Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will strike the last word tomorrow and make my arguments then.

Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that it certainly would be disruptive for many States. If dramatic changes are implemented in 1 year, States will not only lose large amounts of funding but would lose them overnight. It would seem to me that certainly for the effectiveness of State programs there should not be major disruptions in funding. Those changes should be gradual.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out the committee bill raises compliance assistance by, I believe, 12 percent. It raises other portions of their budget by about 1 percent. So, obviously, the give that they would have would be in the compliance assistance area. We would not want to see that happen, but I doubt very much that you could expect an agency to take a cut in an area where we did not provide an increase in the first place.

Mr. OBEY. I would simply like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I am the Member of Congress who, along with Sylvio Conte, first pushed OSHA into starting a voluntary compliance program. Second, I would like to point out, as the chairman already has on two occasions, that this budget gives a 12-percent increase for that voluntary compliance portion of OSHA's budget, and only a 1-percent increase, on average, for the other portions of OSHA's budget. So we are putting the emphasis, in fact, exactly where the gentleman thinks it ought to be. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have a filibuster by amendment going on here. We have had a succession of occasions on which sponsors and supporters of these amendments ask to speak repeatedly on the House floor. I am not going to object in this instance, but I have to say that we are not going to sit by and allow Members to routinely engage in a convenient filibuster by continuing to ask for the privilege of addressing the House more than once on an issue. Mr. Chairman, we have 435 Members in this House and if each Member of this House successively asks for this privilege, we could be here until next Christmas. I understand what is happening. There is a small band of Members on that side of the aisle who are determined that this bill never see the light of day. That will bother me substantively but, frankly, politically it will make my day. It will make it a whole lot easier for us to explain in the next election just why it is that the other party ought not to be entrusted with control of this House after the next election. I would prefer that we not get into that, and I am not going to object in this instance. But it just seems to me that we have exercised this issue well enough Friday and today. There are no new thoughts being expressed and at some point, it seems rational to me to expect people to quit repeating themselves and move to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that OSHA has a long way to go in meeting its objectives, with over 6,000 Americans still dying each year. We ought to help them meet those objectives, just as we ought to help the responsible agencies in meeting their needs in dealing with handicapped children and special education-required children. I hope Congress will see fit to do both.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] speaks so movingly about the need to fund special education that I am almost persuaded. But then I note, however, that on August 3, 1995, just 2 years ago, the gentleman voted to cut special education by $160 million below the previous year, and voted to cut it $250 million below the President's request at that time. Mr. Chairman, this year the special education account is up $313 million above last year. The committee has funded it at $139 million above the President's budget. It is $1.1 billion above the level the gentleman voted to cut just 2 years ago. So I would simply say I am happy to welcome the gentleman to the ranks of those who believe that this is a good program, but I would say that I think what is happening here is pretty obvious. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has provided a much higher level of funding for special education than it had last year or the year before that. Now we are being told in this amendment, which will take more of the House's time, that we ought to take a tiny amount out of OSHA and move it into this program. It would add to the amount in this program by only 0.2 percent, but it gives them an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to again beat up on OSHA, despite the fact that OSHA has had an 82 percent reduction in the number of paperwork citations which they have cited businesses for since President Clinton has come into office. It is apparent to me that this is not only an opportunity to bash OSHA, it simply represents another effort by a group of Members of the House to try to filibuster the House to death in the hopes that eventually this bill is taken from the House calendar, and the gentleman has a perfect right to do that if he wants. I would simply note, however, that despite the gentleman's efforts, or despite his suggestion that we cut this funding out of OSHA, there were 237 workplace deaths in his own State last year. There were 187,000 workplace injuries in his State last year. So it seems to me that the proper thing to do is to try to fund both of these programs to the highest level that we possibly can. That is exactly what the committee has done on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment on that basis.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also note that during that time this Congress and this administration working cooperatively have greatly improved the performance of OSHA. I find it interesting, for instance, that much of the criticism these days leveled at OSHA is coming from organized labor, which feels that OSHA under Joe Dear went too far in trying to recognize legitimate concerns expressed by American businessmen. So I would simply say, each of us is capable of reaching our own judgments. I am confident that the House will recognize that the committee achieved a reasonable balance in these accounts which deserves to be supported.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that if the House wants to make a real choice, rather than taking a few dollars out of OSHA and putting a few dollars into special education, I would simply note that this House voted to add $331 million to the Department of Defense budget for nine B-2 bombers that the Air Force did not want and cannot fly in the rain. In contrast, OSHA's entire budget is only $336 million. I would suggest that if my colleagues want to find money for special education, or anything else, rather than running the risk of added workplace injuries and deaths, we ought to go to a place that the Pentagon itself recognizes is a waste of money and simply eliminate that program. That would do a real service to this Nation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out, in answer to the other gentleman's question, that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the combined rate of workplace injuries and illness in the private sector fell from 11 per hundred workers in 1973.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it fell from 11 per hundred workers in 1973, which is the first year that data were reported, to 8.4 per hundred workers in 1994. That is a 24- percent decrease. The decrease in both injury and illnesses has been the most significant in the industries where we have had the toughest enforcement; namely, manufacturing, construction, and mining industries. So I think it is obvious that the less we do to finance OSHA, the less we do to create a safe and healthy workplace for American workers.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply point out that the gentleman is talking about occurrences in OSHA which can no longer occur because Mr. Dear, when he became director, issued an order which told OSHA not to issue fines because of any consumer product problems that were found. That would deal with whether we are talking about Pledge or whether we are dealing with any of the other items that were raised on the gentleman's side tonight.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to debate this measure tonight with no one here, my understanding is that Members have been told that there would be no more votes tonight. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that since, I assume as was the case on previous amendments, the sponsors will want to be recognized again tomorrow to refresh the memory of the House with respect to their arguments, I see no point in debating this issue further tonight and would inquire what the intention of that side of the aisle in terms of debating this amendment.

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

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

Dave Obey

Speeches

Manage analytics