THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--(H. DOC. NO. 106-306) -- (House of Representatives - October 31, 2000)

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) rises, and I think correctly states the provisions of this bill. I think he also correctly states that we did, in fact, reach bipartisan agreement on this bill, and that in fact the bill, as it now stands, as it stood before the President, as it stands now is a good

[Page: H11677]  GPO's PDF
bill. It is a bill, in my opinion, that every Member of this House on either side of the aisle can support.

   It is furthermore a bill that I hope every Member of the body will support at some point in time in the very near future. I am not sure when we are going to get to that point, but hopefully in the near future.

   The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) also correctly points out, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) pointed out, if one reads the veto message, that the President of the United States says that he can sign this bill. In fact, I urged the President of the United States to sign this bill. I wished he had signed the bill. But he chose to make the point which, frankly, we have been making over and over again, that, unfortunately, this process did not come to really focus until just a few weeks ago.

   The reason it did not come to focus until a few weeks ago, and I do not speak just to the Treasury-Postal bill, it is because, for 8 1/2 months and effectively all of September, we pretended that the appropriations process was not going to be a process in which all of us would be party, but it would be a process that simply, frankly, the majority party would be a party of.

   Unfortunately, when we did as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) has pointed out, come to agreement, and agree on a very good bill, we got it down there relatively late, i.e., 10 days ago.

   I would urge the Members, however, not to become too exercised about this bill. The reason I do that is because I believe we do have agreement. What we do not have agreement on is what the President discussed in his veto message, and they are important issues. They are unrelated, at least substantively, to the Treasury-Postal bill.

   But we know and any of us who have been in the last weeks of any legislative session, and I found this when I was in the State Senate for 12 years and I found it here for 19 years, that, unfortunately, issues tend to get wrapped up with one another that do not necessarily relate to one another substantively but clearly do politically.

   So I would urge the majority party, I would urge ourselves to try to come to agreement. Now both sides feel that agreements are not being kept. That is not a good context in which to try to get back to the table.

   The majority party believes the President said he would sign this bill. I was not in the room, therefore cannot assert that that was or was not the case. Some others who apparently were in the room and talked to the administration said that the administration said that they could sign this bill, but, again, I was not in the room, but that they were concerned, they were particularly concerned about a particular tax provision, and they wanted to see all the tax provisions considered at one time.

   Now, I hope clearly that this bill is going to go to committee and the veto will be considered. My suspicion is that we will at some point in time, hopefully in the near term, fold it in.

   But I would urge all my colleagues that, when the President says that it is related to other things, his desire, and I hope our desire, is to get the issues before the House resolved, get the issues before the Senate resolved, and send them to the President.

   We have just had a significant discussion about the fact that we do not have agreement on the Labor-Health bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), who was in the room, I was not, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), whose integrity I trust wholly, says that he thought they had an agreement.

   It is my understanding, although the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) did not say so in so many words, that he thought there was an agreement, but he needed to check it out with some people. That agreement fell.

   I would hope that, in the next 24 hours, and I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY), the majority whip, is on the floor. He and I worked together on a number of things. But I would hope that we could come to grips with the items that the President of the United States has said he believes are priority items.

   Whether one agrees with the veto of the

   Treasury-Postal bill or not, everybody agrees that it was not on the substance of the bill. The bill is a good bill. It is, however, an effort by the President of the United States to bring to closure the 106th Congress, to bring to closure the 106th Congress in a way that will bring credit to agreements between the parties.

   I referred earlier in discussions about the appropriations bills to an extraordinary speech given by Newt Gingrich on the floor of this House. It was a speech which I have entitled the ``Perfectionist Caucus Speech.'' It was a speech in which he said the American public has elected the President of one party, a majority party in the House and Senate of another party, and a very large and significant number of Members of the President's party.

   It is not surprising, therefore, that we find ourselves in substantial disagreement from time to time on substantive important issues. But as Newt Gingrich said in that ``Perfectionist Caucus Speech,'' it is the expectation of the American public that we will come to agreement, that we will come to compromise.

   Democracy is not perfect, and rarely do we win everything that we want. But the American public does expect us to agree. They expect to bring this Congress to a close. We argue on our side that they expect us to do some things that we have been talking about for an entire year and, indeed, longer than that in many instances to which the President referred, like education funding for classrooms and more teachers.

