Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would be willing to constrain his remarks, we would be willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Again, same deal; if the gentleman will constrain his remarks, we would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, once again we demonstrate the strangeness of the administration's statement of policy on this bill. This amendment would add $40 million to TRIO. We have already added $40 million above the amount that the President asked for for that program. It is a worthy program. The President also eliminated the funding for the other account that the gentleman wants to increase in this amendment. The President zeroed out the geriatrics program. The committee restored $32 million. So in both of these accounts, we are significantly above the President's budget; and yet we get another amendment from the other side of the aisle seeking to raise a worthy program. Now he seeks to pay for it by cutting, among other sources, AmeriCorp. I am a little confused by that because just a few minutes ago the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut had an amendment to try to add money for AmeriCorp. The House turned that down. Frankly, had I realized that the gentleman's amendment was going to be offered, in this instance I probably would have accepted the gentleman's amendment from Connecticut because I don't think it makes sense to reduce AmeriCorp, which has already been cut $9.2 million below last year, although I admit they do have carryover funds of $8 million. I guess what I am saying is I don't intend to stand in the way of this amendment, but it once again illustrates that when the administration claims that this bill is profligate, it is in fact far off the mark. Virtually every single amendment being offered today is being offered for the purpose of increasing funding for what is described as a worthy program. Now, yes, in order to pretend that we are all equally focused on the same things, they say that they have an offset. But it is clear that the offset is a secondary motivation and the primary motivation is to raise funding for these programs, and I think it indicates that the committee has been far from profligate when it has set the funding levels that we have set in this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chair, this is another one of those ``let's pretend'' devices that I guess we are going to be afflicted with the next 2 days. This amendment doesn't do nothing to nobody, and it doesn't do nothing for somebody. The fact is that it pretends to move $37 million out of this account, and then it puts $37 million back into this account and pretends that something has been accomplished. There is no congressional direction that I know of that's being accomplished by this amendment. There is no consensus about what it does. It makes no changes in either the bill or the report. As a practical matter, it doesn't do anything except let somebody pretend that they have just done something for nurses' education. If it makes you feel good to play a ``let's pretend'' game, go ahead and vote for it. But let's not kid ourselves. This amendment is not a real amendment. It has no real impact. It pretends to have an increase. It has, in fact, no offset. It's simply a shell game. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Same deal as we have offered several times earlier today. If the gentleman is willing to shorten his remarks, we are willing to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further, that is a very quaint interpretation of the House rules. And, nonetheless, it does not at all address the fact that the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill, which I assume as a good conservative, the gentleman would be opposed to.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3043, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3043 pursuant to House Resolution 547, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future strength of this country and its working families. We strengthen the country when we strengthen our families. We strengthen our country when we invest in workers to have the most competitive workforce in the world. The decisions we make in any one year are not decisive. But if we do not think in long term, if we do not recognize the kind of country we will be in 10 years, we will not make the investments necessary to prepare for that world and we will be shortchanging the future of every American. Because he has chosen to put his desire to give $50 billion in tax breaks to those make $1 million a year, and his desire to spend $140 billion on Iraq ahead of those investments, the President has chosen to cut those investments by this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real terms. This bill rejects most of those cuts because we cannot disinvest in the country's future without hurting national security and the future of every American family. Instead of cutting $7.5 billion, as the President requested, we eliminate or cut 41 programs, saving $1.1 billion. We then increase investments in critical programs by about $4.5 billion in real terms, or 2.8 percent over last year, after adjusting for inflation and population change. Now, why do we do that? Because in 10 years there will be 27 million more Americans, 12 million more seniors needing health care, 2.7 million more kids in elementary and secondary school, 2.2 million more students in college, 11 million more Americans will be without health insurance, unless we wise up and wake up and change our policies. And within 7 years, half of the