Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say, now that we have a copy of the amendment, I now understand what it is that is being offered and we have no objection to it on this side of the aisle. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], on the majority side, also has no objection to it. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings]. (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say that that is a nice promise, but the fact is that the bill before us does in fact short-sheet NIOSH by $32 million. It does not allow NIOSH to meet the obligations that they are supposed to meet by accepting the Bureau of Mines programs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear we have absolutely no quarrel with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. He has done a fine job under the circumstances, and I honestly believe his heart is in the right place. The problem, frankly, as we see it, is simply that the budget priorities of Speaker Gingrich and the majority party in this House are simply wrong. They say, oh, it is okay to give $11 billion more than the President or the Pentagon is asking for the Pentagon; but, oh, by the way, we have got to balance the budget. So what did they do? They put us on a 6-year track that will knock one million kids off the most important program supported by the Federal Government to teach kids to read and to help them to master science and mathematics. They cut the Eisenhower teacher training program, an immensely popular program with any teacher in any district who is interested in improving his or her ability to convey information to children. They zero out Perkins loans. They, in fact, in the education area provide over the next 6 years--and this is the first step in that process--they provide 20 percent less in real deliverable program support for education over that time period at the very time when student populations are rising after a long time when those student populations were declining. They say, oh, we must make up for inflation when we appropriate funds to the Pentagon; but, oh, no, there is no need to make up for the cost of inflation when we are dealing with education. I find that separation and logic to be an extremely interesting revelation in terms of the respective priorities of the parties. The majority party says we should honor work. I agree with that. I worked hard all my life. So did my kids. So did most other people in this Chamber. But after they say we should honor work, what do they do? They cut the National Labor Relations Board by 15 percent so they limit the ability of that agency in a severe way to protect worker health, to protect worker safety, to protect the integrity of worker pension plans, and to enforce the law that guarantees that workers will be treated fairly and squarely on wages and hours. They drive a billion-dollar hole through a crucial program that provides assistance to low-income elderly and low-income individuals under the low-income heating assistance program. Then they brag about putting 10 percent of that money back by way of community service block grants. I take a back seat to no one in my support for community service block grants. For year after year after year on that subcommittee, it was Dave Obey who pushed that program against many times almost unanimous opposition on the Republican side of the aisle and some opposition on my own side of the aisle. So I take a back seat to no one in my pleasure that that program is finally getting a justifiable increase. But do not pretend that that tiny increase for that program makes up for the deep-sixing that my colleagues are doing on so many other initiatives to help the very same people that that program is aimed at. I thank God for small favors, and I thank the subcommittee chairman, but I do not get overly excited about it. I would simply say that this bill, more than any other, as Bill Natcher used to say, this bill more than any other is meant to help meet the needs of workers and people. We should not be squeezing it, as this proposal does.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. We do not have a copy of the amendment. We were not aware this was going to be offered. I would appreciate it if we can get a copy.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]. (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman talks about how it is okay for NIOSH to do this. I find it very interesting that this committee is short-sheeting NIOSH to the tune of $32 million because it is transferring to them all of the obligations laid on by the Bureau of Mines programs, but it is not funding those programs. So the very agency my colleagues say will be allowed to continue is going to have a $32 million shortfall in their budget.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have the following one-word reply to the gentleman who just spoke: Baloney. A two-word reply: Double baloney. I represent Wisconsin. I take a back seat to no one in wanting to see massive welfare reform. I know that taxpayers are tired of seeing people collect money on welfare who are not willing to work to earn it, and I know that people are tired, and justifiably so, of seeing people in this society who often have their hand out but who are not willing to go to work in order to improve their own condition. I believe in personal responsibility, and I believe that people ought to be willing to accept the consequences of their own actions in their own lives. But I want to make a few remarks that correct some of the wildly inaccurate statements just made by the previous speaker. There is no 30-day deadline for the President to consider Wisconsin's W2 program. There is simply, thanks to the fact that the Congress did not eliminate it, as the majority party tried to do, there