom and add to that the concept of also using retired civilians in the classroom, especially to deal with problems like math and science. That is a terrific idea, and we ought to do it. The amendment that we will be offering later in the bill will do it; it just will not do it by damaging some of the programs that would be damaged if we funded that increase by reducing the programs the gentleman is trying to reduce. I understand that the gentleman is forced to do that because of the rule under which we are operating. That is not his fault. But eventually we are going to have to do it the right way, and at that point I will look forward to the gentleman's full support, because I think the gentleman will be happy with the product that we produce after the President eventually is able to convince the majority party that they are not going to go home until they restore the money which they have cut from his education budget. I will predict that will include initiatives such as this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 2 minutes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. I very much support where the gentleman wants to put this money, but I do not agree with where he wants to get it. I think the same problem lies with this as it lies with other amendments. So, at the proper time, if it is pursued to a vote, I would have to urge the House to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is not going to claim the time in opposition, then I will claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said that special education should be our highest priority. I agree that special education, teacher training and small class size all ought to be our top priorities, but I do not believe that special education ought to be our only priority; and I do not think it ought to be funded by dealing another heavy blow to other children who in some cases are even more disadvantaged than some of the children who need special education. It seems to me in the end we will recognize what we all have to do, that will not happen until conference; but this approach is a beggar- thy-neighbor approach, and I do not think it would be well received by the public; and I urge its rejection. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much is remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, the choice we face is this, both parties want to increase support for special education. The question is, are we going to do that by scaling back by just a tiny amount the size of the tax cuts that the majority party is pushing through this place, or are we going to do that by cutting back on funding for disadvantaged children? Are you going to do that by cutting back on Impact Aid to local school districts? Are you going to do that by cutting out increases for charter schools in this bill and the increases for education for homeless children? Are you going to really cut $31 million from Indian Education, 29 percent below the House bill and 33 percent below the request? I do not know how many times you have had the occasion to have Native American children either in your office or just talking to them at home. So often we see that they lack confidence. They are not sure of themselves. They do not want to speak up. They have not been treated very well in this society, and this amendment provides that that treatment is going to be just a little bit worse. I do not think that it makes sense fiscally. I do not think it makes sense in terms of human values. This amendment is opposed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the very people that it purports to help. And it is also opposed by the Easter Seals Society. It says Easter Seals does not support amendments that propose to reduce funding of Federal general education programs in order to provide an increase for special education. Every child in America benefits when all educational programs are adequately funded. Moreover, Easter Seals is working to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to benefit from general education programs, including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, GEAR- UP, and title I. Mr. Chairman, we know in the end this bill is going to have to provide more funding for special education and for a lot of other education programs. That, unfortunately, is not going to happen today, because of the rule under which this bill is being brought to the floor, but this is not a vote that you want to cast. This is not a vote you want to go home and explain to your constituents. We should not be picking on the most defenseless and most troubled children in this society in order to help other defenseless and troubled children. I would urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is no enterprise that is more important and no responsibility that is greater for any public official than to see to it that our public schools are our first priority, not just for some kids but for all kids. That means kids who need special education; that means kids from wealthy families. It means kids from middle-class and poor families. The only thing you have got when you start out in life is opportunity. The question is how much you are going to be given by your society as you grow or how much is going to be taken away. This amendment seeks to give additional opportunity for some kids at the expense of others. That is not the way we ought to be doing things in this country. We should not be making it more difficult for 178,000 kids who are most at risk of failing in education to lose help under Federal education programs. We should not be taking funding away for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. We should not be taking it away for Gallaudet, the university for deaf and deaf/blind. We ought to be able to find a way. And sooner or later before this year is over, we will. Before this year is over, the majority will have to recognize that more money is going to have to go into this bill for education. It is $3.5 billion below the President's request. If you want to fix this bill, take care of that and you will fix most of the problem.