[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7220-H7243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3755.


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Walker in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] has 43 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] has 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would call the attention of the 
Members to the charts beside me. First, a chart depicting the 
expenditures of the U.S. Government in 1962, Jack Kennedy's heyday, 
when the Federal Government in that fiscal year spent $106.8 billion 
with a very minor deficit. The deficit today runs around $150 billion.
  It was a different day, a different era. Half of that was defense, 
which is depicted in the lower yellow portion of the pie, and roughly 
one-sixth of the budget, a little bit more than one-sixth, is the 
nondefense discretionary portion, which includes the programs funded in 
this bill.

                              {time}  1900

  The blue portion refers to the entitlements, which at that time 
consisted of Social Security and welfare and various other mandatory 
spending programs. The red is interest on the debt, which then was a 
``big'' $7 billion.
  Times have changed, Mr. Chairman. Today--for fiscal 1997--the chart 
looks entirely different. More than half is blue, the mandatory portion 
of the budget, which is now Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
welfare and other mandatory programs. The total amount now that we 
propose to spend is $1.6 trillion compared to $106 billion in fiscal 
1962.
  Today we spend 15 times more than we spent back in Jack Kennedy's 
day. As I say, half of it is for mandatory spending. We raise most of 
the money, and we transfer it to other people. We tax the American 
people and pass it on to the next guy.
  The discretionary portion looks entirely different. Before, half of 
the whole budget was defense; now it is only one-sixth. But the other 
sixth, or the other half of the third, represents discretionary 
spending which is now about $269 billion, and a good portion of what is 
in this bill makes up that amount.
  Actually some of what is in this bill is also funded in the blue, or 
the mandatory portion, but what is significant about this chart is the 
red. The significant of the red on this chart is the fact that it has 
grown disproportionate to the entire pie, which itself has grown by 15 
times since 1962. The red represents the interest on the debt.
  Within the next year or so the red, the interest that we pay on the 
debt, the borrowing of $100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion a year 
over the last many years, is now rapidly approaching the same amount of 
money and soon will, exceed what we spend on the defense of this 
Nation, our first priority under the Constitution of the United States.
  So I have heard various Members from the other side of the aisle 
troop down here and say we have to take care of the little children, 
the infirm, the elderly, we have to take care of the disabled and 
people who cannot help themselves, and my answer is if we do not get a 
handle on this problem, all of those people along with every one of us 
is in deep trouble.
  The interest on the debt is the first thing the Government must pay. 
Otherwise we default. If we do not want to default, we have to pay the 
interest on the debt even before we worry about the security of our 
Nation and of every man woman and child in this Nation.
  If we do not get that interest on the debt under control, if we do 
not get this borrowing in control, that tendency that has caused us to 
borrow up to $100, $200, to $300 billion a year, because we are 
spending that much more than we receive every single year with the 
exception of perhaps 3 years since World War II, frankly, the red color 
on the chart will encompass everything else, and we will not be able to 
afford anything else.
  So I would say take care of the little children first by balancing 
our books. Now, the other side will say, well, we are balancing them on 
the backs of the children. I say that is not true. The fact is we are 
making significant savings. In fiscal year 1995 we saved a net of $16 
billion, in fiscal year 1996 a net of an additional $20 billion. In 
fiscal year 1997, which we are in now, it will be another 15 to $20 
billion. Minimum, a net savings to the American taxpayer of $53 billion 
under what was appropriated by the Democrats when they had control last 
in the Congress.
  If we look at President Clinton's budget compared to where he would 
take us had he had a Democratic Congress, we are saving around $80 
billion, all of that out of the discretionary spending. That savings is 
achieved by cutting everything fairly and equitably.

  Is it out of education? No. First of all, the Federal Government only 
spends roughly 5 percent of the entire education budget. This is the 
chart showing what the United States spends on education. State and 
local governments spend 95 percent; the Federal Government puts up an 
additional 5 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that despite the fact that we have 
heard this hue and cry about cutting the people that are least able, 
total nondefense discretionary spending is going up. The fact is, yes, 
we are eliminating duplicative programs. We have cut unnecessary 
programs. We have already eliminated a number of programs; gone from 
655 in 1995, to 515 in 1996, and to 464 in 1997, in this bill.
  At the same time the savings generated by these eliminations are, in 
fact, going to the States in the form of block grants, block grants for 
States and localities to spend the money as they please. Community 
service block grants has gone up from $390 to $490 million. For child 
care and development programs, it has gone up from $935 to $950 
million. For social services block grant, it has gone up from $2.4 to 
$2.5 billion. And for maternal and child block grants, it has gone up 
by $3 million from $678 to $681 million. We are spending more, not 
less, on block grants.
  Student aid is going up. The student aid has increased. Maximum Pell

[[Page H7221]]

grants are going up per person, per individual recipient. The overall 
student aid has gone up. The TRIO Program has gone up. For the very 
most disadvantaged people spending has gone up. Work-study spending has 
gone up. So has spending for various other programs.
  It has already been pointed out title I grants to the States are kept 
even. We have been hearing there are cuts in these programs. Head Start 
is staying even. We are not cutting these things. There has been a lot 
of rhetoric, a lot of political breast beating about how these programs 
are being cut. They are not being cut. They are staying even.
  The point is we can go ahead and spend all the money and worry about 
manana if we would like to, but the poorest of the poor will suffer the 
most. The people on pensions will suffer the most. The people trying to 
plan for their children's education by borrowing to get them in college 
or borrowing money to buy a house or to buy a car will pay most as long 
as the Government continues to borrow to make up for the deficit that 
it has created by spending more money than it receives year after year 
after year.
  When are we going to bring some common sense to the system? Well, I 
will tell my friends, we have begun, and we are not balancing the books 
on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged; we are putting this 
country back on an even keel in an orderly fashion. If we have our way, 
within 6 years we will have a balanced budget. If we do not have our 
way, if the other side has their way, this country is going broke.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply respond to the gentleman who just spoke 
by saying the following: On defense, the difference between now and 
Jack Kennedy's time is that when Jack Kennedy was President we were in 
the beginning of the Vietnam war, we had a raging hot cold war, and the 
Soviet Union was in its heyday. That is a little different than the 
situation is today.
  With respect to interest on the debt, I would simply suggest that 
that interest on the national debt is not out of control because we are 
overinvesting in education. In fact, under this bill and under the 
Republican budget over the next 5 years, we will see a per pupil 
reduction in the Federal investment of almost 20 percent.
  On the Pell grant front, which is the main program that helps kids go 
to college, in 1976 that program covered about 48 percent of the cost 
of going to college. Today it covers only about 20 percent of the cost. 
Federal support for education as a percentage of what local school 
districts provide has shrunk from 5.6 percent just 2 years ago when the 
Republicans took control of this place to about 4.7 percent under this 
bill. That is almost a 20-percent reduction. At the same time, the 
States' share of meeting the cost of public elementary and secondary 
education at the local level has declined from 50 to 45 percent. So we 
are seeing both at the State level and at the Federal level a real 
reduction in deliverable program levels to support education.
  I would simply add one additional note. I find it quaint that when 
the gentleman defends this bill he says ``We are not cutting anything, 
we are just holding it level,'' which denies the fact that because we 
have inflation and we also have an increasing student population, which 
means, again, that in deliverable aid to each student we are having a 
real reduction each year.
  I find it interesting that somehow this is not a cut when we are 
talking about education, but last month, on page 2 of the document that 
the gentleman's committee reported, the Department of Defense 
appropriation bill for 1997, what they pointed out is that they 
provided a $3.7 billion increase in raw dollars above 1996, but they 
described it as a $4.4 billion reduction because it did not meet the 
cost of inflation.
  So somehow when we talk about defense, then we are supposed to take 
into account the ravages of inflation and add to spending; with you, 
when we are counting what we provide for aid to kids, we are not 
supposed to do the same thing. That seems to me a very quaint 
accounting system, especially if we are concerned about making 
investments in protecting the country's future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3755, the bill setting the 
fiscal year 1997 appropriations levels for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Service, Education, and related agencies.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and as the ranking member of the VA-
HUD Subcommittee, I know first hand how difficult it is to craft a bill 
that truly responds to the needs of the American people. So, first, I 
want to take this opportunity to commend the chairman of our 
subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John 
Edward Porter, and our distinguished ranking member, Mr. David Obey, of 
Wisconsin, for their hard work and doing what they could to craft such 
a bill within the subcommittee's inadequate allocation.
  While there are some things that we can be especially pleased with in 
this bill, there are a number of others where we should be extremely 
concerned. For example, we can be pleased about the fact that the bill 
includes an $820 million increase for furthering biomedical research 
and restoring the infrastructure at the National Institutes of Health; 
a $75 million increase to further disease prevention and health 
promotion activities at the Centers for Disease Control; a $37 million 
increase to expand higher education opportunities for disadvantaged 
students under the Trio programs; a $45 million increase for Job Corps; 
and a $33 million increase in health professions training to ensure a 
cadre of health care providers to meet the Nation's health care needs 
especially in urban and rural underserved areas.
  While we can be pleased with these investments, we must be equally 
disturbed by the major shortfalls in H.R. 3755 which threaten the 
quality of life for the most vulnerable among us. For example, the bill 
eliminates funding for the Healthy Start Program. This is a program 
which is designed to improve the Nation's infant mortality rate. It is 
appalling that the United States, ranking 22d, in fact has the worse 
infant mortality rate among industrialized countries. The Healthy Start 
demonstration projects have proven their effectiveness in reducing 
infant mortality.
  As such, I cannot understand how my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle can label themselves as ``pro-lifers'' and then zero out 
funding for this highly successful pro-life program--which is designed 
to save the lives of babies. Now is the time to provide the resources 
needed to begin to implement and to apply the Healthy Start Program's 
lessons learned to other communities that have a dramatically high rate 
of infant mortality. For the sake of families across this country--we 
now know what works--let's use it.

  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3755 falls seriously short on addressing the needs 
of our Nation's youth. Funding for the Summer Jobs Program is $171 
million short of the amount needed to just support the same number of 
summer jobs as in fiscal year 1996. As a result, nearly 80,000 kids who 
need and want to work would be denied that critical opportunity.
  Out-of-school youth are hit even harder, as the bill virtually 
ignores their employment training needs at a time when we know that 
education and skills matter most in today's job market. The Youth 
Employment Training Program was gutted in the past rescission and 
appropriations cycle, and is now flat funded at $127 million.
  Substance abuse treatment is cut by over $38 million. With respect to 
at-risk youth alone, 5 million individuals will be denied the substance 
abuse prevention services they desperately need.
  The dramatically high rate of unemployment among out-of-school youth 
and the high rate of teen pregnancy are two of the most significant 
problems confronting this country, consuming scarce resources, and 
compromising our youth's future. We can and must do something to 
effectively address each of these ongoing problems. They are too costly 
in terms of human capital and monetary expenses to ignore.

[[Page H7222]]

  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3755 also fails our Nation's school children, 
jeopardizing their academic future. At a time when school enrollments 
are on the rise, and are in fact the highest in history, the bill 
freezes funding for teaching assistance in basic reading and math under 
the title I Grants to Local Education Agencies Program. Funding for 
Safe and Drug Free Schools is cut $25 million below the current funding 
level despite the increase of crime and violence in our Nation's 
schools. Funding for training and advisory services associated with 
carrying out title IV of the Civil Rights Act is not only frozen, but 
is also 48 percent below the President's fiscal year 1997 budget 
request. In addition, no funding is provided for the Women's 
Educational Equity Program. These two programs are critical to ensuring 
educational equity for minorities and women.

  The bill also eliminates funding for Goals 2000, which is designed to 
assist and provide communities critical resources needed to raise 
education standards and children's academic achievement. Funding for 
these five programs alone falls nearly a billion dollars below the 
President's fiscal year 1997 funding request level, and $375 million 
below the current funding level.
  The bill also threaten's seniors' quality of life by short funding 
low-income home energy assistance, the Administration on Aging, and the 
National Senior Volunteer Corps. Funding provided for these three 
programs alone falls over a billion dollars short of the 
administration's request.
  At a time when we speak of the critical need to insure personal 
responsibility, H.R. 3755 is weak on addressing the needs of families. 
Funding for the mandatory Social Services Block Grant Program and the 
child care development block grant are $320 million and $98 million 
respectively short of the administration's request. These resources are 
desperately needed by working poor families who not only need to work 
but equally important want to continue working. In addition, funding 
for the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control Program is cut $2.6 million. These funds are 
critical to further research on the prevention and control of fires, 
poisonings, and violence including homicide, suicide, and domestic 
violence. Programs under the auspices of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration are also especially hard hit by H.R. 
3755. The over $38 million cut in substance abuse treatment is 
compounded by the fact that funding for treatment was gutted 60 percent 
in fiscal year 1996, and that for treatment demonstrations was cut 57 
percent. As a result of the dire funding situation, with respect to at-
risk youth alone, 5 million individuals will be denied the substance 
abuse prevention services they desperately need. In total, funding for 
these four programs alone is $670 million below the administration's 
request, and over $70 million below the current funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, each and every day, parents across this country 
continue to raise their children telling them to get a good education, 
work hard, and play by the rules, and you will succeed. H.R. 3755 
denies these kids access to many of the most critical tools they need 
to succeed. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3755 
in its current form.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a very valuable member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important debate. This bill is a very 
important part of our effort to balance the budget for this Nation. If 
the President of the United States had his way with this appropriation, 
we would spend an extra 12 percent on this bill. We would spend an 
extra $7.8 billion in 1 year alone if the President had his way on this 
bill.
  On the other hand, the bill that we have before us is level-funded 
from last year's appropriation. So the first question we have to ask 
ourselves is: Do we level-fund for the next fiscal year in the context 
of a balanced budget, or do we spend an extra $7.8 billion? I come down 
on the side of balancing the budget.
  The second question we ask ourselves tonight is: Are we making an 
adequate investment in these very important programs, and in particular 
I would ask, are we making an adequate investment in education? I would 
submit to my colleagues that under this bill we are making substantial 
additional expenditures in education.
  Mr. Chairman, this first chart I have gives a history of Head Start 
funding. It shows that under this appropriation bill we will 
appropriate an additional $31 million for Head Start in fiscal year 
1997. It also shows that in the last 7 years alone Head Start 
expenditures have increased by 132 percent. This is at a time when 
enrollment in this program has not increased by nearly that percent.
  Now, the second chart I have is simply an account of Pell grant 
maximum awards, and my colleagues can see that the maximum award for 
1996 is $2,470. Under this bill it will go up to $2,500.
  Other increases in this bill are the Job Corps program, a $45 million 
increase; the work-study program, an increase of $68 million; impact 
aid, an increase of $68 million. We have also level-funded important 
programs such as job training, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools State 
grants, and Title I funding for the disadvantaged.
  It is very, very easy to be for a balanced budget back in our 
districts in an election year, but it is hard work to actually get to a 
balanced budget. It is hard to actually plug in those numbers that will 
reduce the deficit, when we consider them item by item by item.
  I would respond briefly to the comments of the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], my dear friend. His quarrel is with the overall 
budget plan which includes tax relief. There are many colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who object to the budget allocation. They said, 
``We did not vote for these tax cuts and we should not be bound by the 
budget plan.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have to make judgment calls, and if I have to make a 
judgment call on the side of the hard working taxpayer, I will do that. 
If I can put another $1,000 in the take-home pay of a young family 
making $25,000 or $30,000 and still level-fund these very important 
programs, I will do that.
  This is a choice of another $7.8 billion in spending or a balanced 
budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to choose a balanced budget 
and vote for the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mr. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his leadership for funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. This bill provides for a 6 percent increase which 
I wholeheartedly support. This increase will enable important research 
to continue in the area of breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's 
disease, AIDS and many others.
  The bill also increases funds to train child welfare workers to 
better care for abused and neglected youngsters. In addition, I thank 
the chairman for working with me to prevent cuts in public television 
funding, and I also thank him for continuing to work with me to fully 
fund domestic violence programs.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my deep concern with this 
bill. This bill has always been called the people's bill. But again, 
for the second year in a row, this bill falls short of meeting the 
needs of the people of this Nation: our schoolchildren, college 
students, elderly, and hard-working men and women across the country.
  Unfortunately, this bill represents a serious reduction in our 
Nation's investment in education. While the draconian cuts above $4 
billion proposed by the majority party of last year have not been 
repeated, the bill still fails to make the necessary investment in our 
Nation's schools.
  It was the proposed $4 billion in education cuts, coupled with steep 
reductions in job training and worker protection, which led to two 
government shutdowns and an 18-month stalemate over the budget. 
Finally, the majority retreated from their extreme position and 90 
percent of the cuts in education, 60 percent of the cuts in job 
training,

