OH-16/Ralph Regula Research Thread

[goobergunch]

AngryWhiteDemocrat is running against Ralph Regula (R-OH16).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=80192&mesg_id=80192&page=

This thread is for looking up bad stuff on Regula and finding precincts in the district to concentrate on.

[goobergunch]

1. Regula Statement Re OT Rules

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this proposal would eviscerate what the Secretary is trying to do. I think for the membership they should understand that the Secretary's rules would have given a million workers access to time and a half that do not now have it, and it would limit some of the white-collar type of workers to not getting the time and a half under the existing rules. And for this reason we think that the Secretary's rules that have been promulgated are fair because it does elevate the million people into an opportunity to make some extra money and get paid for time and a half if they have put it in. Whereas, the white-collar workers understand that that is part of the condition of the job, that they may understand they have to work some extra time and not necessarily get time and a half.

I think the rules would make management of the enterprise more effective and more efficient and would certainly be fair to everybody. Therefore, I think we should leave the Secretary's rules stand as is, rather than adopt this amendment in an attempt to second-guess what the Secretary is doing in putting these rules in place. I would urge a vote against the amendment.

* * * * * * *

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I would only say to my colleagues I think we need to reject this amendment. It is premature. These are proposed regulations. There is plenty of time for comment, and it is a recognition on the part of the Department of Labor that the 1 million low-paid workers today that have no opportunity to get time and a half will have that opportunity, and therefore, I would want this amendment rejected to give them that kind of a chance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:H10JY3-0025:

[UrbScotty]

2. Regula won 69% against a truck driver in 2002.

But, as I said in the other thread, he shouldn't be counted out.

[goobergunch]

3. I agree that it's a real long shot...

so we should put the power of DU behind his campaign...I bet there's a lot out there that we can dig up.

[AngryWhiteDemocrat]

4. You are amazing

For the record, I've never seen any mudslinging in any Regula campaign, by either side.

Most of the time, he gets by on name recognition, especially against candidates who do no real campaigning.

Someone young, energetic and willing to speak out is something he hasn't faced much. Til now.

[revcarol]

5. You're da man.

Don't you love it how the first info dug up by a DU-er comes up with Regula being in favor of dumping 8 MILLION people from getting overtime??!!
Maybe demographic and census information can develop which counties/industries would be most affected....DU RESEARCH IS GREAT. ASK BEV HARRIS.
If I were you, I would campaign at hospitals and doctor's offices on this issue. All those overworked nurses will be irate when they find out they have been declared "supervisors" who won't get overtime.My 2 cents...for what it is worth...maybe only 2 cents.

On edit: and contact that truck driver and get his cooperation and access his base of support.More gratuitous advice...

[LewisJackson]

6. Bunch of stuff to say

First, he has thus far only raised about $6K. That's not all that much money, when you think about it. Looking back at his records, he barely raises more than $200 for his elections. That's not a TON of money, as far as house races go, and I think that if you can tap in the Dem party in Ohio, you might be able to pull off some magic.

Second, looking at past election results, I think Medina county is your best chance to pick up votes, as the county itself trends Dem by a margain of 60-40. You're really going to have to get out the vote there, because Ashland and Wayne seem pretty Republican. Not entirely certain about Stark, but I think they're pretty conservative, too.

Take this for what it's worth. I'll try and add more later.

Lewis

[LewisJackson]

7. Also.....

If you want to do a DU fundraiser, I would suggest doing a quarterly one. Think about this- if you got just 2/3s(20,000 people) of the message board tothrow in $5 every three months, then that adds up to.....$600,000 BY NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR! EGAD! Considering Ralph usually only raises about $200K, that would be more than enough(Not to mention that it would be very likely most people would end up donating more than that).

What else you can do is try to contact DUers who would be willing to come down there. I, for example, would gladly take off a weekend and campaign for you. There are probably a lot fo others, as well, if you just give a proper amount of time to get our act together.

[goobergunch]

8. Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the Canton Metro area

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes_1320.htm

This includes Carroll and Stark Counties. I know Carroll County isn't in the district...I'll see if it's available at the county level.

Employment Median Hourly  Mean Hourly  Mean Annual Mean RSE
   179,770        $11.89       $14.52      $30,200    2.0 % 

ON EDIT: Nothing that I could understand was available at the county level.

[UrbScotty]

9. Interest group ratings

From Project VoteSmart

NEA: 0%
LCV: 18%
UAW: 17%
Peace Action: 0%
Alliance for Retired Americans: 0%
AFL-CIO: 22%

Someone I know doesn't represent the people of his district, and his initials are R and R.

[goobergunch]

10. County Breakdown (2002)

ASHLAND COUNTY
Regula   8,058 72% 
Rice     3,136 28% 

MEDINA COUNTY
Regula  20,024 66% 
Rice    10,399 34% 

STARK COUNTY
Regula  76,199 67% 
Rice    36,967 33% 

WAYNE COUNTY
Regula  22,809 76% 
Rice     7,364 24% 

TOTAL
Regula 127,090 69%
Rice    57,866 31% 

County Share of Vote-this should apply to 2004 as well:
Ashland County: 6.05%
Medina County: 16.45%
Stark County: 61.19%
Wayne County: 16.31%

[Kolesar]

11. Ohio has nasty air and water pollution

Ohio is at the top of the list for acid rain emissions from coal-fired electrical generators (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen-oxides). Coal burning also causes particulate pollution that kills tens of thousands of Americans per year. These emissions cause global warming, also. These are federal issues. Where is Ralph Regula on these issues? In the wrong if he only gets 18% from the League of Conservation Voters. Doesn't he care about Ohioans' health or the health of Ohio's children? Come on, Mr. Regula, just admit that you have been feeding at the trough of corporate donors, and have no regard for the health of Ohioans.

