Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I held up this sign from the well yesterday, and I will do so again today. I have the sign hanging in my office, and every time somebody comes in looking for money, I ask them to read it out loud. What the sign says is, ``What do you want us to do for someone, besides yourself, that is more important than whatever it is you want us to do for you?'' That request includes even medical researchers at universities. Now, the fact is, this bill contains $750 million over last year, and before that in the continuing resolution we added $620 million to NIH at that time. This bill is $1 billion higher than the President's request for the National Institutes of Health. Now, everybody loves the National Institutes of Health. I do too. But it does no good to any patient if we only concentrate on putting money in the National Institutes of Health and do not see to it that the information produced by the NIH is disseminated adequately to medical practitioners all over the country. It also does no good if in the process of squirreling away this money to NIH we do substantial damage to the public health programs of the United States and if we essentially wipe out the one agency which is doing the research to demonstrate to us how to produce the best treatments and how to produce cost savings that will prevent private medical care and Medicare from going bankrupt. This amendment has all of those problems. This country is consumed about out-of-control health care costs. This amendment would devastate funding for the one agency doing the research necessary to determine the best ways to deliver medical care in order to avoid bankrupting our health care system. The amendment will also devastate the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health by cutting 20 percent of the funding provided for NIOSH, the only agency in government that supports occupational safety and health research and brings that research from the laboratory into the workplace. What we are trying to do in this bill is what has been done for the last 16 years: We take a small percentage of the funds we appropriate to these agencies, and we set that aside for research and for evaluation so that we have a truly holistic approach to health care in this country. It does no good if we do lots of research in the lab and the implications of that research never get out into the doctor's office. It does no good if patients aren't given enough information so that they can question their own treatment. That is what this does. I would urge strongly, in the strongest possible terms, the rejection of this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I have been trying to figure out what to name this operation I have been watching, and I think we ought to name it ``Operation Divert Attention.'' We have heard comments on a number of occasions now, when Members are offering amendments to strike these tiny items, we constantly hear, oh, we are running a deficit, we have to be fiscally responsible. Well, if I am looking at the Record correctly, the gentleman offering this amendment voted to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq. If I take a look at the Record correctly, all three of the gentlemen who have been acting as the point men in going after these projects and in going after other small amendments today, all voted for the 2007 Republican budget resolution. I would point out it is those budget policies, and those foreign policies, which have given us, counting the supplemental this year, $600 billion in borrowed money spent on the Iraqi war in a case of mistaken identity, where the President mistook that stocky fellow with the mustache, Saddam Hussein, for that tall fellow with the beard, Osama bin Laden, and hit the wrong country by mistake. I would also say that the three gentlemen who voted for those Republican budget policies are the fellows who voted for tax policies that are watching $57 billion go out the door this year in tax cuts for millionaires. Then they try to recoup on the deficit front by saying, oh, we ought to save a little piece here and a little piece there. If they had been as concerned about the fiscal impact of their actions, voting for past budget resolutions, and voting for past war resolutions, we wouldn't be sitting here with this deficit today, and this attack on these investments would be even more chuckle-producing than this episode. 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 will just take 1 minute to observe this: The gentleman from Arizona has said, in reference to this project, enough is enough. Let me ask why don't we say enough is enough to spending $600 billion in a futile and fruitless and misguided war in Iraq? Why don't we say enough is enough in putting the needs of millionaires who are going to get $57 billion in tax cuts this year ahead of the needs of average working people with respect to investments in their education, their job training, and their community development and their health care? I think, indeed, enough is enough, but we ought to be saying that about the right things. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered would not permit the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or the Social Security Administration to pay a bonus or performance-based cash awards to Presidential appointees who are not eligible for bonuses, or to senior executive personnel who are, by definition, eligible for bonuses. Frankly, I don't understand why the gentleman would want to stop CMS or SSA from awarding employees who are eligible for bonuses if they're achieving exemplary performance. The fact is that senior executive service personnel are specifically eligible for bonuses and are paid on the basis of performance. The gentleman's amendment would overturn the entire personnel policy of the agencies. And I really don't think that makes much sense on the basis of a 10-minute debate at 10:30 at night, especially when this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. This is something which ought to be dealt with by the authorizing committee. I'm sure that many Members have frustrations with the performance of many agencies from time to time, and I'm sure sometimes we're pulling our hair, but that doesn't mean that we ought to have an across-the- board policy that penalizes people across the board because someone didn't perform up to someone else's standards. So, I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I would be happy to work with the gentleman. If there is a specific problem which can be ironed out by talking to the agency, I would be happy to help in that respect. But I don't think I will overturn the entire personnel policy of the United States for these people because one Member, on the basis of a 10-minute debate, thinks that that ought to be done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I yield back.