[[Page H7223]]

and 75 percent of the cuts in worker protection programs were restored.
  But the bill before us today takes us down the same path as last 
year. Under this bill, the Federal Government is further shirking its 
responsibilities to our local schools. In the 1994-95 school year, when 
Democrats were still in control of the Congress, the Federal Government 
contributed 5.6 percent of State and local expenditures for education. 
Under the bill before us today, the Federal contribution to local 
schools is down to only 4.7 percent.
  This bill also shortchanges students in colleges, universities, 
community colleges and training programs across our Nation.
  By the year 2002, an additional 1.5 million students will be enrolled 
in college. This is an increase of almost 10 percent in student 
enrollment. The cost of a college education is increasing faster than 
the rate of inflation. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into 
account increased college enrollment or increased college tuition.
  The Pell Program is the cornerstone of Federal college assistance, 
providing aid to 4 million needy students. Pell recipients are not 
well-off, and more than 90 percent of the aid goes to students from 
families and incomes below $30,000. The Pell Program is one of the few 
sources of grant aid still available. Pell helps to cut down on the 
crushing college debt burden assumed by so many students and their 
families today.
  But in the bill before us today, the maximum Pell grant is $2,500, 
only $30 above last year. This $30 increase in the Pell grant would buy 
a single college textbook. The Pell funding in this bill is simply 
inadequate to meet the costs of higher education today.
  The bill is also inadequate when it comes to the Perkins Program. The 
bill provides no capital contributions to the Perkins Program. Three-
quarters of a million low income students depend on the Perkins 
Program. In my state of New York, Perkins provided low-interest loans 
to nearly 60,000 deserving students.
  In addition, the bill before us today completely eliminates the SSIG 
Program. In fiscal year 1995, SSIG was funded at over $60 million. Last 
year we funded SSIG at $31.3 million, but only after a long and 
protracted fight over funding priorities. If we added a modest $31.3 
million to the SSIG Program, we could provide aid to 105,000 students 
and generate over $100 million in State students aid funds.
  The bill also fails to fund the President's important teen pregnancy 
initiative, provides no funding for school infrastructure, and 
eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act.
  The bill was flawed from the start because it was a direct outgrowth 
of mixed-up Republican priorities. Like last year, the House gave the 
Pentagon billions more than Pentagon requested. This year the House 
voted to give the Pentagon $11 billion more than it requested. This is 
wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is shortsighted. We cannot afford to keep 
shortchanging the important priorities of this Nation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that under Republicans in the 
last 2 years we have raised maximum Pell grants by $160, and under the 
last 4 years of Democratic administrations, the gentlewoman from New 
York might realize that they cut maximum Pell grants by $60.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Kolbe], a member of the full committee.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
HHS, and Education, for the very hard work he has done, he and his 
staff, on this bill, putting together a very tough bill under very 
tough circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I think they put together a very 
workable appropriation for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, ensuring that the medical needs and the 
education needs of the young and the old are met, and that we feed not 
only the body but the mind and the soul.
  But I stand here today mostly not in my capacity as a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, but as a member of the Committee on the 
Budget where some of these overall priorities are being established, 
because this bill that we are looking at today incorporates the goals 
and the promises that the Republican Congress made to provide our 
children with a better future.
  Mr. Chairman, simply stated, the best thing we can do for our 
children is to balance the budget. If we do not get runaway Federal 
spending under control, we are not going to have any money for college 
loans in the future; we will not have money for Head Start; we are not 
going to have any money for children's health programs.
  Through all of our history, each succeeding generation has always 
enjoyed the promise of having a better life and standard of living for 
themselves than the previous generation, but compare what Government 
spending has been between 1962 and 1997.
  This chart here shows the amount of money that was spent on 
discretionary nondefense spending in 1962 was enormous, more than half 
of the total Federal budget, and when we add the other part of the 
yellow in there, almost all of the budget was in discretionary 
spending. Look at how that has dropped by the year 1997, so 
discretionary nondefense spending is down here to a much smaller part 
of the pie. Whereas it was once 50 percent, today it is less than 20 
percent on those same kinds of programs.
  The kinds of programs that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
and his subcommittee have to deal with are being squeezed down by the 
entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Social Security. 
They are consuming an ever larger portion of the total Federal 
expenditure. When in 1962 they consumed 25 percent of Federal 
expenditures, today by comparison they consume 50 percent of those 
expenditures.

  We made, in the Committee on the Budget, a promise to cut Federal 
spending, to decrease taxes, to balance the budget. With a balanced 
budget we are going to give families lower car payments. We are going 
to give them lower student loans and lower house payments for their 
mortgages, and therefore they will have more money in their pocket.
  Once again, if we do not balance the budget, the people we are 
hurting are our children and our grandchildren.
  The President and some of those on the other side of the aisle would 
have us believe that the budget resolution in this appropriation bill 
is going to strip away valuable services, including education and 
health care for the elderly, women and children. This is simply not 
true. Under the budget conference agreement, and this bill fulfills 
that agreement, spending for education and job training increases from 
$47.8 billion in 1996 to $50.4 billion in 2002.

                              {time}  1930

  That is a $3 billion increase. Anybody outside Washington, Mr. 
Chairman, understands that that kind of spending, a $3 billion 
increase, is just that, it is an increase. So we are not talking about 
cuts. We are talking about increases. It is the other side that wants 
to talk about cuts.
  We know that money does not necessarily mean better education. We 
have a lot more bureaucracy in Washington with the Department of 
Education, when we do not have better education, not necessarily. So we 
need to be sure that we target the money that we do have available to 
those things that are absolutely vital and absolutely critical. This 
bill does that in health and human services, in education. I strongly 
urge that we support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I am going to lay a guilt trip on some of my colleagues who are 
considering at this time voting against this bill, because if they are 
for children and if they are for education and if they are for an 
improved health care system, they want to vote for this bill. 
Otherwise, frankly, I do not know how my colleagues who are considering 
voting against this bill can sleep at night.
  Examples: We are increasing Job Corps funding in this country that

[[Page H7224]]

would allow nine new Job Corps centers to be built by June of 1998, $45 
million more for Job Corps this bill contains that we had in the last 
bill. So if Members want to support young people who are trying to get 
a second chance in communities across this country, they are going to 
vote for the bill. Otherwise, I do not know how they can live with 
their guilt of abandoning these young people who desperately need this 
money.
  The same could be said for the Centers for Disease Control. We are 
increasing funding for them $75 million over fiscal year 1996. How can 
my colleagues live with themselves if they consider voting against this 
bill and abandoning the good work that is done at the Centers for 
Disease Control.
  Breast cancer screening increased by 8 percent. How could we live 
with ourselves if we vote against this bill when it provides increased 
funding for this most important cause? Community and migrant health 
care centers, again very necessary in many of our rural and poor areas 
of this country. How can Members vote against this bill and abandon the 
people who need this service so desperately in our communities?
  Pell grants. We have been talking about that for awhile now. We are 
increasing funding for Pell grants, when under previous leadership of 
the other party, Pell grants were actually cut. How can my colleagues 
live with themselves if they consider voting no on this bill that 
provides more money for Pell grants?
  The TRIO Program, that is an extremely important program for this 
country. We are providing $37 million more money for TRIO programs in 
this country. Think about the young people that come from families that 
have never had an opportunity before to go to college, families around 
this country that have been struggling, they are finally getting an 
opportunity to send someone to college in their family, and TRIO is 
going to give them an opportunity. How can we live with ourselves if we 
vote against this bill that provides more money for TRIO?

  The bill also contains additional money for health care professions, 
young people from disadvantaged areas in this country who are wanting 
to study to become nurses and dental hygienists in low-income areas, 
that provide health care in low-income areas, rural areas that 
oftentimes do not have health care that is necessary in their areas, 
this is going to provide $31 million more in funding for health care 
professions.
  I ask my colleagues, how can they live with themselves if they 
consider voting no on this bill?
  Please consider voting yes on this bill. We are all in this together. 
We want to help children, education and health care in this country. I 
ask Members to support us in passage of this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], ranking member, for yielding me this time and commend him for 
his leadership, especially now, in defining the problems in this bill.
  I also commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], for his efforts to do the best he could with 
inadequate resources.
  I rise in strong opposition to this bill as reported for many 
reasons. The bill is simply underfunded by 7.8 billion, or 11 percent, 
below the President's request. President Clinton demonstrated that 
there are ways to balance the Federal budget while at the same time 
investing in health and education of our people, especially our 
children. Indeed we will never balance the budget unless we make these 
investments in our children.
  This bill falls short because it follows the flawed budget blueprint 
adopted by the Republican majority. There are three reasons, there are 
many reasons, but I put forth three reasons to vote against this bill: 
cuts in education, cuts in education, cuts in education.
  Our colleagues on the Republican side get up and say that the Federal 
role in educating our children is only 5 percent. Indeed, under this 
bill we would not even be able to live up to that 5 percent. My 
democratic colleagues have addressed the education cuts over and over 
again in this debate, so I will turn to some of the cuts that affect 
American workers.

  Mr. Chairman, during the committee's deliberations, I presented an 
amendment addressing a number of the concerns about protecting American 
workers. Under the rule I was not able to offer that amendment as 
presented. I would like, however, to outline my concerns with the bill 
with regard to vital worker protection programs.
  In this bill, the Republican majority has declared war on the 
American worker. As the national debate continues over our commitment 
to American children, their education, their health and well-being, we 
must also address the economic well-being of their families. Over the 
last 2 years, primarily through the appropriations process, the 104th 
Republican controlled Congress has reversed decades of progress on job 
training, education, pensions and worker protections. This is 
particularly alarming when American workers and their families are 
menaced by trade, downsizing, technological downsizing, and other 
layoffs.
  This year the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill makes further 
cuts to important initiatives for America's 923 million working men and 
women in 6,000,000 workplaces across the country. These initiatives 
promote workplace health and safety, ensure pension security, and 
ensure that employees have fair wages and working conditions, and 
indeed even limits their ability to begin to bargain collectively. 
Indeed they even prohibit voluntarily guidelines for ergonomics, that 
is, repetitive motion injuries, which are the fastest growing health 
problem in our workplace.
  I want to refer my colleagues to this chart on the war on American 
workers. Safety and health enforcement in this bill is cut by 13 
percent below the President's request, 9 percent below last year what 
is required to maintain last year's levels.
  It even prohibits the new OSHA initiative and assistance to small 
businesses enabling them to reduce workplace accidents and fatalities.
  Mine safety: The cut of 6 percent below the President's request for 
mine safety will mean no funds to acquire new mine safety equipment and 
a reduction of mine safety inspection.
  Pensions: On pension protection, a cut of 22 percent below the 
President's request, 6 percent below current services. No funds are 
provided for three of the administration's pension priority protection 
initiatives, pension education and participants assistance, the 
electronic filing initiative, and the 401(k) enforcement initiative.
  This is in addition to last year's Budget Reconciliation Act, which 
turned back the clock on protection of pension plans. Fortunately, the 
bill was vetoed by the President, but it would have threatened the 
security of pensions in 6000 pension plans.
  Employment standards, the Employment Standards Administration, ESA, 
makes sure that ordinary Americans get a fair shake at the workplace. 
The enforcement of child labor laws, sweatshops, fair wage laws and 
fair hour laws are critical to American workers.
  Funding for ESA is cut by 6 percent and is 15 percent below the 
President's request. As a result, reductions will have to be made in 
efforts to eradicate garment sweatshops and protect workers' newly won 
family and medical leave.
  Collective bargaining, the National Labor Relations Board 
investigates and prosecutes unfair labor practices. It is being cut 
substantially, minus 20 percent, $36 million in this bill. Dislocated 
workers cut by 15 percent. Over 2\1/2\ million American workers lose 
their jobs each year due to global competition, et cetera, and will not 
receive assistance.

  There are 81,000 fewer laid-off workers being served.
  American workers are the engine of our economy. They deserve to be 
treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe workplace. 
Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on worker 
protection. This is the wrong place and the wrong time to cut back. 
American workers and their families deserve better.
  With that, I commend the chairman for doing the best he could with 
what little he had. I hope that in this battle of priorities, our 
national value system will say we need more for children, more for 
American workers, more investment in the future of our country.

[[Page H7225]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], a valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his outstanding 
leadership on this very important piece of legislation. Just so this 
does not turn into too much of a he-said, she-said type of debate on 
this floor this evening, I would like to point out to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from San Francisco, that we were able to team up in this 
legislation to address a very high priority for us, for our districts, 
and our constituents; that is to say, funding for AIDS research, 
prevention and treatment programs.
  I wish that we could at least have the intellectual honesty to come 
down to the floor and acknowledge what we would like about the 
legislation before engaging in the partisan bashing of what we do not 
like about the legislation. That would be for me a very refreshing 
approach, I think to discussing and debating legislative issues on the 
House floor.
  Second, I also want to point out that the bill funds the Ryan White 
Care Act at the House and Senate approved funding levels. So I thank 
both of those items are very welcome news to northern California and to 
those other parts of the country which have been experiencing and 
attempting to cope with the AIDS epidemic.
  I also want to commend the subcommittee chairman for increasing 
funding for Head Start. I recognize that there are problems with this 
program regarding the lack of accountability and the lack of 
demonstrated results on a long-term or longitudinal basis which I hope 
we can address again through a serious and honest bipartisan debate. 
But I think it is important, since I happen to be an advocate of 
universal early childhood education, to continue our funding support of 
Head Start.
  With that, I also want to point out, as previous speakers before me 
have on this floor, that this bill, the 1997 appropriations bill for 
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
increases--I did not say decrease or cut--increases by 2.4 billion, to 
a total of 40.7 billion, Federal taxpayer assistance for higher 
education in this country. So another way of putting that is, we 
continue to make student aid a top priority of this Congress. And we 
increase funding for all of the major student aid programs as the 
chairman and other Members have pointed out.
  Let me use this chart very quickly to make my point. We increase 
funding for Pell grants by $5.3 billion, we increase it to a $5.3 
billion level. As the previous speakers have pointed out, the maximum 
Pell grant is raised to $2500 from $2470 last year. This will be the 
highest maximum ever provided in this country. That does not sound to 
me like a Republican majority, a Republican controlled Congress 
drastically cutting education funding.
  Work study, the second most important Federal higher education 
program, is also increased by $68 million, and that is higher than the 
President's request. So come down to the floor and talk about the 
draconian and drastic and dire proposed cuts in the President's budget 
if you want to use this same rhetoric.
  Lastly, the TRIO Program is increased to $500 million. This is a very 
important program for outreach to minority Americans. So please, do not 
come down here and contend that we are cutting student financial aid. 
This is a good spending bill. It is good policy and it increases aid 
for students.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Wisconsin for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate here this evening 
and have been troubled by the perverse logic that this small, but 
important, 5 percent of the Nation's educational expenditure is 
dismissed. It is dismissed by people who obviously have not been 
talking to the struggling school boards, teachers and principals who 
are tying to make do, particularly in areas like this bill that would 
provide less per pupil at a time when many communities are struggling 
with growth, as has been documented by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey].
  But most of my concern, I guess, is focused on the dismissal of the 
critical partnerships with State and local government. Every Member of 
this Chamber has benefited in the Nation's prosperity in the 25 years 
after World War II due in no small measure to Federal educational 
investment and unprecedented partnerships with local schools. Everyone 
benefited from that. This bill would turn its back, and I use just one 
example:
  The bipartisan effort, the Goals 2000 to promote educational reform 
that has made a great deal of difference in my State increasing 
academic standards for students, bringing technology into classrooms, 
fostering an increased relationship between schools and higher 
education, and developing those public private partnerships between 
schools and employers that people talk so much about; this has been 
done in my State using this. And somehow we could not find less than 1 
quarter of 1 percent in this bill to fund Education 2000. It is a 
tragic mistake. It is shortsighted and counterproductive.
  Yes, it is difficult to balance the budget, but the issue is one of 
priority.
  I just want to say that turning our back on the Federal partnership 
and investment, ignoring our past successes, our current obligations 
and our children's future is no way to achieve that goal of a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], an able and valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, during the War of 1812 this building was 
surrounded by the British. In fact, the British came in and tried to 
burn it. There is evidence of that as we go about this wonderful 
structure. What we have now, though, is an enemy, not something that is 
tangible, but something that we are faced with and we might get into, 
and that is indulgent spending.
  Our Nation is spending money, this Congress is spending money, that 
we do not have. We are spending money of our children and our 
grandchildren, and what is immoral about that is it is without their 
permission, and this is why this bill that we have here today is so 
important, that we are trying to balance the budget for the sake of our 
Nation and, particularly, our children and our grandchildren.
  On this Committee on Appropriations, this is my first term, and I was 
told that it was a very prestigious committee and it is one that one 
can go on and gain a lot of friends. But there are not a whole lot of 
constituents that come in and say, please, cut my program. And so we 
have had the job of looking at the responsibility that we have, the 
moral responsibility that we have, of cutting the budget and saving 
this country from the enemy that is from within, and we have had to say 
``no.'' We have had to say ``no'' to program after program after 
program, and it has been tough, but we have wanted to cut spending 
first.
  The sad thing is that we have not been able to do it with the very 
people who could help us the most. The architects and the caretakers of 
all of these spending programs that started roughly in 1964 are here 
today, and they could point out the waste, fraud and abuse that we have 
and help us, in a patriotic fashion, work together to try to balance 
the budget.
  No. What they are doing is taking cheap shots, throwing hand grenades 
and trying just to get by this 1996 election. Where they could be 
helping us, where they could be taking some responsibility for what has 
happened, they are not doing it. They are saying this is cruel, this is 
wrong; they are bringing emotional arguments to bear so we will back 
down off our promise to the American people. But in 1994 we said, no, 
we wanted to balance the budget, and we were going to take the tough 
cuts.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of one instance, just one 
agency, and that is the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board. This 
board administers a program that has 1,934 employees, 500 in 
Washington, and the balance in field offices. It has 792 lawyers. It 
has 52 field offices, three in Los