Companies get away with dumping millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into our rivers. Plating operations get away with dumping chromium compounds into Lake Erie (via sidestreams).

Then there are forest, urban sprawl and other issues: www.ohio.sierraclub.org

PM me Jeff if you wish me to explore this further. Best wishes.

[goobergunch]

12. Great point!

Regula was the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 1995-2000...why didn't he do something about this?

[AngryWhiteDemocrat]

13. I'll be in touch

...when things get rolling. I'll need all this info.

Thanks again!

[goobergunch]

14. Miscellany from the FY 2004 Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations debate

Mr. OBEY:

<snip>

Lately, the Republican Majority has attempted to claim credit for education funding increases, and to reinvent their record on education. Just a few years ago, however, Republicans were calling for the demise of the Department of Education and billions in education cuts.

If the House Republican position on education had prevailed over a 9-year period, House Republicans would have spent $20 billion less on education.

(page H6503, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I received unanimous consent earlier to insert a table after my remarks, which I will do, which will lay out clearly what the record has been over the last 10-year period.

All I would say in further rebuttal to my good friend: Regardless of what each of us argues the past shows, the issue today is whether we are for $6 billion more for education and health care for kids and sick people, or whether you are for using that $6 billion to make sure that our struggling millionaires get a double-sized tax cut. I think the public will see by the votes who is for what.

(page H6503, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. <snip>

The chairman indicated at the beginning of his remarks there are two real roles, goals, responsibilities, if you will, for government under the Constitution: to provide for the common defense and to provide for the general welfare. Just a few days ago, the Congress of the United States voted in the amount of $369.1 billion to provide for the common defense; and the other constitutional provision for which the chairman spoke, providing for the general welfare, today we will vote in the amount of $138 billion. Go figure. If we are providing for the common defense, a clear responsibility under the Constitution, providing for the general welfare, $138 billion, certainly the Federal Government has room for improvement on this question.

The key here is the 302(b) allocation for this bill, which limited our committee to $138 billion. The 302(b) allocation for this bill woefully underfunds a number of programs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that is before us today. Today we are considering the bill which assists the most vulnerable in our Nation. This bill provides assistance to the unemployed and job training to those who need the skills. This bill provides health care treatment, research, prevention funds to those who are ill; and this bill provides funds for the great American equalizer. What was unclear in the chairman's statement was whether or not he advocated for more funds under the 302(b) allocation for this bill. If he advocated for more funds for the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, then he cannot at the same time say that the funding for this bill is adequate because it is inadequate if he argued for more funds under the 302(b) allocation.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does provide more money for title I, but it does not provide adequate money. Title I is the primary Federal program that helps school districts meet the new accountability and academic results mandated by the Leave No Child Behind Act. With the title I funding, low-income, low-performing children are able to get help particularly with reading and mathematics, the two subjects that the No Child Left Behind Act requires be tested in grades three through eight beginning in 2005. Title I is a critical source of funding for high-poverty schools. In adopting the rigorous new accountability standards in title I, Congress on a bipartisan basis agreed to phase in increased title I payments over several years. For fiscal year 2004, the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes $18.5 billion with additional increments each year through 2007. The majority's fiscal year 2004 budget resolution promises $1 billion, or 9 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 for title I grants for school districts for a total of $12.7 billion.

(page H6507, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, we come together all right when we have good bills to come together on, but this bill is a turkey, and that is why on this occasion we are not for it.

(page H6511, 2003 Congressional Record)



Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the theme of this particular bill seems to be ``promises made and promises broken.'' The fact of the matter is that this theme is true with respect to K through 12 education, where President Bush's own education bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the promise was a deal. The deal was that there would be more accountability and more requirements in there that would be imposed or mandated on local communities to meet that cost, and, in return, the Federal Government would step up to the plate and put some more resources towards meeting those mandates.

The broken part of the promise, of course, is this appropriations bill is $8 billion short on the promised full funding. Yes, it is a little over 1 percent more than the current funding, but that is essentially a freeze when you consider the increased number of students involved and the inflationary factor.

The fact of the matter is it does not at all address the increased mandates of local communities to meet the requirements in that bill.

This theme is also true with respect to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the promise of over 25 years ago that the Federal Government would try to come up with 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with disabilities. Now, we know that that high cost for a free and appropriate education of disabled students was not being met by the States, and the Federal Government stepped forward with that promise. The States now have relied on that promise. In 2004, 6.4 million 3- to 21-year-olds depend in part on the Federal Government to step forward and help out.

Promise number two in the area of IDEA is in 1994 the Republicans in their Contract on America said they would fully fund IDEA, but both of these promises have been broken. Both the 25-year-old goal and the decade-old political statement have not been met.

The third promise is the majority's 2004 budget resolution. It promised an increase of $2.2 billion over the last year's grants for school districts.

Another promise was the majority's reauthorization bill passed in April, again promising an additional $2.2 billion for IDEA.

The fact of the matter is this appropriations bill falls $1.2 billion short on IDEA. Under the Republican plan, the State of Massachusetts will lose over $29 million on grants that it otherwise would have gotten if the authorization bill's goals were met.

