Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will look on page 1079 of the hearings, part 5, you will find absolutely no question this is a Washington-based activity.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will not make a big thing of this because I understand that it is just a small item, but I did nonetheless want Members to understand that, while everyone would like to restore funds for the institute for literacy, it does come at a cost. I do not think that cost is advisable. The amendment, as I understand it, obtains the funding for the gentleman's purposes by reducing the increase in the education research account by $5 million so there would be $15 million above last year left in the education research account. The problem with that is that, while it sounds like that account is being healthily enhanced, the problem is that, in fact, this bill is cutting some 70 education programs, which the gentleman from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, has described as being duplicative. We have said about 115 times on this side of the aisle that we agree with the elimination of many of those programs in the interest of consolidation and in the interest of rationalizing administrative structures and delivering more service for dollars spent. And because of the deficit squeeze. But the problem with the elimination of those 70 programs is that we have been told by the committee that because those programs represent about $200 million in previous expenditures, some of those people interested in those programs have been told, well, you can try to apply, you can try to be funded in some way out of education research. If you are cutting out $200 million and telling folks to go apply at door B but door B is only increased by $20 million, then you have got a very small percentage chance of actually getting an answer when you knock on that door. So while I am certainly not going to strenuously insist on my point, and I am not even going to push this to a rollcall, I assure the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I take this time mainly to explain the fact that there is a cost to this amendment. I am dubious about the value of the trade-off. I recognize the intention of the gentleman, but I wanted to indicate that, if this were pushed to a rollcall, I for one would vote ``no'' because I think that, while we can have great arguments about the Federal role in education, it seems to me there can be no argument about the necessity for the Federal Government to try to stimulate research which can help us find answers to many questions which have so far being unanswerable. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in the first section of our debate we discussed what this bill was doing to cripple our workers and worker programs. In the second section we talked about what it was doing to savage programs that support the most vulnerable people in this society. Now we are turning to a discussion of how this bill is, pure and simple, an attack on education. This bill is the anti-education appropriation act of 1995, pure and simple. It cuts 18 percent out of what we appropriated just last year for Federal education programs. That means almost one out of every 5 dollars that was there a year ago will not be there this year. It takes almost $2.5 billion away from local school districts, and that is most assuredly going to result in lower quality and higher property taxes. And it does it all to provide a $20,000 tax cut for people making $350,000 a year. I would suggest there are an awfully lot of people in society who make that amount of money, who recognize that if they have to choose between getting a $20,000 tax cut at that bracket, and seeing to it that the basic education structure of this country is sound, they will opt for education, because they know they cannot in the end disconnect from society. You cannot achieve success by working up the opportunity ladder yourselves, and then pull it on up so that someone else cannot use that ladder as well. The answer from the Republican side of the aisle seems to be, Well, our education programs do not work, so let's give up and give some rich guy a tax cut. Well, I do not think that is an especially effective way to go about it. I have one last simple thought: For as long as I have been in this House, support for education has been a bipartisan proposition. But whether back home in Wisconsin, when I served in the legislature, or here in the Congress, support for education has always been bipartisan. Look at some of the programs that are named after distinguished Republican leaders in the area of education: Stafford, Javitz, Goldwater, Eisenhower. Has this party really moved even beyond them? Are they no longer acceptable? I simply do not believe it. It just seems to me that the most fundamental purpose of any society is to see to it that its children are made top priority, that they receive decent opportunity, decent education. That is what this bill walks away from. That is why this bill ought to be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] be allowed to control my time and yield time from this point.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is acceptable on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford]. (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].