is still the protection in law that allows every single one of my constituents in Wisconsin to have at least 30 days to comment on the deal that the politicians put together at the State level in Wisconsin. That 30-day requirement is simply a 30-day minimum requirement during which the public has a right to speak out before the politicians and the bureaucrats make their final decisions. I make no apology for insisting that that 30-day public comment period be retained. My citizens have the same right to comment that citizens from every other State have had before waivers were granted for their welfare reform proposals. I wonder if the gentleman knows that in the original W2 waiver request which this party demanded that we pass, sight unseen, without any Member having read it on this floor, I wonder if the gentleman knows that Wisconsin later had to, at least the Governor and the welfare director, had to indicate they made a mistake in the presentation they made to the national government, and they recognized it needed to be amended. Why? Because the press discovered during that 30-day public comment period that they tried to wipe out on that side of the aisle, the press in Wisconsin discovered that the W2 waiver proposal would have allowed employers to cut the hours of their regular workers, to cut the benefits of their regular workers, in order to make room for welfare workers in those plants. It also inadvertently would have allowed employers to cancel promotions for their regular workers and, instead, give those promoted jobs to welfare recipients newly hired by the company. The State admitted that that was a mistake, but that mistake would not have been corrected if this House had rammed through the Senate the legislation which the majority party tried to ram through. You bet workers are tired of seeing tax dollars gobbled up by people on welfare who will not work. You bet taxpayers are tired of that. But I can tell the Members something taxpayers do not want to see even more. They do not want to see their jobs gobbled up by welfare recipients. So if we are going to solve welfare reform, let us solve it by correcting the behavior of people whose behavior needs to be corrected. Let us not solve it by whacking the ability of workers to maintain their wages, to maintain their hours, to maintain their benefits at work, and to maintain their rights to be considered for promotion before newly hired workers who just the day before were on the welfare rolls. I would simply say that I want Wisconsin's welfare program to be approved, but only after my constituents have had ample time to examine that waiver request to make certain there are no other mistakes which wind up threatening the welfare of workers.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would be very happy to apologize to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] for calling him impolite if he would apologize for being impolite to me.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note for the gentleman's attention that three Members of your own caucus have described what you did on the budget last year as being silly extremism and I agree with them.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that in the wake of the last speech, I was not aware that we were supposed to be cheerleaders at what sounds like a high school football game. Keep going. It is in character. Mr. Speaker, I hope this does not come out of my time, but I hope you would educate Members of the House that they have an obligation to not speak unless they are in the well or at the microphone. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem, and we ought to discuss it in a rational way. Members may not like what I said when I spoke earlier, but I think if they review the text of what I said, that I was exceedingly fair to the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations on that side of the aisle. I tried to analyze what the problems were as they existed now. I am not really interested in debating what happened yesterday. I do not think the America public is very much interested in that. But I will simply take 1 minute to note that in spite of everything said by the gentleman from Louisiana, in 19 of the past 20 years, that terrible Democratic controlled Congress appropriated less dollars than we were asked to appropriate by Presidents of either party; we spent some $20 billion less than the Presidents asked us to; we never had a deficit larger than $74 billion until the Reagan budget passed in 1981, then it exploded to over $300 billion. If it were not for the additional debt above that level, which was accumulated in the 1980's with the passage of the Reagan budgets, our budgets would be balanced today and everyone knows that if they have studied the situation. The issue is not yesterday, it is what are we going to do about today. Of course, this is going to have to be waived. I understand that. But the fact is that we face the prospect of having at least four major appropriations bills vetoed unless we have a different mindset coming from that side of the aisle. If the Republicans want to see these appropriations bills passed, they must reach bipartisan accommodation with people who do not share every opinion that they think is inviolate. They have to recognize that in a democracy it is essential to make concessions, at least over small things, in order to get people with differing views together. We are supposed to find common ground. We are not supposed to do what they did last night, when, after their own committee leadership tried to put together a bipartisan compromise, they walked away from it. Now, I do not know what the reasons were, but when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] worked yesterday trying to reach a bipartisan accommodation, the hard-heads in their caucus said, ``No, they did not want it''. That is the kind of conduct the country has come to expect from the Republicans, but it is not the kind of conduct we can afford if these appropriation bills are going to pass, if they are going to be signed, and if we are going to wind up not having a repeat of the disgraceful performance of last year when the Government was shut down twice. So I would simply urge Members to quit shouting like they were attending a high school cheerleading session, grow up, recognize their responsibility, try to work in a bipartisan way and get those bills passed; and to the gentleman from Arizona--every time somebody says something you don't like, you open your mouth and you start shouting from your seat. . . . Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to not talk so much about the past but about the present and the future. The situation, as this chart shows, is that, if we take a look at what has happened to each of the 13 appropriation bills that we are supposed to be passing this fiscal year, so far 7 of them, those in red that reach this line here, 7 of them by the end of the day will have passed the House. Only one will have passed the Senate. There are three more which are moving their way through the Committee on Appropriations, and there are three which have not yet begun the move through the Committee on Appropriations. So that means that 7 out of the 13 will be passed through the House by the end of the day. That is absolutely not the fault of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] or the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations. But I do think we need to look at what the problems are so that we can try to deal with them. The problem, the main problem is that, first of all, the budget resolution was 2 months late. Because of that, the Committee on Appropriations has been forced to do in approximately 3 weeks time what ordinarily would take about 10 weeks to accomplish. That is in my view the price that was paid for the extremism that was reflected in the general budget resolution. Even the Republican majority in the Senate could not take the extremism represented by the House-passed budget resolution, and they demanded substantial changes. It took a long time to get them. That put us behind. Second, we also have what I would describe as the ``my-way-or-no- way'' mentality, which still apparently dominates the majority party caucus in this House on a number of these appropriation bills. Example: Just last night we had an effort made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] to offer an amendment which would have repaired the problems on the VA-HUD bill. The subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, graciously recognized that we had a problem and tried to deal with it, but he was overcome by the extremists in his own caucus. So they would up refusing to provide the major fix-ups that everybody knows are going to be necessary in that VA-HUD bill if the bill is ever going to become law. If those fix-ups are not made, we are simply going to have a bill that goes nowhere. Just this morning in the Committee on Appropriations on the Treasury, Post Office bill, accommodation was reached on several items. But it has been made quite clear by the Treasury Department and by the Committee on Ways and Means, for instance, if I could add that, that the committee is insisting on extreme actions with respect to dictating how the IRS goes about modernization. They are insisting on taking actions which the Republican leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means says will lead to a loss of revenue. And if you have a loss of revenue, you are going to have an addition to the deficit. Yet when efforts were made to try to fix that problem, they were all rejected. So it is ``our-way-or-no-way.'' Again, it is quite clear from my conversations with Treasury that that bill will not see the light of day. It will never become law unless it is repaired so that we do not damage the ability of the IRS to collect the taxes that are due under law. The Interior appropriation bill, because of the extreme allocation provided, has already been put on the veto list. In addition to that, the Labor HEW bill, because of the woefully inadequate allocation winds up providing $2.5 billion less for education alone than the President is requesting. That is going to mean a long stalemate unless we have a much more flexible attitude exhibited by the majority party in this House. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a little bit of history here. The last year that our party controlled this House, I chaired the Committee on Appropriations. We passed every single appropriation bill before the end of the fiscal year, every single one. Now, we did not do that because of any peculiar wisdom on my part. We did it because my party leadership allowed me to cross the aisle, go to the Republican leadership on the committee and work out a bipartisan allocation under the 602 budget process under which we agreed on a bipartisan basis how much money would go into each of those 13 spending bills. Because we had reached bipartisan agreement, we were able to pass all 13 of those appropriation bills on time. The leadership of the Committee on Appropriations was never allowed to do that this year because of the extreme agenda already referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts, which requires that we squeeze every last dollar out of education and every last dollar out of job training in order to fund tax cuts for people making $200,000 a year. That is the problem. Until that is gotten over by the majority party in this House, it is not going to be possible to pass these bills, and we risk running into the same kind of chaos