Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. 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 am familiar with the NYSP program given the fact of that the University of Wisconsin-Superior in my district hosted a program in 2005. I acknowledge the good work that the program has accomplished, and I am looking forward to working with both the gentlemen.

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me say, I hope anything is funded on the Senate side. I would like to thank both gentlemen for their passion and attention to this program, and I will be happy to join both of you in encouraging reauthorization of this program.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. I share the gentleman's concern about the Social Security Administration budget. Since January, the committee has provided $550 million in additional resources. It has come in large part because of requests of people like yourself who have constantly reminded us of the problem. In the bill we are debating today, the committee has included over $400 million above the 2007 level and $100 million more than the administration's request. Years of underfunding SSA and the other programs in this bill, such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA, and NIH, cannot be remedied in any one year, but we are certainly doing the best we can to accelerate.

Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to continue to work with the gentleman in conference in the future to obtain the highest level possible for SSA. I know it is a very important problem.

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

Mr. OBEY. Earlier today, the gentleman had a previous amendment which tried to put money in a worthy program, and I expressed then my concern about the offset. I must do the same thing on this occasion. The point I'm making is while I certainly understand why the gentleman wants to add the funds that he wants to add, I simply cannot continue to buy into the idea that we can take all of these items out of administrative budgets. It simply is not responsible. Of course, I don't think it is responsible for the White House to claim that this bill is underfunded either. These programs are very good programs. But Members are going through this elaborate dog and pony show, or some would call it cock and bull story, because they are prevented from doing what they know should really happen, which is we should be expanding some of these programs without gouging others. I simply cannot support this amendment and I would not at all urge Members to vote for it not because the funding that the gentleman seeks isn't worthy, but because the solution that the gentleman lays out isn't real, unless you think that we can have agencies run programs with no desks and no lights and no phones and no personnel, nobody to cut the checks and no policy direction. So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time and regretfully indicate my opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that I will only take 2 minutes to discuss. It eliminates all funds for AmeriCorps. It denies opportunities to 73,000 individuals to earn college assistance awards through serving their community. It may not suit the gentleman's fancy that these folks volunteer and are paid, but I would suggest that it's a whole lot better than having people who don't volunteer at all. Secondly, the gentleman cites what he considers to be abuses of the program. You know, when I looked at the Congress, I've seen abuse by Mr. Cunningham, I've seen abuse by Mr. Ney. In the old days, I saw abuse by Mr. Hayes, and a few other Members, but you know what, I didn't see anybody move to shut down the entire Congress because of the abuses of a few idiots. And I would suggest that we ought to apply the same standards to AmeriCorps that we apply to the Congress.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read all amendments so that we know which ones are at the desk. I think both the minority and the majority would like to know that.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, what this amendment does is eliminate all of the funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I think that would be a very ill-advised thing to do. This Congress has spoken on funding for that organization many times. It has had strong support, often bipartisan support. The gentleman complains about the fact that it is advance funded. It is advance funded for two reasons: number one, so that you can assure some kind of political independence from political pressure, and, secondly, because programmers need advance time in order to plan their programming. The advance funding concept was begun 31 years ago by that notorious big spender Jerry Ford when he was President, my good friend, my good buddy. If this amendment passes, 1,150 public radio and TV stations will be hurt. That will fall especially hard on rural stations. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think we ought to do anything that would lead us 1 inch more toward a world in which the only kind of news we got was from the commercial stations feeding us the lately breathless news about Britney Spears, Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell. I would like to see a little bit better than that, and I think we get it from public broadcasting. As far as the gentleman talking about taxes, we have seen Republican after Republican march down here like good little young Republicans in their college days repeating their mantra about taxes when this bill has nothing to do with taxes. They are all dutifully parroting their words like the Chinese used to do from Mao's Little Red Book. It's no more impressive now than it was then. Let me just simply say that for someone to support spending $600 billion on the war in Iraq and spend $57 billion in tax cuts for millionaires and then somehow to suggest that the 2 percent difference in this bill between the President and us somehow has something to do with fiscal irresponsibility is a joke. The American people know it, and so do the Members of this House. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I indicated, when I offered this amendment, that I would vote ``present.'' And the reason I want to do that is because I want every Member of this House to vote for or against this bill on final passage on the basis of what they think of it on the merits. And I want, both by my ``present'' vote and by my comments here, to make it perfectly clear to Members on both sides of the aisle that no matter how they vote on the issue of earmarks and no matter how they vote on the issue of substance, I don't intend to let one affect the other. I don't care whether Members vote to include earmarks or exclude them. And I will not do what was done to us 3 years ago when, after we voted against the Labor-H bill because we thought it provided inadequate funding for many national responsibilities, that virtually every single one of the earmarks for Democrats were stripped from the bill because of that vote. So as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm in charge of this subcommittee, there will be no log-rolling with respect to this issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is an individual vote of conscience and of practical judgment on the part of each Member of the House. With respect to the record of Congress, Congress has earmarked funds since the beginning of the Republic. At least four of the appropriation bills are, by their nature, project oriented, so they must contain congressional earmarks. And I want to point out, if we're going to start making comparisons, the HHS Department, just 2 years ago, had $1.9 billion in funds that they shoveled out without being shoveled out on a competitive basis. That is the same, that is the executive branch functional equivalent earmarking. It is directed spending, whether it occurs in the Congress or in the executive branch. And the action of that Department alone represented direct spending in the amount seven times as large as the amount contained in this bill tonight on behalf of the Congress. So I want Members to vote however you want. But as I said, as far as I'm concerned, this is a put-up-or-shut-up amendment. If you want earmarks, vote for them. If you don't, vote against them. Either way I'll be a happy man. Madam Chairman, I yield back.

