Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Yes.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because we are trying to get Members out of here for their planes, I would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I will make the same observation as I made last night. What we have going on here, in my judgment, is Operation Diversion. You have a bunch of people in this House who are perfectly comfortable with the fact that the tax policies that they have voted for will deliver $57 billion in tax cuts this year to people who make over a million dollars a year. That is five times as much money as the increase that we have in this bill above the President's request. And you have people who have voted for the war in Iraq, which has spent $600 billion in a case of mistaken identity as they mistook the stocky guy with the mustache, Saddam Hussein, for the tall guy with the beard, Osama bin Laden, and that mistake has cost us $600 billion when you take into account the President's newest request. That is 60 times as much as the addition we have above the President's budget for these programs. They voted for all of that, and now they want to scramble away from the deficits and the debt that that has produced. And they try to divert the attention of the public and say, oh, the real cause of our fiscal mess is the fact that these crazy Democrats are trying to put more money into education and more money into health care and more money into job training. Well, I plead fully guilty. We are trying to do that because yes, we do believe that these are investments. We think that kids are better off if you put more money into education than if you take it away. And we think society is better off economically and morally if we do more to help people who need health care than less. Now this amendment would cut the following amounts from the bill: It would cut $128 million from this bill for No Child Left Behind. It would cut $74 million from Title I. It would cut $56 million from IDEA. Republicans and Democrats alike have spent the last 2 days trying to increase funds for IDEA; now they want to cut it back by $56 million. They want to cut from this bill $78 million for Pell Grants, despite the fact that college costs have exploded. They want to cut $148 million from this bill for the National Institutes of Health. They want to cut $48 million from this bill for the Social Security Administration. They want to cut $69 million from this bill out of programs that we have here to try to discourage women from having abortions. Now if they want to vote for that, be my guest. We don't happen to think, and I think there are significant numbers of our friends on the minority side of the aisle who don't happen to think that is a good idea. We do have to make choices, and the basic choices here are do we want to defend the 2 percent increase in these programs above the President's level, because that is what it is, it is a 2 percent difference. And if you don't believe my definition, then take a look at CQ and National Journal because that is the way they define it. Do you want to put 2 percent more into the health and education of the country, into the training of our workforce, or do you instead want to use it for additional money in Iraq and additional money for tax cuts for the most wealthy people in this country, most of whom would gladly see a reduction in their take if we could improve the quality of our workforce and the quality of our education and the quality of our law enforcement? I plead fully guilty to agreeing with them, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Then, what I would simply like to say, Madam Chairman, is that this bill is the product of 5 months work on both sides of the aisle by some very dedicated people. Mr. Walsh is the new ranking member on the subcommittee, but he has performed like an old timer. I am proud of the fact that the subcommittee worked hard on hearings. And, I'm proud of the fact that we've largely come together on substance. I would hope that that would be recognized by the endorsement of many Members on both sides of the aisle when the roll call vote is opened. This bill is not a matter of accounting. This bill is not a matter of political theory or political party platforms. This bill, more than any other, meets the needs of all of those in society who are not among the most well-connected and the most privileged. But even for the most well-connected and privileged, this bill provides a lot because all of us benefit every time a child is educated. All of us benefit every time an American citizen gets the health care he or she needs. All of us benefit every time a worker is educated so that our workforce becomes more competitive. All of us benefit when a single teacher achieves new skills. There is nothing in the world more damaging than a dull or a bad teacher, and there is nothing more wonderful than a well-trained, intelligent one. So I would urge Members to recognize that the issue isn't whether some program is defined as a cut or an increase. The issue isn't whether we like the President of the United States or not. The issue is whether or not we are building the kind of country we want to have over the next 10 years. To do that, it takes investments. And, yes, investments cost money. And, yes, I plead fully guilty to wanting to provide even more than we can in this bill. But it is essential if we want to remain competitive. It is essential if we want to have equal access to opportunity in this country. It is essential that we invest in bills like this. And I thank the gentleman from New York for his assistance in trying to do just that, as well as every other member of the committee and subcommittee. There is a reason why there were no votes expressed in opposition to this bill in full committee, and that is because this is the people's bill. It is the product of input from each and every Member from the most conservative to the most liberal, and I think there is not a member of the subcommittee who would not verify that. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if this issue were in fact the real problem, it can easily be dealt with in conference by Mr. Walsh and myself and the rest of the committee, but in fact it is not a problem. The fact is that under the bill money in the Safe and Drug Free Schools account can already be used for exactly the same purpose. I would also like to point out, however, that this is a program which was cut by the President to $100 million, and the House has restored $146 million above the President's figure to take care of problems just such as this. But the membership should also understand that this recommit kills the bill. It is dressed up in language on fees, but in fact it calls for the bill to be referred to the committee and reported back promptly, not forthwith. And, as Members know, that is a device that kills the bill. We have endured over the last 3 days filibusters by amendment. We have had 25 hours of amendments, sometimes repetitious amendments. We have spent twice as much time on this bill as was spent the last time that the bill was considered by the Congress. And I would make one other point. The sponsors of this proposal could have used it to do anything they wanted to do with the bill. They could have cut the bill, they could have changed the priorities. They didn't. And the fact that they didn't, in my view, is an admission that, in terms of policy, this is a good bill. It is a backhanded admission that this bill ought to pass as is. So I would ask Members to vote ``no'' on the motion and vote ``yes'' on passage. They can then go home having done good things for America's children, for Americans who need help to get health care, and for American workers. Let me also take just a second to thank the House for its indulgence over the last 3 days. I know that it has often been tiresome, but I appreciate the fact that they understood that the committee was just trying to do its job. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chair, I again regrettably will have to insist on the point of order. I understand the gentleman's concerns and I share them. Sometimes I win arguments and sometimes I don't. I take some comfort in the fact that even Babe Ruth struck out over 1,400 times. Having said that, I would simply say that I would appreciate if the gentleman could withdraw his amendment. If he cannot, then I will have to lodge a point of order against it in order to be consistent in terms of the way we treat all Members.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, could I ask, did the gentleman ask for a recorded vote?

Mr. OBEY. Then I withdraw the committee's acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I renew the committee's acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I am of a split mind on this amendment, just as I was on the previous Holt amendment this evening. I think the goal of the amendment is certainly worthwhile; but at the same time I am trying to follow a responsible course with respect to the ability of executive agencies to function administratively. So again I would simply say that I think the fact that this amendment is being offered in a way that would draw further funds out of the Department of Labor management accounts is another demonstration that the White House is dead wrong when they say that this bill contains too much money. Virtually every amendment that has been offered tonight on both sides of the aisle has been an amendment, with four exceptions, that relate to the President's budget, they have all been efforts to increase funds. I think that demonstrates that we are substantially short of where we really need to be. I am not going to mount the barricades to oppose the amendment, but I simply have to observe that while the amendment is certainly worthwhile, the offset that it proposes is really not a real one, and I think we all know when we go to conference we are going to have to repair the administrative budget of the agency. Having said that, I am not going to ask people to vote against it if they want to engage in those kinds of actions on the executive branch's administrative functions. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. I yield briefly to the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.