[[Page H7226]]

Angeles alone. It has an annual rent of $8 million. We have been 
through the second year now of trying to ask them to help us and come 
on our side and bring us some semblance of reasonableness to this 
budget.
  We have cut this budget by 15 percent not because we know how to do 
it, not because they have helped us do it, but they have stonewalled 
and said, no, we want an 8.3 percent increase, we do not want to 
participate to help our children and our grandchildren, and this is 
what we are trying to do, and that is the reason why I am supporting 
this bill and going to vote for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to oppose this bill. Education is 
the key to the American dream and the key to global competitiveness for 
jobs, and this bill is inadequate, woefully inadequate to meet our 
young people's educational needs. Overall in this budget education is 
cut 7 percent below 1995 levels, 7 percent below 1995 levels, while 
enrollment is projected to increase by 7 percent over the next 6 years. 
In my State of Maryland alone enrollment has increased 12 percent 
between 1990 and 1995.
  This bill in inadequate. It provides $7.8 billion less than the 
President requested.
  Now, I have to tell my colleagues I am amazed when I hear Republicans 
puff out their chest and say, well, we only pay 5 percent of the cost 
of education anyway coming from the Federal Treasury. That is not 
something to be proud of. I dare say most taxpayers would like to see 
more Federal aid for education.
  Now, do not be fooled. Less Federal aid means only one thing: Higher 
State and local taxes, higher property taxes at the local level. Less 
Federal aid means larger classes, less equipment and materials, and 
poorer classes. And I assure my colleagues that the taxpayers in poorer 
States and counties would like to see more Federal aid for education.
  Now my colleagues have heard several of our colleagues stand up here 
piously and say, but we have to balance the budget. Let me give my 
colleagues the truth about this. They are providing $7.8 billion less 
than the President asked for for education, but they are providing $11 
billion more than the Defense Department asked for for defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just add that they have cut the Goals 2000 
Program, which provides local assistance. They have cut safe and drug-
free schools, but they say they want to fight drugs. They cut $25 
million out of safe and drug-free schools, and they cut Healthy Start, 
which is designed to save kids. In Baltimore and my State, infant 
mortality under Healthy Start was reduced by 31 percent. This is an 
important program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a bad bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the full committee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, many years ago a song stated that 
``Diamonds are a girl's best friend''. Today, women are seekng more 
from life--they are looking for good health, safe communities and a 
future for their children. I can tell my colleagues in this regard, 
H.R. 3755 is truly a precious gem.
  In this bill this Congress has not only talked about helping American 
women and their families, but it has really done it. More money has 
been put into the National Institutes of Health for research of heart 
disease, diabetes, AIDS, and cancer.
  Of particular significance to me as a breast cancer survivor, and to 
the thousands of women who have been diagnosed with this disease, is 
funding under the National Cancer Institute. An increase of $6 million 
is provided, bringing funding level totals to $409 million to be used 
for breast cancer research next year. I want to personally thank my 
colleagues for their support of this research, and especially thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the staff. More than 46,000 American 
women will die from this devastating disease this year. Let me repeat--
46,000 women. We are coming close to understanding this disease so that 
a cure may be found, and this money is sorely needed.
  This Congress knows that in order to treat breast cancer and cervical 
cancer, women must first detect the cancer. That is why an additional 
$10 million has been provided for the breast and cervical cancer 
screening program. This program helps ensure that low-income women get 
the information and assistance they need to maintain good health--so 
that they may spend a life together with their families.

  My friends, every day on the news we hear about the crimes in our 
streets--but what about the crimes in our homes? Every day thousands of 
women must face horror right in their own homes, with no one to protect 
them. While Congress cannot eliminate domestic violence, it can provide 
women with the means to get help. We in this Republican Congress have 
made a commitment to helping these unfortunate women. H.R. 3755 
contains $25 million for battered women's shelters; $2 million for 
runaway youth prevention; $400,000 to operate the domestic violence 
hotline; and $5 million for domestic violence community demonstrations. 
And since violent crimes happen outside the home, as well as inside, 
this Congress has included $28.6 million for rape services and 
prevention block grants to the States, which can better serve these 
women.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress is compassionate and this Congress is 
listening. More than that, this Congress is doing something. We do not 
take our women for granted, we do something for them. Mr. Chairman, 
diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend, the 104th Congress is. I 
congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and his staff for putting 
together a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to show their 
friendship toward women by voting for this important bill.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stand in 
opposition to this bill because of the elimination of the Goals 2000 
Program.
  I applaud Mr. Porter for his efforts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 3755 for several reasons: Freezing summer youth jobs 
programs, eliminating healthy start, and abortion family limits.
  Perhaps the most pressing reason, however, is the elimination of 
funding for the Goals 2000 Program.
  As a former teacher and a person who still cares passionately about 
the education of our youth, I am appalled by this political attack on 
the future of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is currently ranked third in the 
world in terms of the reading skills of our youth.
  While this may be admirable to some, I would in fact argue that we 
need to do better.
  Given the global economy into which our children will soon be 
entering, and the need for the United States to remain competitive in 
this new international arena, it is imperative that we offer them the 
best education possible.
  In order to help prepare our children for the future, the Congress 
passed, in 1993, the Goals 2000 legislation.
  Unfortunately, since that time, the purposes behind Goals 2000, and 
the methodology involved in its implementation, have been grossly 
distorted.
  To set the record straight, Goals 2000 is a framework to help States 
develop a curriculum for their public school students to help them gain 
the knowledge and learn the skills that will be necessary for us as a 
nation to remain competitive.
  Goals 2000 was developed to enable us to deal with the almost 15,000 
public school districts in our Nation which are charged with educating 
and preparing the 50+ million public school children who will be 
looking for help and guidance as they face the future.
  It may interest my colleagues to know that approximately 5.2 million 
of these over 50+ million public school students reside in my home 
State of California.
  It is in my home State in fact that our Governor, who by the way is a 
member of the other party, has included in his latest budget a request 
for funding to increase the quality of public education and decrease 
the class size of public school.
  While I do not agree with our Governor on everything, I do agree that 
we need to put public education at the top of our priority list.
  We need to stay competitive, and we need to educate our children. If 
we are sincere

[[Page H7227]]

about changing behavior in our urban children, if we are sincere about 
giving them a fighting chance to move from the bowels of despair Goals 
2000 is one of the many tools which we can and should use in their 
fight for the future.
  I therefore object strongly to this bill, and I hope that the other 
body shows more foresight when they consider this legislation.
  I thank the gentleman again for this time and I urge my colleagues, 
in the strongest terms possible, to oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about this 
appropriations bill and what it does to education. I supported the 
coalition budget which would have balanced our budget in 2002, and 
provided more--not less--money for education.
  It is our duty to ensure that every American child has access to 
education and training needed to be productive citizens. This freezing 
of education funds and particularly the defunding of Goals 2000 
undermines our ability to honor this commitment.
  Goals 2000 was created in my district in Charlottesville, VA in 1992 
when President Bush and our Nation's governors conducted an education 
summit to determine what we could do as a nation to be more competitive 
in a global economy.
  Goals 2000 is an effective investment in our children's future. It is 
fiscally responsible. Perhaps most importantly, Goals 2000 is needed by 
our Nation's schools.
  Goals 2000 provides money for computers, microscopes, and library 
books. As honorary chairman of Pittsylvania County Goals 2000, I know 
first hand the vital aid it gives to schools--particularly in rural 
areas, such as my own.
  We owe it to our children, ourselves, and future generations to 
provide adequate funding for education and to restore funding for Goals 
2000.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a valued Member of our full committee.
  (Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me start my remarks by saying 
that I appreciate all the hard work the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] has put into this package. Funding for crucial health care 
programs was increased over last year and I fully support those 
efforts. However, I think we could have done more for higher education.
  We can all argue the merits of Federal education funding versus State 
education funding, but maintaining access to higher education is a 
crucial role of the Federal Government. We need to ensure that our 
students who have the ability can continue to attend the best higher 
education facilities in the world. If we continue to decrease our 
commitment to higher education students, our schools will decline and 
our colleges and universities will be for the rich, not the best and 
brightest.
  This bill eliminates the State student incentive program. This bill 
eliminates capital contributions to the Perkins loan program. This bill 
increases the maximum Pell grant by a little over 1 percent, not even 
keeping up with inflation. We need to do better, and I think we can.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
this time to me, and I want to commend all of those involved in this 
important issue of providing education and other resources for our 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, although there are many features of this bill that are 
better than last year, there are far many more features of this bill 
that we find unacceptable. I only want to use my time to highlight two 
of those, and perhaps not emphasize as much as my other colleagues have 
about education, but education indeed is important, and we have not 
invested enough in education.
  Also, the other issue that we have not invested anything whatsoever 
in is teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy is a hot subject now; we 
talk about that, but we have the dubious distinction of leading the 
world in this area. No other industrialized nation with a standard of 
living comparable to the United States has a problem of this dimension.
  Eash year approximately 1 million teenagers become pregnant. Teenage 
pregnancy significantly affects the health of teenagers, as well as 
their economic and educational future. Once a teenager becomes pregnant 
there is no good solution. The best solution indeed is to prevent the 
pregnancy in the first place.
  Teenagers having kids, we talk about that. In fact, many of our 
Members here on the floor say we can no longer afford that. Demagoguery 
is very easy. Meaningful action means deeds are difficult. We have 
provided no funding whatsoever. The President asked for $30 million for 
the teenage pregnancy prevention initiative, and not one cent was 
provided, when we know it costs this Nation about $6.9 billion in the 
costs of providing for teenage pregnancy and their children. This would 
have been less than one-half of 1 percent. Again, voting for teenage 
pregnancy would indeed have enabled our young people to improve their 
health and education and economic opportunity for our Nation's youth.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, our investment in education is indeed our 
investment in our future. Many organizations, our colleagues, and 
millions of citizens say we should invest more in education, not less.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman who just 
spoke: Education is the future of this country. I do not think there is 
demagoguery. I think there is an honest debate here on policy, whether 
we want the Federal Government to be able to have the control to spend 
the dollars in education, or we want people in States to control that. 
I think that is a legitimate debate. That is what is before us today. I 
do not think there is demagoguery. I think people truly believe. I 
believe that those that believe that a socialistic model for the poor 
is better are wrong. That is what I would like to speak about tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend who spoke in the well a minute ago said he 
wishes there were more dollars in the Federal education system than 
just 5 percent. I believe that is not demagoguery, I believe he 
believes that. We, however, believe that people can control their 
dollars more and spend it on their children than the Federal Government 
can. They can get a bigger bang for the dollar than the Federal 
Government can with its big bureaucracy.
  Yes, only 5 percent of education funding comes from the Federal 
Government. In some cases, as little as 23 cents on a dollar, 23 cents 
on a dollar, gets back into the classroom in many areas. That is wrong, 
Mr. Chairman. That is a waste. That is cutting education. And I propose 
that the liberal Democrats that are trying to save education have done 
it a great harm and have actually cut education. When we only get 23 
cents on the dollar back into the classroom, that is cutting education. 
We are proposing to turn that around.
  How? First of all, that 5 percent of education funding, we have found 
there are 760 education programs. Think about the bureaucracies, think 
about the overhead that takes. We eliminated over 187 programs. We 
believe, yes, that medical research, the Government has a direct 
function in. Those savings ought to go to that. We believe that Pell 
grants for the poor are important and a priority. We took the savings 
from that and put it into the Pell grants. We increased student loans 
by $3 billion.
  Yes, even though the dollars come to the Federal Government and are 
returned at a low rate, those are priorities, and I think most 
taxpayers do not discern those dollars because they go to help the poor 
and the children. But we do believe that the Federal waste in the 
programs is not the way to go.
  Let me give an example. Some of my colleagues truly believe, they are 
not demagoging, they believe in Goals 2000. But as the chairman of the 
committee, let me tell the Members about Goals 2000. There are 45 
instances in Goals

[[Page H7228]]

2000 that says States that mandate, it says States will. They say it is 
only voluntary. It is only voluntary if you do not want the money.
  Let us take one of those 45 instances. My wife is a principal. You 
have to take all of the requirements from Goals 2000, internalize it, 
have a board that literally looks and sees how to run Goals 2000. They 
report to the principal. The principal reports to the superintendent. 
Then all of that paperwork goes to Sacramento, to our State Department 
of Education. Think of the bureaucracy in the State that has to take 
the flow of all the schools in the State of California. Think of that 
paperwork flow and all that wasted energy. Then guess what they do? 
They have to send it back here to River City, in Washington, DC, to 
another big bureaucracy.
  That is wasteful, Mr. Chairman. In many cases they have to hire grant 
writers to apply for Goals 2000 money. The small schools in many cases 
never get a dime, and some that do, the cost of the grant 
writer, either in the little funding they get or the cost to exercise 
Goals 2000, is more than the grant that they get. That is cutting 
education, Mr. Chairman.

  What we do is give the money to the State and say, listen, if you 
want to do a George Bush Goals 2000, let the State do it. We think 
Goals 2000, by setting local standards, local goals with teachers and 
parents and children and administrators is good. But what the real 
policy fight is about is if the Federal Government can manage all of 
that, if the Federal Government can control the dollars.
  Where do they get those dollars? They keep saying the President's 
request. Does he get that money from God? No. He gets it from the same 
working families that he returns it to, at 23 cents on a dollar. Yet he 
wants more money to spend.
   Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings].
  (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time to rise in opposition to this year's spending bill for 
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  This measure provides inadequate funding for many of our vital 
programs that have proven to be beneficial to individual families, our 
communities and our nation as a whole.
  I am deeply dismayed that this measure has taken a ``meatax'' to the 
Healthy Start Program. H.R. 3755 radically eliminates all funding for 
this program that is saving lives across the country.
  Historically, my congressional district of Baltimore has experienced 
an exceedingly high rate of infant mortality. Many high risk areas in 
the city had twice the national average of infant deaths.
  However with the implementation of the Healthy Start Program in 1993, 
Baltimore has severely reduced the number of babies born with low birth 
weights, and dramatically reduced the number of infant mortalities. 
Ours, is truly a success story.
  The Baltimore Healthy Start Program is one of the most successful 
programs in the entire country. We have targeted the program's services 
to the poorest areas of the city which are at the highest risk. 
Baltimore's neighborhood Healthy Start program has currently serviced 
about 2,000 women.
  The staff is mostly comprised of community residents who have been 
hired and trained through the program--thereby providing important 
employment opportunities to the community.
  The staff in conjunction with the mayor's office, and the surrounding 
community are committed to ensuring that all babies have a strong and 
healthy beginning by providing important prenatal care to high risk 
mothers who need it most.
  Mr. Chairman, I am certainly shocked that this body would attempt to 
pass a measure that eliminates this vital program which has proven and 
tangible results.
  I am shocked that this body would take away the one opportunity to 
give our poorest and most vulnerable citizens the gift of life.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking and 
congratulating the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], for what has been a remarkable job, given the 
conflicting desires that exist in trying to manage a bill as large as 
this Labor-HHS appropriations bill. He has done, as I say, a 
magnificent job. He has one of the toughest jobs on Capital Hill.
  I want to talk to Members a bit about one program, one very important 
program that is in this bill that has received an historic increase, 
the Community Service Block Grant Program. This is a program that the 
President recommended no increase in. It is a program that receives in 
this bill a 27-percent or $100 million increase. We have never in the 
history of funding the community service block grants ever received an 
increase as large as this. It is deserved, because it encapsulates 
everything we are trying to do in terms of an important antipoverty 
program. It is one of the premier antipoverty programs within the 
Federal arsenal.
  It is important and significant and worthy of additional funding 
because it does all the things we say we want to do. It leverages 
public dollars. Over $1 billion in non-Federal spending will exist 
because of the spending in the community service block grants. It 
ensures that there is volunteer activity. There is almost 20 million 
hours of volunteer activity as a result of the community service block 
grant programs and the community action programs that are part of the 
network through the community service block grants. It is a program 
that targets the neediest, the low-income, the people who are 
struggling. It facilitates nutrition programs. It helps seniors. It 
deals with the retired programs. It ensures that there are training 
programs that go forward.
  Part of the money is used to ensure that there is comprehensive 
collaboration so money is not wasted in duplicative efforts. Only 5 
percent of the money can be spent by the States. The rest of it goes 
down and gets to the intended targets. Get down there it does. It is a 
program with proven results.
  This does not create bureaucracies, it empowers people. Let us save 
people first, and if we do it right, we will save money in the same 
process. In 1981, Mr. Chairman, there were over 1,000 Federal employees 
that helped administer this program. Do Members know how many exist 
right now to administer this program? Five hundred, 400, 300, 100, 50, 
25? Forty-five Federal employees now administer a program that was once 
run by over 1,000 Federal employees. That means more money gets to the 
grass roots. It means more money is being used to help people at the 
bottom rung of the economic ladder.

