Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I would like to have the bill read.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that request because I did not inform the gentleman ahead of time, and he just happened to get in the line of fire on something he should not have been involved in.

Mr. OBEY. Absolutely.

Mr. OBEY. I am not objecting to any bill, and I am not suggesting you did. What I am doing is using the only avenue available to me since we are operating under some very strange rules in this House to point out that even if these matters had been cleared on both sides of the aisle, there is really no way for the individual Member to protect himself if the leadership of this House is going to depart from what ought to be the custom in this place of not dictating what goes into conference reports.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am. I am not opposed to the defense portion of this budget, but I am opposed to the other provisions that I described earlier.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that I said earlier this evening when virtually nobody was here: the Republican leadership has decided that this wartime defense bill is the proper vehicle to resolve the debate on ANWR. As I said, this is not the first time that substantive legislation has been added to an appropriations bill, but it is one of the worst occasions I have ever seen. There is something especially outrageous and callous about the willingness of the majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill in a time of war to be held hostage to totally unrelated special interest items. The Defense bill ought to be about delivering equipment and supporting our troops. Instead, it is being used to deliver a multibillion dollar bonanza to the oil companies. That act represents a fundamental corruption of the integrity of the legislative process. This legislation allows one Senator to grease the skids to allow the passage of ANWR by sprinkling around money in selected accounts in this bill to buy enough votes in the Senate to assure passage. All year long, the Republican majority has squeezed programs for working people to pay for tax cuts for those most well off in our society. In the process, the House has become an assembly line for special interest legislation. This bill continues that practice. It slashes crucial activities for the government, cutting $8 billion. It cuts $4 billion out of defense. Some people will say, Don't worry about it. We will put it back in the supplemental. If that is the case, then this bill is a fraud. If it is not the case, then we run the risk of not fully funding the needs that we ought to be funding under the Defense bill. This bill, if you vote for it, will provide $1 billion less than last year for No Child Left Behind education programs. This bill will cut the Federal share of the support for special education. This bill will cut $63 million out of last year's FBI budget, slashing new hires for counterintelligence by $750 personnel. This bill will cut local law enforcement grants by $315 million below last year. The clean water revolving fund, which was previously cut by 40 percent, is cut another $214 million. Pell grants are cut by $31 million over last year. The Labor-Health-Education bill overall is $1.4 billion below last year and this bill, with the across-the-board cut, means that that bill will be $3 billion less than we provided last year. I will be offering a recommittal motion to eliminate that across-the- board cut, to eliminate those $8 billion in cuts. But I want to make two other points. We met for 5 hours today and the Senate totally misdescribed the language and the effect of their language as far as ANWR was concerned. I asked the Senate seven different questions about the effect of their language. They were erroneous in each response that they gave to me. So after the conference was over they had to go back and rewrite that entire section of the bill. Then they told us in writing that there would be no language, no language with respect to indemnification of the pharmaceutical companies, and then they produced 41 pages, 41 pages of language at the last minute at the instruction of the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader. They said, oh, this was just a last-minute thing. We did not know we were going to have to do it. However, if you look at the documentation, it was prepared at 11:30 yesterday, and I do not mean Sunday, I mean Saturday. So I want Members of the House to understand what you are doing here is to take away anyone who gets sick or dies, you are taking away their right to sue. You are telling them instead, you can go to the government and get compensation, and then they provide no money in the compensation fund. It is an outrageous rip-off and I wish it were not in the bill, but it is. So all I want to say is I cannot do anything about that, but I am offering a motion to recommit, as I have just described, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the recommittal motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want Members of the House, at least those who are around, to understand what the controversy has been with respect to this continuing resolution today. Let me back up even further. As the gentleman has indicated, the House Appropriations Committee was able to pass every bill through the House before we left for the August recess. Despite that fact, for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the Appropriations Committee, the fact is that, today, we are 2 months into the fiscal year and the Department of Defense and the Departments of Labor, Health, Education and Social Services still have not received their funding for the year under a regular appropriation bill. That means that about 65 percent of the discretionary spending in the budget still has not been tied down for the coming year. That is not just a problem in Washington. It means that local people cannot plan. It means that school boards cannot plan. It means that the Pentagon cannot plan. And it discombobulates everybody. This is not the first time it has happened, but it is certainly one of the most troubling episodes that we