David Obey: “I would like to reemphasize something that the gentlewoman is saying. This agency's staffing has been reduced by more…”

“I would like to reemphasize something that the gentlewoman is saying. This agency's staffing has been reduced by more than one-third since 1980, from 3,000 people to under 2,000; by more than 25 percent since 1985. The staffing level for fiscal 1996 was the lowest since 1962, and yet their case intake was 56 percent higher. Each employee must now handle 28 percent more cases than in 1985. I understand that when various labor unions campaign against individual Members of Congress, that when legislation comes to the floor Members have an opportunity to offer amendments which reduce the ability of the agencies to protect legitimate rights of workers; and I understand that that can happen under the rules of the House, but that does not make the amendments that might be offered any more advisable. It seems to me that we should not, under the banner of cutting the so-called bureaucrats in Washington, actually be gutting the Government in its responsibility to protect workers and to protect corporations from unfair practices by unions. That is what the effect of this amendment would be, and I think it deserves to be defeated on both sides of the aisle. This amendment, were it to pass, would not survive conference. If it did, there would not be a bill. There is no way the President of the United States is going to accept a gutting of his responsibility to enforce the law to protect workers' rights in this country, and it is just that simple.”