  It is a program that has gotten the attention of people who are 
deeply concerned in poverty programs and not interested in building 
more bureaucracies. It has gotten the attention of people who are 
interested in measuring results, not inputs. It has gotten the 
attention and support of people who are not interested in creating more 
patronage, but people who are interested in creating more empowerment 
and more opportunities for the lowest income people, lowest income 
Americans among us. There were over 1,000 community action agencies 
throughout our Nation. Over 98 percent of the counties throughout our 
Nation receive some form of this block grant. It goes primarily to not-
for-profits, people who have dedicated their lives to ensure that they 
help the neediest among us.
  This is a vision that we have of anti-poverty programs, not to throw 
more spending. Again I want to commend the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for funding a very important 
anti-poverty program in the most significant and historic way.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, almost all of the money in this bill that is 
being expended is for good purposes.

[[Page H7229]]

The problem is not with what is in the bill, it is what is not in the 
bill, what is out of it. I am glad we are able to do something on 
community service, put $100 million in, but we take $1 billion out of 
LIHEAP. I am glad we are able to provide some money for education, but 
when someone says the Federal Government is the program, is the sum and 
total program for higher education, that is it. The nonprofits and 
others are running out.
  But the real problem is that beneath the veneer of fighting for 
fiscal discipline and budget balance, the policy path evoked by this 
measure will build upon the distorted priorities of the 1996 Republican 
appropriation effort, in sum, adding to the human deficit in this 
Nation, a human deficit which is borne by those with less power, the 
children, the working poor, the students, and those who struggle to 
achieve the promise of America. The opportunity to get ahead.
  Investment in people is our best American investment. It pays the 
greatest dividends. Yet this measure in the Republican-led House has 
repeatedly broken faith with our children, our workers, and, in 
reality, our American future. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure for that reason.
  As a teacher, as a science educator, I understand. In my district, 25 
percent of the kids are Southeast Asians. They need the bilingual 
education. They need the help so that they can achieve the type of 
success and the American dream that has been the promise, the renewed 
promise, of this Nation. But we cannot do it because we have put 7, 8, 
9, $10 billion more into Pentagon spending, because we need to have tax 
breaks.
  What is wrong with this measure is that the money is going in other 
directions where it is not needed. I think it is more justified here. 
And if it is efficiencies and new definitions and all the other 
rhetoric that is going on here today in terms of what we are going to 
do, the fact is, the bottom line is the States are not capable of the 
miracle of loaves and fishes. So if we do not give them the dollars, we 
are going to hurt the people that we purport to be helping in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 1997 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill being 
considered today.
  Investments in education, whether in our children or workers, 
determine a nation's standard of living and a country's ability to be 
competitive in the global marketplace. This legislation, like last 
year's spending bill, targets labor, education and job training 
programs for the most severe funding cuts. These types of programs, 
which invest in America's working families and children should not and 
must not be undermined.
  This legislation reduces funding for elementary and secondary 
education programs such as Title I, Safe and Drug Free Schools and 
bilingual education. The cut in title I funding is in addition to the 
funding freeze the program endured last year, which translated into a 
real cut for growing school districts. Title I provides students who 
are falling behind their classmates additional academic help. In my 
district in St. Paul, MN, the title I program cannot currently reach 
every student who needs such assistance. Reducing funding for this 
program would cause even more students to fall behind in their studies, 
and this type of policy has consequences that reach far beyond these 
students' school years into their post-academic lives. We cannot ignore 
some students, inhibiting their success, simply because they have 
difficulty learning.
  In the same regard, we also cannot ignore that today's school 
environment is becoming more violent and dangerous in many, especially 
but not solely urban, areas. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is 
one initiative, run in virtually every school district in the nation, 
working to fight that trend. However, the program after protracted 
debate over a 57 percent cut was finally level funded in last year's 
Republican budget, and the bill we are debating today proposes to 
reduce funding for this program by again $25 million in fiscal year 
1997. This means that in fiscal year 1997, the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools Program will be funded at a level below its allocation in 
fiscal year 1995, at a time when the need for such drug, alcohol and 
violence preventative programs are dramatically increasing!
  One other population of students who will be hurt by this legislation 
is immigrant children. Funding for bilingual and immigrant education 
programs is set to be reduced by 11 percent in this spending bill. 
Multiethnic communities and schools will be hit especially hard since 
these schools must continue providing such services with less Federal 
help. Investing in the education of these children is important. These 
children should not be left out in the cold regarding educational 
opportunity, unable to improve their lives and become productive 
members of our society.
  The bill also takes aim at higher education, increasing funding for 
some student aid programs while eliminating or sparsely funding others. 
The measure modestly increases the maximum Pell grant award by $30; not 
enough for a book much less inflation but this bill does increase 
funding for the Work-Study Program. However, at the same time, the bill 
reduces Perkins Loan funding by 82 percent and eliminates the State 
Student Incentive Grant Program altogether. In a time when the cost of 
a higher education is skyrocketing, the need for such a degree is 
growing, and parents are less able to help with such expenses, we 
cannot afford to pull the financial rug out from under our Nation's 
students.
  The Federal Government is the lifeline of higher education funding, 
States and nonprofits are stretched to the limit, yet this Congress 
proposes to do less compounding and cutting off opportunity for 100,000 
students.
  Today's workers could also lose the ability to acquire additional 
education and job training under this bill due to the lack of 
sufficient funding for such programs and services. This measure freezes 
spending on such programs at the fiscal year 1996 level. Our Nation 
benefits greatly from developing the skills and abilities of future 
generations of workers and allowing those workers to update that 
knowledge and skill. No amount of infrastructure, technology, or 
opportunity will help our Nation's workers and future workers if they 
are unable to meet the challenges of the world of work.
  Another drastic provision in this measure is the reduction in funding 
for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] by $6 
million from the fiscal year 1996 level in this Republican spending 
bill. This funding is vital to workers, whose lives, health and safety 
are literally at risk on the job. Each year, thousands of workers are 
killed on the job and millions suffer disability related injuries. The 
National Safety Council estimates that work-related accidents and 
deaths cost the Nation over $100 billion every year. Cutting the budget 
of the principal public entity OSHA, that attempts to reduce that 
figure and increase workplace safety not only is a slap in the face to 
every American worker who puts their health and safety on the line, but 
also does not make fiscal sense. Furthermore, the National Labor 
Relations Board [NLRB] is targeted for a 15 percent cut when combined 
with funding cuts from last year. This proposed reduction would cripple 
the NLRB's ability to adjudicate labor disputes and appears to be yet 
another slap at working people who seek equitable wages and work 
conditions based upon worker rights promised in Federal law.
  I agree that we should work toward a balanced Federal budget, but 
there are many ways to achieve such a balance than abandoning the 
investments that America has long made in its working families. Not all 
of the cuts need to be made from people programs and surely the 
ideological mindset that guides these cuts cannot be glossed over by 
the rhetoric of budget balancing. The Pentagon, space programs, 
corporate welfare and natural resource giveaway are just some of the 
many Federal programs that should also be subject to fiscal discipline 
and tough choices. The price for reducing investments in America's 
people should not be new tax breaks for corporations and investors or 
increasing the defense budget to a greater level than that Department 
even requested. But this 104th Congress has acted repeatedly to 
insulate from shared sacrifice this laundry list of special interests 
and placed foremost for cuts the vital programs that affect health, 
education, job training, and the environment.
  This Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations 
measure for fiscal year 1997 continues the assault on working Americans 
and families that was so vigorously waged last year. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure and return our Nation to one 
that values all of its people.
  Beneath the veneer of fighting for fiscal discipline and budget 
balance, the policy path evoked by this measure would build upon the 
distorted priorities of the 1996 Republican appropriation effort, in 
sum, adding to the human deficit in this Nation.
  A human deficit which is borne by those with less power, the 
children, the working poor, the students and those who struggle to 
achieve the promise of America; the opportunity to get ahead. 
Investment in people is our best American investment; it pays the 
greatest dividends yet this measure and the Republican-led House has 
repeatedly broke faith with our children, our workers, in reality our 
American future.
  I oppose and urge Members to oppose this appropriation measure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney].

[[Page H7230]]

  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  As ranking member Obey said, ``This bill puts forth systematic 
disinvestment in education, health, seniors, children, women, and the 
list goes on.
  Specifically, I would like to talk about the disastrous effects of 
zero funding the Healthy Start Infant Mortality Prevention Program.
  By eliminating funding for Healthy Start, this bill abandons 
America's children.
  In New York City, Healthy Start has saved lives.
  From 1990 to 1994, over 70,000 women and infants have benefited from 
this program; the infant mortality rate dropped by 38 percent; the rate 
of late or no prenatal care fell 32 percent; and the number of low 
birth-weight babies went down.
  We also know that Healthy Start is responsible for saving precious 
Medicaid dollars by producing healthier babies.
   Mr. Chairman, if we refuse basic health care to our newborns, what 
kind of priorities have we set?
  If we turn our backs on young mothers-to-be what kind of example have 
we set?
  If we don't prove that we care about giving every newborn baby the 
opportunity to have a Healthy Start, what kind of nation are we?
   Mr. Chairman, totally defunding Healthy Start is a sad example of a 
tragic reversal of priorities.
  No one should support this bill.
  The Labor/HHS bill cuts any specified funding for the Long-Term Care 
Ombudsman Program, which funds each State office that trains volunteers 
who serve as watchdogs over nursing home abuses and serve as advocates 
for nursing home patients.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand up for the rights of seniors who 
live in America's nursing homes.
  Today, the war on America's seniors continues as the Long-Term Care 
Ombudsman Program faces elimination by this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, New York State's network of 51 countywide ombudsman 
offices have a trained team of over 500 volunteers who protect seniors 
who are being abused, neglected, and mistreated in nursing homes in 
this State alone.
  Long before this program was created in 1987, we saw rampant abuses 
in nursing homes--including patients being tied to their beds, drugged, 
and worse.
  By creating the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, many of these 
problems were corrected, but we still have more work to do.
  In total last year, New York's team of nursing home watchdogs handled 
over 10,000 complaints from nursing home residents and their 
advocates--at least 2,000 of them in New York City.
  For those residents of long-term care facilities who have no one to 
protect them from mistreatment, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman is their 
only hope.
  To eliminate funding for this important program in gross negligence 
on the part of this Congress.
  As responsible legislators, we must provide a voice to those who are 
silenced by abusive conditions in our States' nursing homes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Maryland before 
her both have mentioned the Healthy Start program, and I want to 
respond to that, because they are correct, it has shown itself through 
demonstration to be a very good program.
  The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that this was a program proposed by 
and started by the Bush administration in fiscal year 1991, funded by 
Congress with the clear understanding that it would be a 5-year 
demonstration, including evaluation, with the last year of funding to 
be fiscal year 1996.
  We believe that the program has proved itself very adequately. The 
difficulty is that it should not continue as a demonstration program 
where it is not made available generally. Under the original conception 
of the program, it was to be a 5-year demonstration. That period has 
expired. It is time that we either fund this as a general program 
available broadly across the country or not fund it at all.
  I think that the points made about the program are very good ones. 
What we have to do is come to grips with which way we are going to go 
on that. We cannot do this in the appropriations process.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just ask rhetorically to the chairman 
of the subcommittee from Illinois, under those circumstances, why did 
they not make it a general program and put money in for making it a 
general program? I will yield time for that answer if there is any left 
when I get finished.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I could find 
compelling reason to oppose many features of the bill but I want to 
confine my comments to the field of education.
  Mr. Chairman, once again this body is jeopardizing our children's 
future. So far the 104th Congress has cut $1.1 billion from education. 
This proposal cuts $400 million more. When do we say enough is enough?
  Eliminating the Goals 2000 education reform, which this bill does, 
when academically our students lag behind virtually all our 
industrialized competitors, is foolish. Cutting $25 million from safe 
and drug free schools, which this bill does, is bad judgment. And 
cutting funds for reading and math assistance for students who just 
happen to live in desperately poor school districts, which this bill 
does, is without compassion as well as violates our national security.
  Balancing the budget is everybody's goal but slashing education is, 
in my view, simply wrong. I urge my colleagues to reassess our 
priorities and put education first, ahead of tax cuts for the already 
well-off, ahead of unrequested defense spending, ahead of corporate 
welfare. Thereby, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 5 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank ranking member Obey 
for this opportunity to really offer an apology to the American people. 
I was hoping that as we looked at a bill that had the opportunity to 
really change the direction of this country, to focus on the front end 
and not the back end, if you will, this bill has missed its opportunity 
and I rose to the floor to say this is not the ``3 strikes bill and 
you're out,'' it is the ``multistrike bill and we're all out,'' 
primarily because you do not know where to start in the cuts that have 
come about that would help people to rise out of their condition and 
become independent.
  We have heard so much about welfare reform and the dominance of this 
country in having people extend their hand to get a handout. This 
labor-HHS bill could have given people an opportunity never to look 
back and to become independent, particularly when we look at the 
President's youth employment training program. When we go throughout 
this Nation, aside from those who are attempting to get a higher 
education, there are those youth who have been lost between the cracks 
of either not finishing high school or finishing high school and being 
undertrained for jobs in this community. This program would have 
allowed us to train youth to become available and well trained for the 
jobs that America has to offer. This money now has been gutted. And so 
we are not investing in the front end, we are looking to the back end 
when ultimately maybe these youth will wind up being incarcerated.
  The youth summer jobs program has no growth in it, although I am 
gratified we have saved it, this program that helps to employ some 
4,000 youth in the city of Houston had to be cut. Many parents came to 
me and said, ``What are we going to do in training our youngsters to 
know what work is all about?'' And then unfortunately with a Nation 
that has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western 
world, we cut the Healthy Start Program. There we go again with no 
investment in the front end, waiting on the back end results of low 
birth weight opportunities.

[[Page H7231]]

  I would simply ask my colleagues to review this legislation and this 
appropriation bill, go to the front end and invest and not wait for the 
back end. Defeat this legislation so that we can treat Americans right.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to this legislation. I 
am afraid that, in its current form, this bill does not do enough to 
protect the quality of life for our most vulnerable citizens. This bill 
funds a great number of the programs and services that are relied upon 
by our Nation's families--our children, women, and senior citizens. I 
do not believe that these are the programs that we should be 
drastically cutting in our efforts to balance the budget. We must 
maintain our commitment to protect children and families, to support 
education and training, and to continue programs such as head start, 
healthy start, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and summer 
jobs.