But that is the way it is, Mr. Chairman, with this House. The majority says when it comes to giving tax cuts to millionaires, they can take the check to the bank; but when it comes to funding educational needs for children and their families, that check is written in disappearing ink.

(page H6511, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation because it abandons our commitment, our common commitment to affordable college education for American families; and it abandons those values which guide us towards that commitment.

Just last month, unemployment rose to 6.4 percent, the highest in 9 years. America's working-class and middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet; and yet college tuition is skyrocketing in this country. Double-digit tuition increases are a standard at public universities, with these costs rising by more than 20 percent in some States.

The solution in this bill to these trends of rising unemployment and increasingly unaffordable college education is to freeze all student aid for the first time in 6 years. The value of the Pell grant, the biggest and largest Federal college assistance program and other student financial aid programs, actually decreases under this bill. It does not even adjust for inflation or counteract sharply-rising college tuition costs.

I believe that this bill runs counter to the values that Members on both sides of the aisle share. I know I have talked to Members on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the importance of college education. We would not be here in this Chamber if it were not for the importance that college education provided us to move and achieve for us and for our families the American Dream.

<snip>

Mr. REGULA.<--passes buck-GG Mr. Chairman, I want to say first, before yielding to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that his committee is looking at all of these programs to find which of those are working well and is providing reforms that will make them work even better, and I think that is an important element of what we are doing today.

(page H6512, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply correct several of the impressions left by the previous speaker.

I want to congratulate the Republican Party. I will readily admit that they have changed somewhat since they took over in 1995. When they took over in 1995, they wanted to cut the guts out of education funding, and they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They have become somewhat more civilized since that time. But they are still producing appropriation bills that do not meet the promise of their authorizations and do not meet the promise of their budget resolutions. That is obvious.

(page H6513, 2003 Congressional Record)

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, today's education funding bill completely ignores the reality facing the neediest of our college students today. College costs are rising dramatically over the last 10 years. College tuition is up 38 percent, and the buying power of the Pell grant is at an historical low. Due to the sour economy, State legislatures have dramatically reduced their support for a postsecondary education as they seek to balance State budgets. Charitable giving, alumni support and endowments are down.

How has all of this affected our students? Students, especially the neediest students, are literally being denied a postsecondary education because they do not have the resources to pay for college. According to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, nearly one-half of all college-qualified, low- and moderate-income graduates will be unable to attend a 4-year college due to rising costs. Nearly 170,000 students will be unable to attend any postsecondary institution.

(pages 6514-5, 2003 Congressional Record)

To access the Congressional Record, use http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/retrcrpg.html

[jiacinto]

15. I went to NCEC

I found this:



Bush got 54% of the vote there to Gore's 43%.



Here is how OH voted at large. It seems like Gore carried none of the counties in this district.



Here is how the district voted in 1996. Clinton carried maybe one of the counties. I don't know where all of OH's counties are.

Here is how the district voted in 1992.



I guess that you need to find out why Clinton was able to win a few of the counties, but not Gore.

I guess that what you need to do first is find the most Democratic precincts in that district, the ones that vote 65%+ Democratic in most elections. You should target them all the time. You probably will get most of your volunteers from there and your donations. This area you should blanket and make sure they vote.

Then I gues you need to find the precincts that range from 36% to 64% Democratic. These are going to be your swing precincts, the ones that have independents and Democrats. Here you will be targeting on key voters and knocking on select doors.

Then you will have to find the 65%+ Republican or 35%- Democratic precincts. You will ignore these people as they are not going to vote for you no matter what. You might want to target the few Democrats who live there and knock on their doors. You might also want to target some of the independents who live there, but these areas are low priority.

You might also want to register voters in the 65%+ Democratic precincts that have low turnout and a low voter population in relation to the pool of "eligible" voters.

[goobergunch]

16. Ohio-16 Data

This is from the Almanac of American Politics 2004, which I got literally 10 minutes ago.

Urban Population 73.6%
Rural Population 26.4%

Median Income $41,801
Poverty Status 8.3%
Veterans 13.6%

Ancestry
German 21.9%
Irish 9.5%
English 7.3%

Blue Collar 30.5%
White Collar 54.7%
Gray Collar 14.8%

[jiacinto]

17. Well then

AWD probably needs to start with the Blue Collar and the Urban populations first. They should be targetted earlier. Perhaps the Gray Collar areas might be targetted too.

Veterans is a possibilty, but that depends on the local environment.

[AWD]

19. Blue collar/Minority

The blue collar is a good target for me...I have a good reputation among union leaders in this town from 2 strikes that took place in 1999/2000. The President of the local AFL/CIO and I still talk occasionally, and the steelworkers have joined forces with my peace group at 2 protests in 2003. I can win their votes with just a little attention pointed at them.

But the rural vote may be tough....Regula is a farmer in rural Navarre (or was, and his family keeps it going). He's very popular among rural types, so they may be the toughest swing.

The biggest vote IMHO is the minority vote. Somebody check the records and see how much of a force the minority vote was for Clinton in 1996, how much in was for Gore in 2000, and how little it was in the mid-terms in 2002.

I honestly believe that if I get the minority vote out, I can really overpower Regula's strengths and win this thing.

And that's something that I can do that Regula can't....campaign in the low-income minority neighborhoods (not saying that all low-income are minority), where Regula has routinely ignored over and over again.

As a matter of fact, tonight we are going to a Nu-Zone festival (African-American festival) to pull in voter registration and promote my candidacy.

Also, next Thursday we're doing the same thing at the Peel Coleman Center, where there will be a DJ/Beat Box competition.

