Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my time, to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that all the remaining speakers want to address the amendment as well as the underlying amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who wants to address the Castle amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I think this amendment indicates just how ludicrous the proposal is which is before us. The bill recommended by the Republican majority eliminates $482 million for drug-free schools, and then it tries in this amendment to restore $10 million of that $482 million reduction. It pretends that it is going to restore the money for D.A.R.E. But in fact, this amendment cannot restore the money for D.A.R.E. because this money goes out by formula, goes to States and local school districts, and the school districts have the authority to decide how the money is spread out. So we can pretend, by restoring a tiny $10 million fig leaf, that we are restoring D.A.R.E., but in fact this amendment does no such thing. It merely pretends to do that. And I guess it is sort of in the context of eliminating the entire drug-free school program; it is sort of like burning down the House but keeping the front doormat there as a souvenir; that is about all we have left of the drug-free school program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I guess this amendment is what I would put in the category of ``Thank You for Small Favors.'' What the subcommittee of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] originally did on this bill is to cut $5.9 billion out of programs such as Healthy Start, Chapter 1. Safe and drug-free schools were eliminated. Education for the homeless was cut in half. Tech prep was cut by $108 million. School-to-work was cut by $25 million. 100,000 State incentive grant scholarships were cut out for college kids. Public broadcasting was cut 10 percent the first year, $60 million the next year, and put on a 3-year route to oblivion. Summer jobs is totally eliminated in both 1995 and 1996. The new program to raise educational standards, Goals 2000, was cut by a large amount. The Eisenhower teacher training program was cut by a very large amount. All in total, $5.9 billion. In addition, the energy assistance program was ended under which 2 million seniors get help to pay their home heating bills. Even programs like Green Thumb were reduced. Veterans medical care was cut back by $200 million, something which the House has scurried now to reverse today. Now this amendment out of that $5.9 billion restores $200 million, about 4 percent of the mistake. It restores that $200 million by making an additional cut in title I. It makes an additional cut in Eisenhower teacher training, and in the Pell grant carryover. What it does is to restore the cut that was made in homeless kids and to restore $37 million of the cuts that were made in rural health programs. In the rural health area, it still leaves substantial cuts in the rural outreach program, in the rural hospital transition program, and in the essential access community hospitals program. I am not very happy about where these cuts come from, but I think that it is hard to object to where they go in the tiny restoration which is accomplished by this amendment, and so I would simply say that I would support the amendment but I think all it does is indicate just how savage some of the reductions and how misguided some of the reductions were that were made in the first place. I would also note that despite the fact that we were told earlier today by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that this bill needed to be supported because there were way too many education programs and way too many job training programs, that this amendment manages to restore 4 of the programs which were eliminated and the elimination for which the Republicans were taking credit just about 2 hours ago, including, I understand, one that has even caught the interest of the speaker, I am happy to say. So it seems to me that we cannot object to this restoration, but it does in the process of restoration indicate how misguided many of these original reductions were, targeted as they were at kids and senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time, and I would simply say this in closing: I urge Members to vote for this amendment. But I would also urge Members to recognize the cynical situation that is presented to us by the majority party. The fact is that it is their party who proposed the $200 million cut in veterans funding in the first place. They have now chosen to prevent us from restoring that money by going to a more benign source such as the bloated NASA budget. Instead they want to go after the domestic volunteer program. It is a lousy choice but I think the record is clear that the Democratic Party intends to keep its commitment to veterans no matter what the political machinations on the other side of the aisle. I urge support for the amendment, misguided though half of it is.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of a minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that the gentleman may squawk all he wants about the President's budget. The bill we have before us is H.R. 1158. The name that is on the front page, the sponsor of that bill, is the gentleman from Louisiana, one Mr. Livingston. Last time I looked, he was not President. He is the Republican He is the fellow sponsoring the bill making the recommendation to cut veterans by $200 million. The subcommittee recommendation, came out of the HUD Subcommittee. The chairman of that subcommittee is the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]. Last time I looked, he also was not the President. He was the Republican chairman of the subcommittee who recommended $200 million in veterans' cuts. Mr. Chairman, let us be straight, here, folks. You can talk all you want about some other vehicle, some other bill. The fact is, you are the ones who are recommending cutting veterans. Now you are running like scared rabbits to change it. I do not blame you. This should not be here in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the distinguished ranking member of the HUD subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman will recall when this issue was before the committee, that at the time of these cuts it was being admitted fully on the Republican side these cuts were going to finance their tax cuts. What they wanted to do was gouge veterans in order to free up their nice big tax giveaways for corporations and the folks who are making more than $100,000 a year. Now the heat has gotten too bad and they want to run for cover a little bit, but they still want to do it in a very partisan way. I think that is regrettable, but I do not think we should let that stand in the way of restoring funding for veterans' programs.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBEY. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, Mr. Chairman, what we now have is Republicans desperately trying to climb back on board in support of veterans' causes. So now what they have first done is to preclude the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] from offering her amendment to restore the veterans' program, and then what they have done instead is to have the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] now offer an amendment which restores the funds that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] wanted to get protected last week. But what you are doing now, you had to look and find a place that was the single most insulting place for the President that you could find--to restore the funds--and that is what you have done, by going after AmeriCorps. Mr. Chairman, I see a Republican gentleman shaking his head here. It is too bad. I can remember when the President, regardless of party, was regarded as ``Our President,'' not ``your President.'' It is really too bad when I see the lack of respect on the floor of this House for the institution, of the presidency, or other political institutions. What we have now at stake is: instead of looking for ways to reach accommodation with the President, the Majority party is looking for a way to find the most insulting possible way to restore the funds for veterans, while sticking it to the President of the United States on the program that is one of his highest priorities. There is a Republican gentleman here nodding his head, saying yes, that is what they are trying to do. That, Mr. Speaker, is in my view cynical. I regret it, but I would suggest that the Members of this side of the aisle be a good deal bigger in their response to this issue than we are getting from that side of the aisle. I think we ought to accept this amendment, recognizing full well that there are extreme partisan motivations behind it, but also indicating that we will not let those extreme partisan motives get in the way of our trying to stick to the deal which we made with veterans to support these programs. therefore, I am going to support this amendment, even though I think that it is a lousy choice which they have given us. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] would have given us a much better choice because she would have taken it out of the nice fat NASA budget which could well sustain a hit. But no, that involves pork in Members' projects, in Members' districts, again. Therefore, they do not want to take it out of pork. They want to take it out of the White House's political hide. I think President Clinton is big enough to absorb it. I think we are, too. I would urge that Members support the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. I would like to finish my statement. I have had a tough time getting this time. You will have your time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the situation that we are in. We have heard two Republican speakers now talk about how outrageous it is that the contract with veterans is being broken by this legislation. I want to point out, it is the gentleman's side of the aisle that tried to break the contract. They produced a bill which cut veterans' programs by $200 million. Democrats did not. Those folks did. We then tried to correct it in the Committee on Appropriations. We offered an amendment that would have restored a number of programs, including full restoration for the veterans' programs. Every single Republican in the Committee on Appropriations voted against that restoration. Now they are out here trying to pose for political holy pictures with the veterans, and trying to pose as the great defenders of the American veterans.