                             labor programs

  This bill seriously jeopardizes worker protection by dramatically 
cutting programs that promote workplace safety and health, and pension 
security. Funding is cut by $129 million below the President's request 
and $83 million below the amount needed to maintain last year's 
operating level. The Pension and Welfare Benefit Administration is 
provided with only $65.8 million, which is a $1.3 million cut from the 
current funding level and $19.7 million below the President's request.
  One of the best known worker protection agencies is the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], is cut by over $6 million. 
This bill would specifically reduce Federal enforcement of workplace 
safety by $4,765,000. OSHA enforces this Nation's labor protection laws 
and as a law enforcement authority it may not be popular with the law 
breakers, but for those they serve and protect everyday do not want 
this Congress under valuing their life or health.
  When my colleagues speak so passionately about the American taxpayer, 
there are speaking about people that the Department of Labor should be 
in the business of protecting and whose pension plans should be assured 
of solvency when they are needed. That is the least the working 
American taxpayer should expect from the 104th Congress.
  This bill would also zero out funding for the President's new youth 
employment training program, the Opportunity Areas for Out-of-School 
Youth. The President only requested $250 million to help address the 
special employment training problems faced by many of our Nation's 
youth.
  This legislation will once again shortchange our youth through the 
underfunding of the Youth Summer Jobs Program for fiscal year 1997. The 
$625 million appropriated is the same level funded for this fiscal 
year. At this level of funding only 442,000 youth can be served while 
those in need number over 600,000.


                  health and human services department

  This bill would eliminate funding for the healthy start program, 
which is designed to reduce the Nation's high infant mortality rate. 
Now is not the time to dismantle this critical life saving program. The 
United States has the highest infant mortality rate of 22 
industrialized nations. Furthermore, while low birthweight babies 
represent 7 percent of all births, they account for 57 percent of the 
cost of care for all newborns. Long term health care costs for a low 
birth weight baby can reach $500 thousand, while prenatal care to 
prevent low birth weight costs as little as $750.00. Clearly, we must 
continue this important program.
  I am concerned that this bill includes less funding for the Centers 
for Disease Control's National Center of Injury Prevention and Control. 
This important program focuses on motor vehicle accidents, falls, 
fires, poisoning, drowning and violence including homicide, suicide and 
domestic violence.
  Similarly, the bill provides less funding for the Substance Abuse an 
Mental Health Services Administration. The amount ($1.85 billion) is an 
aggregated cut of $33.9 million below the current funding level and is 
$248 million below the administration's request. The $38.4 million 
fiscal year 1997 funding cut for substance abuse treatment is 
compounded by the fact that funding for treatment was gutted 60 
percent, or $148 million in fiscal year 1996. As a result of this 
decrease in funding, 5 million at-risk youth will be denied the 
substance abuse prevention services they need.
  The $3.6 billion provided for the Head Start Program is $381 million 
less than the administration's request. This program currently serves 
less than half of the estimated 2 million children eligible for head 
start services. At the level provided in this bill up to 15 thousand 
head start slots would be eliminated next year.
  This bill provides only $900 million for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP], which provides assistance to low-income 
households in meeting the costs of home energy. This is $100 million 
less than the administration's request. Furthermore, the bill does not 
appropriate any of the $1 billion requested for fiscal year 1998. The 
advance appropriation is critical to States' budgeting and planning and 
allows them the time necessary to determine the program eligibility 
rules.
  This bill includes a large cut in funding for the Administration on 
Aging, including the elimination of all funds for aging research, 
training and special projects which will hamper local communities' 
ability to improve, develop and test innovative solutions. Similarly, 
the amount of funding provided for the Social Services Block Grant is 
still $320 million below the entitlement level of $2.8 billion required 
by current law, and requested by the administration. For States that do 
not provide additional funding for social services, the impact will be 
especially severe as this program, includes support for protective 
services for children and adults, home-based care, and child care.
  This bill does not include the $30 million the administration 
requested for a concentrated teen pregnancy initiative, which would 
have been invested in comprehensive interventions to provide 
opportunities for young people to take responsibility, increase their 
life skills and to become contributing members of society. The U.S. has 
the highest rate of teen pregnancy of any industrialized country. 
Addressing this problem is key to reforming the Nation's welfare 
system.

  I am pleased that this bill increases funding for the National 
Institutes of Health, however the $1.4 billion provided for AIDS is 
provided at the institute level rather than in a single appropriation 
to the Office of AIDS Research as requested by the administration and 
as consistent with the NIH Revitalization Act.


                               education

  The bill does nothing to address what nearly everyone agrees is our 
most important task--educating our children. Funding for Goals 2000 is 
eliminated. The program is currently $350 million and the President 
requested $491 million for Goals 2000 in fiscal year 1997. This program 
strives to raise academic standards and encourage students to work hard 
to meet them. Now it not the time to scale back on improving education 
standards for children across the Nation.
  This bill freezes Title 1 grants to local education agencies at $6.73 
billion. This means that given inflation and increased operating costs, 
fewer funds will be available to provide students the assistance they 
need in basic reading and math skills. Title 1 currently provides 
supplemental funding to 50 thousand schools serving nearly 7 million 
disadvantaged students nationwide. Under Title 1, disadvantaged 
students are provided the assistance they need to achieve the same high 
standards as other children.
  This bill cuts the Safe and Drug Free School Program by $25 million 
compared with fiscal year 1996 and $99 million less than requested by 
President Clinton. In this time of increased crime, violence, and drug 
abuse, we must help our schools become safe havens where children can 
learn and study free from the dangers of these afflictions.
  For college students, the bill eliminates aid for the Federal Perkins 
Loan capital contribution account. In fiscal year 1996, $93.3 million 
was provided for this program. In almost every other educational 
program--Adult and Vocational education, Special Education Grants for 
Children with Disabilities, Bilingual and Immigrant education, Pell 
Grants, Charter Schools and many others--the funding levels in this 
bill are far below the level requested by President Clinton.
  The priorities of this bill are out of line with common sense. All 
participants agree that balancing the budget is a goal that we all 
share. However, we must also invest in our children and their future. 
There is no use in passing on a balanced budget to our children if we 
deprive them of the education that is necessary in order for them to 
take the mantel of leadership.

[[Page H7232]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman 
Porter for the outstanding job he did with this piece of legislation. 
Make no mistake about it, people on both sides of the aisle here have 
the same ultimate purpose. We want to help kids. We want to make sure 
kids have a chance to go to college. We want to help protect our 
workers. We want to make sure that education is a key priority. We 
agree on that. My personal experience as someone who went to school on 
a student loan and could not have gone otherwise, as someone who taught 
in a public school for 7 years and in an urban depressed school 
district and as someone who ran a Federal title I program for 3 years, 
I think I know something about some of the programs we are talking 
about.
  There is a key difference, Mr. Chairman, between what the 
administration wants and what this Congress wants. The difference is 
that the administration wants to empower the bureaucracy and we want to 
empower people. It is very simple and very fundamental. We heard in the 
debate on the other side from our more liberal friends that there is no 
help for job training, for housing assistance, for energy assistance, 
for child care, for homeless shelters, for health care for the poor and 
for housing rehab, to name a few. What they did not say, Mr. Chairman, 
is that this bill increases the community service block grant by the 
single largest amount in the program's history since 1981, $100 
million, Mr. Chairman. Where is the rhetoric coming from the other side 
in the largest single increase in this program's history? And where is 
the acknowledgment, Mr. Chairman, on the other side that this will 
allow us to assist 2.1 million more people than we assisted last year 
to a total of 10.3 million? And where is the information from the other 
side about the leveraging of another $267 million of private sector 
investment which is what all 1,200 community action agencies across the 
country do in every one of our Members' districts.
  This is a good bill. It is a key difference between what the liberals 
want and what we want. We want to empower people. We want to empower 
grassroots decisionmakers. We want to empower those people who are 
involved in community action agencies like the one I started in my 
county back in 1979 which has grown to a $14 million a year agency 
providing all of these services.
  I say vote ``yes'' for this bill and I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a member of the full committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as I went back through the Congressional 
Record and looked at what the Democrats had to say about this bill last 
year, it was just absolutely ridiculous, offbase political rhetoric, 
just like we are hearing this year: war on children, mindless, mean-
spirited package. It is the same old thing. The Democrats want to smoke 
but they do not want to inhale. They want to cut the budget but not 
here, not this bill, not now, not this group.
  The fact is, my Democrat friends, that money is not always the 
solution. Just one particular case, one small example: Since 1970 per-
student spending in America has increased from $4,000 to $7,000 per 
student. Yet during that same period of time SAT scores have fallen 
from 937 points in 1972 to 902 points in 1994.
  Money, money, money is not always the answer. So let us try to put 
our investments in programs that work, cut out the Washington 
bureaucracy, empower the people back home, and pass this bill.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear we have absolutely no quarrel with 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. He has done a fine job under the circumstances, 
and I honestly believe his heart is in the right place. The problem, 
frankly, as we see it, is simply that the budget priorities of Speaker 
Gingrich and the majority party in this House are simply wrong. They 
say, oh, it is okay to give $11 billion more than the President or the 
Pentagon is asking for the Pentagon; but, oh, by the way, we have got 
to balance the budget.
  So what did they do? They put us on a 6-year track that will knock 
one million kids off the most important program supported by the 
Federal Government to teach kids to read and to help them to master 
science and mathematics. They cut the Eisenhower teacher training 
program, an immensely popular program with any teacher in any district 
who is interested in improving his or her ability to convey information 
to children.
  They zero out Perkins loans. They, in fact, in the education area 
provide over the next 6 years--and this is the first step in that 
process--they provide 20 percent less in real deliverable program 
support for education over that time period at the very time when 
student populations are rising after a long time when those student 
populations were declining. They say, oh, we must make up for inflation 
when we appropriate funds to the Pentagon; but, oh, no, there is no 
need to make up for the cost of inflation when we are dealing with 
education. I find that separation and logic to be an extremely 
interesting revelation in terms of the respective priorities of the 
parties.
  The majority party says we should honor work. I agree with that. I 
worked hard all my life. So did my kids. So did most other people in 
this Chamber. But after they say we should honor work, what do they do? 
They cut the National Labor Relations Board by 15 percent so they limit 
the ability of that agency in a severe way to protect worker health, to 
protect worker safety, to protect the integrity of worker pension 
plans, and to enforce the law that guarantees that workers will be 
treated fairly and squarely on wages and hours.
  They drive a billion-dollar hole through a crucial program that 
provides assistance to low-income elderly and low-income individuals 
under the low-income heating assistance program. Then they brag about 
putting 10 percent of that money back by way of community service block 
grants.
  I take a back seat to no one in my support for community service 
block grants. For year after year after year on that subcommittee, it 
was Dave Obey who pushed that program against many times almost 
unanimous opposition on the Republican side of the aisle and some 
opposition on my own side of the aisle. So I take a back seat to no one 
in my pleasure that that program is finally getting a justifiable 
increase. But do not pretend that that tiny increase for that program 
makes up for the deep-sixing that my colleagues are doing on so many 
other initiatives to help the very same people that that program is 
aimed at.
  I thank God for small favors, and I thank the subcommittee chairman, 
but I do not get overly excited about it. I would simply say that this 
bill, more than any other, as Bill Natcher used to say, this bill more 
than any other is meant to help meet the needs of workers and people. 
We should not be squeezing it, as this proposal does.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I really want to acknowledge Chairman Porter and the 
members of the subcommittee for their efforts on a very difficult bill. 
While I have some concerns with some of the programs in terms of the 
education area, I do appreciate the chairman's work to develop a fair 
bill that funds so many critical programs. I am strongly supportive of 
the 6.5 percent increase in overall funding for research at the 
National Institutes of Health. I know of no Member of Congress with a 
greater commitment to biomedical research than Chairman Porter. And as 
the representative in Congress for the NIH, I greatly appreciate his 
strong support in protecting the integrity of the NIH professional 
judgment budget.
  I also commend him for his efforts to ensure that Congress does not 
interfere with funding priorities established by the scientific 
community. In that regard, the Office of AIDS Research at NIH continues 
to plan for AIDS research, which is conducted among the

[[Page H7233]]

24 institutes, also centers and divisions at NIH. The committee has 
provided report language that clearly recognizes the integral role 
which the NIH Office of AIDS Research plays in coordinating AIDS 
research. I believe there is a critical need for the OAR to have 
sufficient budgetary authority to effectively manage AIDS research 
dollars, and I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Porter 
and the committee to see that OAR be granted the budgetary authority it 
needs to manage the AIDS programs across the NIH. Such authority, which 
has been strongly endorsed in an external evaluation of the NIH's AIDS 
program by our Nation's leading scientists, will ensure accountability 
in spending AIDS research dollars.
  I commend the chairman of the committee for including funding 
increases for AIDS research and prevention and the Ryan White Care Act. 
I also appreciate the inclusion of report language that I submitted 
again this year expressing the importance of continued funding for 
research on microbicides.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess there is no more time left, but I want to 
comment on continued support for the violence against women program and 
the increased funding for breast and cervical cancer research.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge Chairman Porter and the members 
of the subcommittee for their efforts on a very difficult bill. While I 
have concerns with the funding levels for education, I do appreciate 
the chairman's work to develop a fair bill that funds so many critical 
programs.
  I am strongly supportive of the 6.5 percent increase in overall 
funding for research at the National Institutes of Health. I know of no 
Member of Congress with a greater commitment to biomedical research 
than Chairman Porter, and, as the Representative in Congress for the 
NIH, I greatly appreciate his strong support in protecting the 
integrity of the NIH professional judgment budget. I also commend him 
for his efforts to ensure that Congress does not interfere with funding 
priorities established by the scientific community.
  In that regard, the Office of AIDS Research [OAR] at NIH continues to 
plan for AIDS research, which is conducted among the 24 institutes, 
centers, and divisions at NIH. The committee has provided report 
language, similar to the report language provided in fiscal year 1996, 
defining the authority of the OAR. While I am pleased that the 
committee has continued to provide limited transfer authority to the 
OAR, I remain convinced that AIDS research funding at NIH can best be 
managed through providing maximum budgetary authority, in the form of a 
consolidated appropriation, to the OAR.
  During the past year, a group of highly respected leaders in the 
biomedical research community conducted a thorough evaluation of AIDS 
research funding at NIH. This group, which was chaired by Dr. Arnold 
Levine of Princeton University, released a report in March 1996, which 
included recommendations to strengthen the management, oversight, and 
accountability of AIDS research funding among the 24 institutes, 
centers, and divisions, involved in AIDS research at NIH.
  Dr. Levine's working group has provided specific recommendations 
regarding scientific priorities and improved coordination of AIDS 
research activities, and has recommended that Congress provide the OAR 
with maximum budgetary and management authority.
  I believe strongly that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that 
our biomedical research dollars are being spent in a well-managed, 
coordinated fashion. Decisions relating to the provision of budget 
authority to the OAR should be made in the interests of the best 
possible management of scientific resources. As the committee works to 
reconcile differences with the other body later this fall, I urge the 
committee to re-think their position on the level of budgetary and 
management authority provided to the OAR, and to use the Levine Report, 
with an eye toward achieving the most effective possible management of 
AIDS research funding.
  I commend the chairman and committee for including funding increases 
for AIDS research, prevention, and the Ryan White CARE Act. I also 
appreciate the inclusion of report language I submitted again this year 
expressing the importance of continued funding for research on 
microbicides for STD/HIV prevention and the Women's Interagency HIV 
Study, two research priorities for women in the HIV epidemic.
  I am also pleased with the continued support for the Violence Against 
Women Act programs, and the increased funding for women's health 
research and services.
  As a former teacher, I believe that education must be one of our top 
priorities. I am concerned that this bill cuts another $400 million 
from public education programs.
  Violence in our Nation's schools and student drug use are among the 
top concerns of most Americans. Yet, this legislation cuts $25 million 
from the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. The number of students 
served by the Individuals With Disabilities Act [IDEA] is increasing. 
Yet, this bill freezes, at last year's level, funding for special 
education grants to the States. That means that States will get even 
less Federal assistance with the burgeoning costs of educating children 
with disabilities.
  I also oppose the portion of the bill that prohibits funds from being 
used to benefit persons not lawfully within the United States. School 
officials throughout the U.S. would then be required to determine the 
citizenship status of every student and their parents. This would 
create a paper nightmare, and would turn local school districts into 
mini-immigration services.
  Most immigrants, documented or not, most likely will remain in the 
United States. If we do not educate these individuals, they will end up 
on the streets. Instead of contributing to the tax base of our society, 
these children would only add to the long-term problems of homelessness 
and crime.
  The future of our country is linked to the quality of education that 
we afford our children. It is in the national interest to assist States 
and local governments to provide the best possible education for our 
Nation's students.
  I look forward to working with the chairman to increase funding for 
these programs in conference, and I appreciate his skill and 
sensitivity toward meeting the tremendous needs addressed in this 
critical bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The Chairman, of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall be not 
less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3744