Nation's job growth will be in occupations requiring higher education skills. To meet those challenges, with this bill we target modest increases to crucial high priority activities to attack deficits in worker training, deficits in health care, deficits in education access. On a bipartisan basis, without a dissenting vote, we've provided $450 million above the President's inadequate request for Title I to help an additional 155,000 disadvantaged students. Instead of wiping out every student aid program except Pell and Work Study, we rejected the President's cuts and raised the maximum Pell Grant by $650 over the last year to help over 5 million students go to college. We reversed the 3-year decline in Federal support for special education. Mr. Walsh, the ranking member of this subcommittee, has taken a leadership role in that regard. We reversed the President's cuts in teacher training. We provided new after-school opportunities for 163,000 more students. On health care, nobody has ever come up to me at home and said, ``Obey, why don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'' But that's exactly what Congress did the last 2 years, cutting NIH research grants by over 500 grants. Well, we've stopped that. In January, we reversed the President's cuts and this bill adds another $1 billion above the President's request, which would again cut research grants. We have also included a package of five initiatives to put health care within the reach of more than 2 million additional Americans; $200 million to expand access to health and dental care at community health centers, $75 million to help States expand health coverage for targeted populations, $50 million to help States provide affordable health insurance for 200,000 people who are medical high risks and cannot get insurance from the private market, $20 million to help trade impacted workers benefit from the Health Coverage Tax credit, and added funding to help Medicare beneficiaries to get health insurance counseling. Because of high energy prices, we have added $880 million to the President's request for low income heating assistance, reversing half the cut Congress and the President made last year. To discourage abortions, instead of lecturing, we provide a $1.4 billion package of incentives to provide real world help to women through expanded Head Start, child care, domestic violence programs, maternal and child health care, family planning and abstinence programs. To help workers, we reverse the President's cuts in a range of workforce training programs. We also provide a $100 million increase above the President to help reduce Social Security claims backlogs and to keep more Social Security offices open. Now the President claims that this bill amounts to runaway spending. Fact: From 1980 to today, domestic appropriations, as a percentage of total national income, have declined hugely. The President's budget would cut them to a level 48 percent below the 1980 level, and by 2012, to a level 57 percent below 1980. That's hardly runaway growth. That is a steady bleed of America's quality of life and America's future. For the President to borrow $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts, and $600 billion to pay for Iraq, including another $140 billion next year, and then pretend that this modest 2 percent difference with him is the cause of fiscal irresponsibility is sheer nonsense, and many enlightened Republicans know it. These investments are not just fiscally responsible, they are necessary for the future health and strength of the Nation. One other point. We will today hear complaints about earmarks in this bill. Let us be clear, the last time Congress was in Democratic hands there were no earmarks in this bill. Under Republican rule, they exploded from zero to over 3,000. This bill has cut back the dollar level for earmarks to half the level in the 2006 bill. Exactly two-tenths of 1 percent of the total funding in this bill go for congressionally directed earmarks. And let me also point out that the amount of dollars in spending directed by the Congress is a tiny fraction of the amount directed by the Administration. First, for instance, the Administration in this bill requests specific earmarks, $10 million for Reach Out and Read, $10 million for Teach for America, $9 million for the Points of Light Foundation, $4.5 million for America's Promise, $1.7 million for the Mind and Body Institute, $1.4 million for the YMCA. On top of that, in 2006 alone, the Health and Social Services Department directed spending of $1.9 billion through 21,000 contracts that were less than fully competed. That alone is more than seven times the amount of congressionally directed spending in this bill. In the Labor Department, 90 percent of discretionary funding for the High Growth Job Training Program was spent on a noncompetitive basis. The Office of Inspector General found that the Education Department strong-armed State and local school districts to select textbooks from favored publishers. Madison, Wisconsin, in my own State, lost its $2 million Reading First grant because they refused to purchase texts from an inferior program. Yet, the most thoroughly evaluated programs, like Success for All and Reading Recovery, were frozen out by the program administrators. ABC reported that one publisher with good connections at the White House saw its corporate net worth rise from $5 million to $360 million, with a little help from their friends. The Office of Inspector General has made criminal references to the Justice Department, and we have cut Reading First until the Administration changes