Mr. OBEY. Well, let me simply say I would like to be helpful to the gentleman, but my problem is that the gentleman's amendment, I believe, is subject to a point of order. I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and we could try to work together with the committee of jurisdiction to try to help get a favorable result for the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to yield very briefly, but I would emphasize ``briefly'' because we've got a lot of work to do yet tonight. I've seen people lose their amendments on the floor when they didn't accept the acceptance by the committee.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, let me simply say that I fully support the intent of the gentleman's amendment, and I think our friends on the other side of the aisle do, too. The problem is that, while this is an ongoing program, it is not an authorized program, and that means that under the rules of the House it is subject to point of order, which I'm obligated to lodge. So I would simply ask the gentleman if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment. I'm sure that both sides of the aisle would be willing to try to work between here and conference to find ways to accomplish the purpose of the gentleman's amendment, but at this time, in order to treat everyone fairly, I would feel required to lodge a point of order against the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment on this side of the aisle because we think that while it is well- intentioned, it has no impact. I would like to explain what I mean. The CDC is responsible for making recommendations for vaccines along with immunization advisory committees. But decisions on whether any vaccine should be a mandatory requirement for school admittance or matriculation is the responsibility of State and local governments and school districts. The HPV vaccine is recommended for females age 9 to 26. It protects these young women against the cause of the majority of cervical cancers. While it has been made a requirement for schools in some cities and States around the country, these decisions were made locally, not by the CDC or HHS. Because no Federal funds are used to establish such requirements, we do not object to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. I move to strike the last word

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

Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, in the interest of time, I will forgo any comments and simply say that, on this side, we have no objection to the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that I appreciate our colleagues bringing this to our attention. I know the authorizing committee is dealing with the issue at this time as well on this side of the aisle. We would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Surely.

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

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

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Let me say simply say, Madam Chairman, that the fund that the gentleman seeks to increase has been increased by 33 percent in terms of resources just over the last 4 years, and staffing for that same agency has been increased by over 25 percent. That is hardly starving an agency. I would also point out that at the same time you've had those large increases, the wage and hour division, which is supposed to enforce protection for workers on minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws, will have seen its staffing drop by over 12 percent since 2001, and the staff level at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, which protects workers from unfair employment practices by Federal contractors, will have dropped by 23 percent. So it seems to me that what the gentleman's amendment does is to enrich the one portion of the Labor Department which has been doing very well, thank you, and they have been doing very well while other portions of the Labor Department that are supposed to focus on protecting workers have, in fact, been starved. The Department's own budget justifications for the large increase that they've requested states that the acceptability rate for unions in meeting labor management reporting and disclosure reporting requirements is at 96 percent. The goal for fiscal 2008 is to raise this to 97 percent. I'd say if you are getting 96 percent, that's an A. At least it was when I went to school. Things may have changed since then. Let me also say that the place that this funding was taken from, in order to finance this increase is especially pernicious. The administration itself has asked for an 81 percent reduction in the International Labor Account. That is the program that is used in order to protect workers from having to compete against slave labor and child labor. I don't think that you help workers by weakening that program. We are simply trying to restore funding in that program that the President cut, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I don't really enjoy opposing this amendment because I think this is a good program that the gentleman seeks to expand. But let me put his amendment in context. The President of the United States tried to eliminate this program in his budget. The committee has provided $99 million for it, and for that the administration is criticizing us. I would also point out that in the last year, when the other party controlled the House of Representatives, the committee cut Even Start by $29 million. We've done none of that. We've restored the funding, and I have a great deal of confidence in the program. But I cannot support the idea of adding the additional money the gentleman proposes because he takes it from a very damaging place. Now, I know that there is no political constituency for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. No one is going to get excited if they hear that we are cutting back funding for that agency. But, in fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces the Consumer Price Index, puts together the numbers that determine the way hundreds of billions of dollars flow in this budget and flow in this economy. We are operating on the basis of an ancient Consumer Price Index. The housing component of that index, which makes up almost 30 percent of it, is some 17 years out of date, and we know there's been a lot of change in housing stock over the last 17 years. And it just seems to me that while the gentleman is citing a worthy program for adding funds, I would suggest that it would do tremendous long-term damage to this country in terms of equity if we do not update and modernize the data being produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Republicans can have their set of facts, Democrats can have their set of facts, but in the end we need to disregard both sets and we need to have statistics which underlie all of the economic decisions that we make. And it makes no sense to be proceeding on the basis of 17-year old statistics. So, much as I regret having to oppose the gentleman's amendment and much as I regret having to call Bill Goodling, who is the original sponsor of the program, to tell Bill that I couldn't support the increase in this instance, I do think that the responsible thing to do in this instance is to vote ``no.'' I forgot to mention, and far be it for me to defend the administration's Cabinet appointees. But the gentleman, as I understand it, would take a significant amount of this funding from the Department of Labor administration accounts. I would point out the administration is also complaining about the cuts we've made in the Labor Secretary's budget. Their Information and Technology Account has already been cut by 39 percent. The Office of the Secretary has already been cut by 17 percent. And we did not provide the requested funds for a core accounting system, and the administration specifically brings attention to their concerns about this. And I honestly do not think it's advisable to cut the agency even more deeply. And let me assure the gentleman that I would actually prefer that he withdraw the amendment and I'd be happy to try to work, as I'm sure the gentleman from New York would, to try to improve the Even Start position in conference. But if he has to rely on these kinds of offsets, I regret it, but I simply cannot see my way clear to support it. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.