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

       For expenses necessary to carry into effect the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, as amended, including the purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles, the construction, 
     alteration, and repair of buildings and other facilities, and 
     the purchase of real property for training centers as 
     authorized by the Job Training Partnership Act; the Women in 
     Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act; the 
     National Skill Standards Act of 1994; and the School-to-Work 
     Opportunities Act; $4,171,482,000 plus reimbursements, of 
     which $3,297,011,000 is available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998; of which 
     $73,861,000 is available for the period July 1, 1997 through 
     June 30, 2000 for necessary expenses of construction, 
     rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps centers; and of 
     which $175,000,000 shall be available from July 1, 1997 
     through September 30, 1998, for carrying out activities of 
     the School-to-Work Opportunities Act: Provided, That 
     450,000,000 shall be for carrying out section 401 of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, $65,000,000 shall be for carrying 
     out section 402 of such Act, $7,300,000 shall be for carrying 
     out section 441 of such Act, $2,530,000 shall be for all 
     activities conducted by and through the National Occupational 
     Information Coordinating Committee under such Act, 
     $850,000,000 shall be for carrying out title II, part A of 
     such Act, and $126,672,000 shall be for carrying out title 
     II, part C of such Act: Provided further, That no funds from 
     any other appropriation shall be used to provide meal 
     services at or for Job Corps centers: Provided further, That 
     funds provided to carry out title III of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act shall not be subject to the limitation 
     contained in subsection (b) of section 315 of such Act; that 
     the waiver allowing a reduction in the cost limitation 
     relating to retraining services described in subsection 
     (a)(2) of such section 315 may be granted with respect to 
     funds from this Act if a substate grantee demonstrates to the 
     Governor that such waiver is appropriate due to the 
     availability of low-cost retraining services, is necessary to 
     facilitate the provision of

[[Page H7234]]

     needs-related payments to accompany long-term training, or is 
     necessary to facilitate the provision of appropriate basic 
     readjustment services; and that funds provided to carry out 
     the Secretary's discretionary grants under part B of such 
     title III may be used to provide needs-related payments to 
     participants who, in lieu of meeting the requirements 
     relating to enrollment in training under section 314(e) of 
     such Act, are enrolled in training by the end of the sixth 
     week after grant funds have been awarded: Provided further, 
     That service delivery areas may transfer funding provided 
     herein under authority of titles II-B and II-C of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act between the programs authorized by 
     those titles of that Act, if such transfer is approved by the 
     Governor: Provided further, That service delivery areas and 
     substate areas may transfer funding provided herein under 
     authority of title II-A and title III of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act between the programs authorized by those 
     titles of that Act, if such transfer is approved by the 
     Governor: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any proceeds from the sale of Job Corps 
     center facilities shall be retained by the Secretary of Labor 
     to carry out the Job Corps program.


                     amendment offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 2, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000 for sweatshop 
     enforcement in the garment industry)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take my name off 
the amendment and replace it with the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velazquez].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will have to withdraw the 
amendment and have the gentlewoman offer the amendment on her own.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we have had a timing problem here.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment so it 
might be reoffered by the original author, the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                   amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       On page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 2, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000 for sweatshop 
     enforcement in the garment industry)''.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we cannot pick up a newspaper, turn on 
the radio or television without seeing the names and faces of 
celebrities caught using sweatshop labor to produce their signature 
line of goods. Last month it was Kathie Lee Gifford; then it was 
Michael Jordan; and next week, it will be someone else. The fact of the 
matter is, sweatshops are a very serious problem throughout the United 
States.
  As sweatshops have spread like wildfire, Congress has turned a blind 
eye and ignored this problem. This has caused millions of workers and 
American businesses to suffer.
  My amendment takes the first step to rectify this national disgrace, 
by restoring funds to the Department of Labor to fight sweatshops, 
across this country. It provides $5 million to the Wage and Hour 
Division, to specifically fight sweatshop violations in the garment 
industry. To pay for this, we would transfer $5 million from the Jobs 
Training Partnership Act, that was funded at $25 million over its 
fiscal year 1996 level. Both of these efforts serve to help 
disadvantaged workers. We must provide these professionals, who are on 
the front lines of this battle, a fighting chance. In recent years, the 
Wage and Hour Division has seen its budget slashed, while the number of 
sweatshops have skyrocketed.
  From New York to Los Angeles, all across this country, millions are 
being exploited by unscrupulous employers. In California and New York, 
studies have found that over half of all garment factories currently 
operating are sweatshops. Most shocking of all is how society's most 
vulnerable--our children--are being abused. How can we permit these 
people to be treated like this?
  My colleagues, fly-by-night kingpins open sweatshops for just a few 
months and then close without warning. They collect money from 
manufacturers and pay workers a pittance--if anything at all. Then, as 
quickly as they appear, they disappear with the cash--only to open 
again somewhere else under a new name, to start the cycle of despair 
all over again. They operate a classic shell game, with women, 
immigrants and children as their pawns. These crooks must be stopped 
and we must begin by adopting this amendment.
  Take a good look at this picture of workers in sweatshops. Note how 
the workers are hunched over their machines, how dirty and crowded the 
factory is. In many cases, women and children work behind bars and 
barbed wire that seem more like a prison than a workplace. I have seen 
first-hand the suffering these workers are forced to endure. This 
exploitation has left many maimed, blinded and scarred from a life in 
these sweatshops.
  How would you feel if your child, your mother, or your sister was 
forced to work 60 hours a week, and only be paid a couple of dollars an 
hour? What if they were forced to work in a factory like this--crowded, 
filthy and with emergency exits that were blocked? What if they told 
you that they dared not complain for fear of being fired--worse yet, 
they worked even when sick for fear of losing their job and having no 
income.
  The individuals slaving away in sweatshops are not the only ones 
forced to suffer. Legitimate American businesses and their employees 
are also victims, unfairly forced to compete against sweatshops. By 
allowing sweatshops to operate, in our own backyard, we are allowing 
the livelihood of many to be stolen. By supporting efforts to combat 
this problem, we are ensuring a level playing field and simple fairness 
for our workers and American businesses.
  By adopting this amendment, we have a rare opportunity to help 
workers, businesses, and to support American-made products. This 
amendment is supported by labor groups, like UNITE, which represent 
workers. It is supported by business groups, like the National Knitwear 
and Sportswear Association, which represent manufacturers. This 
amendment is truly a win-win situation for everyone.
  If you think this issue does not affect you or your district, think 
again. There may be people in this Chamber today that are wearing 
clothes made in sweatshops. If you shopped in stores like J.C. Penney 
or Macy's, or purchased a pair of Air Jordans, you are guilty of adding 
to this problem.
  Let's show the American people and the world that Congress is no 
longer going to turn a blind eye and keep this dirty little secret, 
here or abroad. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We 
believe that this amendment addresses a very serious problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we likewise congratulate the gentlewoman for offering 
the amendment, and support the amendment on this side.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Velazquez amendment to restore funding to the Department of Labor's 
wage and hour division and Department of International Labor Affairs. 
These funds are critical to the Department's ongoing efforts to combat 
worksite safety and fair labor standards violations, particularly in 
the garment industry.
  Most Americans are aware of the recent news reports documenting 
sweatshop abuses in foreign nations. We have heard about the rampant 
wage exploitation of hundreds of thousands of workers--many of whom are 
children who produce popular American consumer goods and designer 
products, while laboring under inhumane working conditions.
  However, many Americans are not aware of the fact that similar abuses 
are occurring daily

[[Page H7235]]

in places like Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and Texas. The unfortunate 
reality is that despite our Nation's historic tradition of protecting 
workers and the voluntary compliance efforts by reputable garment 
contractors, sweatshop exploitation is a pervasive problem in America. 
It is estimated that more than 7,000 garment shops nationwide can be 
classified as sweatshops.
  There are numerous examples of the nature and extent of the problem. 
In August of last year, the raid of a garment sweatshop in El Monte, 
CA, exposed the working conditions of 70 immigrants enslaved in a 
factory ringed with razor wire. More recently, a February raid in 
Irvine, CA, found workers routinely working 12-hour shifts, locked in a 
windowless room with a single fire escape. In Dallas, a sweep of 11 
garment shops found that 82 percent of these businesses were in 
violation of Federal labor laws. This is nothing less than a national 
disgrace.
  The Department of Labor's wage and hour division and International 
Labor Affairs Department are important lines of defense against 
sweatshops. Currently, the wage and hour division is combining an 
aggressive enforcement strategy with an educational program that 
encourages retailers, manufacturers, unions, and consumer groups to 
work in partnership to address the problem. Limited resources, however, 
have cut the number of investigators at the wage and hour divisions by 
18 percent at a time when the workload of the division has expanded to 
include the monitoring of over 110 million workers in 6.5 million 
workplaces. The funding reductions contained in this bill hampers their 
ability to police the garment industry, protect workers, and ensure 
their workplace safety.

  I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to fight sweatshop abuses 
by voting in favor of the Velazquez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


            community service employment for older americans

                          (transfer of funds)

       To carry out the activities for national grants or 
     contracts with public agencies and public or private 
     nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section 
     506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, or to carry out older worker activities as 
     subsequently authorized, $242,450,000.
       To carry out the activities for grants to States under 
     paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older 
     worker activities as subsequently authorized, $130,550,000.
       The funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     ``Aging Services Programs'' following the enactment of 
     legislation authorizing the administration of the program by 
     that Department: Provided, That the funds shall be available 
     for obligation for the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 
     1998.


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I, and 
     for training, for allowances for job search and relocation, 
     and for related State administrative expenses under part II, 
     subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as amended, $324,500,000, together with such amounts as 
     may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15 of the current year.


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $132,279,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,096,111,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,653,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980, and 
     including not to exceed $2,000,000 which may be obligated in 
     contracts with non-State entities for activities such as 
     occupational and test research activities which benefit the 
     Federal-State Employment Service System), which may be 
     expended from the Employment Security Administration account 
     in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and of which the sums 
     available in the allocation for activities authorized by 
     title III of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     502-504), and the sums available in the allocation for 
     necessary administrative expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 
     8501-8523, shall be available for obligation by the States 
     through December 31, 1997, except that funds used for 
     automation acquisitions shall be available for obligation by 
     States through September 30, 1999; and of which $132,279,000, 
     together with not to exceed $701,369,000 of the amount which 
     may be expended from said trust fund, shall be available for 
     obligation for the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, 
     to fund activities under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, 
     including the cost of penalty mail made available to States 
     in lieu of allotments for such purpose, and of which 
     $260,573,000 shall be available only to the extent necessary 
     for additional State allocations to administer unemployment 
     compensation laws to finance increases in the number of 
     unemployment insurance claims filed and claims paid or 
     changes in a State law: Provided, That to the extent that the 
     Average Weekly Insured Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 
     1997 is projected by the Department of Labor to exceed 
     2,828,000 an additional $28,600,000 shall be available for 
     obligation for every 100,000 increase in the AWIU level 
     (including a pro rata amount for any increment less than 
     100,000) from the Employment Security Administration Account 
     of the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center network may be obligated in 
     contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for 
     activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be 
     used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and 
     Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding 
     cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-87.


                     amendment offered by mr. stump

  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stump: Page 6, line 5, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,800,000)'' after the first dollar amount.
       Page 18, line 15, insert ``(increased by $3,800,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for myself, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the ranking member of the 
Veterans Affairs Committee; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee; the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, 
Employment and Training; and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the 
chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee.
  Our amendment would increase the funds available for administration 
of the Veterans Employment and Training Service by $3.8 million.
  This increase would be offset by a reduction in funding from the 
national activities account of the Employment Service.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
offering the amendment. We support the amendment very strongly and have 
no objection to it.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we likewise think the amendment of the 
gentleman is a good one and accept it on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and 
thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the Veterans' Affairs Committee has worked hard this 
Congress to improve the operations of the Veterans Employment and 
Training Service and employment opportunities for veterans. And one 
again, we've done it in a bipartisan manner.
  We've had great cooperation from the Economic and Educational 
Opportunities Committee, the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and the 
Labor Appropriations Subcommittee. This amendment would make a small 
but important addition to the bipartisan work already accomplished.
  Veterans preference and reemployment rights are important benefits. 
For many veterans, they may be the only benefits ever used.
  Simply put, at a time when the Federal government is down sizing, we 
must ensure that veterans preference laws are followed. These funds 
would also ensure that veterans reemployment rights are vigorously 
enforced in both the public and private sectors. This is vital at a 
time when we rely so heavily on our National Guard and Reserve forces.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow the Veterans Employment and 
Training Service to meet its expanding enforcement responsibilities, 
fulfill its Transition Assistance program training requirements, and 
find thousands more jobs for veterans.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Stump amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Stump 
amendment to increase funding for the Department of Labor's Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service

[[Page H7236]]

[VETS]. Although this amendment would increase the VETS appropriation 
by only $3.8 million, this modest amount will significantly enhance the 
ability of VETS staff to provide employment services to veterans. The 
amendment would provide an additional $2.8 million for the veterans 
administration account. This will bring that account up to the funding 
level requested by the President. The additional $1 million will be 
used to fund new positions for investigators who will ensure that 
Federal and State governments and private employers meet their 
responsibilities to veterans.
  The Veterans' Employment and Training Service, under the expert 
leadership of Assistant Secretary Preston Taylor, has done a great job 
helping veterans find good, permanent employment. VETS staff have also 
trained hundreds of thousands of separating service members how to make 
a smooth transition to life in the civilian community and workplace. I 
appreciate Assistant Secretary Taylor's hard work and commitment, as 
well as that of his entire staff. The men and women in VETS are 
dedicated to assisting and supporting our Nation's veterans. Congress 
must give them the tools they need to accomplish their goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Stump amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise to express my strong 
support for the amendment to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations 
bill offered by the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee [Mr. 
Stump]. Under this provision, $3.8 million would be added to the 
funding level for the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and 
Training Service and $2 million for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
Program.
  On June 18, I spoke about my deep distress when the Labor/HHS/
Education Appropriations Subcommittee slashed veterans' employment 
funding by almost $12 million below the level recommended by President 
Clinton--far below the level of funding that is needed to place our 
veterans into permanent, good-paying jobs. I shared with my colleagues 
the fact that 28,000 fewer veterans would be placed in jobs than 
proposed in the President's budget. I called attention to the 
Republicans' recommendation that the transition assistance program be 
terminated, a successful program that has trained hundreds of thousands 
of men and women so that they could quickly find good civilian jobs 
upon leaving the Armed Forces.
  Fortunately, most members of the Full Appropriations Committee heard 
these concerns expressed, not only by me but by many other veterans 
supporters. An amendment offered by Mr. Obey to restore most of the 
funding was approved.
  This amendment, which we are now considering, will go a step further 
and fully restore veterans' employment funding to the level originally 
requested by the President. I thank the Chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee for this responsible amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. chrysler

  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chrysler:
       Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $2,399,000)''.
       Page 38, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,399,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment. We do not have a copy of the amendment. We were not aware 
this was going to be offered. I would appreciate it if we can get a 
copy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, almost 4 million women were physically 
abused by their husbands or boyfriends in the last year. We owe it to 
those abused women to take a stand against domestic violence.
  Domestic violence accounts for more than one-third of all emergency 
room visits by women. We owe it to those injured women to take a stand 
against domestic violence.
  Child abuse is fifteen times more likely to occur in families where 
domestic violence is present. We owe it to those abused children to 
take a stand against domestic violence.
  I appreciate the chairman's work to increase funding for domestic 
violence programs in the committee bill. Overall, the Violence Against 
Women Act programs are increased in the appropriations bill by over $8 
million, to a total of $61 million.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say, now that we have a copy of the 
amendment, I now understand what it is that is being offered and we 
have no objection to it on this side of the aisle.
  I understand that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], on the 
majority side, also has no objection to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, within the Violence 
Against Women Act programs is a special program that is very dear to me 
and the people of the eighth District of Michigan. I am referring to 
the battered women's shelter programs administered through the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
  Although the committee has increased the dollars for battered women's 
shelters, my amendment would give the program an additional $2.4 
million to fully fund the program at the President's request.
  In my home town in Michigan, the LACASA women's shelter provides 
hundreds of abused women and their children shelter, food, and 
counseling. For many years, my wife Katie and I have worked arm in arm 
with the dedicated workers and volunteers of LACASA to find the scarce 
resources to keep their shelter operations continue. I am now in a 
position to do more as a congressman, and I intend to.
  It's time for this abuse to stop. These women and children need our 
help, and they need our help now because there is simply no tomorrow 
for some of them.
  Even with the hard work and dedication of groups like LACASA that are 
working for women around the country, the need for more services and 
more Federal dollars continues to increase. In Michigan, for instance, 
the nights of shelter provided each year to abused women has increased 
23 percent since 1991.
  However, even with these increased services in Michigan, the number 
of domestic violence victims denied shelter since 1991 has increased 25 
percent.
  This is one area of service where it seems we cannot do enough. When 
abused women and children need to get themselves out of terribly 
abusive relationships, they need to act quickly. We must provide a 
secure safehouse for battered women and their children. We must provide 
for them today.
  My amendment takes another step forward to provide all the help we 
can to the women and children who most need it. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support my amendment to fully fund the 
battered women's shelter programs within the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Michigan for his leadership and dedication to the prevention of 
domestic violence, to the providing of help for victims of domestic 
violence, and particularly his commitment to providing for battered 
women's shelters. I believe he is showing the kind of leadership that 
we really need to have in Congress to address this very serious 
problem, and we strongly support his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


        ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER FUNDS

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, section 104(d) of Public Law 
     102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the 
     ``Federal uemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1998, $373,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 1997, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.


                         PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs and for carrying out section 908 of the Social 
     Security Act,

[[Page H7237]]

     $81,393,000, together with not to exceed $39,977,000, which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     account in the Unemployment Trust Fund.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       For necessary expenses for Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $65,783,000.


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter: In the item relating to 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $300,000, which 
     amount shall be for genetic nondiscrimination enforcement 
     activities).''
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics--salaries and expenses'', after the first 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $300,000)''.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment 
designed to take steps toward putting an end to genetic discrimination 
in health insurance. With progress being made through the human genome 
project and other genetic research, we are making new discoveries at a 
startling pace about the genes associated with different disorders.
  Indeed, most geneticists say that with the exception of trauma, every 
disease of the body has a genetic component.
  Genes have been located already that are linked to breast cancer, to 
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, basal cell carcinoma, to name 
just a few. Unfortunately, some insurance companies are already using 
these medical advances to deny health insurance to consumers.
  A woman carrying the BRCA01 breast cancer gene may find her insurer 
drops her coverage entirely or denies her coverage in the event that 
she develops breast cancer. In addition, some companies are 
discriminating against policyholders based on their blood relatives' 
genetic information. Children are being denied coverage for disorders 
that their parents develop.
  Mr. Chairman, we should put an end to this reprehensible practice. My 
amendment will provide additional resources in the Department of 
Labor's Pension Benefits and Welfare Administration, which is 
responsible for regulating ERISA plans.
  I am thoroughly committed to trying to make sure that the 
antidiscrimination legislation is passed by Congress and PBWA should be 
prepared to enforce this law when it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to 
support this amendment as well as my genetic nondiscrimination bill, 
H.R. 2748.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois, Chairman Porter. From the day I arrived in Washington, I have 
recognized in him a superb public servant, and, frankly, I consider him 
to be one of my best friends and one of the finest Members of Congress. 
I thank him for his consideration.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for those very 
generous and kind words. We certainly think the amendment is a very 
important one and very strongly support it and thank her for her 
leadership in offering it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that on this side of the aisle we 
certainly accept the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would like to talk 
just a moment about it because I have such a deep personal interest in 
the issue myself.
  I think often in the subcommittee a few years ago, when the human 
genome project just started to be funded, I was often misunderstood 
when I raised with NIH witnesses my concerns about the fact that 
science is getting ahead of the state of the law on the issue of 
genetics. It would be a tragedy if the billions of dollars which 
taxpayers are seeing invested on their behalf to discover the secrets 
of the human genetic makeup, if those dollars, instead of winding up 
producing a net good for the American people, wind up simply producing 
a greater ability for different powerful parties in this economy to 
discriminate on the basis of genes which individuals could not order 
beforehand but were stuck with after they were born.
  It seems to me that there has been a very slow reaction to this on 
the part of both the legal profession and on the part of good segments 
of the scientific community as well. I very much commend the 
gentlewoman for her efforts on this. I think it highlights probably the 
most important fundamental long-term issue associated with this bill, 
and we very enthusiastically support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter.
  The gentleman is to be commended for his support on behalf of the Job 
Corps Program. As he knows, Job Corps has been our Nation's most 
successful federally funded residential job training and education 
program for at-risk youth for over 30 years. Because of its proven 
record of accomplishment in providing opportunities to disadvantaged 
youth, it has historically generated strong bipartisan support.

                              {time}  2100

  Program year 1995 exemplifies the success of Job Corps with 73 
percent of all Job Corps participants either obtaining employment, 
enrolling in the military, or attending an institute of higher 
education.
  The Labor-HHS appropriations bill before us provides $1.138 million 
for Job Corps. Mr. Chairman, through the leadership of the gentleman 
from Illinois, Chairman Porter, Job Corps received an increase of $35 
million over last year's appropriation, which fully funds the 
operations portion of the program. I commend the gentleman on this 
accomplishment.
  However, I have two concerns. First is the possibility that the 
Senate may provide a lower operation funding level for Job Corps than 
the House level. Second, there still exists a $14.8 million shortfall 
in the construction and renovation budget for the program. Adequate 
funding for the repair and rehabilitation of Job Corps campuses is 
critical for safe training and efficient operations. These campuses 
serve as a positive alternative to the dangers of street crime and 
drugs that many of our Nation's young adults face daily.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to Chairman Porter that, based on previous 
discussions that we have had, it is clear that the gentleman shares my 
strong commitment to Job Corps. Therefore, when the bill is sent to 
conference, I respectfully urge the gentleman to continue to exercise 
his leadership to ensure that the operation funding levels for Job 
Corps contained in the House bill are maintained and to support any 
increase to the construction and renovation budget of the program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentlewoman that I am a 
very strong supporter of the Job Corps Program. I agree with the 
gentlewoman on its great importance, particularly for the most at-risk 
youth in our society, and I will clearly work toward a conference 
agreement that will provide, at the minimum, the House level of funding 
for the Job Corps and will fight to try that make that level even 
higher.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by

[[Page H7238]]

     section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such Corporation, and in 
     accord with law, and to make such contracts and commitments 
     without regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by 
     section 104 of the Government Corporation Control Act, as 
     amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary in carrying out 
     the program through September 30, 1997, for such Corporation: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $135,720,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses of the Corporation.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $258,422,000, together with $983,000 which 
     may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance with 
     sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act: Provided, That the Secretary of Labor is 
     authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in 
     the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of money 
     ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance 
     with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 
     91-0027 of the United States District Court for the District 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized to 
     establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and 
     deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications and 
     issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 
     214) and for processing applications and issuing 
     registrations under Title I of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


                            special benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal 
     Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees' 
     Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections 
     4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and 
     benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $213,000,000 
     together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to 
     August 15 of the current year: Provided, That such sums as 
     are necessary may be used under section 8104 of title 5, 
     United States Code, by the Secretary to reimburse an 
     employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, for 
     portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary: 
     Provided further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated 
     on September 30, 1996, shall remain available until expended 
     for the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses: 
     Provided further, That in addition there shall be transferred 
     to this appropriation from the Postal Service and from any 
     other corporation or instrumentality required under section 
     8147(c) of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for 
     its fair share of the cost of administration, such sums as 
     the Secretary of Labor determines to be the cost of 
     administration for employees of such fair share entities 
     through September 30, 1997: Provided further, That of those 
     funds transferred to this account from the fair share 
     entities to pay the cost of administration, $11,390,000 shall 
     be made available to the Secretary of Labor for expenditures 
     relating to capital improvements in support of Federal 
     Employees' Compensation Act administration, and the balance 
     of such funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a 
     claim for benefits under Subchapter 5, U.S.C., chapter 81, or 
     under subchapter 33, U.S.C. 901, et seq. (the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended), provide as 
     part of such notice and claim, such identifying information 
     (including Social Security account number) as such 
     regulations may prescribe.


                    black lung disability trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $1,007,644,000, of which $961,665,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 1998, for payment of all benefits as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on 
     advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and 
     of which $26,071,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $19,621,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, and $287,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, for expenses of 
     operation and administration of the Black Lung Benefits 
     program as authorized by section 9501(d)(5)(A) of that Act: 
     Provided, That, in addition, such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation, interest, or other benefits for any 
     period subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided 
     further, That in addition such amounts shall be paid from 
     this fund into miscellaneous receipts as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury determines to be the administrative expenses of the 
     Department of the Treasury for administering the fund during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by section 
     9501(d)(5)(B) of that Act.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $297,734,000, including not to exceed 
     $66,929,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 
     fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and 
     health programs required to be incurred under plans approved 
     by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of 
     training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized 
     by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for 
     occupational safety and health training and education grants: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, 
     administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or 
     order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
     which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming 
     operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and 
     employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule, 
     regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer 
     employees who is included within a category having an 
     occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most 
     precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs ten or 
     fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $191,810,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration is authorized to promote health and 
     safety education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the Department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of 
     section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement of 
     any training requirements, with respect to shell dredging, or 
     with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface 
     clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $302,947,000, of which $16,145,000 shall be for expenses of 
     revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain

[[Page H7239]]

     available until September 30, 1998, together with not to 
     exceed $52,053,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including up to 
     $4,271,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of 
     People With Disabilities, $137,504,000; together with not to 
     exceed $297,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review 
     in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by 
     the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore 
     and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where 
     such participation is precluded by the decision of the United 
     States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers' 
     Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1278 (1995).


        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $178,149,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A and 4321-4327, and Public Law 103-353, and 
     which shall be available for obligation by the States through 
     December 31, 1997.


                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $42,938,000, together with 
     not to exceed $3,543,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of $125,000.
       Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     directly or through section 23(g) of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act for the development, promulgation or issuance 
     of any proposed or final standard or guideline regarding 
     ergonomic protection or recording and reporting occupational 
     injuries and illnesses directly related thereto.


                    amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi: Page 19, strike lines 8 
     through 15.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] will each control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill would delete the rider that bans OSHA from protecting workers from 
musculoskeletal disorders which represent America's fastest growing 
workplace health problem.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is the legislative rider bans 
any ergonomic guidelines. Ergonomics is the study of force in motion. 
What we would like to see the ergonomics look at is how to redesign the 
workplace so as to put less force on the body. This is the force that 
is causing so many musculoskeletal disorders and represents the fastest 
growing workplace health problem, having multiplied sevenfold in the 
past 10 years. Current estimates range from over 700,000 lost work day 
injuries to 2.7 million accepted worker's comp claims annually, 
affecting meat packing, poultry workers, computer programmers, auto 
workers, and supermarket employees, among others.
  Affected workers suffer pain, restricted life activities, lost work 
time, and often permanent disability. These repetitive motion injuries 
include carpal tunnel syndrome, of which you may be familiar, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The legislation in this appropriations bill prohibits OSHA from using 
funds for the development, promulgation, or issuance of any proposed or 
final standard or voluntary guideline. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, 
voluntary guideline regarding ergonomic protection or recording or 
reporting occupational injuries or illnesses directly related to.
  This language goes beyond the fiscal year 1996 language to ban OSHA 
from developing protections or even collecting data on the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, worker's compensation costs arising from 
musculoskeletal disorders amount to an estimated $20 billion annually, 
accounting for roughly $1 of every $3 employers spend on such claims. 
Indirect costs such as hiring and training replacement workers add 
billions of dollars more. Unfortunately, many thousands of U.S. 
employers are unaware of the extent of this problem.
  My amendment would allow OSHA to issue a proposed ergonomic standard. 
And what that would do is trigger OSHA's open rulemaking process. This 
process includes both lengthy comment periods and administrative 
hearings at which witnesses can cross-examine each other, designed to 
facilitate a thorough public debate to improve the standard and 
strengthen its scientific basis.
  If enacted, the rider in the bill would ban OSHA from even developing 
such a proposed standard to permit the debate to begin. My amendment 
will allow the debate to begin.
  A no vote on my amendment would preclude OSHA from even gathering the 
data, as I mentioned, on musculoskeletal disorders. Ignoring the 
fastest growing workplace health problem will not make it go away. 
Ironically, the rider's sponsors claim OSHA needs to improve the 
science upon which ergonomic protections would be based, but the rider 
would ban OSHA from gathering the data necessary to meet that need.
  A no vote on my amendment would fly in the face of congressional 
efforts to reform the regulatory process to ensure that regulations are 
premised on sound science.
  Mr. Chairman, I talked earlier about the cost to employers, and many 
of them would like the protection of guidelines. Even those employers 
who have recognized the problem are often unaware of the broad range of 
cost-effective solutions currently available.
  Smaller businesses are particularly at a disadvantage since they 
typically cannot afford to hire safety and health consultants. These 
employers need help. My amendment would allow OSHA to issue voluntary 
guidelines to assist employers in controlling the soaring costs 
associated with musculoskeletal disorders as well as opening up this 
debate to go further, if it is determined in that open period of public 
comment.
  Recently enacted legislation gives Congress a mechanism for modifying 
or disapproving Federal regulations through an expedited legislative 
process. My amendment would allow OSHA to move forward on ergonomics, 
but would retain this effective means of reviewing OSHA's protective 
standards before they even take place. This is not disruptive of 
changes that have occurred in this Congress, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it 
is in keeping with those changes.
  Countless employers have already cut injury rates and saved millions 
of dollars in workman's compensation costs through simple measures that 
quickly pay for themselves. A ``no'' vote on this amendment would 
preclude OSHA from developing protective standards or even voluntary 
guidelines based on such cost-effective solutions. These ideas, the 
initiatives, assist business at the expense of thousands of employers 
struggling with soaring worker's compensation costs, and to the 
detriment of millions of American workers.
  A yes vote would improve working conditions and safety, would save 
money for the employers and increase productivity of the American work 
force. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi 
amendment. What we have here is a basic disagreement among those of us 
who feel very strongly that the private sector is capable of policing 
its own work force and its work environment, and those who believe that 
it cannot be done