[goobergunch]

21. AAP 2004 says that the district is 92.4% white and 4.8% black

I'd think that the minority vote would be heavily Democratic (given that it was overall 90% Gore-9% *), but the only way to really tell is district-level exit polling (which is hard to find) or the results from minority-majority precincts.

[jiacinto]

23. That 4.8% of the population could make the difference

But clearly AWD is going to need white voters to win.

[jiacinto]

22. Talk to the labor union members in the area

They are probably going to be a key base of your volunteers. Also go into the heavy Dem precincits looking for those people who have voted in every election over the last few years.

The minority population in this district, per the other reply in this thread, is low. But even so you need ALL of them to vote as they could make the difference.

You need more than the minoirty vote to win. You are going to need the votes of white people to make it.

As for attending those events, where minorities are more likely to attend, you need people of those ethnic groups to market your candidacy.

[Kolesar]

18. Massillon was a steel town

I hope it still is. You might expect to get support from the USW. Find out where their picnics are being held and elbow your way in.

I recall a nasty dispute in the area south of Massillon. Homeowners all over had signs in their yards about being locked out by a steel company (AK Steel?). Perhaps there is some unrest you should study. AK Steel is a focus of environmentalists for particulate pollution at one of their southern Ohio plants right now.

[AWD]

20. Steelworkers

The steelworkers will jump behind ANY candidate with a union background that will converse will them regularly.

The local steelworkers president's card is in my wallet, having been there since he called me to co-organize a Bush protest.

After I make my announcement to the medi, I will be heavily involved with the Steelworkers and other unions. I plan to not only tell them my visions, but ASK them what theirs are and ASK them to show me what they want in a congressman.

[goobergunch]

24. For health care research, continue here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=16528&mesg_id=16528

until Wednesday 13 August.

[goobergunch]

25. Head Start

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. As a former elementary teacher and an elementary principal, I am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and the need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering kindergarten. You cannot start too soon. My daughter-in-law reads to my 16-month-old granddaughter, and here we are talking about children who are 2, 3, 4 years old.

The Head Start program has been a successful program over the years, providing comprehensive services to many children not otherwise reached, and providing students with some of the basics needed to be successful in school.

As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services already provided and enhancing, that is the key word, the academic component. H.R. 2210 will allow the Head Start program to achieve this goal by emphasizing cognitive development, improving teacher quality, and providing extra help for Head Start programs identified as underachieving.

I would like to emphasize, as my colleagues have stated, that there will be no additional testing required of the children in this program. Further, arbitrary performance measures will be eliminated, ensuring that the performances of Head Start centers are more fairly evaluated.

Because of the value of the comprehensive services, recently referred to as the crown jewel of Head Start, this legislation will keep the program at the Department of Health and Human Services, preserving and extending the health and nutrition components. The bill authorizes a level of more than $200 million over the current level and limits Federal Government administrative expenses allowing as many as 10,000 more children, 10,000 more to be served by the Head Start program.

I would like to add that in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that this body recently approved, we provide an additional $148 million. This bill was just approved a few weeks ago. We added $148 million to the program. I might point out that in the last 8 years the Republican majority has more than doubled the amount going to Head Start.

I hear conversation about how the program is not getting adequately funded. The facts are the facts. Funding has more than doubled in the last 8 years since we have been responsible. Additionally, the bill contains incentives for States to maintain or expand funding of early childhood education. Education should be seamless. It should start with the Head Start program, go through the elementary into the high school and on to the college level. And I have had a real concern since I have been chairman of this subcommittee about the number of high school dropouts. Many of the major cities are in excess of 50 percent in the dropout rate. That is a terrible waste of human capital; and we need to address it. One of the key elements in this is the ability to read. I do not think decisions are made by young people at the ninth grade or the tenth grade to drop out. Those decisions are made when they do not learn to read at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade level.

Therefore, the Head Start program as envisioned by this bill will be an added component to ensure that individuals will have skills so that when they reach high school they can participate. They can read. They can comprehend, and they can be ensured that they will get the skills they need to participate in our economy.

We hear today about unemployment levels. We hear about people not finding jobs, and the need for skills only grows. Therefore, I think this program is a very important part of the early education of a young person, of a child and on into adulthood. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Give these kids the same chance that others have. That is what it is. It is Head Start. And we want to give them a head start, and this bill will do that.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=H7525&position=all

This is supporting H.R. 2210 (108th Congress), which would gut Head Start.

ON EDIT: He was also a co-sponsor.

[goobergunch]

26. This is odd...he introduced a bill to make DC part of MD

108th CONGRESS
1st Session

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h381ih.txt.pdf">H.R. 381

To provide for the retrocession of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 27, 2003

Mr. REGULA (for himself, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KOLBE, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) introduced the bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act - Cedes the District of Columbia to Maryland after Maryland's acceptance of such retrocession. Maintains the exclusive legislative authority and control of Congress over the National Capital Service Area in the District of Columbia.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. that benefits the repukes

it means no more 3 electoral votes that'll always go Democratic, and at most can add an extra electoral vote to Maryland, giving them the advantage.

[goobergunch]

27. Here he's opposing funds for LIHEAP

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I recognize, of course, that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DELAURO), the proponent, is concerned; but let me say that we also recognize there is a need out there.

The President recommended 150 million extra dollars and in the subcommittee action as part of the full committee, we doubled that to $300 million. And effectively, what this means that we have committed for fiscal year 2001 a total of $2.5 billion.