that we had last year. I would remind by colleagues that there are only 31 working days left before the end of the fiscal year. Can anybody tell me they really believe we are going to be able to finish all 13 appropriation bills, half of which are not yet through the House, only one of which is through the Senate, unless we get a far more flexible and a far more bipartisan attitude on the part of the majority than we have gotten to date? Now, I know that the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations has tried everything possible to get their bills done on time, but they cannot be expected to perform legislatively impossible acts. When the leadership on the majority side does not understand the realities of passing appropriations legislation, then they put the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations in an impossible situation; and no matter how hard they try, they cannot deliver on an impossible set of orders. So I would suggest, I know there is plenty of goodwill on the part of the majority on the Committee on Appropriations, and I know that people are used to being workhorses on the committee. They are used to trying to work things out in ways which make reasonable accommodations to people who happen to sometimes disagree with them. We had to do it when we were in control of the House. I would suggest that the majority party needs to understand that we had to do it when we were in the House if we wanted to get things done on time and if we wanted to get things done in a way which brings credit to this House. So I think it is essential that we have a more reasonable attitude demonstrated by the majority leadership in this House. I think it is essential that we recognize that there are going to have to be major changes in the budget allowances provided these bills, because the President is not going to accept and the country is not going to accept short sheeting education, short sheeting job training, short sheeting other programs that are needed by middle class working people in order to provide $11 billion more than the President and the Pentagon are asking for, and in order to salt away money for tax cuts for high- income people. That just is not going to happen. So if my colleagues want to know what is in store for us, recognize we are only halfway home in passing the bills through the House. Our principal obligation under the Constitution in this Congress is to pass our appropriation bills. I plead with my colleagues, we cannot get that done unless there is a much more flexible attitude on the part of the top party leadership in this House so that we can reach reasonable bipartisan accommodation and get the job done the way the country expects us to get the job done.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, like the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], I regret the incident that just occurred, and I will take the gentleman's comments as an apology. I would likewise extend an apology to the gentleman for the comments which he found troublesome.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with the understanding that the Chair will admonish Members not to interrupt Members who are speaking, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would, as I have informed the Speaker, I would be very happy to apologize to the gentleman for calling him impolite, if the gentleman would have apologized to me for interrupting me while I was speaking. He declined to do that.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to rise in support of the amendment and note that if a Member of Congress has a heart attack or if a dentist has a heart attack, the public safety is not at risk. That is not the case in the occupation we are talking about here tonight. I would also say that it is important to understand that the National Transportation Safety Board itself does not believe that it is qualified to conduct the study that it is being asked to conduct. When we asked them what they felt about it, they responded as follows: It is likely that the proposed study will conclude that significant new laboratory research on the effect of aging on tasks that are critical to safe performance as an airline pilot will be required. Basic safety research of this nature, of course, is currently beyond the mission and capability of the Safety Board. After that letter was sent, I understand that they sent another letter to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because I know how things work. When the subcommittee chairman says something, they respond. In the subsequent letter which the agency sent to the gentleman from Virginia, they indicated that they would conduct the study if they were asked to do so and if it was requested. But, I will repeat, they indicated that in their judgment such a study, while they would do it if told to by the Congress, is beyond the mission and the capability of the Safety Board. So it seems to me that maybe this study ought to be conducted, but it certainly should not be conducted by an agency that itself believes it does not have the capacity to do it. I would urge that the gentleman's amendment be adopted.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say I support this rule. It is far preferable than the rule that we just considered. I would simply observe that with respect to the previous rule, this country has walked away from our values in dealing with trade. There is absolutely no reason in my view for us to provide MFN treatment for a country that produces goods through slave labor. I think it is a preposterous joke that we should in any way give credence to the idea that a country with a controlled economy is a fitting participant in free- or fair-trade arrangements. By definition, they are not. I thank the gentleman for his time.