Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am delighted to hear what the chairman has indicated. Let me simply say with respect to the amendment before us that I recognize what the gentleman from Illinois has said with respect to other portions of the bill that fund similar programs, but I would simply ask Members to realize one thing: All of the studies show that by far the most youth crime is committed between the hours of 3 and 6 in the afternoon. That is why I think that the intent of the Filner amendment is good and I support what the gentleman is trying to do. I would urge, however, that the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment, because I think that would give us a greater opportunity to work with the Senate conferees to try to achieve some restoration of funding for this program, which I believe would complement some of the other programs that are aimed at taking teenagers off the street.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, businessmen are a lot like politicians. There are good ones and there are bad ones. This amendment risks torpedoing this bill. Make no mistake about it, it is a killer amendment as far as this bill is concerned. Second and more importantly, it risks killing additional American workers, and it risks seeing more permanently disabled workers. It seeks to take a large amount of money from the enforcement provisions of OSHA, and moves it instead into the voluntary compliance programs at OSHA. As I said twice before on this floor, Sylvio Conte, who used to be the ranking Republican on this floor before he died, Sylvio and I were the two Members of this House who held up all OSHA funding until OSHA agreed to establish a voluntary compliance program. I am proud of that. I am also proud of the fact that voluntary compliance has already increased in budgetary terms over the past 3 years by 80 percent. But I would point out that that has occurred at the same time that the enforcement provisions, the enforcement budget for OSHA, has declined by $10 million. I do not think it can afford to decline by more. The result of this amendment will be to add literally decades to the time it takes for the small number of OSHA inspectors in each State to inspect each eligible business at least once. In Georgia it already takes 277 years for OSHA to reach every business and inspect it once. This will increase that number of years to 346. Do Members really believe that is responsible protection for workers? In Missouri it will increase the number of years it takes to reach each business from 339 years to 424 years. I do not think that is responsible. I would point out, this amendment does not even apply to the gentleman's home State, the gentleman who offered the amendment, because this amendment only cuts Federal enforcement. It has no effect in States that have State-run programs. So what it will mean is that it will cut enforcement protections in my State by about 25 percent, it will cut enforcement inspectors by about that amount, it will do the same thing in the State of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and in States like ours, but in States like Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, or Minnesota, it will have no effect whatsoever. That makes no sense. I doubt that is the gentleman's intent, but that is the effect of it. Second, I would point out, as I said earlier, there are good businessmen and there are bad businessmen, just as there are good politicians and bad politicians. The effect of this amendment is to spend a lot more money reviewing the practices of the good guys, and it gives OSHA a whole lot less capability to review the practices of the bad guys. I want to give Members just one example of why we need the twin tools of enforcement as well as voluntary compliance. There was a corporation in Maine called the DeCoster Co. DeCoster participated in a voluntary compliance program under OSHA which allowed them to partner with OSHA, rather than be subject to their traditional inspection enforcement. But sadly, the country found out that DeCoster was a ``bad apple,'' and they manipulated that program. The company transferred a single machine guard from machine to machine, taking pictures of each machine with the guard attached. It then sent those pictures to OSHA, claiming that the guards had been attached to all of the machines. The company's actions were so egregious that the company was ultimately hit by OSHA for enforcement, and they were hit with a $3.8 million fine, and deservedly so.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicates that we ought to set OSHA up so that businessmen can respond to positive incentives.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I was under the impression that what we learned when we reformed welfare is that there are some people who respond to positive incentives and some people who respond to negative incentives, and we need to have both in order to make the world work.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, and if I could complete my thought, I was simply going to say that I think that many businesses respond to those positive incentives because they know that if they do not, they have the possibility of fines coming at them. That is why we are trying to preserve the balance between the programs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again continue to yield, that is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that there are plenty of both types of businessmen and we need to be able to respond to both types.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to know which amendment that is.

Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, we are already past that point in the bill and I am constrained to object.

Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time under my reservation to say I have not questioned the gentleman's heart or motives in any way. I attempted to do him a courtesy. He did not take advantage of it. That is not my fault. I am not going to allow Members to get around the rules in order to continue to engage in a protracted filibuster, and I do object.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho to discuss her amendment under my reservation, and then I want to explain why it is that I am going to do what I am going to do.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that memories are short. Last year, Mr. Kennedy, on our side of the aisle, came to the floor asking to offer an amendment which the Clerk had just passed by two paragraphs. He was denied that opportunity to do so by the majority. So were a number of other Members who missed their amendments. So that is the normal order of things around here. Members are expected to know their own business, and we are not engaging in any action that has not been engaged in under the rules of the House, and correctly so by the majority.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment violates clause 2, rule XXI. The Congress cannot, through a reachback amendment, add funding to an unauthorized account. And when the Congress itself periodically authorizes legislation, they vacate the generic authorizations, and it seems to me under these circumstances that the amendment is out of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, they sacrificed their all on behalf of America's troops in Vietnam, America's pilots in Vietnam and Laos. Now the reward that they would get under this amendment is to have scaled back further the benefits which some of these folks get in return for the favors they did to the United States. I think that that action on our part would be unconscionable, and so I would ask the gentleman to recognize that the source of his money is wrong; and in my view, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has already more than amply funded the account into which he wants to put the money, and I would ask on a bipartisan basis that we reject the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me simply remind once again that this committee in the past 2 years has already increased the account the gentleman wants to put money into from $50 million to $299 million. He would seek to increase that money even more and he would seek to do so by gouging the refugee account, which is there to meet our obligations to refugees who have met their obligations of friendship to the United States. I would urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the Castle amendment having now been passed, we are voting in essence to adopt the underlying amendment as amended by the Castle amendment?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my father was the only man in America who moved to Oklahoma during the Depression to get a job. I was born there by accident. I would simply say that I do not think the folks in Okmulgee would vote for this amendment if they fully understood it. This bill already increases funding for AIDS drugs from $167 to $299 million. That is an increase of 79 percent. Last year, this committee also increased funding for this program by $117 million. That means that this committee in 2 years time, under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has raised this account from $50 to $299 million. I would say that that is going a far piece to meet our responsibilities in this area. I would also point out that the area that the gentleman chooses to take the money from, the major area, is an especially savage source for his money. We had a major debate in this country last year on welfare reform. We, I think, properly cut back on the benefit levels that we were going to provide for immigrants. I do not think that our immigration policy ought to be used as a substitute for an international welfare policy. But refugees are a far different matter. Refugees come to this country, whether they came to this country because they were Russian Jews escaping the Soviet Union or whether they came to this country because they were Hmong refugees who fought and bled and died to help our GI's in Vietnam and in Laos and lost their country because of it. When those refugees come to this country, they come to this country not because a local government or a State government has asked them to but because the Federal Government has told them to come. We have cut back aid to refugees when they come to this country from the first 36 months that they live here to 8 months. The gentleman's amendment would cut that back some more. I want to talk to my colleagues for a moment about one group of refugees who I do not think we should be savaging by the gentleman's amendment. That is the Hmong. That is spelled H-m-o-n-g. They were known as the Montagnards in earlier times. They were used by the CIA as operatives during the Vietnam war and as secret battlefield allies in our secret Laos campaign. They made great personal sacrifices for this country, including the loss of their homes and the loss of their lives to assist our country. They rescued downed Americans pilots. They sabotaged the Ho Chi Minh Trail at our request. They guarded high-technology mountaintop navigational facilities in Laos at our request, which allowed all- weather air strikes against North Vietnam. And they fought as ground troops for 10 years to reduce the opportunity for the North Vietnamese to fight Americans in South Vietnam. Ten percent of their entire population died as a result, including women and children and the elderly. And they lost their homeland to Communist forces. They were forced to live in refugee camps, some of them for many years. Some of them are just now, after that long agonizing period of time, finally coming to the United States. Those refugees should not be dumped on to the shoulders of local property taxpayers or State governments. Gov. Pete Wilson is correct when he objects to the fact that the United States makes immigration and refugee policy and then dumps the consequences on States and local taxpayers. The United States for very good reasons determined that these Hmong refugees had sacrificed their all.