Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, again, I feel required to make the same comments that I made on a previous amendment that was offered about one-half hour ago. This amendment seeks to do a very worthy thing: It seeks to increase support for respite care. God knows, having watched my mother-in-law for 7 years, having watched my father-in-law take care of her every day, God knows that anyone who has ever seen something like that understands that we need a lot more respite care. But having said that, I want again to use this amendment to illustrate what is happening on this bill, because here is what the amendment says: Page 63, line 4: After the first dollar amount insert, reduce by $20 million, increase by $20 million. Now, what the amendment really does is simply to serve as a vehicle by which these two worthy Members can raise the issue that there is not enough money in this bill for respite care. And you know what? There isn't. And there isn't enough money in this bill for CDC; there isn't enough money in this bill for NIH; there isn't enough money in this bill for education; there isn't enough money in this bill for Pell Grants; there is not enough money in this bill to sufficiently reduce the Social Security backlog; there is not enough money in this bill to keep all the Social Security offices open that are closing around the country. And, yet, the administration is sending out a letter telling Members of Congress that they ought to vote against this bill because there is too much money. Now, I don't fault the two gentlemen at all for using this device in order to raise their concerns; it is about the only thing they can do. But the fact is, as chairman of this committee, I have an obligation to point out to the House and to the occasional other person who might be listening that Members are being forced to go through these kinds of machinations because instead of meeting our obligations to the most needy people, the most vulnerable people in this society, we are instead squirting away billions of dollars on an Iraq war and billions more dollars in tax cuts for persons who make over $1 million a year. The day that we decide not to do that, the day that we decide that we are not going to spend $150 billion more in Iraq this year, the day that we decide that we are not going to put tax cuts for millionaires ahead of the needs of our disabled and ahead of the needs of our isolated seniors, then that is the day when amendments like this will be real, because then there will be sufficient room in the budget to do what we ought to be doing on these programs. Again, I will not stand in the way of this amendment because it is a worthy cause. But, understand, this is not a real offset; it doesn't add any new money to this account; and when we go to conference, we are going to have to jettison much of what is adopted on the floor because, like this amendment, in reality, because of budget constraints, it ain't real. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I want to underscore that I agree with my friend from New York and to emphasize that in parts of my own State, school districts face similar problems. In fact, I would bet this problem exists all over the country. Furthermore, I understand that school districts face a similar issue with respect to the test scores of students receiving special education services. So I'd like to suggest to the gentleman from New York that we sign a joint letter to the authorizing committee requesting that they address this serious issue in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization that they're expected to soon consider.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I must confess a certain degree of confusion about this amendment. I always had the impression that good Republicans like block grants, and I also had the impression that thoughtful Republicans favor as much local control as possible. And yet this amendment would have us running in the opposite direction. What this amendment would do is it would take the dollars in question out of a program which provides aid to all States in the Union and instead reserve that money for use in just the few States who have bought into the approach that is supported by these two gentlemen. One of my favorite quotations is from Eric Sevareid, who used to be on CBS News a few years ago, and he said, ``It is important to maintain the courage of one's doubts in an age of dangerous certainties.'' And I have to say that I have a lot of doubts about what is the most effective way to teach children. I don't think I have all the answers. I don't think this House has all the answers. So I don't think we ought to be dictating to States what answers they seek in their teacher quality programs. The virtue of the committee approach, as opposed to the approach suggested by the amendment, is that States can use the money in the block grant as it is provided in the committee bill and they can use it for any variety of techniques, including the one that is being promoted by the two gentlemen pushing this amendment. It seems to me that at a time when we are already questioning the rigidity of No Child Left Behind, and I must confess I voted for No Child Left Behind but with serious reservations and I will not vote to renew it unless those reservations are corrected, but it just seems to me that at a time when we are recognizing that No Child Left Behind is needlessly rigid, we should not be piling on to that rigidity with additional pieces of our own. So with that I would simply urge Members to allow States to continue to have the flexibility that they have under the committee approach, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and would move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. There are two problems I have with this amendment. First of all, it seeks to cut $10 million from an item in the bill which is meant to establish full-service community schools. These are supposed to be schools which test the concept of making schools neighborhood centers which include early childhood education, remedial education, academic enrichment activities, programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy, mentoring and other youth development programs. It's meant to be a much more holistic educational experience than is usually found in an individual school. We believe that that deserves an opportunity to be tested. Secondly, I would simply say that, lest this amendment be portrayed as an amendment that does anything significant for special education, I want to point out that this is an especially marginal amendment. The damage it does to the neighborhood school concept that we are trying to explore in the bill is far larger than the negligible impact that it has on the special education program. What I mean by that is this: Special education is an $11 billion program. This amendment adds $10 million to it. It is another one of those symbolic amendments which I think ought to be placed in context. The committee has already increased this account by $500 million. It is $800 million above the President, and it seems to me that, by comparison, the amendment is demonstrably but a blip on the radar screen in comparison to the funds that we have already put in this bill. Now, I know that many of these amendments can be offered, and they can be converted into nice, sweetly packaged 30-second TV spots which tend to leave the impression that a Member has done something significant. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't fit into that category of being significant, and it may make a very good television spot, but I doubt it's going to be very meaningful in the scheme of things. I would ask for a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that his party did not lose the last election because they did too much for education. Rather, they lost the last election, in my view, because the public so clearly understood that their party preferred to put spending $57 billion in tax cuts for people who make over $1 million to providing decent funding for education. And the public understood that the other party preferred to spend $600 billion in Iraq rather than spending a small portion of that at home for science and health care and the like to meet some of the needs of our own people. That is why the gentleman's party lost the last election, not because they did too much for education but because they were out of touch. Having said that, let me simply say that this amendment eliminates funding for the National Writing Project. I would simply point out that this program supports teacher training programs so that teachers can help students write effectively and school districts match those funds dollar for dollar. I must say all of us have large turnover of our staff here on Capitol Hill. The number one problem that I have in my office and the number one problem I have heard so many other Members comment on is that when young people come in and interview for jobs, they don't know how to write. When both of my sons went away to college, at least my oldest son asked me, ``Dad, what do you think is the most important thing to learn?'' And I said, I think the most important thing to learn is how to write because if you can write clearly, it means you are thinking clearly, and if you are thinking clearly, it means you can communicate. And I would say that I don't think that this country is over blessed with a number of great writers. I also must say if you listen to some of the congressional speeches written by our staffs, you would certainly agree that we need more help in writing in this country. So let me simply say that I understand that we are engaged in a little filibuster by amendment. But nonetheless, I wanted to take this time to simply urge Members to vote against this amendment. If you believe in raising the quality of discourse in this country, you have to start with writing, and that is what this program tries to do. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I would ask that the Clerk read the amendment. We don't have a copy.

Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my reservation of the point of order and move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the House one question: Do we really know everything that we need to know about how children learn? Do we really know enough about how children learn to guarantee that every child will perform to their maximum ability and potential? I think the answer to that is obvious: we obviously don't. There is no great political constituency for educational research. But you know it's a funny thing, in any field of endeavor, research is what separates bull gravy from intelligent approaches to issues. That's what research does: it helps lead one to a right understanding of a problem. What this amendment is, frankly, it's another television ad. What this amendment does is to pretend that it does no damage to education by eliminating $50 million out of the educational research budget. It then puts it into special education. We have a lot of posing for holy pictures on this floor by Members who are trying to escape the fact that the White House is asking them to vote against this bill because the White House claims there is too much money in the bill when, in fact, every single one of these amendments demonstrates that our own Republican Members know that there is not enough money in this bill to fund programs like special education unless you make damaging cuts to other portions of the bill. And I would suggest that we not do that. The President cut special education in his budget by $291 million. We have added $800 million in the committee bill to that, and we're $509 million over last year. I would also point out that this is a 10 percent cut, if this amendment passes, in the research account. And I would point out that this amendment would cut the National Center for Education Statistics, which is the premier educational statistical operation in the country. This amendment would even cut Federal research funds for special education. Do we really know so much about the needs of special education kids that we're going to cut that research? I don't think so. I think the responsible vote is ``no,'' and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if anybody remembers these words: ``Whatsoever you do for the least of your brethren, you do for Me.'' I wonder if anybody remembers those words? This amendment is truly amazing to me. This amendment is offered by a Member of the House, who, like me, any time he has an ache or a pain or a toothache or is having a bad day, can trot down to the Attending Physician and have the doctors and the nurses check us over to make sure that we are in peachy keen shape. But what does this amendment say? This amendment says to some of the poorest people in the country, our migrant and our farm workers, sorry, you can't have vocational rehabilitation services if you've got a physical problem. I would like to ask every Member of this House, have you ever picked cucumbers during the summer? Have you ever picked beans? Well, I have. I can tell you it is darn hard work. I used to represent a county by the name of Waushara County--wall to wall irrigation and crops like cucumbers and beans. I used to watch those migrant workers come in and work their tails off to get a few bucks. Are we really so stingy? Are we really so utilitarian that we are willing to say to workers like that, sorry, Members of Congress are important, so they can get taken care of whenever they have got a physical problem. But oh no, don't you dare waste the taxpayers' money when it comes to some poor devil in the migrant stream or when it comes to their family or kids. You want to vote for this amendment? You go right ahead. Count me out.