Obviously, you add and add and add; but at some point we have to say this is a reasonable amount, and this recognizes the responsibility of the government and does provide a reserve for the balance of this fiscal year of 300 additional million dollars, plus what was already in the bill.

Last summer, we only used $35 million of the $600 million that was provided in emergency funding, and those remaining funds are carried into 2001, and they are available for this year's program. I think that what we have done is recognize the importance of LIHEAP to those who have fuel problems, and I think in putting in 300 million additional dollars, we understand that and have been very generous in trying to meet those needs.

Mr. Chairman, no one knows exactly what the weather is going to be, but it seems to me that the $300 million represents a very reasonable amount. It is double what the administration recommended. Again, I think it expresses the concern that the members of the Committee on Appropriations have for this program.

I would say to my colleagues that I believe we have been very responsible in providing the $300 million and would reluctantly oppose adding any more to this, because the supplemental is already approaching a large sum of money.

On the issue of advanced appropriations, and that is also part of this amendment, it provides for an advanced appropriation of $2 billion for the LIHEAP program. While I understand there is a desire on the part of the States to have as much advance notice on the funding level as possible for the next fiscal year, I do not think it is a responsible approach to advance appropriate that amount.

Obviously, when we get to the 2002 budget, and I am sure that the gentlewoman understands that, we are going to be as generous as possible in providing for LIHEAP funding for the fiscal year 2002, but I think it is a little premature to put the money out now until we know what the fiscal condition of the government will be; and what happens with the extra money we put in for this year will give us a better feel for what will be needed next year. Fortunately, energy costs are coming down in many areas; and I believe this, too, will be a factor.

We probably will be doing a markup in September, and at that time the Committee would be better able to evaluate the needs of 2002 rather than to start at this point and advance fund the program.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I mentioned, I would urge my colleagues to not vote for this particular amendment, because we have already gone the extra mile in putting in the $300 million for this fiscal year.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2001_record&page=H3325&position=all

(The link's not working, but it's page H3325 of the 2001 Congressional Record.)

Just to review, LIHEAP stands for Low Income Home Energy Assistance.

[goobergunch]

28. Here he opposes more NEA funding

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

GPO's PDF
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris. I think both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris, and they will be leaving in the next several months, have done a great job of administering these agencies. The fact that we are here debating the amount of money is indicative that we have had a good administration. We are not talking about egregious projects. It is just a matter of priorities in the expenditure of Federal funds.

What I am somewhat concerned about here is the fact that we still have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance in the national parks. Art takes on many forms. Art is also to go out in a national park, such as the Grand Canyon, and look down in that enormous landscape in terms of the beauty of it, or to go to Yosemite.

So I think we have to make priority judgments, and it is not a matter of one art against the other. You have the visual art, but you also have the natural art that is part of our national parks, national forests, all these wonderful resources.

When we have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance, when people will necessarily have to be RIFed in the Park Service because there is not enough money here to give them an adequate pay raise, I think probably priority-wise that we are not in a position to be spending more money on these projects now. As we all know, we did increase art funding in the past year, and I think the gentlemen who have led these two agencies have done a good job of using the money very wisely.

But I think in terms of the priorities of this Nation, that our first priority has to be to take care of what we have in our parks and forests, to ensure that future generations will have the same pleasures that we do in visiting these facilities.

It seems to me that before we start adding to the expenditures, and I think the committee did a balanced job in making the priority choices, that we ought to weigh carefully whether we want to limit the amount of pay increase for our people that serve us in the national parks and forests, whether we want to continue addressing the backlog of maintenance. When we are talking about maintenance, it is trails, it is roads, it is camp facilities, and I think probably priority-wise we should leave this bill as it is as far as the numbers for the humanities and for the arts and address some of these other needs, because a beautiful vista in a national park or a national forest is every bit as important as a piece of art.

I hope prospectively that the resources will be enough that we can make the priority judgments to do both. I think there is an opportunity to expand the arts and humanities. But in terms of our priorities, I believe the committee made the right judgment in saying, to start with, we need to emphasize the maintenance of the facilities we have; we need to give these people who serve us in the national parks and forests an adequate pay raise, because they are very selfless to begin with.

If you visit the parks and some of the facilities that people have to live in and housing and so on, you realize that those that are public servants in parks and forests are truly dedicated, that they do this as a labor of love, and, therefore, I think it is important that we adequately compensate them.

I do not have any quarrel with the need to have more money, but it is a priority choice, and I believe today we should stay with the committee's numbers.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2001_record&page=H3387&position=all

[AWD]

32. THAT'S THE ONE I NEED!!!!!!!

I have several people questioning me on my stance on the arts. Here I can hammer the CRAP out of Regula!

[goobergunch]

29. kick

:kick:

[OzarkDem]

30. Check his position on women's issues

His record isn't the greatest on breast cancer issues:

http://www.stopbreastcancer.org/bin/wapps/voterguide.asp

BC & Environmental Research Act H.R. 1746/S. 983 - NO
Access to Cancer Therapies Act H.R. 1288/S. 1037 - NO
Patient's Bill of Rights - NO


On edit, averaging the last few years, Ohio ranks about 5th in the nation for breast cancer mortality.

[OzarkDem]

33. More Ohio 16th stats

From Ohio VCS

http://www.vcsnet.com/State.php4?OH

Clinton won more counties because he got the support of women voters, both D & I.

