Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I just want to address one issue because it has been raised twice on the floor today, Mr. Chairman. The argument our friends on the majority side make is that we should be happy because the education budget has gone up considerably since they took over control of Congress. Let me point out what the record of the majority party has been on education. When the Republicans took control of the Congress, they did so with the promise to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Their first act was to rescind $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1995 in education funding. In the next year they tried to do the same to the tune of $3.7 billion. In the 7 years between 1995 and 2001, each of the Labor-Health bills passed by the House Republicans was below President Clinton's request for education. The net result is that there would have been nearly $19 billion less spent on education between 1995 and 2005 if we had enacted the Republican Labor-Health bills into law. Title I. If Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $2.8 billion less than we actually spent. After- school centers. If the Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $516 million less for after-school centers. Special education. If Congress had approved the House Republican Labor-H bills, we would have spent $2.7 billion less for special education. On Pell grants, for the last 3 years, the Republican majority has proposed to freeze Pell grants. If the Republican proposals in fiscal year 2006 are adopted, the purchasing power of Pell grants will continue on a downward spiral. The plain fact is yes, the money went up for education because Democrats dragged the Republican Party, kicking and screaming, to those higher numbers. So I am glad the Republicans are now trying to take credit for something they were pushed into. It does not matter who gets the credit so long as the school districts get the money. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we all know what this amendment is. It is very simple, and I will not take very much time on explain it. We simply strike the $100 million rescission that was included in the Labor-HHS bill for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This restores the $100 million in funding for CPB, which distributes the majority of those funds to over 1,000 public television and radio stations nationwide, and uses the remaining funds to support national programming and public broadcasting systems. It is offset by modest reductions in low-priority demonstration programs and administrative accounts in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Department. I think those reductions will not do serious harm to any of the administrative budgets involved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), one of the cosponsors of the amendment, and I appreciate very much his involvement in this activity.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much remains on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe some of the comments I have just heard from my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Let me simply say with respect to the offsets we have in this amendment, with respect to the Labor Department all this does is to reduce funding for pilot and demonstrations in the department from $74 million in the committee bill to $16 million. It still leaves a significant amount of money in this account. This is an area where the committee itself has indicated that they do not have sufficient information from the agency to even know how they are spending that money. So it seems to me that we are simply following the committee shot across the agency bow. With respect to the Labor Department, departmental management, this essentially cuts the increase over last year for departmental management, excluding the International Labor Affairs Bureau. Large amounts of money in that department are being spent for activities that are clearly not authorized, and some procurement practices now being exercised by the agency do not meet the standards that we will want to have to defend in public. With respect to HRSA program management, I cannot believe any objection is being made to the reduction in this account. The bill itself eliminates 11 programs in HRSA. If all of these programs are going to be eliminated, certainly there are fewer bodies that are needed to manage them, and this is simply consistent with the programmatic actions already taken by the committee. With respect to the funds for the improvement of education, this amendment merely trims the additional funding provided in the committee over the administration's request for this item. None of these items are going to have any significant impact on the accounts involved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown). (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida 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 Indiana (Ms. Carson). (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY 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 gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has the right to close. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say the choice before the House is simple. I think the American people recognize that public television and public radio are both national treasures. I think also that we all recognize that there has been a systematic attack on both for quite some time. What is before us today is a very simple choice. We can either stand with those who are determined to see to it that public radio and public television continue to function reasonably effectively, or we can take an action today which will gut the ability of many of the stations to continue to produce quality programming and meet the needs of local areas. Some objection has been raised to the offsets. The fact is, under the budget resolution, tough choices are required. You cannot get the offsets out of thin air. These offsets do as little damage to management accounts as is humanly possible. If anyone does not like the offsets involved, then I would suggest they amend the budget resolution so that we do not have to provide them. But the choice is very simply: Are you going to support public broadcasting or are you not? And the vote will tell the tale. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do so to try to report to the House what is happening with respect to a unanimous consent request. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) announced to the House earlier, and I concurred, that we are trying to make an attempt to get the House out today. We indicated that would require a lot of cooperation from both sides. I think everyone understands how this bill is going to wind up. Much as I detest this bill and will vote against it, it is not going to be changed very much between now and the time it finally reaches final passage. No amount of fixing can fix this bill, in my view, because of the inadequate allocation. The problem we have is that despite the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Regula) best efforts and my best efforts and that of our staffs, at this point, there are still some 20 Republican amendments that people seem to be hell-bent on offering, and there are approximately 27 Democratic amendments that people seem to be hell-bent on offering. If all of those amendments are offered, we will have to have at least 6\1/2\ hours of debate time. In order to finish today, because of events beyond our control, we have to be finished with debating by 4:30. Obviously, unless we get a much greater sense of give, not only will we be here tomorrow, we will be here a long time tomorrow. So if Members are serious about wanting to get out today, it would be nice if they recognized that that means that we cannot dispose of 47 amendments in 2 hours.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I take a back seat to no one in my support for rural health care. I have offered numerous amendments in the past to add to its budget. But this amendment gets the money to restore funding for rural health care in an outrageous fashion, because it takes it from the agency that is supposed to protect workers' health and lives. In 2003, more than 5,500 workers were killed in this country by job injuries. That is 15 workers every day. In the steel industry, there has been a major increase in workplace fatalities the last 2 years. The impact of those fatalities is enormous. According to Liberty Mutual, the Nation's largest Workmen's Compensation company, the direct cost of these injuries and illness is $1 billion a week, and the total cost is between $200 and $300 billion a year. The present budget proposal for OSHA in this bill is $477 million, which is less than $4.60 for every private sector worker. Under the current OSHA budget, OSHA can inspect workplaces on an average of once every 108 years, and this amendment will make that worse. This is a case where, again, the budget resolution is totally inadequate. Neither of these programs should be cut. The problem is that this amendment takes money away from a program which will save workers' lives. I would urge a ``no'' vote. I most reluctantly take this position because I am strongly in favor of rural health care but not at the expense of workers' lives.