Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say that I have only been to Alaska once in my life. I have certainly never been in an Alaskan school. But my grandfather taught me a long time ago, and I'm sure you have heard this many times in your own lives, but he used to say that nothing is more expensive in the long run than a badly educated child. And I don't care if that child comes from New Jersey or Wisconsin or Hawaii or Alaska, a badly educated child is a menace to society. Why, just imagine a badly educated child could grow up to be elected as a Member of Congress from New Jersey or Wisconsin. They could come into this Chamber filled full of all sorts of half-baked ideas, and the Congress would be plagued with having to spend hours and hours dealing with those ideas. I'm sure I've presented a few of the bad ideas myself to this House in that time. The point is that Alaska may seem remote and far away, but the fact is that there are special children who do have special needs. Does anyone really believe that we are spending enough on Indian education programs around the whole country, for instance? And yet, we're told by the administration that we ought to eliminate the program for Alaska Native students because they benefit from the Indian education programs. Well, I've got tribes in my own State, and I know how inadequate some of those schools are, though they're trying the best they can. I would simply say that if the authorizing committee wants to deauthorize this program, then fine, but I see no purpose right now in singling out one special group of children for exclusion from this bill and this account. I can think of a lot of things that go on in Alaska that I would just assume see stopped before I would see them stop educating children with special needs. I wish that they would take a different approach, for instance, on their highway aids. I think that their lack of judgment on that score has embarrassed the entire Congress. But I don't think that the Indian children or the Native Alaskan children who are educated under this should wind up being the principal victims of that action by the State of Alaska. I sense in this House that people are touchy about voting for anything for Alaska since that happened. Well, I don't want these kids to be unlucky enough to run into accidents that started out to happen to somebody else. So it seems to me that the wise course is to reject the gentleman's amendment and allow the authorizing committee to determine whether or not this program ought to continue or not. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. I just want to thank the gentleman for bringing to the attention of the House again the fact that the authorizing committees have failed to do so much work in past years.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. The purpose of the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program is to fairly compensate our Nation's former nuclear workers for illnesses they contracted while serving our country. Former Department of Energy employees who are now elderly and ill have been subjected to bureaucratic run-arounds by the agencies responsible for adjudicating their claims. The Department of Labor is responsible for administering compensation for these former nuclear workers, and I concur with the gentleman from Iowa that a report from the Secretary detailing the administration of the compensation program would provide Congress with highly valuable insight into the agency's implementation of the program. Streamlining and expediting the method through which claims are processed and compensation provided is in the best interests of the families and claimants to whom our country owes its deepest gratitude and respect. I'd be happy to work with the gentleman to request this information from the Department and to ensure that the true intent of the program is being carried out with due diligence by the administration.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment because unless she does, we have no idea what the amendment is.

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say I agree with the gentlelady from California. The Children's GME is integral to ensuring a stable future for our children's hospitals and is a sound investment in children's health. I certainly will do everything I can to ensure that sufficient funding levels for Children's Hospitals GME are retained in conference.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank my colleague from California for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. The gentlelady is a strong advocate for the establishment of a robust and interoperable health information technology network, and I want to work with her. I will be pleased to consider this funding need should additional funds become available in conference.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read, not designated.

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

Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe my ears. I just thought I heard the gentleman say that IDEA was underfunded. I'm shocked. I've never heard the gentleman say that anything was underfunded before.

Mr. OBEY. Let me take back my time because I only have 5 minutes. But I agree with the gentleman. Many programs are underfunded in this bill. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I would certainly support the gentleman's amendment if I thought that we had all of the excellent teachers in the country that we need, but the fact is we don't. This is not a program that should be cut back or eliminated. This is a program that works. This is a program which helps teach trainers to go through rigorous certification processes. They are star teachers. They go back to their school districts, they become lead teachers in their schools, and I hardly think that that is damaging the national interest. And I must also confess a certain amount of confusion, because just about an hour ago we were told by a series of Members that we should support the teacher incentive program because we needed to incentivize teachers to increase their skills. And now we have a program that does just that and identifies teachers based on merit, and we're told we ought to cut back the program. Let me simply say that if you take a look at the way this program has been evaluated, the National Boards for Professional Teaching Standards tells us that this program raises student achievement. It inspires deeper learning. It improves teacher practice. It creates transformative professional development, and it helps these schools to retain teachers. Let me say that there is a tiny increase in this program. That increase is aimed at helping teachers from low-income schools get master teacher certification. We've been told for years that the toughest thing to do in education is to get your best teachers to go into your poorest schools or the schools in your poorest neighborhoods. This is a program that's effective in doing that. We ought not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would urge opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the House the following facts: We have been at this bill now for the better part of yesterday. We have been on this bill since 10:30 this morning, and we have been trying to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement so that Members might be able to leave here tomorrow night. I know there is a CODEL of Members going to Iraq but I want to put them on notice now. I doubt very much that you are going to make it unless you want to miss a lot of votes because as things are developing, I am told that right now, because of the insistence that a number of amendments, which we have heard time and time again, will still be subjected to 40 minutes' debate time even though there are five similar amendments, each of which will take about 40 minutes. When you calculate it all, it comes out to about 800 minutes of debate time. That means roughly 13 hours. By the time you account for slippage, the time it takes for Members to be recognized, the time it takes for them to find their amendments, you have to add about another 5 hours plus your voting time. What that means is that if we continue until 1 o'clock this morning, it will still probably be required for Members to be here until about 8 o'clock or later tomorrow night, which means that we will finish just in time for you to all miss your planes. I just wanted you to know that so that if you think that you would like to see another result, you talk to individuals who right now seem to think that 40 minutes' time on a repetitive amendment is more important than ending a filibuster by amendment. Two years ago when this bill was on the floor, it took about 12 hours. At this rate it will take about three times that amount of time. So I want Members who are coming up to me asking me about whether they are going to be able to make their planes or their CODELs, I want them to understand that if they miss them, I want them to know who to blame because it is not going to be me.

Mr. OBEY. I'm happy to engage the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern about the Social Security disability claim backlog and the hardship it has caused. Under the President's request for SSA, the disability backlog has gotten worse. The funding increase we've included in this bill will keep that from happening and will protect SSA from staffing declines that the agency has seen in recent years. I would make the point that despite the fact that we were left in a considerable mess with all of last year's domestic appropriation bills not passed when we took over, we still made SSA a priority and included $148 million over the 2006 funding level. In the bill we are debating today, we have included over $401 million above the 2007 level and $100 million more than the presidential request. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman and others, such as Mr. Arcuri, toward increasing the amount for SSA in the conference and in future years.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Walsh and I both are concerned about the problem, and we will be happy to work with you. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cooper

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.