   That is really not a contentious issue. Most of us on this floor on both sides of the aisle know that we have a shortage of teachers, know that we have a shortage of classrooms, know that we would like to get classroom sizes down. We ought to move on that.

   Most of us say that we are for prescription drugs for seniors. We have differences on how that ought to occur. What the President is saying is we ought to come to agreement on that, because, frankly, seniors that are having trouble paying for prescription drugs do not care whether we agree on this dotting of the I's or the crossing of the T's. They want us to come to agreement. It is a shame we cannot do that.

   I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD) on the floor. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD) and the gentleman form Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) came together, worked hard, tried to come to agreement. I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD) did not get everything in the Patients' Bill of Rights bill that he would have liked. I am equally confident that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) did not get everything that he would like. But they worked together.

   Indeed, the majority of this House agreed with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) and passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. We did that in 1999, a year ago. The Senate passed a similar bill some 11 months ago. But we do not have agreement. We have not moved a bill. On an issue that almost every one of us is putting in ads of 30 seconds and saying we are for, but we have not moved the bill.

   So I would urge my colleagues, as we consider this, it is going to go to committee, I hope we do not have a rollcall vote on. There is nothing we can do about it, very frankly, one way or another. It is a good bill.

   The President chose to veto it to raise the issues and try to raise our focus and try to bring us to closure. If it accomplishes that objective, perhaps it was useful. It remains to be seen whether we will accomplish that objective. Had it been signed, we would have had a good bill for the Treasury Department, the General Service Administration, for law enforcement, to which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) referred, he is absolutely right, to counter terrorism efforts in this country. All of those are worthwhile objectives.

   It is a good bill. But let us not have this bill further divide us. Let us try to come to grips in the next 24 hours with the Labor-Health bill and get that to resolution and see at that point in time where we can move.

   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) for yielding me the time. I appreciate his giving me this opportunity to comment on this bill, which is a good bill, but comment as well on the efforts that the gentleman has been making and that others on the other side of the aisle have

[Page: H11678]  GPO's PDF
been making to try to bring us to closure, try to bring this Congress to a respectable close that the American public will benefit from.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), a member of the committee.

   (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday, and I still mean it today, most of the Members at this time of the year detest what goes on. It is the silly season. It is election season. We have some honest differences. I would like to cover just a couple of those differences.

   I believe with all of my heart that we are right. Maybe they believe that they are right on the other side of that issue. When my colleagues talk about school construction, many of the States have elected not to support Davis-Bacon or prevailing wage because of the increased costs. In some States, it is 35 percent down to 15 percent increase in cost. This legislation would force those right-to-work States to have to use the school construction money, using the union wage.

   

[Time: 20:15]

   I think it is detrimental to schools because we could get more money for schools' quality. The unions control about 7 percent of the workforce. About 93 percent of all construction is done by private. And my friends would say, well, we want those workers to have a living wage.

   Well, the people that build 93 percent of our buildings in this country earn a good wage, and they have good quality. And our position is that, instead of allowing the unions to take the money, the extra 15 to 35 percent, let us allow our schools and I will support the additional money. Let us let our schools keep the additional money for more construction, for class size reduction, for teacher pay or training, even technology, or where they decide, where the teachers and the parents and community can make those decisions.

   My colleagues have said that, well, let us save taxpayers' money at the local level. I worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE), one of the finest men in the House, when I served on the authorization committee. He was my chairman the first year and then vice versa; and we worked, I think, in one of the best bipartisan ways. And I have a lot of respect for him. I think he is wrong a lot of times, but I love him.

   But they say, let us save money at a local level. Alan Bersin was a Clinton appointee as Superintendent of San Diego City Schools; and he said, Duke, would you support a local school bond? I said, Alan, that is the most Republican thing you could ask me to do because most the money goes to the school and, guess what, the decisions are made at a local level, not here in Washington, D.C., with all the strings.

   Only about 7 percent of Federal money goes down, but a lot of that controls the State and local money. Look at special education how that hurts some of the schools and helps people at the same time. But look at title I and those rules and regulations tie up.

   The President wants Davis-Bacon in this. We feel it is detrimental, it actually hurts schools, and we cannot bring ourselves to do that. We have special interest groups, as my colleague says. But the Democrats, I think their special interest groups are the unions and the trial lawyers and they support those issues. But the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Small Business Association, Restaurant Association, they are not bad as some of my colleagues think. These are the people that go out and create the jobs for the people.