[[Page H7240]]

without Big Brother stepping in with a whole ton of Federal regulations 
to tell them how to do it.
  The language in the bill as it currently stands would be removed by 
the amendment proposed now. It is a funding limitation. It is not a 
legislative rider. Perhaps the gentlewoman who proposes this amendment 
is not clear on that particular point. It simply says that the Labor 
Department and OSHA cannot spend money on developing a ton of 
bureaucratic rules on ergonomics that would apply equally to businesses 
like restaurants, like professional athletic teams, like trucking 
companies, to parcel post carriers.
  In other words the Federal Government is now poised and interested in 
trying to develop a new set of regulations that it would apply 
uniformly to every small business in America, and it is absolutely 
absurd to think that OSHA is capable of conducting such research to 
apply these rules.
  Mr. Chairman, let me cite as an example, in the gentlewoman's own 
State of California, under a legislative mandate CALOSHA will issue an 
ergonomic regulation by the end of the year that is estimated to cost 
Californians $9.7 billion and cost more than 12,000 jobs, because 
anyone who has ever been in the private sector, as I have as a manager 
in a private business, understands that when you get a whole ton of 
regulations that suddenly come into our office, your productivity is 
automatically cut back.
  The implementation of silly regulations suddenly causes additional 
costs and in some cases causes tremendous job loss, and that is what we 
are talking about here. Think about in California what 10 pages has 
done, as I have cited here, and I have an example here of so far what 
OSHA has developed on proposed ergonomic standards in the private 
workplace or small businesses in America across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, can you imagine running a restaurant in this country or 
running any kind of a small business where you are trying to make ends 
meet, operate on very marginal profits, and suddenly you see this show 
up at your front door? Who, first of all, is going to be able to 
understand any of this? How much is it going to cost a small employer 
in this country to implement such regulations?
  Mr. Chairman, I think what people who love big government fail to 
understand is that there is not a staff of people at every business in 
this country that is prepared to handle such a load of bureaucracy and 
rules and regulations just waiting to do that.
  If any of my colleagues have ever managed a business or owned a 
business or worked in the private sector, done real work in this 
country, they know that everyone there is already interested in doing 
something, answering the phones, putting together, making a product, 
delivering a product. This kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, only adds to 
the burdens that so many people in the private sector have at this 
point.
  Unlike what was pointed out earlier by my colleague from California, 
the language in the current bill does not prohibit OSHA from continuing 
to use ergonomics data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
does not prevent research institutions such as the National Institute 
of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH] from collecting scientific 
research on ergonomics.
  Mr. Chairman, OSHA relies on those organizations because it does not 
conduct its own scientific research. If I could be convinced that 
suddenly OSHA has qualified doctors and scientists to be able to 
develop these regulations, but I am not convinced that they are 
qualified to do this kind of research.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look hard at this amendment. It 
is something that if my colleagues believe, as I do, that what 
distinguishes our economy in this world is the private sector and 
private sector jobs, that is what makes us the greatest economy on 
Earth.
  Why do we want to put this monkey on their back and drive them back 
into the Stone Age because big labor is interested in promulgating such 
rules as I am holding in my hand? And this, Mr. Chairman, is only the 
beginning.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of our committee.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a funny place. We get elected. We get 
into our offices out here, and every day we have visitors from home. 
And sure, some of them are on vacation and some of them are regular 
working people. But I would venture to say that at least 70 to 75 
percent of them are people who are representatives of the business 
community.
  They walk into our offices. They wear suits. They are good people, 
but they have a distinct economic point of view. And we hear a lot of 
it when they come and visit us in our offices. They are the people who 
can afford to come out here and lobby us directly from home.
  Then we go home. Often Members go to the Rotary Clubs; they go to 
business lunches. They talk to people who are also wearing suits then, 
and they all generally see life from the upper side.
  I think we need to get beyond that and we need to think about how the 
world looks to people who work for a living, whether they wear blue 
collars or white collars or pink colors, just name it.
  I do not know what my colleagues do when they go home, but when I go 
home I often visit plants. I cannot begin to tell Members how many 
times I walk through a plant, and I have seen a woman wearing something 
on her wrist and I say, what happened? Carpel tunnel syndrome. I hear 
that time and time again.
  Talk to people who have suffered lower back problems. I happen to 
have an insurance company in my district that is very skilled in the 
problems of worker compensation. If we talk to people in that field, 
they will tell us that there are many companies who want to avoid 
problems but they do not know how. They do not have the expertise to do 
it. What this amendment says is that it is going to be a long, long 
time before they learn.
  OSHA is the agency which is charged with the responsibility to 
develop standards to protect the health and the well-being of workers. 
What the committee bill says is that that agency is not going to be 
allowed to perform its duty when it comes to just about the most 
expensive workplace injury problem around today, about a $20 billion 
problem, the most reliable estimate. And the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], is trying to correct that problem with her 
amendment.
  I do not see why it is in the public interest for us to say that not 
only can OSHA not promulgate an official standard, they cannot even 
begin to develop one. They cannot even go about collecting their own 
data on the problem.
  I do not see how that is in the interest of workers. I certainly do 
not see how it is in the interest of companies, many of whom do not 
know what to do to avoid the problem.
  Just one example. My grandmother used to work for Pied Piper Shoe Co. 
a long time ago. One of Pied Piper's competitors was Red Wing Shoe Co. 
They paid $4.3 million in worker compensation premiums in 1990. After 
they implemented an ergonomics program and changed production 
techniques, that company reduced lost time days by 79 percent. By 1995, 
premium costs had dropped to an estimated $1.3 million from the 
original $4.3 million. That company knew how to deal with the problem. 
There are a lot of companies that do not.
  The value of allowing OSHA to develop voluntary standards, I 
emphasize ``voluntary,'' is that that would mean that OSHA could do the 
work which would enable many other companies who are looking for the 
right way to attack problems to have some idea of how to do it. A lot 
of them are small companies. They do not have the ability or the 
financial ability to hire industrial engineers. This agency can help 
them do that. But it just seems to me that this Congress is lock, stock 
and barrel in the hands of people who wear suits 365 days a year. It 
apparently is not going to get beyond the views of those folks and to 
take into account the fact that there are many, many millions of 
Americans who have a right to expect that the Government is going to 
act on their behalf to see to it that they have the safest working 
place and the healthiest working place possible under existing 
circumstances.

[[Page H7241]]

  That is what the Pelosi amendment tries to do. I think this Congress 
ought to be ashamed of itself, if it does not adopt this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], Republican whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me, and I appreciate his work in this area.
  All I can say is, after the gentleman from Wisconsin's remarks, here 
we go again. Class warfare. the only argument in favor of the Pelosi-
Nadler amendment is that people that wear suits do not understand the 
working man.
  I think we have to first understand that OSHA is not only not 
equipped to do this scientific gathering or scientific evaluation, nor 
does it have the authority to do the scientific gathering. What OSHA 
does is promulgate regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and it is 
really unfortunate that we have to fight this battle all over again. I 
do not understand why some Members of this body are so willing to allow 
OSHA to put forth a standard that has absolutely no basis in science. 
Just last month the American Academy of Orthopedic surgeons issued a 
report based on a comprehensive study of back injuries. Do you know 
what its findings were? There is no relationship between back injuries 
and work. That is not Tom DeLay saying that. That is the American 
Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Earlier this year, the Association of 
Hand Surgeons determined that there is not enough data available for 
the Federal Government to move forward with an ergonomic standard.
  Further, the National Coalition on Ergonomics reported that OSHA 
cherry-picked and manipulated the data, which bureaucrats are so prone 
to do, that it gathered last year in order to put forth its proposal. 
My point is that there is no consensus in the scientific community over 
risks and remedies or implementing or failing to implement ergonomic 
policies.
  There is certainly no consensus that a Federal ergonomic standard can 
actually have any positive impact on the working man or woman in the 
workplace and the impact on health and safety. Yet OSHA itself admits 
its draft proposal is likely to be the most expensive, the most far-
reaching ever promulgated by this agency.
  So by focusing on work spaces and stations, tools and equipment, 
lighting, typewriter keys and telephones, ergonomics virtually affects 
every aspect of American businesses large and small. It has been 
estimated that it could cost American businesses and cost us jobs to 
the extent of billions of dollars to implement.
  The sheer magnitude of the paperwork required would impose an 
enormous and unnecessary burden. The number of professions that would 
be affected is potentially limitless.
  A truck driver would be affected since he is exposed to vibrations 
for an extended period of time, sits in a truck cab, keeps bent wrists 
on a steering wheel and grips the steering wheel. It has been proposed 
that every hour that truck driver would have to sit down for 15 minutes 
because he has had too much vibration. Then there are hair stylists who 
open and close scissors for hour after hour. What about day care 
employees who have to lift children all day? Of course, there is the 
job of the golf pro who has got to swing a club over and over again, 
the florist who must wrap flower arrangements one after another, and 
the painter who has got to paint wall after wall.
  After identifying an at-risk job, according to OSHA's draft proposal, 
the employer must control the job. The OSHA does not give any 
indication how this can be done. It simply mandates that the employers 
control the job.
  If the employer cannot control the job, OSHA could require that the 
employer eliminate the job. Because of the lack of existing scientific 
data to support its draft proposal, OSHA has resorted unbelievably to 
creating its own data. Currently, OSHA requires employers to report 
work-related injuries and illnesses. In its proposal, OSHA would expand 
this recordkeeping requirement to include aches and pains which cannot 
be definitely tied to the workplace on injury and illness logs. The 
result would be a database of injuries that is outrageously inflated to 
show a far greater number of truly work-related injuries than there 
really are.
  I cannot condone this kind of activity. The Bonilla amendment rightly 
prohibits OSHA from continuing to develop an ergonomics standard that 
involves the imposition of regulations costing billions of dollars on 
the private sector and a radical new level of government intrusion into 
the workplaces, work practices without scientific support. The Bonilla 
language does not prevent the scientific community from developing any 
necessary data to show a relationship between musculoskeletal disorders 
in the workplace.
  Congress has given the authority to do this kind of research to the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Nothing prevents 
NIOSH from continuing this research. OSHA's mandate is to promulgate 
work safety standards that are based upon sound science and statistics. 
Without regard to an ergonomic standards, the debate that should be 
taking place now is the scientific area, not in the regulatory area. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of sound 
science.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman talks about how it 
is okay for NIOSH to do this. I find it very interesting that this 
committee is short-sheeting NIOSH to the tune of $32 million because it 
is transferring to them all of the obligations laid on by the Bureau of 
Mines programs, but it is not funding those programs.
  So the very agency my colleagues say will be allowed to continue is 
going to have a $32 million shortfall in their budget.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin that we are not short-sheeting NIOSH. As a matter of fact, 
that shortfall of $32 million will clearly be made up in conference 
when we get there. There is no intention to not provide that funding. 
That was a transfer from the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and 
we simply never came to an agreement about offsets between our two 
subcommittees.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say that that is a nice promise, but 
the fact is that the bill before us does in fact short-sheet NIOSH by 
$32 million. It does not allow NIOSH to meet the obligations that they 
are supposed to meet by accepting the Bureau of Mines programs.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my 
colleagues, in addition to Mr. Obey's observation about the short-
changing of NIOSH in this bill. Last year the proposal by this 
Republican majority in the Congress on NIOSH was to cut it by 25 
percent. The flat funding this year is not in keeping with, does not 
even keep up with the responsibilities that it has. I do want to call 
to the attention of our colleagues the packet that our colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], held up and said, what would happen 
if this was laid on business? The fact is, that packet of information, 
and I question it because there have been no regulations released by 
OSHA, as that packet indicates, it does not contribute rulemaking or 
notice of rulemaking. So I think it is a little disingenuous to give 
the impression to our colleagues that that is a regulation that is 
being proposed by OSHA that is something that exists.

                              {time}  2130

  Second, I say to our colleague from Texas, Mr. DeLay, that part of 
his work in this Congress was to pass legislation that gives Congress a 
mechanism for modifying or disapproving Federal regulations through an 
expedited legislative procedure, and that would, of course, still be 
allowed under my amendment should he not like the information that the 
ergonomic studies provide in terms of data on the occurrence of 
repetitive motion illnesses.

[[Page H7242]]

  The other point that I want to make is that, of course, this has to 
be based on science and scientific data. But this is not a one-sided 
issue. This is to protect businesses. Certainly it is to protect 
workers as well, and I do not have enough time allocated to me to read 
the entire statement of Mr. Dear when he came before our committee, but 
when I get my time again I would like to read from that statement, 
which talks about the need that some smaller businesses in particular 
have for the protection that voluntary guidelines and opening up of 
this debate would provide to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, in the balance of my time I 
wanted to make the case that this ergonomic study is to benefit workers 
and businesses. When I asked the very distinguished director of OSHA, 
Mr. Dear, to respond as to what the developing of voluntary guidelines 
and what the government-business response to such voluntary guidelines 
would be, he responded by saying:

       From my own experience in meeting with employers I know 
     that injuries caused by repetitive motion are a serious 
     problem of concerned employers. I have met with one after 
     another after presentation made here on the Hill after the 
     employers have specifically asked me, ``Aren't there any 
     guidelines? Couldn't you give me some help?'' And I had to 
     say, ``Well, I would very much like to, but I cannot.''

  And that is what this rider in this legislation does. It prevents 
OSHA from giving any direction whatsoever to small businesses.
  Again I say that support for my amendment will protect workers, 
protect businesses from excessive cost, and increase productivity. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have here is again a debate between those of us 
who believe that people who are out in the heartland operating, 
managing, working for small businesses are pretty smart people and they 
are what make our economy tick. After all, the small-business community 
in this country is the backbone of our economy and employs 80 percent 
of the workers in this country.
  On the other side we have those who believe that they cannot police 
their work force and their work environment effectively without having 
a big set of Federal regulations handed to them, and Big Brother, after 
all, is smarter, according to the opposition on this debate, smarter 
than the people who are the entrepreneurs and those who pursue free 
enterprise ventures in this country. The bureaucrats are smarter, and 
the entrepreneurs are too dumb to implement ergonomic standards in 
their own workplace.
  Oftentimes those who are opposed to this issue in the past somehow 
think that those of us who are trying to stop this regulatory burden on 
small business are not concerned about worker safety. Nothing could be 
farther from the truth. I do not understand why Federal bureaucrats and 
those who advocate big government do not understand that any business 
owner out there, any manager, is interested in keeping as many workers 
as they possibly can healthy and productive, on the job every day. When 
someone gets injured on the job, when they have got to pay Worker's 
Comp, productivity suffers, the product suffers; the people running the 
company, oftentimes they would have to make cuts in other areas. No one 
in this country in the private sector is interested in allowing 
unhealthy conditions and bad working conditions to exist in the 
workplace in this country.
  And I think oftentimes we get mired in the debate, and some of those 
on the other side try to make it seem like we do not care about worker 
safety. We not only care about worker safety, we care about preserving 
jobs and about keeping the regulatory burden off the small-business 
community in this country so that they can continue to be more 
productive and to increase productivity and increase the number of jobs 
in their communities. That is what we are interested in doing.
  Finally, I would like to just point out how voluntary standards that 
have been referred to here tonight can exist out in the workplace 
without the Federal Government coming out and saying: ``Hey, we have 
some paperwork here or some kind of new standard that you can 
voluntarily impose.''

  We have been around long enough in this country to understand that 
once something becomes voluntary on paper via the Federal Government 
and OSHA and regulators, sure enough before too long it becomes a real 
regulation, and we are trying to stop that from occurring.
  A lot of good employers in this country are already developing their 
own ergonomic standards. When I visited a lot of these good work 
environments across this country, I am delighted to hear people on the 
front line talk about the priority at companies these days, about 
worker safety. Safety, safety, safety is the most important thing now 
that more employers are recognizing how significant it is to increase 
their profits and become more productive and to employ more people, 
because after all, when they have more productivity and more profits, 
that means more jobs, more expansion and more people able to pursue the 
American dream in this country.
  Once again, in closing on this argument, I want to emphasize that 
those who vote for the Pelosi-Nadler amendment are voting to burden 
small business in America with a whole new set of regulations that have 
no scientific data at all to back it up. We do not believe at this 
point that OSHA is made up of scientists, doctors and researchers that 
are capable of implementing these kind of regulations.
  So vote with small business in America. Vote against the Pelosi 
amendment. I ask all my colleagues to support me in this cause.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 103. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this Act 
     may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 104. Funds shall be available for carrying out title 
     IV-B of the Job Training Partnership Act, notwithstanding 
     section 427(c) of that Act, if a Job Corps center fails to 
     meet national performance standards established by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 105. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     in this title shall be disbursed without the approval of the 
     Department's Chief Financial Officer or his delegatee.
       Sec. 106. (a) General Rule.--In the administration and 
     enforcement of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, employees who are 16 and 17 years of 
     age shall be permitted to load materials, but not operate or 
     unload materials, into scrap paper balers and paper box 
     compactors--
       (1) that are safe for 16- and 17-year-old employees loading 
     the scrap paper balers or paper box compactors, and
       (2) that cannot operate while being loaded.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), scrap 
     paper balers and paper box compactors shall be considered 
     safe for 16- or 17-year-old employees to load only if--
       (1) such scrap paper balers and paper box compactors are in 
     compliance with the current safety standard established by 
     the American National Standards Institute;
       (2) such scrap paper balers and paper box compactors 
     include an on-off switch incorporating a keylock or other 
     system and the control of such system is maintained in the 
     custody of employees who are 18 years of age or older;
       (3) the on-off switch of such scrap paper balers and paper 
     box compactors is maintained in an off condition when such 
     scrap paper balers and paper box compactors are not in 
     operation; and
       (4) the employer of 16- and 17-year-old employees provides 
     notice, and posts a notice, on such scrap paper balers and 
     paper box compactors stating that--
       (A) such scrap paper balers and paper box compactors meet 
     the current safety standard established by the American 
     National Standards Institute;

[[Page H7243]]

       (B) 16- and 17-year-old employees may only load such scrap 
     paper balers and paper box compactors; and
       (C) any employee under the age of 18 may not operate or 
     unload such scrap paper balers and paper box compactors:
     Provided, That this section is not to be construed as 
     affecting the exemption for apprentices and student learners 
     published at 29 Code of Federal Regulations 570.63.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended by the Department of Labor for the 
     purposes of enforcement and the issuance of fines under 
     Hazardous Occupation Order Number 2 (HO 2) with respect to 
     incidental and occasional driving by minors under age 18, 
     unless the Secretary finds that the operation of a motor 
     vehicle is the primary duty of the minor's employment.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Campbell) having assumed the chair. Mr. Walker, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3755), 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________