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      

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

   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

   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.

   Let us put aside the partisan games. Let us override the President's veto. Then let us move on to the HHS appropriations bill and work these things out. That is what we are tasked to do by the voters of America.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to explain that I thought that we had been asked if we would agree to no debate on the bill. We were willing to do that. But since my colleagues have had more speakers, we have a couple other Members who have indicated they want to speak.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MENENDEZ).

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

   Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, since I have seen my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an affinity, I would even have to say a proclivity, to quote the President's words, I would like to refer to the statement he made as it relates to the bill that is being considered for referral to committee, the bill that he vetoed.

   He said, ``We are now a full month past the end of the fiscal year, and just a week before election day. Congress still hasn't finished its work.

   ``There is still no education budget. There is still no increase in the minimum wage . There is still no Patients' Bill of Rights or Hate Crimes Bill, or meaningful tax relief for middle class Americans.

   ``Today, I want to talk about an appropriations bill that Congress did pass. The Treasury-Postal Bill funds these two departments, as well as the operations of Congress and the White House. Last night, I had no choice but to veto that legislation. I cannot in good conscience sign a bill that funds the operations of Congress and the White House before funding our schools.

   ``Simply put, we should take care of our children before we take care of ourselves. That's a fundamental American value, one that all parents strive to fulfill. I hope the congressional leadership will do the same. We can, and we will, fund a budget for Congress, but first let us take care of the children.''

   I agree with the President. Simply put, how is it that we would hold ourselves up as an institution and the White House that they are worthy of being funded when we have a whole host of vital issues, some of which the President recited himself, that simply are not being funded and will likely not be funded before the American people go to vote next Tuesday?

   He goes on to say, ``We thought we had a good-faith agreement with honorable compromises on both sides,'' with reference to the landmark budget for children's education. ``That was before the special interest weighed in with the Republican leadership. And when they did they killed the Education Bill.''

   I agree with the President. Let us put our people before ourselves.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to the Member on the other side of the aisle who said, how in good conscience can we support this veto? My response is, with ease. And I will tell my colleagues why.

   The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) is upset. And I do not blame him. He is one of the good people in this House. And there are a lot of good people in this House on both sides of the aisle. And we treasure our friendships, and we treasure our associations. We also treasure a sense of balance, and we treasure people who keep their word at the highest levels as well as the lowest levels of both parties.

[Time: 20:30]

   The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) is upset because his Treasury-Post Office bill has been vetoed, and, along with it, although this has not been mentioned, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, because the Treasury-Post Office bill is folded into the Legislative appropriations bill. If I were the gentleman from Arizona, I would be unhappy, too, because he wants to see his bill finished. The problem is that there is only one man in the country who has the responsibility to look out after everyone, and that is the President of the United States. And what the President of the United States said in the words that the gentleman from New Jersey just read is that, quote, ``I cannot in good conscience sign a bill that funds the operations of the Congress and the White House before funding our classrooms, fixing our schools and protecting our workers.''

   In other words, the gentleman from Arizona is upset because matters of legislative concern such as our offices, our travel allowances, our staff allowances are not settled. In fairness to him, he did not say that because he is concerned about the Treasury-Post Office bill, but I have had that said to me by a number of Members tonight. All the President has said is that I recognize that the big fellows in this society, the President and the Congress, because that is whose budgets are funded in the bill that he vetoed, remember, he vetoed his own budget as well as the Congress' budget. All the President says is that we are not going to provide the money that the big boys want in this society until we first take care of the needs of the little people. That is all he said. I agree with him.

   I would like to very much see all of this come to an end. I am sick of all of it. But I would simply say it was not the President who decided to package the Legislative and Treasury-Post Office bills in one package so that everything got tied up in this debate. It was some genius, some staffer in one of the leadership offices who decided to do that against the advice of the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle.

   I would point out that there is one revenue item in that bill that the President vetoed which will cost five times as much as the entire cost for the tax credits for school construction contained in the bill which we are still trying to put back together after the majority leadership sandbagged the bipartisan agreement that we reached two nights ago.

   The bill that was vetoed cost the Treasury $60 billion over the same time period that it cost only $12 billion to fund the school construction tax credit. There is a very easy remedy for fixing the problem that the gentleman from Arizona is concerned about. That bill can easily be passed simply by referencing it in an agreement that we ought to be able to achieve on the Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill. All you have to do is to come back to the agreement that was hammered out two nights ago. If you do that, we will take care of the needs of people like this who have been so injured by doing their duty in the workplace that they can work no longer.

   We will take care of their needs as well as the needs of the 435 Members of this House who would kind of like to know what their office allowances are going to be, what their staff allowances are going to be, what their travel situation is going to be, and what the

[Page: H11680]  GPO's PDF

   Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

   Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin, for whom I have very great respect, is aware that many years the President has signed this bill before he has had the opportunity to sign the HHS bill. So this is a matter of politics. It is not a matter of principle. He has never before said, I must hold the funding for the executive office and for this until that is done. That is just complete Presidential politics.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take back my time. If the gentlewoman is going to use pejorative terms like that, then I would simply say yes, this is the first time to my knowledge that the President has vetoed this bill because it was passed before the Labor-H bill was passed. But this is also the first time that we have had the majority leader and the Speaker of the House blow up a bipartisan agreement that had been signed onto by both parties. Before those negotiations ever began, I asked the negotiator for the Republicans on the House side and on the Senate side, do you have the full authority from your leadership to negotiate to a conclusion every item in this bill? Their answer was yes. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) said, Yes, and isn't that nice for a change? Now, we know it was not a change. So now we know that once again, after a bipartisan negotiation has been put together, someone in the majority party, after checking with somebody else decides, Well, sorry, we're going to do it all over again. If we cannot take each other's word in this institution, then this institution is not the institution that I have given 32 years of my life to.

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