Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBEY. I thank you very much, and I appreciate the gentlewoman raising this issue. I think it's a very legitimate one, and I hope we pay more and more attention to it. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

Mr. OBEY. I would simply like to read a portion of the letter from Greg Tarpinion from Change to Win. He simply says this: ``Since its inception in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act has permitted workers to unionize and their union representatives to be recognized by obtaining signatures in support from a majority of workers to be represented.'' Many large companies such as Cingular Wireless, Kaiser Permanente, and Harley-Davidson from my own State have voluntarily recognized their employees' desire for union representation using this type of majority signup procedure. By eliminating any funds for the National Labor Relations Board to enforce the laws, in cases in which the majority signup is used, the Souder amendment would gut this long-standing avenue for worker recognition. As a result, any unions already recognized and any contracts already bargained with unions that obtained recognition using this method would be thrown into legal limbo, and any otherwise applicable labor law protections would become unenforceable. That, to me, doesn't seem to make very much sense. I would urge opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, in the interest of saving time in this late evening, on this side we would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, we have not had enough time to analyze the most recent version of this amendment. Its apparent innocuousness, frankly, raises my suspicions. It would appear to enforce current law for eligibility to enroll in benefits. But for this to be offered just at the time that the authorizers are reauthorizing the SCHIP program and considering pay-fors that might include tightening payments to Medicare Advantage providers, it makes me wonder if this is more than a powerful coincidence. This is certainly not within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. It most certainly is within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. I don't think, given the sensitivity of it, that it ought to be handled in this manner. So I would certainly intend not to support it. My understanding is also that the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are both highly concerned about this amendment. And under these circumstances, I think it would be highly ill-advised for the House to adopt this amendment at this time. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. I would simply say again that on this side of the aisle we have no objection to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that we sort of feel like we're caught in the middle of this one because Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, gave us a lecture yesterday about how we should avoid duplicative programs. Then, today, this amendment would have the effect of creating in one department a program that is virtually identical to a program that already exists in another department. So we can't win, no matter how we deal with the issue. I don't care which agency this is in. I just want it to be wherever it would be run the most efficiently and effectively. I am certainly willing to discuss with anybody involved in the issue how we resolve this issue. We didn't put it in in the first place. It was put in by, as you know, a person from your party from your own State. So we are happy to work with all of you, but I don't want to get cross-wised between two people from the same State. I don't want to be standing here accepting an amendment that creates a duplicative program. So I think the most constructive result would be if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and we try to work this out down the line, so that if it is not in the right place, we can talk about how to get it in the right place.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, if I can simply say again, on this side of the aisle I feel like I am being whipsawed. This was in the other bill because we were trying to accommodate a Republican Member of the House who felt strongly that it ought to be in that bill. Now we are being criticized by another Republican from the same State because we accommodated the other Republican. I can't go in both directions at the same time, which is why I don't seek to have this program in any department. I don't care where it is. I would just as soon that you settle your differences with your colleague from your own State, and when you have, come and see me. I will try to work with whoever is the winner of the rassling match.

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

Mr. OBEY. Drone on, drone on, O ship of State. That's what I'm tempted to recite when I hear these repetitious dronings on bill after bill after bill. Let me simply say, I think it is legitimate for individual Members of this body to offer amendments in order to illustrate their concern about a larger question. I've done that many times myself in this institution. But I think that after 3 weeks of hearing the same point made again and again, we understand that these gentlemen believe that we are putting too much money into education and health care and science and other areas that we regard as crucial investments, and that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. But please spare me the sanctimony, spare me the nonsense that somehow these amendments will contribute in any meaningful way to significant deficit reduction. Let me simply point out, if people were interested in significant deficit reduction, they would not be supporting an Iraqi war which has already spent over $400 billion and which we'll spend another 140 billion bucks by the time we pass the President's supplemental. They would not be insisting that we provide $57 billion in tax cuts to people making a million bucks a year. No, they don't argue about those two things. What do they do? They come to the floor and squawk about an $8 million program to help the poorest rural communities in this country get basic services like sewer and water. I represent many towns in my District with populations of less than a thousand people. At least half the households in many of those towns are headed either by senior citizens or a woman with a low income, and that means that when they get hit with the DNR order to clean up their water or clean up their sewer, they do not have the tax base to proceed, and they don't have technical expertise even to know how to begin going about it. We've got a $385 billion backlog in this country of sewer and water needs, and yet we're hearing these complaints about this tiny little program and what terrible abuse it is for the taxpayer. Imagine a congressional committee trying to do something to help poor communities deal with their sewer and water problems. Isn't that awful? Isn't that wasteful? Good God, Almighty, we ought to be putting that $8 million into the pockets of millionaires in additional tax cuts, right? At least that's what their record shows they believe. Nonsense. I'm getting up once on this amendment, but I don't intend to continually get up in what is a filibuster by amendment. So I wanted to get that off my chest once, and then I'm just going to sit back and let people drone on, drone on, O ship of State, and occasionally I might even listen. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. In reserving my point of order, I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman. Does she have a score from the CBO?

Mr. OBEY. So the CBO indicates that the amendment is outlay neutral?

Mr. OBEY. If that is the case, then I withdraw my reservation.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say again, as I have several times today, I am sympathetic to the goal of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate the fact that she did not craft her amendment in a way which would go after general departmental administrative costs. I appreciate that concession on the part of the gentlewoman. Having said that, again, I will not personally object to the amendment because I understand what she is trying to do. But I definitely want to make clear what the gentleman from New York said, that there's only so far that you can cut any of these programs. I happen to have insisted on a very deep cut in Reading First because of the abuse that occurred of the taxpayer funds in that account. But having said that, it's our hope that, frankly, and the House needs to know this, it's our hope that by the time we get to conference, we will have worked out enough of an understanding with the administration about the corrections that are needed so that we don't have to take the deep cuts that are in the bill now. But we are not yet at that point, so I think people who are bringing these amendments to the floor need to understand that many of them will not survive, simply for the same reason that I said earlier, that this bill is still short of the funds necessary to fund deserving programs such as that pointed out by the gentlewoman from Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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