There are more Dem & Independent women voters than men. Candidates who run strong on non-controversial women's issues and emphasize attracting women voters will do well. Women are also less likely to be political impulse buyers. Sure its a lot more fun to go to the union halls and yell and rant, but it doesn't get you enough votes. Go to the senior centers, bingo games, League of Women Voters, stand outside the grocery stores, Walmart, Target, etc.

Unfortunately, most Dem men candidates in Ohio don't get this, that's why R's are in charge.


State = OH US CONGRESS(U) = 16 Date: Aug 12, 2003

VOTER COUNTS:
Flag
Reps 99,519 24.9% 5. 95 VOTE HIST 134,173 33.6%
Dems 66,456 16.6% 6. 96 VOTE HIST 213,743 53.5%
Inds 233,859 58.5% 7. 97 VOTE HIST 168,893 42.2%
Total 399,834 100.0% 8. 98 VOTE HIST 197,979 49.5%
Phones 293,580 73.4% 9. 99 VOTE HIST 144,483 36.1%
Age < 25 35,480 8.9% 10. 00 VOTE HIST 265,328 66.4%
Age => 65 58,789 14.7% 1. 01 VOTE HIST 162,233 40.6%
Precincts 610 2. 02 VOTE HIST 204,852 51.2%

HOUSEHOLD COUNTS:

At least 1: Combinations:
Reps 68,852 Rep/Dem 111,148
Dems 50,282 Rep/Ind 226,020
Inds 176,354 Dem/Ind 213,997
Total 257,432 Voters/Hhold 1.55


EXTENDED STATISTICS: (by Household)

Rep. Dem. Ind. Total
OVER 55 28,297 22,316 39,319 84,553
HHs REG > 02 2 2 1,183 1,187
HHs JAPANESE 83 52 170 258
HHs IRISH 4,407 3,242 11,974 17,156
HHs HISPANIC 665 776 2,596 3,578
HHs ITALIAN 1,884 2,180 5,395 8,132
HHs CHINESE 347 204 1,042 1,409
HHs JEWISH 6,039 4,092 13,182 20,043
CARRIER ROUTE 66,670 49,240 171,699 250,461
MALE 43,990 26,564 93,392 156,392
FEMALE 46,072 33,557 103,052 177,046
PHONES 57,075 39,773 110,078 174,108
95 VOTE HIST 41,500 31,748 29,042 91,024
96 VOTE HIST 55,312 40,946 63,849 139,780
97 VOTE HIST 50,745 38,469 38,993 113,635
98 VOTE HIST 59,408 43,298 46,683 132,210
99 VOTE HIST 47,469 36,797 25,169 97,985
00 VOTE HIST 67,743 49,288 78,702 169,647
01 VOTE HIST 51,659 39,024 30,958 107,586
02 VOTE HIST 60,306 43,676 48,632 133,840

[Kolesar]

34. Wow, great website!

[OzarkDem]

35. You can hire them

to do more detailed counts and reports, walking lists, precinct lists, etc. Costs $$$, though, they're not cheap. And they work on more Repub campaigns than Dem.

[goobergunch]

31. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

36. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

37. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

38. kick

:kick:

[wrkclskid]

39. I am currently running a new PAC

we just sarted and don't have a name yet, but its me and some of the other campus Dems at my shcool. I am in charge and am learning the ropes as we speak. Anyways, in a few months or so if u could give me some inf on your campaign I can see abou getting you some cash. I would have to clear it through the others but that should be no problem. Today's god news in Nevada means some cash that was gonna go o Senaor Reid will now be delayed, we may give him some net year but now his siutaiton doesn;t seem so dire. Also, has anyone ever thoguht of starting a DUPAC?

[AWD]

42. Keep me informed

Feel free to contact me personally as well.

All info will be posted on my website starting Monday.... www.jeffseemannforcongress.com

[NewJerseyDem]

40. It will be hard to defeat Regula

He is in line to become the chairman of the House of Appropriations Committee in 2005 sinceh Bill Young is term limited even though the leadership could skip over him. That means that he will chair one of the most powerful committees in Congress and will be able to promise a ton of pork for the district. Still, this district doesn't seem like extreme right wing territory so there may be some hope.

[goobergunch]

41. I'll just add that * calls Regula "Ralphus"

it's been posted elsewhere, but that thread was locked.

[MIScott87]

43. So a DUer is running for Congress?

Cool!

I'm sorry, I'm new. Great to hear about AWD.

[jarab]

44. Welcome, MIScott87

...O..

[goobergunch]

45. kick

:kick:

[CarlBallard]

46. from opensecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00003651&cycle=2004

2003-2004 Total Receipts: $6,243
2003-2004 Total Spent: $44,673
Cash on Hand: $92,063
Debts: $0
Date of last report: June 30, 2003
First elected 1972
Next election 2004

$92,000 is a heck of a lot to run against.

Also his top 5 contributors for the current election cycle. Still young so it'll probably change.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00003651&cycle=2004

1 American Liberty PAC $4,000
2 Golin/Harris International $1,000
2 Keep McDade in Congress Cmte $1,000
4 AVI Food Systems ($1,000)
5 AFL-CIO ($2,000)

And in the previous cycle it was

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.asp?ID=OH16&cycle=2002&special=N

Forest City Enterprises $20,000
America's Majority Trust $5,000
Bob Ney for Congress $5,000
Grafiti Store $5,000
Leadership PAC 2002 $5,000
Promoting Republicans You Can Elect $5,000
AmeriChoice Corp $4,000
RMS Management $4,000
Tudor Investment Corp $4,000
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway $3,650
Limited Inc $3,000
Park Strategies $3,000
Cleveland Clinic Foundation $2,750
Advocacy Group $2,500

There was more but I cut it off at 2000.