have had in a long time. I think we are here with so little of this work finished because I really do believe that the leadership of the House has tried to impose an agenda on the House and on the Senate which is so extreme that even members of their own majority party have rebelled. Example: We take a look at what happened on the PATRIOT Act. Example: We take a look at the inability to pass the labor health bill, first in the House and now in the Senate. It seems to me that a little more flexibility on the part of the House leadership could have resolved a lot of those problems. Anyway, to bring us up to date, 10 minutes before the House opened today, we were informed on this side of the aisle that the continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for these agencies who have not yet received their funding, we received notice that a decision had been made to change the effective date of the continuing resolution, which meant that it would be extended through February 15 rather than simply to the end of the year. It is one thing to provide a short extension so that the President has the ability to review legislation passed by the Congress before he signs it. It is quite another to try to leverage one group or another into a severe disadvantage with respect to some of this funding. The problem with extending the CR to February 15 is that it creates a number of anomalies in both funding for the Defense Department and in the funding for the social service agencies which I do not think this Congress wants to be responsible for. The problem with allowing the Pentagon, for instance, to continue on a CR, which is what would happen, the problem is that, at the levels under this CR, the military would be expected to run out of money for Iraq operations in January. That could create some significant problems for them. In addition, Pentagon contracts could be significantly delayed. Now, that could be overcome if we do manage to pass the Defense Appropriations Bill, and I hope we do, but we still would have a major problem with funding in the Labor-Health-Education bill. Example: Everybody knows that, just a few days ago, the majority party restored funding to Rural Health Outreach Grants in order to try to overcome their inability to pass the Labor-Health bill earlier in the week. Guess what? The CR before us today takes out that additional money for Rural Health Outreach Grants, and it again returns us to a funding level which is 73 percent below last year. I do not think people want to do that, but that is the result of the continuing resolution. The Community Services Block Grant Program, under the funding level in this CR, that program is cut in half from last year. The Low Income Heating Assistance Program, we had all kinds of people talking about adding money for that program, and yet under the funding level in this CR, LIHEAP is cut by $176 million. Under No Child Left Behind, under the funding level in this resolution, No Child Left Behind programs would be cut more than $1.1 billion below last year's level. We have heard a lot of fulminating on both sides of the aisle about IDEA, about special education. Guess what? The funding level for this continuing resolution would freeze IDEA grants. The International Labor Affairs Bureau, which protects American workers and wages through its efforts to eradicate child labor around the world, would be cut by 87 percent under the funding level in this continuing resolution. Unemployment help for people who are looking for jobs would be cut by $157 million under this continuing resolution level. Now, it is one thing to say, all right, we will let that go for a week because it simply is a short-term convenience to the President. It is quite another thing to say that we are going to hold those programs to that level of funding through February 15. When you do that, you ruin some of those programs and you make miserable the lives of a lot of people who depend on those programs, which is why we objected on this side of the aisle. Now that the majority party has returned to the original understanding that the CR will extend only for a week, time for us to get our work done; now that we are in a position where we are not going to be able to conveniently take a vacation until February 15 while these other programs suffer, I am perfectly happy to withdraw my objection. So I congratulate the gentleman for talking to whoever he had to talk to in order to bring them to their senses. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to put the House on notice that I intend to ask for a rollcall on this rule. And if we do have a rollcall, I am going to vote against it, and I want to explain why. One of the bills that this rule makes in order is the continuing resolution. At this point, this Congress has not passed the defense bill. It has not passed the Labor, Health, Education and Social Services appropriations bill. Together that equals about 65 percent of all the discretionary spending in the budget. We still have not passed those bills almost 3 months into the fiscal year. Now, this resolution will allow the continuing resolution, which expires today, to continue until February 15. Now, it also says that we will not be able to amend the CR. However, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from amending the CR when it goes over there, and I fully expect them to try because they have a different set of priorities than the Republican House leadership. If you do not believe that, just ask Mr. Stevens. There is another problem with the CR, and that is that it funds both the Defense bill and the Labor, Health, and Education bill at a very much lower level and on a very much more restricted basis than I think is healthy. Example: on the Defense side, if the Defense appropriations bill does not pass, it means that money will trickle out to the military, but they will not be able to do the advanced procurement expenditures that they need if you are going to have intelligent planning. On the Labor-Health side, what it means, and this is even more serious, I think, because I think there is a better chance that the defense bill may pass, but the Labor-Health bill right now is so inadequate that the majority leader in the Senate cannot get enough votes to pass it. And so now what they are doing is setting up this scenario: they are going to fund Labor-Health programs at a level $1.4 billion below the House-passed bill and $3 billion below last year. And because of the peculiarities of the formula, programs such as the Community Service Block Grants are going to be funded at a level 50 percent below last year. You might as well gut that program if you let that happen. And why are they doing it? I think the reason they are doing it is because they know they cannot pass that turkey of a Labor-Health bill now as it is, so they are trying to set up a scenario in which in February Senators will have to vote for that inadequate bill in order to escape from the crisis which was manufactured by this inadequate and rigid CR. I think House Members, if we are going to be asked to pass another CR, ought to have an opportunity to amend it. Coming from an agricultural State, I am told that the agreement just reached between the House and the Senate is going to allow Senator Cochran to put $2 billion wherever he wants it in agriculture, and I would kind of like to see some of that money going to the MILC program. But it is not going to under the way this is set up. I would also like to amend the funding rate for a number of programs so that you do not indirectly, under the table, without a frontal vote, gut programs like the Community Services Block Grant. So I want to put the House on notice, despite any agreement at the leadership level, I intend to ask for a rollcall vote because this is nuts.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate from the outset that the gentleman from Ohio is a good man, and I think, with some exceptions, he and I have priorities in this bill that are pretty much the same. What I say is not in any way designed to be an attack upon him or his leadership of the subcommittee; but the fact is that this subcommittee has been given an inadequate allocation and as a result, this Congress is about to make a large mistake if it passes this bill because it will be shortchanging this country in terms of the long-term investments that we should be making in America's working families and programs that are focused on the needs of America's working families. The gentleman argues that we ought to vote for this bill because if we do not, then the majority will bring forth a continuing resolution which will do certain bad things. That is like saying, ``Save us before we are irresponsible again.'' I really think we understand that what needs to happen to this bill is that it needs to be repaired, not further savaged; and that is what we want to see done. The reason we are in this fix is because the majority, just in the last week and a half, passed almost $70 billion in tax cuts and a very large percentage, approaching 50 percent, went into the pockets of the most well-off 1 percent of people in this country, people who make over $400,000 a year. And then they pay for it, partially, by squeezing bills like this one. Let me make clear, this bill is virtually identical to the bill that the House rejected just a few days ago by a 209-224 vote on a bipartisan basis. It has moved around a small amount of money in hopes of picking up a few votes because of an improvement in rural health care, but outside of that the bill is virtually the same. I want to make clear when we vote against this bill today, we will be voting against it not just because we are unhappy with the $1.6 billion cut below last year that this bill represents. To understand what this bill is doing, you must look at it in conjunction with the next step that the Republican leadership of this Congress has already announced that they intend to take, which is to further cut this bill by 1 percent across the board as they cut the entire discretionary budget 1 percent across the board. That means that this bill will have a double hit. That means in the end this bill, for 1 year alone, will be $3 billion less than was provided for these same programs last year. Over a 5-year period, because this sets us on a course, over a 5-year period if we pass this bill, we will wind up spending $15 billion less for programs in this bill than we would otherwise spend if we simply stuck to last year's baseline. In addition to that, 2 weeks ago our Republican friends pushed through a package of rescissions and reconciliation actions which cut $33 billion out of programs that benefit the same people who are benefited by this bill. They, for instance, cut $5 billion out of child support enforcement which will result in women in this country over the next 5 years getting $24 billion less in child support money than they are entitled to. They are cutting over 200,000 kids off health care screening and cutting well over 200,000 families off food stamps. They are saying to people on disabilities, ``Sorry, but you are not going to get your full entitlement in your first check after you are declared eligible for disability.'' Right now the law says that if you apply for disability and if you are adjudged to be eligible, when you get your first check, you will be paid retroactive to the date of application. The bill that passed 2 weeks ago on this floor, the reconciliation bill, said, ``Sorry, folks, if you are declared eligible, you will get only the first 2 months' entitlement in that check; the rest will be strung out over a period of months.'' The only reason the government saves money under that plan is because people will die before they get what they are entitled to get. So this House has already taken all of those actions which will cut the assistance to middle-income families and poor families in this country by $33 billion, and then this bill over the next 5 years will wind up imposing an additional $15 billion cut in resources provided over that time. And as far as I am concerned, it is ironic that this is happening at Christmastime. Usually, Mr. Speaker, at Christmastime, we fill children's stockings. This time around, in sort of ``Scroogenomics'' fashion, we are emptying those children's stockings and instead moving that money into the pockets of some of the wealthiest