Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) said, there are no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct universal screening, and there are no funds in this bill for any such purpose. Having said that, let me simply say I do not think our problem in this country is that we do too much screening for mental health problems with young people. We are all familiar with the problem of youth depression. There are a very significant number of teenagers who are afflicted with that problem. We are, I think, all familiar with the sad situation with regard to teenage suicide. Two friends of each of my sons committed suicide. So I do not think the problem in this country is that we know too much about mental health problems for young people. The problem is just the opposite; we know too little. So I agree with the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, all through last year on this side of the aisle, we continually insisted that we needed more money for veterans health care and were consistently told by the administration and the other side that we did not. As recently as April 5, Mr. Nicholson, the head of the VA, told the Senate in an effort to defeat a Democratic amendment, ``I can assure you that the VA does not need emergency supplemental funding in fiscal 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal.'' We were again told this year when we tried to add money to the VA for veterans health care that it was not needed, that we were simply pandering to veterans. Well, now the facts are out. Today's Washington Post: ``Funds for Health Care of Veterans Short $1 Billion.'' What we find out is that now the Bush administration is belatedly admitting to the Congress what we have been trying to tell people for months, namely, that the VA budget is inadequate and their accountants indicate that they are going to need more than $1 billion. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is going to shortly be asking unanimous consent to consider an amendment which would, on an emergency basis, add the $1 billion which the administration is saying is necessary to pay the bills at the VA. I would hope that the Congress could find a way to accomplish this. At a time when we are having trouble with recruiting, it makes no sense to be sending messages to our veterans that, Okay, you can go over and fight in Iraq, but we are not so sure about what services you are going to get when you get home. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I insert at this point in the Record the text of the amendment that the gentleman from Texas would like to offer to correct this egregious situation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time at the end of the bill to explain why I am going to vote against the bill. I am speaking as one Member of the House; I am not speaking as ranking Democrat on the subcommittee or committee. I simply wanted people to know why I am going to oppose this bill; and I want to, at the same time, explain my motion to recommit. The good thing about this bill is that we repaired most of the damage to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most, but not all. But let us understand, this bill, in my view, is still an assault on the country's future. This bill is just the start of cuts planned over a 5- year period to implement the Republican budget resolution that is placing the importance of $140,000 tax cuts for those making $1 million a year ahead of our long-term investments in education of our children, the health care of our people, and the security of American workers. This is the most important bill that we will consider this year in terms of meeting the needs of the average American family and in building the long-term strength of our society. More than any other, it is the bill where we care for our neighbors. It is the bill that determines how well we meet our obligations to those in society who have not been among the most fortunate. This bill fails to meet those tests in some dramatic ways, and I would like to point out just a few of them. Because of the fact that this House is deciding that large tax cuts for very well-off people are more important than anything else, this bill, on the worker protection front, guts the program that we rely on to try to protect our workers from having to compete against child and slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 percent, this at a time when the administration is asking that we pass new trade legislation with CAFTA. Seven and a half million Americans are out of work, but this bill cuts the employment service by $116 million. Forty-five million Americans are without health insurance, but this eliminates community access programs that help people get that health care. This bill cuts by 84 percent the funding for training grants for health care professionals. It cuts rural health programs by 41 percent. The number of grants at NIH for research in all kinds of diseases will be cut by 500 from just 2 years ago. The community services block grant, the program where the poorest people in this country turn when they have nowhere else to go, is cut by half in this bill, and the No Child Left Behind bill is cut by some $800 million below last year. Mr. Chairman, 1.7 million fewer disadvantaged children will receive care under after-school programs, and 56,000 fewer teachers will get high- quality training. This bill provides only half of the increase promised by the Republican majority for the maximum Pell grant. So for all of those reasons, I am going to offer a straight motion to recommit so that this bill can go back to committee, so that these items can be corrected, with one addition. As we said earlier, we found out today that our efforts to try to increase funding for veterans health care for the last 6 months were absolutely necessary, even though we had been told by the VA that they had more than enough money for veterans health care. We want this bill to go back to the committee so that the committee can also do what it should have done in the first place, which is to add $1 billion on an emergency basis to take care of the shortfall in VA health care that the White House and OMB have been hiding from the American people and hiding from veterans for months. So I will personally urge a vote for my motion to recommit; and when the vote on final passage comes, I will vote against it, because this bill just does not measure up to our national obligations. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be debatable and that debate be limited to 2 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we cannot hear. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection, and I support the gentleman's motion.