Just a cursory glance looks like he's getting a fair amount from other Republicans. (Bob Ney for Congress, Keep McDade in Congress) I don't know if that's standard or not. I don't know if Forest City Enterprises is a buisness group but he got a lot from them in the previous cycle. Also you should see open's methods about how they make the chart from the same page:

This chart lists the top donors to each candidate so far in the current election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

[goobergunch]

47. Why did the AFL-CIO contribute to him?

He voted for the WH OT rules, ya know...

:wtf:

[CarlBallard]

48. It doesn't look like he got much from labor

In the previous cycle he got from these interests:

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/indus.asp?ID=OH16&cycle=2002&special=N

Real Estate $33,250
Lobbyists $31,750
Lawyers/Law Firms $19,248
Leadership PACs $15,000
Education $15,000
Retired $12,800
Retail Sales $10,000
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $9,250
Business Services $9,000
Candidate Committees $9,000
Securities & Investment $8,750
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $6,250
Health Services/HMOs $5,000
Insurance $4,250
Food Processing & Sales $4,000
Health Professionals $3,750
Railroads $3,650
Civil Servants/Public Officials $3,550
Casinos/Gambling $3,000
Special Trade Contractors $2,500
General Contractors $2,500

The AFL-CIO also contributed that year, so it looks like it's the only labor group that contributed significantly (or I missed labor when I looked at the list). So it's not like the locals were contributing big time. Why the money from the AFL-CIO? I don't know.

[CarlBallard]

49. Someone might want to ask

If you're from Ohio 16, or the surrounding area you might want to give the AFL-CIO a shout out here. If you do, you might want to mention this forum or opensecrets.org so they know you aren't comming from nowhere. Mention that there is a good Democrat running. And above all be polite, they gave some cash to AWD's opponent but they are still the good guys. If you get an answer, you should post it here.

Also I looked up Forest City Enterprises (googled it) and they aren't a buisness group, but real estate. http://www.fceinc.com/

[Kolesar]

52. The head of the Ohio AFL-CIO was at the Richfield Labor Day rally

Perhaps he heard the "man with the megaphone" on the streetcorner. I could expect that the AFL-CIO would give money to a powerful Congressman like Regula who chairs the very important appropriations subcommittee.

Drug companies and Archer Daniels Midland corp give money to candidates from both parties.

[ButterflyBlood]

51. he's going to be 80 next year

meaning he should be retiring soon. so while beating him now is a long shot, you should be able to build up name recognition and run for the seat then.

[CarlBallard]

54. Would it be wrong

to start refering to him as "old man Regula"?

[AWD]

57. Around here, yes it would....

[NewJerseyDem]

55. He may retire in 2010

That would be my estimation. Since he will probably become chairman of the Appropritions committee in 2005 he will most likely continue on until 2010 when he is term limited out of the chairmanship. However, he would probably retire earlier if republicans lose control of the House or if they skip over him for chairman. He is however one of the oldest comgressmen. Ralph Hall is the oldest and he just turned 80 back in May.

[goobergunch]

53. Regula on *'s visit to OH

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), who greeted the president when he arrived at the Cleveland airport, said the White House gave him details of the event only days before it took place and he “had some misgivings about it, but it worked out well. My misgivings were misplaced.”

http://www.hillnews.com/news/090303/dark.aspx

[goobergunch]

56. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

58. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

59. kick

Even though the 49ers SHOULD have beaten the Browns.

:kick:

[goobergunch]

60. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

61. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

62. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

63. Regarding the WH OT rules

Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on section 106 of the Senate amendment regarding overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

<snip>

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the House bill does not contain and the Senate Labor HHS bill does contain an important provision which affects millions of American workers. That provision would preclude the Department of Labor from issuing any regulation that takes away overtime protection from workers who currently qualify for that protection. It would protect rights that workers in this country have had since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Under the Senate provision, the Department of Labor could proceed with its ongoing rulemaking process and modify the overtime regulations. Example: The department could proceed with making a long-overdue inflation adjustment that guarantees overtime protection for certain low-income workers earning $22,100 a year.

The Department of Labor says that this will result in an additional 1.3 million workers receiving overtime. I do not know if that estimate is right, but we agree with this provision. We, in fact, think that it would add far fewer number of workers than does the Department of Labor. The only shortcoming we see with it is that it does not go far enough and does not even keep pace with inflation, full adjustment to match inflation would require the department to increase the salary threshold in the rule to at least $27,560.

The Senate provision also would not stop the department from clarifying the overtime regulations to update them for the 21st century. For example, by eliminating an achronistic terms such as ``straw boss'' or ``gang leader'' or eliminating job classifications which no longer exist such as ``teamster''. Do not tell that to the Teamsters Union, however.

The Senate provision would provide the same protections to newly hired workers as to current workers. It does not grandfather in current workers but ensures the same overtime protections to all workers in a job classification.

Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement that workers are going to lose overtime protection under the administration's revised regulation. The question is how many will lose that protection? By some estimates as many as 8 million workers who are currently protected will lose that protection. Even if the Department of Labor concedes that a minimum of 644,000 workers currently covered would lose that protection and could be forced to work overtime without being compensated. Whether the number is 644,000 or 8 million, Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration should not put American workers in the position of being forced to work more than 40 hours a week without being paid overtime.