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

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, Madam Chairman, that there is nothing in the world more deadly than a dull science teacher. I know from long, personal experience, and so does one of my sons. Let me say that this earmark is meant to correct that problem in at least one area of the country. The funds that are attacked by this amendment are for the Bay Area Science Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Improvement Initiative, which supports the professional development of the K-12 science teacher workforce of the Bay Area, with a particular focus on the needs of underserved schools. These funds would be used for professional development programs consisting of summer workshops and academic year follow-up activities for 500 science education teachers, online professional development activities, and curriculum development. This initiative is being conducted by the Exploratorium, a private, nonprofit science museum in San Francisco. It is a longstanding program of professional development for science teachers. It has been awarded more National Science Foundation grants than any other museum. Those funds will significantly increase the number of teachers served. Recruitment and retention of science teachers is a major problem in the Bay Area, with over 50 percent of new science teachers leaving the workforce within 5 years, causing ongoing shortages, particularly in high-poverty urban school districts. It is estimated that in the Bay Area urban school districts, more than 40 percent of high school teachers, 60 percent of middle school teachers, and 90 percent of newly hired science teachers are teaching at least one science course for which they are not technically qualified. High school science students in schools serving large minority populations are twice as likely to be taught by an unqualified teacher, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This program is consistent with the bipartisan White House and Congressional Priorities for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, the STEM program, and the U.S. Competitiveness Initiative. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, as you know, I have been less than enthusiastic about virtually every amendment offered here today, but this is one exception. I want to congratulate the dean of the House. He has been a lion for all of the years he has been here in defending Social Security and in pursuing the goal of universal health care for every American. Before that, his father played the same role. I am pleased to see that he is carrying on the tradition. For a moment, when the gentleman from Michigan explained this amendment to me, I had doubts about supporting it. But then I recognized the legitimacy of the gentleman's concern, especially because the gentleman in the Social Security Administration in question had been appointed through a recess appointment. I felt that that process was an indication of disrespect for the congressional prerogatives of this body, or I should say the other body. To express what I mean, I want to simply remind Members that several weeks ago when the amendment was offered by Mr. Emanuel to eliminate funding for the Office of the Vice President, I voted against that amendment because I thought that members of one institution in the government owe a certain degree of respect to the other institution, even if you don't especially care for the policies of the people who run that institution. When the Vice President and I talked about the issue, I told him that the reason I had voted that way was simply because there were at least some people in this body still left who respected other institutions of government. I wish that the administration had demonstrated the same respect for this institution when they allowed this gentleman in question to be appointed through a recess appointment without confirmation. When a program as vital as Social Security is at stake, I think that rather than lecturing each other about how we find a middle road to solve long-term problems of that program, I think the best way to find that middle road is to walk it and to look for ways to cooperate institutionally with the other branch of government. That is certainly what the White House chose not to do in this instance. It is for that reason that I think that the gentleman's amendment is a wise one, because it reminds both bodies of the need to respect each other's prerogatives. Sometimes they need to be forcibly reminded of that which this amendment would do. Madam Chairman, I therefore urge its adoption.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.