its ways. So I would simply say, Madam Chairman, spare us the Administration's sanctimony about earmarks or directed spending, and please spare us the pretense that this bill has anything to do with the fiscal mess this country faces. It is a disciplined set of investments. Virtually every Republican amendment in committee did not seek to cut funding, rather it sought to increase it. I appreciate the bipartisan support for the bill in committee. I appreciate the partnership with Mr. Walsh, the ranking member. People who have reviewed it most closely, Republicans and Democrats alike, know this bill is responsible and disciplined. Just one comparison. The Administration's defense request, even without counting the $140 billion in new money that they're asking for in their supplemental, that defense bill is still $43 billion above last year, which is at least four times as large as the difference between the committee and the Congress on this bill. I would urge every Member who thinks about this country's future to support this bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY07.021 Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would also like to take this time to thank all of the staff people who worked on this bill, most especially Rob Nabors, Christina Hamilton, John Daniel, Lesley Turner, Kirstin Brost, Cheryl Smith, Sue Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Muftiah McCartin, Teri Bergman, Andria Oliver, Beth Chaney, Steve Crane, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Ron Anderson, and the associate staff as well. We certainly could not have put together the bill without them, and without them we would be making a whole lot more mistakes than we are likely to make today. Madam Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Frankly, Madam Chairman, I was filibustering in hopes that the majority leader would arrive, but he is in the middle of a meeting and can't make it. So let me simply second the comments of the gentleman from New York. I think this is a good bipartisan product. I think we can work with the Senate to produce a bill which people on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol can support with pride.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Madam Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who just offered the amendment, but I have to say this is exactly the wrong thing for the Congress to do at this time. The gentleman's amendment tries to restore $75 million to probably the most troubled program in this bill. As the gentleman has indicated, we have had six different audits by the Office of Inspector General. He has discovered that the Department of Education tried to steer billions of dollars in Reading First funds for the purchase of certain reading textbooks and assessments in order to benefit favored publishers and individuals. I don't think the Congress ought to stand for that. I would also point out that the OIG found out that the Department of Education administrators improperly promoted commercial reading programs in potential violation of Federal law. And this did not just occur in my own State, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, it occurred in Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey. States in districts with programs that were not on the Department's preferential list were either rejected for grants or pressured to change their methods, even though some argued, as did my own State, that their programs met the law's standard. What is most ironic is this is supposed to be a peer reviewed program, and yet the programs that have demonstrably shown the best performance levels were frozen out of the program, including Bob Slaven's program at Johns Hopkins that has generally been reviewed as one of the best in the country. Yet, they were virtually invited out the door by the DOE. In addition to the fact that we certainly should not be rewarding the administration for the way they have handled this program, the gentleman seeks to finance this program by taking $43 million out of job training for ex-offenders. We cannot afford to have criminals reentering society with inadequate job training that provides them with incentives to renew their lives of crime. We need to provide as much training as possible, and the gentleman scales that back dramatically. And, lastly, I must confess I'm a bit confused. In the full committee, I accepted an amendment from Mr. Peterson, a valued member of our subcommittee, who wanted to add $25 million for vocational education above my mark. I accepted it because I thought he made a good case. Now we're being asked to take out $23 million of the money that Mr. Peterson successfully added in the subcommittee. I don't think that's a wise thing to do. There will be plenty of time in conference to restore funding for Reading First, provided that the administration and provided that the agency demonstrates that it's shaped up and it's no longer following the same habits. But at this point, you have the same contractors still in place, you have the same conflicts still at large, and I don't think under these circumstances that this Congress wants to support the kind of shenanigans that we've seen in that Reading First program. And, on behalf of the integrity of the taxpayers' dollar, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and I'm surprised that CMS would consider issuing a final decision when the FDA has not completed its scientific review. I would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman during conference on the issue.

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