So to reiterate, the Senate provision would simply stop the Department of Labor from issuing a regulation taking away overtime protections from workers who currently have them. The Senate provision is absolutely essential to protect workers' overtime rights. It is not enough that more than 3 million workers have lost their jobs since this administration has taken office. Now the administration apparently wants to cut the pay of a number of workers who still have jobs by cutting their overtime protections. That is clearly not right. It is not fair. I do not think that the public would support it, and I would urge a yes vote on the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the operative word here as stated by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is they ``apparently.'' Well, they have not finished this procedure. The Department of Labor has received 80,000 comments on the proposed change. What they are trying to do is to bring the rules on overtime into the new century. It has been over 50 years since the present rules were promulgated and the department thinks it is important to take a look in relationship to today's world, today's communications, today's structures of our labor programs that would be realistic.

I think one of the things that I want to put to rest is that this will affect certain groups. I have here a letter from the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise of their opposition to the motion to instruct. What they are saying is let us look, let us take these 80,000 comments and see what makes sense and is fair to everyone concerned. The Secretary of Labor is approaching it from that point of view. What is fair.

Likewise, it has been said that the nurses would come under this because they have do a lot of overtime and, again, the Nursing Executive Watch, a publication that goes to nurses says, ``Contrary to popular belief, changes to overtime regulations won't affect nurses.''

So, again, it is an effort by the Department of Labor to look at regulations that have been in place more than 50 years and say what is fair, what makes sense in 2003 and thereafter.

Now, there is another risk involved in all of this and that is the fact that the administration's leadership, the executive branch, has said they would recommend a veto.

Well, what would be the result of a veto? We would be living on a continuing resolution without increases voted by this House in support of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Bill, increases in the amount of money for many good programs. And let me tell you a few of these:

Special education gets an extra increase of $1 billion in the Labor H bill. Title I, which is designed to help children from low income homes gets an increase of $650 million. Reading programs, and we hear more and more evidence that reading is such a vital part of the education of any individual. They use scientific evidence to help children, and they are funded at over $1 billion. Impact aid, for those of you who have military bases, is increased by $50 million for a total of $1.2 billion. That is just education.

As I said many times, this is the people's bill. Every one of the 280 million Americans in one way or another, their lives are touched by the things we do in this bill. Health programs, many of you have community health centers, a very valuable asset in any community, and we recognize this, and based on the President's recommendation have increased the funding for these in the bill. Centers for Disease Control. The CDC has been much in the news in recent months because of a wide variety of diseases and, again, we increase the funding for the Centers for Disease Control. Substance abuse. We hear all the time about the problem of drugs. And again, we have increased the money for this program and, of course, the National Institutes of Health. This is the premier medical research institution in the world. Not only does it benefit the people in the United States, it has a worldwide impact on the health of people. We have substantial increases for the National Institutes of Health.

I could read off a whole list of agencies that get increases in this bill, Even Start, Reading First, Early Reading First, Literacy, Migrant Education, programs for neglected and delinquent youth, Comprehensive School Reform, Mathematics and science partnerships, after-school centers, education for homeless children, education programs for rural school districts, teacher enhancement programs, charter school grants, credit enhancement for charter schools, the list goes on and on, PELL grants, vocational education state grants, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, TRIO, GEAR UP, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, Howard University, education research, and so on.

All of these programs get increases under the bill under discussion, and we are going to put that at risk if we reject the efforts of Secretary Chao and that is what this amendment does. It says, do not pay any attention to the 80,000 comments that have been sent in to your agency to evaluate how it is presently working in comparison to what it would have been 50 years ago. We are saying, no, no, no, stop. And then you run the risk that if the President's advisors prevail and there is a veto, we could be on a continuing resolution even for the balance of this fiscal year. If that were to happen, all of these programs would be funded at levels below what we have put in the bill.

And I think as our Members contemplate making a decision on how to vote on this motion to instruct, that they ought to keep in mind that what they are doing is gambling the future of our children or gambling these increases in some great programs against what we think is a very orderly process, and that is to let the Secretary go forward, evaluate the 80,000 comments and make a decision on what the rules should be in terms of overtime pay for the next years.

So I say to all of my colleagues, weigh your vote carefully because you are not only voting on a proposal that was brought up in the Senate by way of an amendment, you are voting on the future of a lot of very good programs that are funded under the Labor bill.

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

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=H9155&position=all et seq.

[AWD]

64. thank youuuuuuuuuu

[NewJerseyDem]

65. Regula to punish opponents of Labor-HHS bill

Not that it will probably hurt him, but what a jackass?

http://www.thehill.com/news/102203/earmarks.aspx

The House Republican leadership has endorsed an effort by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), an appropriations cardinal, to punish Democrats en masse for their blanket opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending package.

Regula’s plan to redirect all potential Democratic earmarks to vulnerable Republicans would breathe new life into a principle that Republican leaders have long wanted their more accommodating appropriators to enforce: If Democrats vote against appropriations bills, they shouldn’t expect special projects earmarked for their districts.

[AWD]

66. It'll hurt him BIG TIME

He's been "the nice guy" around here for a LONG time, getting elected because he's not been easily attacked for being partisan.

Now, he's going afdter a chairmanship, and in order to do so he has to play hardball.

He's just given me a HUGE point with which to attack his character...withholding funds from fellow congressmen's disrticts. Heis keeping AMERICANS from getting help they were promised, all in the name of partisanship.

I see a press conference coming on.

[goobergunch]

67. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

68. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

69. kick

:kick:

[goobergunch]

70. kick

:kick: