Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes. I had thought there would be other speakers here, but there are not, so I will try to limit my remarks. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric today and we have heard a lot of talk about bureaucrats. We have heard a lot of talk about mandates. The gentleman from Pennsylvania just asked where on earth were we when he offered his amendment just a few minutes ago. I will tell my colleagues where I was. I was right here, and I was voting against his amendment because I do not believe that we ought to reduce the funding in the committee bill for cancer research. I do not believe we ought to reduce the funding in the bill for Alzheimer's research. I do not believe we ought to reduce funding in the bill for the new clinical center at National Institutes of Health to replace a 50-year- old hospital. I make no apology for not wanting to cut those items. As I indicated earlier, I think that where the gentleman wanted to put the money was fine. Where he got the money from was atrocious. And so if the gentleman wants me to be blunt about it, I voted against his amendment because it took care of one problem and it creates numerous others. And given all of the people who die from heart disease and cancer and Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease and all the rest, I am not going to go home and try to explain to people why I have voted to cut medical research. I do not believe in cutting medical research. Having said that, let me repeat again what we are trying to do. I believe, and I think most people in this country believe, and I certainly think most people on our side of the aisle believe, that we are most clearly defined, both economically and morally, by where we rank the importance of helping our children, and where we rank the importance of helping people who struggle every day to make ends meet, to stay one paycheck ahead of the bill collector, and hopefully to find some way to help their kids get ahead in the process. And I also think we are judged by how we deal with the most unfortunate members of our society. This bill makes quite clear that our top priority is education. Now, it has been said: ``Oh, my goodness, if we move this money out of this fiscal year into the next fiscal year in order to provide more head room to meet education needs in the country, that we are adding to the deficit next year.'' Absolutely not so. All we are suggesting is that next year we ought to be spending more money than we otherwise will be spending on education, and maybe, just maybe, that means that the majority in this House will not make the same decision next year that it made this year when it decided that new Pentagon toys were more important than better education for our kids. Mr. Chairman, I simply do not believe that next year we ought to add $11 billion to the Pentagon budget above what the President has asked for and what the Pentagon itself has asked for. After all, we already spend 2\1/2\ times as much as all of our military opponents put together. Add up any list one wants to name. We spend 2\1/2\ times as much as they do. I do not think we are nearly as much at risk from a Soviet or from a Russian soldier or a Russian tank as we are from cancer, Alzheimer's, bad education, bad discipline in schools, and weak worker training for workers who are expected to compete in a world economy. So what we are trying to do is not give more money to bureaucrats. I repeat where this money goes. We are trying to see to it that my Republican colleagues do not knock an additional 15,000 kids out of Head Start, which this subcommittee bill will, and we are trying to see to it that they help 450,000 American kids who otherwise will not be helped to learn math and science and how to read. We are asking that they restore 70 percent of what we cut out of the Goals 2000. That money goes to schools to improve school quality. We ask that they restore 85 percent of the money that was cut in Eisenhower teacher training so that we can provide 186,000 math and science teachers with upgraded training. We ask that the restore Safe and Drug-Free School funding to the 1996 level. We ask that they provide $25 million more for summer jobs than the committee bill does so that rather than stripping 79,000 kids out of that program next year, that we can at least help 17,000 of the 79,000 kids that they are dumping out of that program next year. On Perkins loans, we are asking that 96,000 young people in this country get Perkins loans that otherwise would not get them because they zeroed out the program. We are asking, last, that we provide $100 million more than the committee provides so that 50,000 American workers, not welfare recipients but workers who have been dumped out of their jobs because of the consequences of trade and imports, so that they can get some training to get a second start in providing a decent income for their families. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, this does not violate the Budget Act. This does not exceed the budget. This comes in, in fact, $5 billion below the bipartisan Coalition budget which was provided for education and training. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, if anything, this is too modest. I would simply add one point in closing. When my colleagues look at this bill, this above all others is the bill that the Congress produces each year which is supposed to be focused on creating greater opportunity for working people and creating greater opportunity for people just starting out in life. That is what this bill is supposed to do. It is, as Bill Natcher used to say, the ``people's bill.'' We are trying to provide greater educational opportunity. We are trying to provide greater training opportunity for workers, and that is all this amendment does. It can be attacked for being socialistic, which is a joke. It can be attacked for spending too much money. It seems to me that we are far better off spending money here than we are in spending additional money to buy additional B-2 bombers that we do not need. And I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that in the end, I think this more than any other amendment on any appropriation bill this year defines the differences in priorities between the two parties. So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that if Members vote for this amendment, what they will be doing is trying to pull us away in some small measure from the determination demonstrated in this bill to take the first step which, over a 6-year period, will lead to a 20- percent real reduction in the amount of deliverable education support for our youngsters in this country. That is where this committee bill wants to take us. This committee bill wants to say: ``OK, we are going to stealthily begin the process under which at the end of the 6 years, under the budget resolution-- which you have adopted on your side of the aisle--that we will be spending 20 percent less than in real dollar terms to support the education of our children and the training of our workers.'' We simply do not believe that is the best way to prepare America for the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, because he talks slow.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]. (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, whatever amendments Democrats offer to try to help people, we get the same response from the Republican side of the aisle: ``It is all going to the bureaucracy.'' Let me tell the Members where the money is going. We are trying to provide help for 15,000 more kids for Head Start, so we do not have to reduce the number by 15,000 this year from last year. The last time I looked, first-graders were not bureaucrats, they were kids who needed help. We provide help for 450,000 kids under title I. Those are not bureaucrats, those are first- and second- and third-graders. We provide $250 million for school improvement. That goes to schools. It goes to neighborhood schools. We provide $233 million to restore the teacher training that they wiped out in the bill. That is 186,000 math and science teachers that will get the training they otherwise would not get. We restore $25 million for safe- and drug-free schools, not bureaucrats. I wish it could be $125 million. We restore $25 million to help 17,000 kids, not bureaucrats, get summer jobs. We restore $93 million in order to help 96,000 students, not bureaucrats. We provide $150 million so 50,000 American workers who have lost their jobs because of trade can get help to get retrained. So do not give me this baloney about money going to bureaucrats. This money goes to workers, it goes to kids, it goes to neighborhood schools, it goes to working families. This is the bill above all others that is supposed to help kids and working families get ahead. Give me a break. Quit giving us that same old song.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me say that this may be a gimmick but this is a gimmick which the gentleman's own bill has engaged in to the tune of $1,298,000,000.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, this committee bill is the first step in a 6-year process that will reduce the investment that we make in our kids by 20 percent in real dollar terms. I do not think, and I do not think that the country thinks, that this is the way to prepare for the 21st century. The children we are sending into the world of work today are going to have to be better prepared, better educated, better trained than any kids in the history of this country, if they want to get decent-paying jobs and provide a decent standard of living for their families. They do not do that, they are not going to be in a position to do that if we short-sheet this bill, if we short-sheet our ability to help the kids who are most difficult to educate in this country to get ahead. This amendment, I apologize for the fact that it is so small because, even after this amendment, it still leaves us some $5 billion below the funding level for education and training that was contained in the bipartisan coalition bill on the budget just a couple of months ago. It is the very, very, very least that we should do to provide adequate education for our young people. It is far less than we can afford to do, but it is at least a nominal step forward from the committee bill. I strongly urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, last year this committee funded the coming school year by providing funding for a combination of both fiscal years 1996 and 1997 by moving a portion of the funding for title I from 1996 into fiscal year 1997. This year the committee has done the same thing for the following school year, which means the school districts will get one check in July and another in October. We in this amendment simply propose to do the same thing. We propose to increase the portion of that funding that goes out with the October check, which enables us to increase education funding for a number of programs. The new result is that this amendment would increase funding for education and training programs by $1,246,000,000 over the same period of time, which is being considered in this bill. Title I, overall, would be increased by $450 million; dislocated workers would be increased by $100 million. That would enable us to provide one-half of the President's request for an increase so that 50,000 additional workers who lose their jobs because of the impact of foreign imports can get help to be retrained. For Head Start, it enables us to add $70 million to maintain the same number of kids who were funded last year. For Goals 2000, which was begun by President Bush, and President Clinton was then Governor, and which was strongly supported by Governor Clinton, representing all of the Nation's governors at that time, Goals 2000 has been zeroed out by the committee. We would restore $250 million of that funding. That still leaves us $240 million short of the President's request. For safe and drug-free schools, we would add $25 million. That would bring us back up to the 1996 funding level. For Eisenhower teacher training, we add $233 million. The committee has zeroed this money out. That still leaves us $42 million or 15 percent below 1996, even if you accept the added numbers in our bill. That would enable 286,000 math and science teachers to receive upgraded training under this proposal. On handicapped education, we just had the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] come to the floor and ask us to add $300 million for handicapped education by taking it out of NIH. The House rejected that amendment. We would have asked that $100 million of that $300 million increase be provided. This is one-third of the increase asked for by the President, only we would not cut the National Institutes of Health in order to do it. We would do it by following the same procedure that this committee provided by way of title I funding. This would enable us to begin to respond to the fact that the Federal Government has reneged on its responsibilities to local school districts for a long time to pay more fair share for the education of handicapped children. For Perkins loans, we add $93 million, which would bring it back up to the 1996 level. The committee had limited Perkins loans. For summer youth, we add $25 million. Under the committee bill, 79,000 fewer children will be provided with summer jobs. With this addition, we would be able to meet the needs of approximately one-fourth of those children, still, a very small addition but one which we think is amply justified. This, in my view, is the primary amendment to this bill. This amendment more than any other defines the differences between the two parties in terms of our priorities. We believe that a Congress which can afford to add $11 billion above the President's budget for Pentagon spending, a Congress which has tried to provide twice as many B-2 bombers as the Pentagon asked for, we believe that, if a Congress decides it is OK to do that, it certainly ought to be OK to try to restore some of the reductions that have been made in real dollar terms and in nominal dollar terms in the committee bill.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to save time, let me simply say we accept the amendment on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to understand, if this amendment has been accepted, why are we palavering on it? Why do not we just move on?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot disagree with a single word uttered by the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, or whatever the new title is now. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has had a long commitment to education for the handicapped, and I respect it and I share it. I would simply say that the problem with the amendment is not where he wants to put the money; it is what has to be cut in order to fund it. The basic problem we have is that this problem cannot be fixed under the allocation process given to us by the Speaker and by the leadership of the Republican Party in the House. Any time that this House decides it is going to add $11 billion above the President's request for the Pentagon, then we have to expect that that money is going to come out of somewhere. And that means that we have less available to put in this bill, less available to put in housing, less available to put in environmental protection. That is the nub of the problem. That is why on this side of the aisle we fiercely oppose the allocation that led this subcommittee into this hole. At this point Mr. Goodling has no choice but to try to find a source within this bill to fund this amendment, and the problem is the source he has selected means that we would reduce the number of competing research grants at NIH by 282 new researchers, we would slow research development from the committee bill for Alzheimer's disease, for developmental diagnostics of breast and prostate cancer, cancer genetic studies, et cetera, et cetera. I do not think Members want to do that. I do not think Members want to vote against the Goodling amendment either. So what I would suggest be done, Mr. Chairman, is that for every Member in this House, no matter which party they belong to, who would like to do what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is asking that we do, I would suggest that you go to your leadership, explain that the allocation process which they have supported has short-sheeted this committee and that this subcommittee needs more resources, and we ought not be increasing the Pentagon budget by $11 billion in the process. These decisions are not the fault of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]; they are the fault of the allocation process which in my view has been severely warped, which causes all of the reductions that lead us to oppose this bill in general.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the Condit amendment out of order at this point.

Mr. OBEY. I think less than 5 minutes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair whether or not it would be in order, if the gentleman from Illinois concurs, to ask unanimous consent to take out of order the Condit amendment and dispose of it. I understand that after a colloquy the gentleman has agreed to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, on this side, let me say I have mixed feelings about the gentleman's amendment because I do agree with his effort to add funding for the Black Lung Clinic's Program. I am dubious about the fairness of taking the funding from the area the gentleman takes it from, but with the clear understanding that the source of this will have to be fixed and rearranged in conference, I, at this point, would have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would accept it on this side. Mr. POSHARD, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the Ney amendment. I represent a district in southeastern Illinois that once was home to a large and prosperous coal mining industry--one that employed thousands of miners and provided a strong economy for our region. Unfortunately, many of these miners, who have since lost their jobs, now suffer from black lung disease. Withut a strong Black Lung Clinic Program, many of the coal miners in my district and across the Nation suffering from this disease will no longer have access to needed health care services. I am afraid that because of a weakened economy and high unemployment, many of the miners in my district will be forced to seek more costly services. The fact is decreasing funding for the Black Lung Clinic Program will only increase the cost of health care for all Americans and the burden on Federal and State governments. Those currently seeking the services of black lung clinics do not want to be forced onto public aid and into welfare simply because they can no longer afford and have access to these services. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Ney amendment to restore level funding to the Black Lung Clinic Program, and to be champions of cost-effective health care services in America.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again trying to separate symbol from substance, the bill language already clearly says that none of the funds made available for injury prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control, courtesy of the Livingston-Obey amendment. So that problem is taken care of. The report language makes clear that CDC may continue to engage in all legitimate research and analysis. All it says is that the committee expects research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded through an impartial peer review process. It says, ``The committee does not believe it is the role of the CDC to advocate or promote policies to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage responsible private gun ownership.'' We have already been told by supporters of the Lowey amendment that they no longer have any objection to that language. That means we simply have a choice about where the dollars ought to go. One can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that. All I would say is that I think the dollars are best spent if they remain where the committee put them in the Area Health Education Centers account. That has been a very tiny account. It is only $23 million. If you think $23 million is enough to spread around to all of the underserved rural areas of the country and the underserved urban areas of the country, you are looking at a different country than I am. Those underserved areas badly need those added resources. That is where the committee puts them. I would urge Members to make a choice on that basis and oppose the Lowey amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)