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to figure out what we ought to be calling these amendments that have been offered for 2 days. I have concluded that we ought to call them the congressional rubber- stamp amendments, because what is happening is we are seeing amendment after amendment offered that would simply return these funding levels to the exact level recommended by the President. Now I see story after story indicating that a good many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are anxious to separate themselves from the President these days, but we have evidently a few members of their caucus who are eager to embrace virtually every action and every thought that comes from the White House. I find that very interesting. The President felt we ought to eliminate this program. What does this program do? This program provides $60 million in grants to States to offer needs-based student scholarships. There are 165,000 students who will benefit from this program, getting scholarships of $1,000. I would simply ask, does anybody really believe that we are providing enough help for working families to send their kids to college? The Pell Grant program is the major program upon which we rely in order to help students from lower and middle-income families find enough money to go on to college. When that program was in its heyday in the seventies, it provided over 70 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public university. It provided help in the form of a Pell Grant to meet that percentage of the cost. Today, it is down to a little over 30 percent of the cost. So we have shifted a huge percentage of the cost to working families. The President's answer in his budget this year was to move Pell Grants from one side of the budget to the other making it, instead of a discretionary program, a mandatory program and in the process decided he was going to pay for the increase in the Pell Grants by eliminating virtually every other student aid program on the books except Pell and Work Study. I would suggest if you think that is a good idea, go ahead, follow the President over the cliff and vote to deny these 165,000 students the additional help they need. The money that we invest in student aid is returned to this country many times over. We are in a competitive world. Over 50 percent of the jobs that will be offered in this country in the next 7 years are jobs that will require a higher education, and it seems to me instead of running away from that obligation, we ought to be embracing it. This is a very bad idea. I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. The unanimous-consent agreement under which we are now operating means that there will be at least 13 hours of debate on amendments that are contemplated being offered. In addition to the 13 hours that that will take, you almost have to allow for 4 or 5 hours of slippage because of the time it takes for recognition and things like that. So that means that we will have approximately 18 hours, not counting votes, as I calculate it, to dispose of all of the items contained in the unanimous consent request. Members further need to understand that we will not be on this bill tomorrow morning because the Appropriations Committee has to mark up the Agriculture appropriation bill. That means that if we stay here until 1 o'clock tonight, we might, if we get lucky and if some people decide to drop some amendments, be finished by 8 or 9 o'clock tomorrow night. I wish that we could do it sooner, but I'm not the fellow offering the amendments. So I simply want Members to be aware of what it means. What we will try to do, and I don't think this is definitely tied down, but Members should be notified shortly when it is, we will try to go until about 8 o'clock and then have another series of votes. And then those of us who are stuck on the committee or stuck offering amendments, we will have to be here after that. That's the only way that we can see about how to proceed, unless people want to be here Friday or Saturday. So, I just wanted Members to have that happy news before they go to their happy hour. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Would the Clerk read the amendment so we can understand what it is?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if you think that there is too much education in this country, then vote for this amendment. If you think that we could use more help to people trying to get an education, then you vote against it. I think that the only thing wrong with this program in the eyes of the White House is the name of the man that's attached to the program, the distinguished Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia. He sponsored this program, which provides needs-based scholarships all over the country, some 15,000 of them. I happen to think that's a good thing. I think the recipients certainly think it's a good thing. I think the working families of the recipients think it's a good thing. The gentleman says that the White House Budget Office has ranked this program as ``not determined'' in terms of effectiveness. I would remind you, this is the same White House that is claiming that the surge in Iraq has shown great progress. I hardly think that their judgment ought to serve as the standing judgment of the House. I also note, by the way, that the White House also ranks as ``effectiveness not being determined'' IDEA preschool grants, and IDEA Grants for Infants and Families. We've had several efforts on the part of people on that side of the aisle today to increase funding for IDEA. I didn't see them stopping then because the White House didn't think that was such a hot idea. I also see the White House ranks the Federal Work Study program as being ``not determined'' in terms of adequacy. With all due respect, I think this country needs all the education it can get. I think it needs all the student aid it can get. And I would therefore urge rejection of the amendment.

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

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

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, this amendment, like so many others offered today, demonstrates that the White House is incredibly off base when they tell us that this bill is over-funded. This bill is about 2.5 percent in real terms above last year. The fact that it is so tight and still falls so short of meeting many needs is evidenced by the fact that we have this kind of amendment before us. The only difference between this amendment and several others is that the others have been coming from the minority side of the aisle and this one happens to come from the majority side of the aisle. But let me simply say that I fully appreciate where the gentleman wants to put the money. It is a good place to put it. There are many other good places to put it. The problem is that it is simply not real to believe that you can decimate the administrative budget of the Department of Education as much as this amendment does. I am not going to ask people to vote one way or another on this, because no matter which way you vote, you will be wrong, because this amendment, because of the squeeze that we are in, because of the tremendous demand for education help in this country, no matter what you do, someone will be shortchanged. It is either the department that is supposed to administer the programs or the programs themselves. So I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. I cannot honestly say I endorse the amendment, because of the problems, but I think the gentleman's amendment lays out clearly how inadequate this bill still is in terms of meeting the country's responsibilities, especially to those folks in our population who are not, shall we say, the top dogs. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.