people in this country. I do not think that is a way to live up to the Christmas spirit. I want to point out what some of the real reductions will be. We have 55 million children in public schools. State budgets are stretched thin. And yet, No Child Left Behind funding in this bill is cut $779 million and would be cut $1 billion after the 1 percent across-the- board cut is imposed. Pell grants: Both parties go home and tell people how much we want to help families who are trying to send their kids to colleges. The College Board spelled out that in the last 5 years, the cost of a 4- year public education has increased by $3,100. The President's response to that was to add $100 to the Pell Grant maximum grant. So he proposed a $100 solution to a $3,100 problem. House Republicans said, ``Oh, no, that is too much.'' So, originally, this bill cut that to $50, and then the conference came back with nothing, zippo. So the Congress is doing nothing to ease the squeeze on families trying to send their kids to college. And in the reconciliation bill which they passed just 2 weeks ago, they are making that problem, over the next 5 years, $12 billion worse or, I am sorry, $8 billion worse for those same families by raising fees, raising interest rates on student loans. And then they say that they are friends of education. If you take a look at education technology, this bill cuts that program by $221 million or 45 percent. If you take a look at low-income heating assistance, we have a need to at least double that program, given the fact that we have these huge increases in natural gas prices and home heating-oil prices. In fact, this bill freezes low-income heating assistance. And with the 1 percent across the board that is contemplated that will be on top of this freeze, you will wind up actually reducing money for low-income heating assistance. Our Republican friends say, ``Oh, well, we are going to try to add $1 billion in the reconciliation bill.'' But we are already told that there is less than a 50/50 chance that reconciliation bill will even be passed before Congress leaves here for the holidays. Then if you take a look at the International Labor Affairs Program, the program which is supposed to protect American workers' wages by seeing to it that they do not have to compete internationally against slave and child labor, that program is being cut by $21 million or 22 percent by this bill and the across-the-board cut that will shortly follow. Community health centers: Everybody on both sides of the aisle talks about how important they are. But there is virtually no funding for new community health centers beyond those approved last year. And the majority, in this bill, eliminates the Healthy Communities Access Program, $83 million gone that helps provide health care to persons who do not have any or who do not have health care. So I would say simply, Mr. Speaker, this bill is highly inadequate. It short sheets America's future. It does not make the investments in health research, in education, in worker training that any civilized, healthy leading society would make. We do not meet our obligations in this bill, and I would urge a no vote. And I would urge that the majority go back to the drawing board, give this bill a better allocation and live up to the expectations of the American people.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say with respect to IDEA, aid to the disabled children, the fact is, this bill cuts the Federal share of that program from 18.6 percent to 18 percent. And under the across-the-board cut that will be coming shortly, it drops further to 17.8 percent. In all, the bill will provide $4 billion less than the glide path to full funding that the Republican budget resolution promised just 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers on the majority side of the aisle said that we have limited resources, we have to make priority choices. That is absolutely right. The problem is with the priority choices that the majority has made. They are fond of pointing to the fact that we have had extraneous expenses such as Katrina, and they say that is why we have to squeeze bills like this. But, in fact, under actions already taken by the majority party in this Congress, over the next decade they will provide $1.2 trillion in tax cuts for persons who make more than $400,000 a year, the top 1 percent of earners; and they have done virtually all of it by borrowing money to provide those tax cuts. I would point out that that $1.2 trillion is more than five times as much as the Federal Government will spend by anybody's estimate on repairing Katrina. I would say that also the actions of the last week, when they added $70 billion to the tax breaks that they are providing, again with 50 percent going to the top 1 percent, demonstrate what the values and what the priorities of the majority party would be. If we ask the average family in this country what they need in order to be able to deal with their own problems, I think what they would say is they need help to see to it that they have adequate access to education for their children. I think they would say that if somebody loses a job, they need help to get decent retraining. I think they would ask for fair treatment in the workplace. I think they would ask that their family have decent health care. And I think seniors would ask that they be provided a secure retirement with adequate medical care and help to pay their drug costs. The fact is that this bill fails on virtually all tests. I would say also, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, we did try to do one additional thing for senior citizens. Because of the incredibly confusing prescription drug program which seniors are being asked to sign up for, because that program is so incredibly confusing, we tried to get the majority to consider a 6-month delay in the deadline that seniors have to meet in signing up for that program. That motion failed on a party-line vote, unfortunately, on a 7-7 vote. I would hope that before this Congress ends, the Congress will recognize that that program is so incredibly convoluted that there must be a delay in the sign-up deadline so that seniors have more time to make what could be a very confusing and devastating choice if they make the wrong choice. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work that they have done on this bill. It has taken a good number of good people to produce what I think is a bad product because of the allocation; but, nonetheless, I appreciate the hard work and I appreciate the enduring friendships that we have across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I assume this is the last time I will speak on the floor before Christmas, so I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas and a happy new year, and enough blessings so that you will reconsider some of the mistakes in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Unfortunately, our constituents would not.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Let me simply make a couple of comments in response to assertions made by the gentlewoman from West Virginia. She caught my attention when she said, and made much of the fact, that since the Republicans have taken control of the House, education funding has essentially doubled. Let me put that in perspective and challenge that statement. This bill is part of a three-part strategy which over the next 5 years will cut funding for education, for social services, for health care, for the people targeted by this bill by $48 billion over a 5-year period. With respect to education, this bill is the first time in 10 years that the Congress will actually have cut education. With the across- the-board cut which is going to be attached to this bill before the week is over, we will wind up cutting education by over $600 million below last year. Now, the Republicans say, ``Oh, that is okay because we added so much money over the last 10 years.'' With all due respect, that is rewriting history. The Republican majority in this House had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting education at all. They came to power with the demand to abolish the Department of Education. Their very first action rescinded billions of dollars including education funding. They tried three out of the next 4 years to make deep cuts in education. Each time they were blocked by the Democratic minority and by some assistance that we got from the Republican majority in the Senate and from the White House then occupied by Bill Clinton. Today the fact is that over the past 10 years we have had $18 billion more in education than would have been there if we had passed the Republican House education and labor appropriation bill. So for the Republicans to claim that they have added money to education is a joke. It reminds me of the orphan who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The fact is, if the Republican majority in this House had their way, education would have been funded $18 billion less than it has been funded over the previous decade. With respect to some of the other claims that have been made this morning, with respect to title I, we are going to have an actual reduction in title I by the time the across-the-board cut actually passes. No Child Left Behind programs have been cut by $779 million. The gentlewoman mentioned NIH. The fact is that with the across-the- board cut that is going to be attached to this bill, NIH funding will decline by $129 million, there will be fewer research grants provided there than we had 2 years ago. She mentioned community health centers. The fact is that this bill contains $238 million less than the amount requested by the Bush administration, and this bill totally terminates the entire community- access program to provide health care to people who do not have insurance. So all I would say is, if you vote for this bill, if you vote for the across-the-board cut, and if you voted for the Republican reconciliation action last week, you will have cut support for people who are helped by this bill by $48 billion over the next 5 years, and you will have used 50 percent of that money to put in the pockets of the richest 1 percent of the people by way of tax cuts. It is an outrageous piece of legislation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say in response to the gentlewoman's comments, the Republican leadership and the Republican caucus has already made clear that they intend to attach a further 1 percent across-the-board cut in all discretionary spending before we leave here for the Christmas holidays. The fact is that the bill before us today is just for openers. And when you put this bill together with the 1 percent cut that they intend to make across the board, and then when you add that to the humongous cuts that they made over the next 5 years in the reconciliation bill last week, they are already on the hook for that. That means, over the next 5 years, there will be a cumulative cut in programs to help the people targeted by this bill of $48 billion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House Resolution 458, a resolution honoring the lives of four American churchwomen who were murdered just over 25 years ago in El Salvador. I am a cosponsor of the resolution and am gratified that the House has chosen to bring it to the floor under suspension of the rules. In late 1980, four American churchwomen were serving communities in El Salvador that were wracked by the violence of that country's civil war. They were murdered by members of the National Guard of El Salvador, horrifying the world and bringing home the impact of that war to the American public. These four lives were but a fraction of the 70,000 civilians who perished in that conflict, and those numbers are dwarfed by the toll of the misery inflicted by the violence that raged up and down Central America in the 1970s and 80s. Locked in the struggle of the cold war, the U.S. turned a blind eye to much of the suffering in the region, focusing its efforts on the geopolitical ends of thwarting potential communist movements through military means, whether supporting the contras in Nicaragua or right- wing governments in places like El Salvador. We look back on this period today with a mixture of relief that democracy prevailed and disgust at the tactics that were used. Brave action by these churchwomen carried the flag of democracy and human rights into that region, and helped freedom prevail. Our reliance on institutions like the School of the Americas to train the soldiers of leaders whose primary attractiveness to us was being ``not a communist'' rather than sharing our ideals of human rights hamstrung our efforts. Sadly, our military's reluctance to track those that we have trained makes it impossible for us to look beyond the anecdotal record of those who were the worst, or the best, to assess the true measure of what we did. However, that record was enough for those of us concerned about U.S. training of foreign militaries to push for closure of the School of the Americas and ensuring that the training that the U.S. military conducts here in the U.S. and around the world ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. People like Joe Moakley and Tip O'Neill, who I wish were here to see this. As chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee in the 1980s, I led the fight with them to restrict U.S. military assistance to despotic regimes, and to conduct better oversight of foreign military training programs. Today, as much of our foreign assistance seems to be focused on the military front, in places like Colombia and elsewhere, we should remember that humanitarian assistance, development assistance, and people-to-people contact foster stronger bonds and better allies than military assistance alone. Ensuring clean water, education and stronger civil society provide a better life for everyday people do more to further our goals of fighting terror than another shipment of the weapons of war.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, do we have to tell the truth about the persons we are honoring tonight? Mr. Speaker, I guess if we have to tell the truth, then I will have to say the same thing I would have said if we did not have to tell the truth, that John Dingell is one of the great men in the history of this institution. I want to thank John Dingell, not because he is Dean of the House, not because he is the third longest serving Member in the history of the House. I think the most notable aspect of John Dingell's career is not his length of service, but its quality. When each of us comes to this institution, we come with one of two desires, either to be something and somebody, or to stand for something. In the end, we take little note of those who merely want to be a Member of Congress, or be a United States Senator. But we take great note of those who use their service here to do things on behalf of the country and the people they represent. John Dingell and I both share admiration for former Congressman John Moss, who is a great leader in his own right in this institution. John Moss earned a reputation as a lion fighting for justice and for the rights of the common people of this country. Like John Moss, John Dingell personifies integrity, courage, independence, and dedication to the public interest. John follows in the footsteps of his father. He has championed the cause of wildlife, of wild lands and wild places. He has championed the cause of consumers in an economy of corporate giants. He has championed the cause of medical research. He has followed in his father's footsteps in championing the cause of health insurance for all Americans. He is truly a social gospel Democrat who understands that we are elected to this House for the same reason that we are placed on this Earth, namely, to try to do good for others. I want to congratulate John Dingell for his passion, for his conscience, for his vigor; and I want to thank his remarkable wife, Debbie, for helping him focus his prodigious abilities on behalf of not only his constituents but so many of our own. I feel privileged to have served in the same institution with John Dingell. I am proud of his service, and I want to thank John for the honor that he has done this place by the quality of his service for the last 50 years.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago the Labor, Health appropriation bill was defeated on this floor largely because it contained inadequate investments in education and health. Today, the bill is back, and what this motion would do is to say to the majority that if they do not want to recognize the need for additional education and health funding, that they at least recognize that an emergency situation exists with respect to the rapidly rising home heating costs with natural gas, for instance, expected to be 50 percent higher than it was last year and with only 15 percent of persons in the country who are eligible getting help from LIHEAP as it is. I would simply ask the majority to withdraw the point of order in order to allow us to simply proceed to at least debate and vote on the question of rearranging priorities so that we can add $2 billion to the Low Income Heating Assistance Program and fully pay for that by cutting back the scheduled tax cut for persons who make over $1 million to $131,000. I think that is quite ample for them. I would urge the gentleman from Ohio to withdraw his point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a second motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the last motion sought to increase funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program by $2 billion and fully pay for that with an offset on the revenue side of the ledger. The gentleman from Ohio did raise a point of order against that. We would have preferred to fully fund the amendment, but given the fact that the majority has chosen to exercise its rights under the rules of the House to raise a point of order, this is the only remaining avenue that we have to try to increase funding for Low Income Heating Assistance, recognizing that there is indeed an emergency; and we would simply ask that the amount of money for Low Income Heating Assistance be increased by $2 billion and recognized as emergency funding under the Budget Act so that we can proceed to deal with the very real problem that persons in this country will have heating their homes with higher energy prices. If we are not allowed to do that, then there is no way that we are going to be able to provide substantial help to them.