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in light of Karl Rove's savage attack on the patriotism of liberals in this country, I have a couple of questions. Two days after 9/11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I, on a bipartisan basis, pushed a $20 billion package through this House in response to the attack. We had to sit in the Speaker's office and defend the President's request against people like Phil Graham and Don Nichols of the President's own party. Are those the liberals that Karl Rove was talking about? One month after 9/11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I went to the White House and urged the President to support a greatly increased homeland security budget. The President, without even looking at what we were proposing, said, ``If you add one dime to our budget for homeland security, I will veto the bill.'' Mr. Rove was sitting over his shoulder when President Bush made that remark. Is President Bush one of those out-of-line liberals that Mr. Rove is talking about? I come from the State of Wisconsin. I know a third-rate Joe McCarthy when I see one, and I saw one in Mr. Rove's comments yesterday.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, as the subcommittee chairman says, we are trying to help Members get out of here today. We cannot do that unless we get cooperation from Members on amendments and on time. Frankly, if I had my way, there would be one speech for this bill, one speech against it, and we would vote, because we are not going to make any significant changes in this bill given what the budget has done to us. So we might as well get on with it. I would ask Members to give us their cooperation. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for bringing it to the House's attention.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the clearest demonstration that I can think of of what happens when Congress puts $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1 million a year or more ahead of our investment needs in our children, ahead of our investment needs in our health care system, and ahead of supporting programs that will help our workers compete in world markets. This bill, make no mistake about it, is a prescription for a second-class economy. I know most of the discussion today will be focused on public broadcasting. I will be offering an amendment to add back $100 million that the committee cut out. Previously in the committee, I offered another amendment which added $400 million for this year's funding. We are simply trying to get it back up to last year's level. That is an important issue, and I hope that the House will vote for the amendment. I want to make clear that even though the press has focused 90 percent of its attention on public broadcasting, in one sense that is fortunate because at least the people who pay attention to public broadcasting do have a megaphone of sorts, and they can get their message known. I believe our amendment today will pass, but even if it does, I would hope that the Members of this House and the members of the press would understand that that is far from the most important issue in this bill. The most important thing about this bill is what it does to hurt the future of our children, what it does to avoid meeting the needs of people in this society who are sick and without health insurance, what it does to help our workers in the world economy. The distinguished majority leader in discussing the budget resolution earlier this year said this: ``This is the budget the American people voted for when they elected a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House.'' I quite agree, and this bill is also, unfortunately, the kind of bill that the American people are going to get because they voted for a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House. Last year, the programs in this bill were $3.5 billion above the previous year. This year, this bill in a program-to-program basis cuts $1.6 billion from these programs. Now, what does that mean? It means, for instance, that this bill even cuts into the President's signature programs in training, in health care and education. It cuts back substantially the President's recommendation for community college skills, for community health centers and high school reform. Let us take a look at what it does in other key areas of our economy. For our workers, the administration is about to bring forth CAFTA, yet another misguided, misbegotten trade agreement. The administration is breaking arms and promising the Moon in order to get people to vote for that amendment; and yet this bill cuts the program that is supposed to be the traffic cop that protects American workers against having to compete against child and slave labor. It cuts that program by 87 percent. I do not think that the American people would agree with that. This bill disinvests in job training and help for the unemployed. This bill for adult training grants is the lowest funding level in 10 years. It even cuts the Job Corps below current services level. And if you take a look at the health care area, of the 11 programs that we had on the books to help us develop the kind of health profession that we need, so that you have enough in rural areas and enough in your major metropolitan areas, this bill cuts 10 of those 11 programs. Only one is remaining, and 84 percent of that portion of the budget is gone. It also eliminates a community access program that is a key program that helps deliver health care services to the uninsured. National Institutes of Health. There is not a politician in this House who does not go home and tell your constituents what you are doing on cancer research or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. And what does this bill do? It means the National Institutes of Health are going to have 500 fewer grants to put out to scientists around the country than they had 2 years ago. We are backing off on the attack on disease. Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. That is a program that helps low-income people and seniors avoid having to choose between heating their houses and feeding themselves. The program is cut by $200 million. Education. Effectively, this is the first freeze on education funding in a decade. This bill cuts No Child Left Behind programs by $800 million. You have the mother of all mandates, telling the States and school districts what they must do here, what they must do there. That costs money. But the Federal Government is welshing on its responsibility and on its promise to help pay those costs. It is backing off. On IDEA, the program that helps local units, or local school districts, pay for educating disabled kids. What does this bill do for that? Well, the Republican majority promised a few years ago that the Feds would pay 40 percent of the cost of that program. Today, this bill actually cuts the share of Federal participation from 18.6 to 18.2 percent of that program, welshing on another promise. It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row. It slashes education technology at a time when that has never been more important. It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high- poverty school districts by eliminating the program. It freezes Impact Aid. On Pell grants, the main program we use to help kids go to college, what does it do? On Pell grants, we are told by the College Board that the cost of a 4-year public university has increased $2,300 during the last 4 years. What is our response to it? The President says, well, we will fix the problem with a hundred bucks add-on to Pell grant. That takes care of 4 percent of the problem. This bill cuts that to 2 percent. It provides a measly $50 increase in the Pell grant program, and that does not address the fact that because the IRS has changed the eligibility tables there are going to be thousands and thousands of kids who are tossed off the program entirely. In fact, it is going to raise costs in my State by about $187 per student. So what I would say is that this is the main legislation we will deal with this year that deals with the economic and social problems of the country. The main issue in this country the next 40 years is going to be how we gear ourselves up to economically compete with countries like China and India. We need to invest in all of the technology, all of the education that we can possibly invest in. This bill walks away from that obligation, and that is why I say it is a prescription for a second-rate economy. It walks away from our obligation to workers, and we will long regret it if we pass this bill. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. The problems with this bill have nothing to do with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He is a fine man and a fine chairman, but this bill implements the Republican budget resolution in the broadest possible areas in our economy and our country. It is a major social and economic mistake, and it certainly does not represent my values, and I do not believe it represents the values of the American people. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that I think this bill is a prescription for a second-rate economy for the American people because it declines to make the long-term investments that are necessary in education, in health care, in job training, in worker protection and the like. I will be voting against the previous question on the rule and the rule itself because the Committee on Rules did not make in order the amendment that I had asked them to make in order which would have done one very simple thing: it would have provided an additional $11.8 million in funding for high-priority education, health and worker protection programs. It would have provided that same amount, $11.8 million, in deficit reduction; and it would have paid for that by reducing the supersize tax cuts for people who make over a million dollars a year. Right now they are expected to get on average a $140,000 tax cut this year. We would have limited their tax cut to only $36,000, the poor devils. They would have to get along with only $36,000. I make no apology about wanting to make these investments. We are the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest economy in the world. We are the world's leader in technology. We are the world's leader in almost everything, but we did not get there by not making crucial investments year after year after year. We got there by investing in our people by way of education, by making the right capital investments, by making the right investments in science and technology; and that grew the economy for everybody. This bill walks away from that responsibility. This bill, in real-dollar terms, after you adjust for inflation, will deliver on a per-person basis about $5.9 billion less in these critical areas than it delivered last year. There is one other element of the amendment I would like to talk about for just a moment. We talk a lot in this country about preventing abortions. It has been my experience that lectures from your local friendly politician or your local clergyman are not nearly as helpful to young women who are pregnant and trying to decide if they are going to carry a baby to term or not as is a helping hand. The amendment we wanted to offer would have provided that helping hand. It would have taken critical programs that would make it economically easier for low-income and vulnerable women to choose to carry pregnancies to term. We would have had $175 million for maternal and infant health care, returning it to the fiscal year 2002 level. We would have added $300 million to child care, returning that to the fiscal year 2002 level. We would have added $418 million to the community service block grant to provide people with an opportunity for education, training and work, and to live with decency and dignity. And we would have provided $126 million for domestic violence prevention, effectively doubling that program. We would have doubled the Healthy Start program for newborn babies, and we would have increased job training for young women by $212 million. If we are concerned about life, our concern cannot end with the checkbook's edge. We need to recognize that if we are going to provide real-life, real-world opportunities for women to help convince them not to have abortions, we need to be funding programs like this. These are a whole lot more important to the spirit of the country, to the economy of the country, than providing a $140,000 tax cut to somebody who makes a million bucks a year. Mr. Speaker, I regret the Committee on Rules did not make this amendment in order. That is why I will be voting against the previous question and voting against the rule.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with respect to Pell grants, the College Board has indicated that the cost of attending a 4-year public university has increased by $2,300 since the President became President. The President decided to fix that problem by raising Pell grants by $100, thus taking care of 4 percent of the problem. The committee cut that to $50. That means that the committee is taking care of 2 percent of the problem. In addition to that, the new IRS regulations out of the administration have cost students in my State over $170 per person. So the fact is that right now any student going to a 4-year university is dragging behind. He is not doing nearly as well as he was 4 years ago. To suggest that a $50 increase in the Pell grant is going to take care of a $2,300 program is a joke.