   Over 90 percent of the jobs are created non-union. And we are saying, let the union compete with small business, let the best man win, but not have the increased cost of school construction. Now, that is a big deal. This is a big difference between most of us. You feel you are right. We feel that we are right. We see that it helps the schools, our positions; and we cannot give in to that. And the rhetoric and the campaign stuff that goes back and forth, we have a solid belief, and I want my colleagues to understand that, I believe it with all of my heart, and that is why I think we are here is because of those differences.

   But yet, the President will veto it over that. And I do not know what we are going to do. I do not know how long we will be here, and I think Members on both sides are willing to stay until we can agree with something. Maybe it is half. Maybe it is whatever it is.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON).

   Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this great and free democracy need to understand what is going on here tonight because it is unprecedented. No President, at least in my 18 years as a Member of the House of Representatives, has ever vetoed a bill he supports. And I have never seen the Members of his party vote to support a veto of a bill they support or one whose every part was agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Of course, not every portion of it is perfect. They do not love every portion. Neither do we. But this was a bipartisan bill where every number was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats working together and where the President agreed to it as well.

   It is unprecedented to have a veto message in which the President says he supports the bill. I do not know how in good conscience my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are working to conclude the business of this Congress when they support the President in preventing the very bills that have to pass to wind up this session from passing.

   Here is an appropriations bill that we must pass to wind up our business. It is one we have agreed on. How can my colleagues in good conscience say that they are doing anything but filibustering and involving themselves in obstructionist actions for purely partisan reasons when they oppose a bill that they have agreed to and that the President agrees to?

   Now, let me look at the rhetoric that the President brings to the table in his veto message, because it is not unlike what happened on the floor last week, which I think is so fundamentally destructive of our democracy. His rhetoric intentionally mixes information from one bill to another until the public cannot understand and follow what is happening in their own democracy. To say that this bill has to be vetoed because we need more money for teachers is ridiculous. This bill doesn't fund education. That is the issue of the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education appropriations (HHS) bill. It is not the issue of this bill.

   We will argue about whether or not we need more money for teachers when we discuss the HHS bill. And I am proud to say, as a Republican, that we put $2 billion more in the education function in that bill than the President even asked for, and we allow districts to use it for teachers if they want to, if that is what they need. But some of my school districts do not have classroom space, they cannot use this money next year for teachers, but they know exactly what they need it for, preschool, summer school, lots of kinds of things to help kids who are below grade level to catch up.

   What is wrong with flexibility? Do you not trust local government? Do the Democrats not trust the people of America? Is that why they have to uphold this veto of a different bill on which they agree and the President agrees because they want to hold the other bill hostage and make sure that local government in America has no right to say whether they need summer school to help their high school kids who are behind a grade level to catch up?

   Let us go on to their other issue here of worker safety. I am a strong advocate of worker safety. I voted with my Democratic colleagues to make sure that the ergonomics research went forward. How many of my colleagues, and I am looking at some of them from parts of the country for whom this is an absolutely incredible reversal of everything they ever stood for, how can they vote, how can they hold hostage a bill we all support to a Presidential position that will mandate on our States 90 percent reimbursement of salary and benefits for someone injured by an ergonomics problem?

   I have had two carpal tunnel operations, both wrists. If I had been out, should I have gotten 90 percent of salary and benefits when my friend next

[Page: H11679]  GPO's PDF
to me got his foot crushed with a piece of steel and he gets the State rates, which is somewhere between 70 and 75 percent, depending on the State? Are you, my colleagues, out of your minds?

   I mean, I am for worker safety, but I am not for unfairness. It is wrong. This is really important. I brought this up when we debated this. Unfortunately, it was midnight and most of my colleagues were not here. But I asked them to go back and check with their small businesses to see how they can survive or check their State laws and see what it would do to have that inequity among workers.

   One can get terribly, terribly injured through a construction catastrophe and that injured worker would get the State's 70 to 75 percent, whatever their State offers, in Workmen's Comp. But, under the President's proposal, if they get carpal tunnel syndrome, they'd get 90 percent of salary while they are out of work. Why are you holding a bill up on which we have agreed to every single number for a new and extremely unfair and unaffordable mandate in another bill?

   Look what this bill does. I mean, my gosh, it adds $475 million so we can expand the anti-forced child labor initiative, attack drug smuggling, $10 million more for drug free communities, more money for the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center to help prevent school violence, better funds for the Terrorism Task Force, much more money to enforce the Brady bill.


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents