[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 116 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6925-H6948]
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, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, 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. 2264.

                              {time}  0957


                     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. 2264) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Goodlatte in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
September 4, 1997, the bill was open for amendment from page 11, line 
1, through page 25, line 8.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh:
       Page 13, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following ``(reduced by $4,309,000)''.
       Page 68, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,309,000)''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am simply trying to ascertain where we are 
now with respect to deliberations on the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. It is my understanding that when the Committee 
rose last night, we were at the end of title I, and that title I could 
be reopened for the purposes of an amendment.
  I have an amendment pending to title I, but want to give preference 
to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. I would 
like to confirm my understanding.

[[Page H6926]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The bill is open for amendment from page 11, line 1, 
through page 25, line 8, of title I.
  Mr. RIGGS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I am just trying to confirm, then, that my amendment which I 
intended to offer at the end of title I would be in order after that of 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will make that determination when the 
amendment is offered, but that portion of title I is still open.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
reserves a point of order against the amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make 
a transfer of funds from the wage and hour enforcement provisions in 
the bill and transfer those funds to fund the IDEA program, which is 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  This amendment would essentially level-fund the Wage and Hour 
Enforcement Bureau. As we talked about last night, there are many of us 
who have grave misgivings about the funding priorities in this bill. We 
understand that there is a budget agreement in which we have agreed 
with the President and Members of the other party. However, Mr. 
Chairman, we think it is very important to have this fundamental debate 
about these spending priorities within this bill, and we think that it 
is important that all of the Members of the House understand the 
decisions that are being made within the context of a balanced budget 
agreement.
  This amendment will make a decision, if it is accepted, to level-fund 
the Wage and Hour Enforcement Division at the Department of Labor. Our 
view is that that entity at the Department has sufficient funding from 
last year's appropriation bill to carry out its mission, and does not 
need a $4.3 million increase.
  Mr. Chairman, however, IDEA is a bill that we recently amended in 
this Congress that provides educational opportunities for those 
individuals who are disabled, but still may participate in educational 
programs in our school system. The Federal Government places enormous 
mandates on local school systems under this provision. It is noble in 
its cause in terms of creating opportunity for those who are less 
fortunate. But, unfortunately as so often happens in Washington, we 
passed the mandate, we passed the noble bill, we passed the strings, 
but we do not provide the funding.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would be a modest effort to redirect some 
additional funds to local schools so that they could fund programs such 
as inclusion of those students who do have mild learning disabilities 
into the mainstream classroom in our school systems. Oftentimes, this 
requires special personnel at the school to be able to help those 
students learn and have an opportunity to progress as far as they are 
able.
  Mr. Chairman, this will also allow the schools to pay, frankly, for 
some of the costs of this program in terms of consultation with parents 
so that they can be included in the crafting of the educational program 
for their students and compliance with the paperwork which requires 
schools to document what their programs are for these students who are 
disabled.
  Mr. Chairman, I visited several schools in my district at the end of 
August and repeatedly those school programs pointed out to me what they 
are trying to do to comply with this Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act that we have promulgated here in Washington. They are 
struggling to do what is right by those people who are less fortunate. 
But time and time again, they pointed out how it was taking resources 
away from other students in their schools who desperately needed to be 
taught the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those schools 
needed that additional funding.
  We have a program already authorized; it is terribly underfunded. If 
my memory serves me correctly, we only provide about a quarter of the 
funds that are needed to fulfill that. This amendment will not in any 
way fully fund those requirements, but it will provide $4.3 million 
additional for that purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this fits into the overall goal that we talked 
about last night of redirecting priorities within this bill, rather 
than funding an enforcement agency at the Department of Labor that is 
oftentimes perceived as being heavy-handed and arbitrary in our 
workplaces. We would take those funds and provide much critically 
needed assistance to local schools who are attempting to provide an 
educational opportunity for disabled Americans who are attending those 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit this amendment and would urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' in this redirection of funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of a point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this is one of those 
amendments that will determine whether or not this Congress really 
cares about the conditions under which Americans are expected to work.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking us to add $4.3 million to an 
account that already has a $338 million increase. We already added $25 
million to that account in the Goodling amendment last night. And the 
source that the gentleman chooses to target in order to move that money 
is, I think, especially outrageous.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] would remove 
that money from the wage and hour enforcement division of the 
Department of Labor. That is the agency that is supposed to enforce the 
minimum wage. That is the agency that is supposed to enforce the 
Medical and Family Leave Act. That is the agency which is charged with 
seeing to it that workers are not asked to work under slave labor 
conditions.
  We have just seen some of those stories in newspapers in disgraceful 
incidents around the country, and this amendment would further cripple 
the ability of the Department of Labor to deal with those issues.
  The Wage and Hour Division is supposed to enforce the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act. It is supposed to enforce the 
immigration acts so that employers do not illegally employ noncitizens 
in this country. It is supposed to see to it that employers comply with 
employment eligibility verification requirements under the Immigration 
Act.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this program, it seems to me, is grossly 
underfunded as it is. Are we really about to say that this country does 
a good enough job in protecting workers on overtime issues, on minimum 
wage, or on slave labor conditions? I do not think we do.
  We can look at every major urban newspaper in the country virtually 
every week and find another instance where we have had people employed 
in deplorable conditions, and yet the gentleman says that we ought to 
take $4 million away from the agency charged with seeing to it that we 
treat American workers like Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong 
with that approach. I cannot believe that this Congress would support 
that, and I would respectfully urge the rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] to 
understand what we have done in the bill with respect to the salary and 
expense accounts. That is, generally, we have provided about a 2-
percent increase in S&E accounts, and this account is 2.8 percent, both 
figures are below the rate of increase in the spending in the bill 
overall.
  The President has announced that salary increases will be 3.8 percent 
for 1998. That increase means that in all of the salary and expense 
accounts in the bill there will be a need to either cut expenses or 
have fewer employees, probably mostly through attrition, to meet those 
requirements.
  In other words, the level of increase that we have given in this 
account is below the rate of increase in salaries in the Federal 
Government generally, and

[[Page H6927]]

that will mean fewer workers will remain in the Federal work force. 
That would apply in this account as well.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Indiana is offering is an 
amendment that would raise the spending for the special ed. account by 
$4 million on a base of $4.3 billion, or about one-tenth of 1 percent. 
Let me suggest to the gentleman that last year we raised spending in 
this account by $790 million and this year we raised it in the bill by 
an additional $312 million, and last night we raised it by an 
additional $25 million as a result of the Goodling amendment. So, we 
now have raised spending in this account, just in the last 2 fiscal 
years, to this point at least by over $1 billion.
  The gentleman's amendment would be an increase from the present level 
of spending by an insignificantly small amount, $4 million. Now, every 
amount is important. I certainly agree with that. But given the overall 
funding, it is not as if we are not paying attention to our 
responsibilities to increase spending for IDEA. We very much are. We 
put it at a very, very high priority.
  And while it makes for a good amendment, I suppose, in terms of 
appeal to cut Wage and Hour Enforcement and put the money in special 
ed., I think Members should know that we have done a yeoman's job of 
putting resources into special ed. and taking the burden off of local 
school districts' tax revenues in a major way and that this amendment 
is going to make virtually no difference in that effort. It will make 
substantial cuts in the wage and hour enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the Members ought to be able to see in 
perspective that this does very little for the matter where the 
gentleman moves the money, but would cut even below what we have 
provided, which is already in the nature of a cut, in the Wage and Hour 
Enforcement Division.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me address some of the points that 
have been raised about this amendment. First, let me say very clearly 
that the philosophy behind this amendment is to take funds away from 
the Washington bureaucracy and make them available to our local schools 
so that they can implement a program that we all think is a noble and 
worthy cause of helping to provide education for disadvantaged, 
disabled American students.
  There are three examples of the type of regulatory oversight that are 
being funded currently in the wage and hour administration that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has mentioned. One 
was the employment eligibility standards by the INS. This is 
essentially a lot of paperwork where they require Americans to produce 
an ID or indication that they are a U.S. citizen before they can obtain 
a job.
  My view is that ultimately most employers will comply with that, but 
that there are some actual abuses of that program itself that are 
occurring where people are being discriminated against because of their 
background as a Latino-American or other ethnic heritage, they are 
seeing this provision used against them to harass them as they seek job 
opportunities. So I do not think we should increase funding to support 
that type of harassment in the work force.
  The second one was the Family Leave Act. As I talked to employers all 
over the country and particularly in my district in Indiana in August, 
they have told me they have enormous problems complying with this, but 
are making a very good-faith effort to provide the new Federal job 
benefit of family leave for those employees who need to be with a 
family member because of an illness, because of a death, because of a 
birth of a child.
  The complications arise from the need to provide a constant work 
force in a very competitive marketplace or, in some cases, a 
fluctuating work force. When they have a new order that is received, 
they have to be able to count on their employees coming in and filling 
that order or they see that it is lost to competitors in Japan, China, 
Europe, and other countries.
  I do not think those employers need an additional burden of a 
bureaucratic oversight of their efforts to comply with this act.
  The third area was the minimum wage. We had a debate in the last 
Congress about whether to raise the minimum wage. I thought it was a 
mistake because it would harm people who were not able to get jobs that 
frankly would not be available at that higher rate. They are what I 
call the victims of the minimum wage.
  Let me mention one, Don Baisch, who is a manager at a Burger King out 
in California. He came and testified at my subcommittee hearing on the 
question of minimum wage. He told me about how he had been on welfare a 
few years ago and until he had an opportunity to sign up for a job at 
Burger King, he did not have hope in his life. He had one daughter, the 
mother of that daughter was not there to help raise the child, and he 
made a choice to get that job at the then minimum wage.
  He worked his way up. He is now a manager at one of the restaurants, 
and he told us how he wanted to be able to say, yes, raise the minimum 
wage for American workers, but he begged us not to forget people like 
him who may not have an opportunity as those jobs are no longer 
available.
  Congress passed that increase. Frankly, the adverse effects that we 
anticipated were avoided because of the strong economy. What we now see 
in the workplace is that the market has in fact raised the minimum wage 
for most employees above the statutory minimum wage. And so those 
opportunities are there.
  But that same effect means that we do not have to increase spending 
here in Washington on a bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of 
that regulatory program, one which I do believe continues in some areas 
of the country to harm people like Don Baisch who need an opportunity 
as we are moving away from welfare and back to work.
  For that reason, I am very comfortable with saying, let us just fund 
it at last year's level. Some Members will say that is a cut, but I 
refer to that as a Washington cut and would urge my colleagues to 
reject that notion.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want to stand in support of this amendment, but more importantly, I 
want to ask about the premises, the premise under which we are going to 
decide that we cannot become more efficient in Washington. The fact is 
with the wage increase that President Clinton has put through that the 
Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the assumption is 
that they will have to lay off people rather than to achieve an 
efficiency to become more proficient or to figure out a way to get the 
same job done with less dollars or more dollars that would go to 
employees with less dollars in other areas.
  Having spent about 3 weeks this past year in different Government 
offices and Government agencies, and looking at how those problems are 
broached, I find two very different areas. I went through the VA 
regional office in Muskogee, OK, which has led the Nation multiple 
times now in terms of efficiency because they team-work, they have gone 
to innovative structures. Their costs are down. Their costs per claim 
are down. Their costs for handling the case are down.
  They have led because they decided that they were not going to be 
behind and just do what Congress said. They were going to try to be 
more efficient with the American dollar.
  Then I have gone to the VA hospital and had my staff study the VA 
hospital and the opposite thing has happened. In fact, we spend more 
money because more money was made available, not because we were 
efficient.
  So the question I would ask is, Is it wrong to try to send money to 
the local school districts to handle a program that we have mandated on 
them; and if, in fact, we are spending $1 billion to support the IDEA 
program, my question is, that is not near enough to the mandates that 
we are putting out there. And Chairman Goodling said last night on this 
floor that that was not enough money. He was disappointed that he could 
only ask for $25 million more.

[[Page H6928]]

  That is not enough money to care for this. We are mandating things 
must be done even though, in a reform fashion on IDEA, but we are still 
not sending the dollars there to accomplish it.
  So, yes, this is a small amount. It does accomplish two things that I 
would like to see: It drives efficiency and the bureaucracy in 
Washington and mandates it. There is less money for you to get the job 
done. Think about innovation, do it in a different way.
  And second, it does send money to the local school district so that 
they can meet the mandate that we have placed on them even though, 
well-intentioned, that costs them far more than we ever send; that 
would come close to providing for the cost associated even with a 
revised IDEA.
  I would support this amendment. I would ask the gentleman about his 
points of order.
  Can I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] what the point of 
order that he would raise on this amendment would be, so that I might 
know.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not raise it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the gentleman might have 
one.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has withdrawn his point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. I stand corrected.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make one further point when we 
talk about bureaucracies. The gentleman from Indiana has made a point 
about taking money from Washington bureaucracies and giving it to local 
school districts. There are bureaucracies in Washington, and there are 
bureaucracies also in many of our local school systems. I need only to 
point out that before the Illinois General Assembly gave Mayor Daley of 
Chicago control over the Chicago schools, 1\1/2\ years ago, one of the 
biggest bureaucracies anywhere in existence was the Chicago School 
Board. It was packed with patronage workers and certainly did not need 
any more relief when compared with the Wage and Hour Enforcement 
Division.
  In other words, there are bureaucracies, if they exist, not only in 
Washington but out in local school districts in many of our big cities; 
there is not any doubt about that. To say that we are simply going to 
punish bureaucrats and give this money for the education of handicapped 
kids is not quite accurate in many instances.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the implication is not punishment. The 
implication is how do we drive efficiency within the bureaucracy of our 
Government.
  Necessity is the mother of invention, and if in fact there is less 
money, we will drive invention to get the job done in a more efficient 
way. We have done that throughout our entire history as a country. I 
agree with the gentleman, there are a lot of bureaucracies in the State 
of Oklahoma within the Education Department of the State of Oklahoma. 
But where do we start drawing that line? Oklahoma should clean up its 
bureaucracies. But we should not clean up bureaucracies in Washington 
because Oklahoma has failed to do it? I am not saying they have, but 
should they have failed to do it, that should not limit what we do.
  Mr. PORTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I explained earlier, 
we have made a very direct assault on that by providing a lower rate of 
increase in all the salary and expense accounts in the bill than will 
be granted in salary increases. This funding level brings very strong 
downward pressure on the number of employees and therefore creates, in 
your mind at least and maybe mine, also greater efficiencies.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would concur with that, but remember, not all the cost of the 
Department of Labor is salary and benefits, although that is a large 
portion of it. There is a large area that is not. So when we say we 
increase a total number, it is not all going for salaries and benefits. 
In fact, they could hold their other costs even and meet those equally 
well, meet the demands of a salary increase.
  Mr. PORTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this is an S&E account, 
and they could not do that as a matter of fact.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McIntosh amendment. It is 
amazing, just absolutely astounding, that here the U.S. Congress 
proposes in this Labor, Education and Health and Human Services bill to 
increase the bureaucratic account of another one of the 10,000 agencies 
and programs that we have here in Washington, and really it is at the 
expense of local school boards that have to bear more and more of the 
burden under IDEA.
  It really strikes me that this is the complaint about Washington, 
this is the complaint about big government when 435 Members here 
assembled in the House of Representatives can take a document and 
increase the amount of money to run a particular agency or bureaucracy, 
and yet, when a movement comes, when an amendment comes to take the 
money that would go from the Washington, DC, bureaucrats and to send it 
home not to local school board bureaucrats, because every dollar that 
would be sent back home to fund IDEA is not going to more bureaucrats, 
it is going to the children, the children that are the beneficiaries of 
IDEA, the children that suffer with these incredible handicaps, the 
children whose handicaps and disabilities are so overwhelming that this 
House voted 432 to 3 in order to pass a program like that, it is the 
children.
  And the services that are given to the children at the local level, 
they are the ones to whom we must look and say and ask this question on 
the McIntosh amendment: Who is more worthy of receiving Federal 
dollars, the children with the disabilities or increasing the 
bureaucratic account to which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
has addressed his amendment? That is the issue.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would again suggest to the gentleman that 
the assumption behind his statement is simply not accurate. For years, 
a portion of this money went to support bureaucrats in local school 
districts that were part of a political patronage machine. Our own city 
of Chicago is an example and everyone knows that.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I do not come from the city of Chicago, 
and I do not claim any of the Illinois politics. All I know is that 
every additional dollar that goes back to the school district in my 
school district, not one more cent goes to a bureaucrat. They do not 
hire more bureaucrats. They may hire more staff to deal with those 
disabled children, but that is the purpose for which IDEA is intended.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman will yield further, I am certain that is 
true in his school district. I am simply saying that is not true in 
every school district, and particularly history tells us in many of the 
big city school districts across America this money does not get to the 
kids.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Is the gentleman saying that money is spent more wisely 
in Washington than locally back home?
  Mr. PORTER. No, sir, I am simply saying there are bureaucracies at 
both ends of the funding streams to classrooms and often the money that 
is intended to go to classrooms does not actually get there. That 
should concern us just as much as money spent here in Washington.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I understand, but it is our job to stop bureaucracies 
from being wasteful here in Washington. It is the jobs of the folks 
back home to stop bureaucracies there. But it is also our job to make 
sure we do not have any more of these unfunded mandates. That is the 
purpose of the McIntosh amendment. IDEA should have been

[[Page H6929]]

fully funded a long time ago. And how we do it, we take the money out 
of these bureaucratic accounts and send it to the kids.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Indiana. It seems to me that this amendment really goes right to the 
heart of everything that we as Republicans stand for in the Congress, 
the idea being that we support the 10th amendment, leaving those things 
to the States that the Founders have set forth for them to be 
responsible for, that we support the idea that the Federal Government 
should not be making mandates on States and localities that it does not 
fund. I was a State Senator for a number of years and we always had a 
problem with this huge Federal mandate that imposed the requirement 
that moneys be spent, but we had to live up to whatever the Federal 
Government told us that we had to do, and the Federal Government does 
not keep its word very often and has not kept its word in this area.
  In 1975, when this program was authorized, it was set forthright in 
the legislation that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the 
cost of this program. At no time has it ever lived up to the law in 
that regard. In fact, the most it ever got to, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], our chairman, has informed me, was 10 percent. 
It is not even that this year.
  This is an opportunity to take some money and move it over to fund 
what is a very worthwhile program but a very expensive program. It is a 
start in the right direction. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is 
important that we at least start moving in the right direction even if 
at first we cannot put all the dollars into it that we would like.
  The McIntosh amendment tries to scrape up a few more dollars that can 
go into this program. That is very consistent with the Republican 
philosophy of not having mandates and where we do have mandates, of 
moving to fully fund those mandates, to pay for the things that we the 
Federal Government are imposing on the States and the localities, not 
just to pass the mandate and let them foot the bill. That is not our 
philosophy. I think it is very important to support this amendment of 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] because it moves us in the 
right direction, and it will help pick up a little more of the cost 
that we the Federal Government are imposing on the States and the 
localities for what is a very worthwhile program.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment from the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. I hope my colleagues are paying 
attention to this debate because it is critically important that we 
understand what is going on here. This is a simple proposal which says 
are we going to put more money behind Washington, DC, bureaucrats? Or 
are we going to put money behind disabled children who need education? 
That is the issue raised by the McIntosh amendment, and I think it is a 
simple one and a straightforward one and one on which I urge my 
colleagues to pay attention and to support the McIntosh amendment.
  It is clear-cut. We can spend more money; indeed this bill does spend 
more money. It increases spending for wage and hour law enforcement. 
Wage and hour law enforcement is important. But I think the spending 
level we set last year was more than adequate. I do not know of grave 
abuses in that area crying out for a need. But on the other side, we 
can do as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] suggests in this 
amendment, we can move these dollars, an increase in wage and hour 
enforcement is not really needed, over to take care of the education of 
disabled children.
  It is a fundamental obligation of this Nation to take care of our 
disabled children. We wrote the IDEA program to ensure that States 
provide adequate education for those children who are disabled and who 
need it, but having written it, we have never funded it.
  We have heard that discussion here on the floor. It is not like wage 
and hour law enforcement. We are funding that now. But we are not 
funding the education of the disabled children across America. We are 
indeed demanding that States provide that education, but we provide 
less than one-quarter of the funding that should be there for the 
education of those children.
  That is the debate. Are we in favor of providing adequate education 
for disabled children across America or do we want more money to go 
into an already existing bureaucracy here in Washington and expand that 
bureaucracy by raising their budget? But it is an issue which reaches 
beyond the issue of the education of disabled children. It is a 
question of the education of all children. Because when we mandate that 
the States, as we do under the law, provide education for the disabled 
and we spell out exactly what they must learn and what they must teach 
and how much services must be provided, but then we do not provide 
adequate funding, that forces the States and the schools and the school 
districts across America to reach into the funding that should be there 
for other children, the not disabled children, and take money away from 
their education to provide education to the disabled children.
  So because we are not doing our job, we are not fulfilling our 
responsibility to provide the funding to educate America's disabled 
children as we have mandated, we are harming the education of all 
children. All Americans ought to be concerned about this. It is 
important that we both educate the disabled, but that we not do it by 
stealing money from the education for the not disabled, for the 
standard students, for the rest of the children in our schools. Yet by 
failing today, as we are, to provide adequate funding for IDEA, that is 
exactly what we are doing. We are stealing funding from the children's 
education of all, not just the disabled but the not so disabled as 
well. That is wrong.
  The McIntosh amendment moves $4.3 million, which right now would 
increase the enforcement of wage and hour standards into IDEA. It is 
simple, it is straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support it. 
Do you stand in favor of expanding the wage and hour bureaucracy at the 
Department of Labor? Do you think we need to raise their budget over 
last year? Do you think we need $4.3 million additional in wage and 
hour enforcement or do you understand that we have an obligation to 
educate both the disabled children in this country and not to force 
States and local school districts to steal money from the education of 
nondisabled students in order to fulfill our Federal mandate. I urge my 
colleagues to support the McIntosh amendment. I think it is critically 
important to change this legislation.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, last year our Senator Dirk Kempthorne from Idaho wrote 
and passed and had signed into law Senate bill 1 prohibiting unfunded 
Federal mandates. Unfunded Federal mandates have been a bane to local 
units of government and our States. We heard the statement just 
recently in the debate, if there are bureaucracies. Let me tell my 
colleagues, there are bureaucracies. In the Reagan legacy, Ronald 
Reagan knew what he believed in. He was very centered on the fact that 
power should go to the individuals and to the States. He is honored by 
people across this Nation because he was so focused and he never 
deviated.
  This issue that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] brought up 
is very special to me. Putting more money in funding for IDEA is a very 
important thing to me. I have a grandson who is disabled. I have six 
little grandchildren and one of them is disabled. I can tell Members, 
he is a beautiful child. He has unspeakable joy in his spirit. But he 
is disabled. As such, he pulls a kind of love and emotion from us that 
is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Hence, when I see the 
children who are under the IDEA program and the fact that their little 
lives are lived out in bodies that are disabled, my heart goes out to 
them. I am no different than any other American. Yes, we are a rich 
country and we can certainly afford to be able to help these helpless 
little children.
  My children, my son and daughter, do all they can to help their 
children in their own way. But there are many, many, many parents who 
are not able to help as much as my children are, to

[[Page H6930]]

be able to help little Timothy, my grandson. And so when the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] brought this amendment up, it really struck 
home to me. $4.3 million from a broken bureaucracy to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, it is a very worthy transfer of money.
  Mr. Chairman, the question should never be, or the statement should 
never be, if there are bureaucracies. Indeed, there are bureaucracies. 
There are bureaucracies on the Federal level that are very broken. That 
is what the mandate was in terms of why we were sent back here to 
Congress, to carry out the Reagan legacy to not just fix a very big and 
broken bureaucracy but to fix it by streamlining it and making it very 
much smaller. To that end, that is what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] is attempting to do in this amendment. I commend him for his 
forethought.
  Yes, the McIntosh amendment takes money from a bureaucracy that would 
fund an unfunded mandate and gives it to children who really, really 
need it. This is a sound concept, Mr. Chairman. This is in line with 
the 10th amendment concepts and it is compassionate. We really need to 
be able to reach out for those little children who cannot help 
themselves. This is a good Republican idea. This is an idea that Ronald 
Reagan would be very, very proud of.
  I ask myself again and again, as I have over the last few days, what 
are our priorities in this Nation? Our charge as lawmakers is to make 
sure that we understand the people's priorities and to be able to put 
them forth. As such, without the McIntosh amendment this bill does not 
do that. With the McIntosh amendment, it will begin to do that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one in my concern 
for disabled children. There is not anybody on this floor who does not 
have someone in their family who is disabled or someone close to them. 
I have a nephew who is disabled. I have another child in my family who 
was born with so many problems that by the time they left the hospital, 
his parents had almost $400,000 in unpaid medical bills. So there is 
not anybody who does not understand that.
  But the fact is that $4 million added to this account will do 
virtually nothing to improve the situation that has been talked about 
because this account is already so large. But cutting $4.3 million out 
of the agency that is charged with the responsibility to protect 
workers against slave labor conditions, to guarantee that workers are 
paid what they are entitled to be paid, to guarantee that they are not 
forced into working hours that are against the law, that will indeed 
have a deep effect on the agency because the agency already has a much 
smaller budget.
  I would make a larger point. It is true that the account into which 
the gentleman wants to put money is underfunded. Virtually every 
account in this bill is underfunded. The fact is that the budget 
agreement which has been imposed on us leaves this bill at least $5 
billion short of where it ought to be. There ought to be at least $2 
billion more in this bill for Pell grants. There ought to be more money 
in this bill for the National Institutes of Health. There ought to be 
more money in this bill for worker protection. There ought to be less 
money in the budget, in my view, for B-2 bombers.

                              {time}  1045

  If we want to correct the problem as large as the problem described, 
we are not going to do it with $4 million transfers that weaken the 
Government's ability to meet its obligations to protect workers and see 
to it they work in decent working conditions. The only way we are going 
to get that is if we take money out of the areas of the budget that 
clearly do not deserve it.
  For the cost of one of those B-2 bombers, we could pay the cost of 
tuition for every single kid at the University of Wisconsin for the 
next 11 years; we could pay the cost of hundreds of thousands of 
families in dealing with disabilities. This amendment does not do that.
  This amendment is a token transfer that will have virtually no effect 
on the people we are trying to help, but it will very deeply cut a much 
smaller agency which is supposed to protect every worker in America so 
that their employers pay them what they are entitled to, so that their 
employers do not have them working in slave conditions, so that 
employers do not illegally hire aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues, if they want to correct the 
problem, go back and correct the budget deal; quit giving billions of 
dollars in tax relief to the wealthiest people in this country who do 
not need it while the families we are talking about are getting table 
scraps. If we want to correct the problem, give this bill a larger 
budget allocation. Otherwise, they are cutting one deserving account in 
order to try to fund another account.
  So I would urge the House respectfully to recognize that this House 
has no business weakening protections on minimum wage or weakening 
protections on the employment of immigrants. Some of the speakers who 
have addressed this amendment have made clear they do not believe in 
the Family Leave Act, they did not believe in raising the minimum wage, 
and so what they are trying to do is to eliminate funding that is 
enforcing legislation that they voted against in the first place.
  I do not happen to agree with that; I do not think the House will, 
either. I think there are a large number of Members in both parties who 
recognize their responsibility to see to it that working people work 
under conditions that are lawful and equitable. The amendment helps to 
weaken that guarantee, and I do not believe that people in either party 
in substantial numbers support it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield briefly to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn], my colleague.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to answer that as 
somebody who voted against the B-2 bomber, who voted against the 
budget, who voted for minimum wage, as my colleagues know, I think $4.3 
million does a whole lot in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Texas, and all the 
other States, and I think a whole lot less is accomplished with $4.3 
million run out of Washington, DC.
  And to say that $4.3 million does nothing is an example of what the 
problem is in Washington. It is because we perceive that $4.3 million 
is a small amount. And when that amount of money goes to any school 
district, and I want to finish my point, and it is not my time I say to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], when that amount of money 
leaves Washington, two things happen: No. 1 is it is not wasted in 
Washington, and No. 2 is it has an opportunity to be put to excellent 
use in the various States.
  And IDEA is a program that we have mandated that is underfunded, 
without a doubt, across this country, and just the other point that I 
was going to mention to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is we 
have several other amendments to try to increase IDEA to make that 
impact much greater.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] let me make my statement, and if there is time left, I will be 
glad to yield.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McIntosh amendment for, I think, 
some very clear reasons. IDEA is good. We have had it in this country 
for 22 years now. The idea here is to educate our disabled children and 
make them useful members of society. Who could disagree with that?
  But in addition to that, the law also says that the Federal 
Government will fund their portion of that at 40 percent. Well, we are 
up to 12 percent now after 22 years, and my friend from the other side 
of the aisle implied that why do we not go ahead and fund it? We are in 
charge; why has it been just 12 percent? Why do we take it away from 
something else in the Education or Labor Department and fund IDEA? My 
question is, why have the Democrats not funded it over the last 20 
years? Why have we forced this unfunded mandate down on the States and, 
in effect, have raised taxes on the people in the States without them 
really realizing it?

[[Page H6931]]

  I think $4.3 million is a large amount of money. I hope people 
watching this debate understand some of us realize it has six zeros on 
it. We think that at $10,000 per district it is at least a step in the 
right direction.
  Though we are only funding what the law calls for, 40 percent at 12 
percent, we are trying to correct that situation, and I encourage all 
of my colleagues to support this amendment, support the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and maybe we will have some more amendments 
before the day is out to continue to try to fund what is a good program 
and what does help our children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my point was not that this money is a small 
amount of money. My point was simply that a $4.3 million impact on a 
$600 million budget is infinitesimal in comparison to its effect on a 
budget which is only one-sixth that size.
  I would make the point that the amendment would provide less than $1 
in additional help to every child my colleague is talking about, but it 
would provide a devastating cut in the ability to enforce protection 
for workers not in Washington, but in sweatshops in Los Angeles, in New 
York, and Chicago, in Wisconsin or any other State in the Union where 
workers are being taken advantage of every day.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Reclaiming my time, I simply say that this is a step in 
many steps for which we can finally get the Federal Government to do 
what it said it wanted to do, fund IDEA at 40 percent levels. It is not 
comprehensible to me that we have simply passed that law and simply not 
done what we said we will do. We very seldom pass a law and allow 
people at home not to follow that law. Why can we not fund it? And if 
we can only get $10,000 per district in this amendment, then we can 
keep trying until we get up to the correct funding level.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, by my calculations we are going to need $11 
billion of new spending in this one line item alone. Is the gentleman 
telling me he favors doing that?
  Mr. NORWOOD. No. What I favor is repealing the law and not having us 
fund it at 40 percent or change the law or either fund it.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise in opposition to the McIntosh amendment. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment does not reduce total spending. It just shifts $4.3 million 
into the IDEA program which is already a $4.3 billion program.
  There are two issues here we are debating basically. One is a 
philosophical issue, which is what my colleagues on my side of the 
aisle are talking about, and I agree with them on this philosophic 
issue.
  The IDEA program is a good program, and I would like to have money 
shifted out of Wage and Hour. But that is the one issue that I agree 
with my colleague on. The other issue that we do not agree on 
necessarily, apparently, and I agree with the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle, is we have to govern here; we have to govern, we are 
the majority party.
  Last November the American people elected a Democrat to the White 
House, not the gentleman that I voted for, but there is a Democrat in 
the White House, and they elected us with a small majority in the House 
of Representatives. As a member of this subcommittee, it is difficult 
to make some compromises, but compromise is the way to run as a 
majority.
  The issue they talk about, the IDEA program, everybody supports the 
IDEA program here. I, last week I had the pleasure of visiting a 
program, the Easter Seal facility in Sarasota, Bradenton, in my area, 
and they just started a charter school, which is really fascinating to 
see a charter school started for IDEA students in my area. I have a 
niece who is a teacher of special ed., I have a nephew that is a 
special ed. student. So we all have a personal impact on that, and we 
have a reason to support that.
  But IDEA program is something Republicans should be proud of. We have 
increased the spending on IDEA in the past 2 years from $3.3 billion to 
$4.3 billion. That is a 30-percent increase in the past 2 years. So we 
have a lot to be proud about in that area, and increasing another one-
tenth of 1 percent, $4.3 million, I agree with.
  I voted against the minimum wage increase. I do not think we are 
philosophic; I mean, sure we need that whole agency, but the problem is 
and the question we are debating here is should and can we govern? And 
I think at this stage we need to say, hey, this is the best we can do, 
let us move forward based on the real dollars involved because of 
inflation. We are not getting that much of a change because of the wage 
increases that are mandated by the President.
  So, as much as I support the IDEA program, I like to see more money 
poured into that, and we are moving in the right direction on that and 
we have made a lot of accomplishments. I think from a governing 
standpoint we should vote down this amendment and move forward.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Over 20 years ago we passed IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. I was one of the authors of that legislation. And one of 
the reasons we passed that act, the compelling reason we passed that 
act, because these very same school districts and administrators and so 
forth that so many are now championing, saying they could use this 
money better than the Wage and Hour Division, were the same people who 
denied disabled children access to the schools. They denied it as a 
matter of their school policy. And the reason we have a Federal mandate 
is because we had to mandate under Federal law that these children be 
allowed to cross the threshold of the school doors.
  In States all over this country, but for this law millions of 
children would not get an education, simply would not be allowed in 
schools because they were on crutches, they were in a wheelchair, 
because they suffered from Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy. They 
would not be allowed because that is what school administrators all 
over this country decided. Oh, they can be educated in basements, they 
could be educated off-site, but they could not come to school with the 
regular students. If we never put a dime into this mandate, this 
mandate should stand.
  But through the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the efforts of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], many people preceded 
them, we put a substantial amount of money into this effort.
  And where are we today? We are almost a billion new dollars in this 
effort after the reauthorization on the unanimous bipartisan basis, on 
the unanimous bipartisan basis. And today what do we see? We see a 
group of Members on the other side seeking to use these children as a 
weapon, as a weapon against the rights of working men and women to have 
the laws enforced, to guarantee them the minimum wage that they are 
entitled to under the law, to guarantee them the overtime pay that they 
are entitled to under the law, to guarantee them the comptime that they 
are entitled to, to guarantee the maternity leave policy that they are 
entitled to under the law, because know what? Know what? Unfortunately, 
out there in the private sector among those noble employers there are 
thousands of them on a daily basis that tell their employees: ``When 
you come to work, don't clock in until after the first hour; when you 
stay late, go off the clock early,'' so they do not have to pay them 
the full minimum wage or they do not have to pay them the overtime.
  This is not a matter of conjecture, this is a matter of record that 
hundreds of thousands of workers on a regular basis are denied their 
overtime pay. That overtime pay is the difference of whether or not 
they can provide for their family or not provide for their family. That 
minimum wage pays the difference of whether or not they need public 
assistance or they do not need public assistance, whether they can 
provide child care or they cannot provide child care for their children 
as they work.

[[Page H6932]]

  This is about the enforcement of people in the garment industry that 
we have found chained to their sewing machines. This is about the 
enforcement against people who we found chained to the machines and 
doors locked and working in oppressive situations. This is about 
whether or not Mexican citizens are brought here who are deaf and 
forced to work against all of the labor laws in this country.

                              {time}  1100

  This is about Vietnamese women, Laotian women in Los Angeles. So now 
do we want to use the handicapped children, the disabled children and 
their families of this Nation as a weapon against these policies that 
we do not happen to agree with? The author of this amendment does not 
happen to agree with the minimum wage.
  The author of this amendment opposes the Family and Medical Leave 
Act. So he has decided, he has decided that he will conjure up a 
transfer amendment that will tug at our heart strings about disabled 
children, and hopefully will disguise, will disguise the effort here to 
deny the enforcement of the basic laws of American workers, and in most 
instances, the basic rights and the basic laws of American workers who 
are at the lowest edge of the wage scales in this country, people who 
work in hot, heavy, and dangerous industries, people who toil in jobs 
that most Americans are not interested in having.
  Go to the migrant fields, see the conditions under which they work, 
and then say we are going to deny them the enforcement. If you do not 
like those laws, why do you not just stand up and try to repeal them?
  Some, I believe, voted against the minimum wage because they do not 
believe in it. But do not use this way, do not use these disabled 
children, do not use their families to suggest that somehow we can 
provide a dramatic difference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, do not use this amendment to 
suggest that we can dramatically change their educational experience. 
Do not do that. Stand up and say what it is really about. It is about 
the undermining of the wage enforcement, hours enforcement, of hard-
working Americans. It is about those field officers in L.A., in Tucson, 
in New York, in Miami, who are out there trying to enforce the wage and 
hour laws of this country. We ought to understand that, and this 
Congress ought to be committed for its reauthorization.
  I see the chairman of my subcommittee sitting there, the 
reauthorization on a unanimous basis. Why did you not strip the mandate 
out of 40 percent then? Why did you not increase it then? Because you 
know what? You know the Federal Government is trying to do the best we 
can under the budget we have been given.
  But the answer is not to strip American workers of their protections. 
It simply cannot be. We cannot use these children for that effort.
  This is thinly veiled, if veiled at all, because when the gentleman 
got up to speak the second time on his amendment, he made it very clear 
that this is about provisions of the wage and hour laws that he 
disagrees with. This is about provisions that he wishes this Congress 
had not passed, but this Congress did pass; and those are the laws of 
the land and the people of this Nation, the workers in this Nation, are 
entitled to have those laws enforced.
  It is very clever to suggest that we are pitting some faceless 
bureaucrat in some pejorative sense against a child with disabilities. 
But what we are really pitting against here is the ability of those 
children to have their parents' wages enforced by hard-working 
officials in the Labor Department, in the regional and local offices, 
against employers that make a conscious decision, a conscious decision 
to deny people overtime, to deny people minimum wage, to deny the 
rights of workers in the fields, in the sweatshops of this country. 
They make a conscious decision.
  And how do those people fight back? How do they fight back without a 
Labor Department that can enforce their rights?
  But, of course, many of the supporters of this amendment do not much 
give a damn about those workers' rights, do not much give a damn about 
whether they get the minimum wage or not.
  But that is unacceptable. It is going to be unacceptable to the 
people when we vote on this amendment, and it is clearly unacceptable 
to the American people that support overtime pay, that support a 40-
hour workweek, that support a minimum wage. And this amendment will not 
disguise that agenda.
  I would hope my colleagues, when they come to the floor, will 
understand that they need to strip the camouflage off this amendment, 
they need to look at the intent of this amendment and understand that 
this is just more of a consistent attack, a consistent attack against 
the rights of working men and women in this country, and a specifically 
consistent attack against those who are the lowest paid and the least 
protected of the American work force.
  I would hope they would vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First, I would like to begin by saying that I find that entire 
conversation that was just had here on the floor to be offensive.
  Second, I would add that any time that I have found that a person has 
to resort to the language that most people would find unacceptable in 
this country, that generally they are trying to make a point that does 
not hold water.
  Third, I would point out that if this amendment passes, the account 
he is talking about is fully funded to last year's level and, in fact, 
is not being cut back but rather frozen to last year's level.
  Fourth, and the most offensive of all is to suggest that somehow we 
do not care about these children.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho 
[Mrs. Chenoweth], who has a disabled granddaughter, and just grant her 
some time to talk about the disabled granddaughter that he just said we 
do not care about, because I think we care an awful lot about these 
disabled children.
  I would be happy to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for yielding.
  Yes, I guess we are supposed to not feel very much in this body. We 
are just supposed to talk. But I can say that I felt a great deal of 
personal umbrage when we were accused of using these children for our 
own political ends.
  I can confirm the depth of feeling and emotion, as a grandmother, 
that many Americans must feel when they meet these children, when they 
hold them on their lap, when they hold them in their arms, when they 
rock them to sleep, when they sit and work with them and try to read 
stories to them, and when they delight in the fact that they realize 
the child has comprehended, because suddenly their face lights up and 
they laugh and they squeal.
  No, these are very personal things to us. And the fact is that the 
gentleman from California not only accused us of using these children, 
but he also said that everything had been adequately cared for because 
we have mandated it.
  Well, that is just the point. This body for years and years and 
years, Mr. Chairman, has been mandating unfunded mandates, mandating on 
the States and local units of government.
  Now, if we really want to take care of the disabled children under 
IDEA, if we really want them to be able to have the very best of the 
creative abilities that their Creator gave them, find that level of 
accommodation in society through education, then we will provide them 
with the very best educational opportunities that we can, not out of 
using one another for political gain, but out of pure, plain 
compassion, out of caring for those people, those young little 
children, those little lives caught in a body and in a mind that is 
disabled.
  No, I sometimes think that they do not understand, and so it is very 
easy to use political rhetoric. But again I invite them to hold these 
little children on their laps, rock them to sleep, read them a story, 
work with them as their little minds develop.

[[Page H6933]]

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a very serious issue we are debating here today. 
Really, this issue, and I have heard what other people are saying this 
is about, this is really about priorities in spending.
  The people have elected us to make decisions on what it is that is 
most important in this Nation for us to spend our money on. What we are 
being asked to decide here in this amendment today is, are we better 
off increasing an account, and remember, it is already at last year's 
level even if this amendment passes, are we better off increasing the 
amount of dollars spent on bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or would we 
be better off sending that money off to the States and letting that 
money get through to help children like the gentlewoman from Idaho's 
granddaughter and other kids like her all across this great Nation?
  That is what this debate is about. It is about priorities and where 
the tax dollars that are collected from the people get spent.
  I would like to go a step further, because I think that eventually we 
want to get to a different point altogether and a different level of 
discussion altogether.
  Eventually those tax dollars that are being collected and brought out 
here to Washington and then being redistributed to the States after the 
bureaucrats in Washington siphon off a good portion of the amount of 
tax dollars collected, eventually would it not be nice to get to the 
point where we simply lowered the taxes on the people to a point where 
Washington did not have to collect that money first and then Washington 
decided on where and how that money is redistributed?
  Why not leave it out there in the States, in the hands of the people, 
like our Constitution says we are supposed to do in the first place?
  There are so many other points I would like to get back to. I have 
heard during this debate that $4 million will do nothing, $4 million 
will do nothing. I remember during the first time I campaigned, and I 
lost two elections before I was elected, I remember thinking as I 
listened to people in Washington talk, that they had lost total touch 
with people in the real world.
  $4.3 million is a lot of money. $10,000 in every congressional 
district means a lot to people out there in the real world. Have we 
really been out here in Washington so long that we think $4.3 million 
is irrelevant?
  It is not irrelevant. It is very meaningful to the people in 
Wisconsin and Oklahoma and Indiana, and all across this great Nation of 
ours.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey.]
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, these are not Washington 
bureaucrats who enforce the laws to protect workers' rights in this 
country. These are Federal workers who died in the Oklahoma City Murrah 
Building. Those people are not Washington bureaucrats, they are people 
who lost their lives because they were enforcing the law to protect 
American citizens.
  I get tired of people who get paid $135,000 a year on this floor 
attacking other people in the Government, who work just as hard as we 
do, who care about this country just as much as we do, and who are 
given a very difficult job by us to enforce the laws that we pass that 
are sometimes confusing and sometimes conflicting.
  So with all due respect to politicians who take cheap shots every 
other day at a lot of other people who work in this Government to 
create a better life for Americans all across the country, I want to 
point out, the money we are trying to keep in this budget does not stay 
in Washington, it goes out to every community in the country to protect 
every worker in the country so that their basic rights are protected 
under laws which many voted against.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just reassert my 
charge. If we are into bona fides on disabled children, I would invite 
you to look at my history, and I would also invite you to come to the 
George Miller Centers for Severely Disabled Children. At any time, you 
are all welcome.
  But the fact of the matter is, those children should not be used to 
devastate the wage and hour enforcement for the working Americans in 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to start 
by saying when I listen to Members rise and talk about their personal 
experiences with members in their family who might be disabled or 
handicapped, if we took a survey of the 435 Members here, I would think 
we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who does not have some 
experience, either in their family or someone very close to them, in 
that situation.
  Maybe that is why, because all of America feels that passion and 
compassion, that we have an IDEA Program. I think that we ought to stop 
and move away from that for a second and look at this bill and stop 
accusing one another, and say that if IDEA is in fact supported by all 
of us, then the opportunity to put more money into that program was 
there in the committee and the majority did not take it.
  It was there in the subcommittee and the majority did not take it. It 
was here on the floor, and rather than taking it on a clear vote of 
just going and putting more money into IDEA, we get to the root of what 
I suspect is really at heart here, and that is something that they 
oppose very much, the enforcement of wages and working conditions in 
America.
  If that is the case, do not connect them. If you do not want to be in 
a position of trying to say that you do not care about disabled and 
handicapped children or people, then do not connect the two issues and 
do not cynically use one and pit it against the other.
  Come clean. You have a problem. You lost on that policy issue, 
obviously, when it was up for a clear vote. The majority, comprised of 
people on your side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, support 
enforcement of wage provisions.
  If you want to cut that, go directly at it and let us have a vote 
straight up. Do not do what I think is a very cynical effort, contrast 
it against IDEA and programs like that, when you had the chance to pump 
up those programs and you walked away.
  I think we ought to just be more cautious about the way we move in 
this area and not have stories about people's hardships. We all have 
them. Deal with it directly. If you want to vote on IDEA, put it up and 
vote one way or the other. If you want to vote on the policy of wage 
enforcement, do that and that is the way we go.
  I think now we are into this philosophical realm. For the next day or 
so we are going to hear about everybody trying to retract where their 
philosophy is and try to do it through the back door by pitting 
programs against one another and try to get back ground that your 
segment of the party over there apparently has already lost and is 
trying to reclaim.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that what is happening 
here is that my opponents on the other side are resorting to impugning 
other people's motives, including the grandmother of a disabled child, 
who supports this bill, because they have been caught, figuratively, 
with their pants down. They have to choose between funding bureaucrats 
in Washington and around this country and/or actually funding children 
that will benefit from this.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is totally 
inappropriate and far from the situation.
  As I said, your grandmother over here is not unlike a number of other 
Members here, and we are not impugning her integrity or her compassion 
for that person. We are saying, why was she not there in the 
subcommittee and the committee looking for more money?
  Where were you? Where were you when you dealt with IDEA? Where are

[[Page H6934]]

you when it comes to the point in time when you want to attack working 
people in this country, some of whom have disabled children, some of 
whom cannot get things enforced so they can bring home a decent 
paycheck, some of those people who work every day and should have an 
enforcement mechanism there to make sure that their conditions are 
better?
  We have a country that is divided by huge gaps in wages, in wealth, 
and you want to attack them and you use this cynical method to do it.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me answer that specific question, 
where have I been on IDEA. I have been working with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], the chairman of the subcommittee, to ensure 
that that program will work. We passed an amendment over the summer 
that preserved the core of IDEA against attacks, against attacks that 
it was abusive and being abused, and therefore should be thrown out. 
And we said no, there are fundamental principles here that we are going 
to make education available for disabled children.
  We labored hours and hours and hours to come up with a compromise 
that the disabled groups, the parents, the teachers could all agree to 
to preserve that bill. I believe in it passionately. I believe this 
funding is necessary in order to stand up for those children, and to 
have anybody say that we are being cynical about that is outrageous. We 
want to get $4.3 million to those children, and that is what this 
amendment is all about.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, 
and would like to weigh in on the debate at this point in time before 
the debate becomes more heat than light.
  Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can provide some perspective. Mr. 
Chairman, what we are talking about here is a matter of priorities. I 
want to remind my colleagues, we are talking about a $4.3 million 
increase for enforcement and administration at the Department of Labor 
or a further $4.3 million increase for special education, that is what 
the McIntosh amendment is all about.
  Giving credit where credit is due, I want to point out that the 
appropriators did increase in their bill funding for IDEA, Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, programs by $275 million. However, 
that is substantially below the Senate funding level of $830 million. I 
think what we ought to be striving for here, and again as a matter of 
bipartisan priority, is to try to reach that target in the IDEA 
amendments, in the special education reauthorization, of $1 billion 
more in new Federal taxpayer funding.
  Even if we reach that target of $1 billion, this will still remain an 
underfunded Federal taxpayer mandate imposed on State and local school 
districts. But if we do reach that $1 billion trigger, because of the 
legislation that passed this House overwhelmingly and was signed into 
law by the President, if we reach that trigger, that threshold amount 
of $1 billion in new Federal taxpayer funding for IDEA and special 
education, local school districts will be able to reduce the amount of 
money they spend on special education.
  That is a first, as far as I know. It is unprecedented in Federal 
education policy. In other words, they will be able to redirect those 
State and local dollars into other important educational programs and 
activities, if we reach that $1 billion increase in Federal taxpayer 
funding for special education.
  The Senate is at $830 million, the House is at $275 million. With 
passage of the McIntosh amendment, the House will be at $279.3 million, 
and if we want it to get even closer to the Senate figure, I have a 
great idea, Mr. Chairman. Let us take the $200 million for something 
called Whole School Reform sloshing around through this bill, and let 
us apply it, as I suggested on this floor last night, to special 
education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman from 
California that his figures understate where we were. The overall 
account has increased by $312 million from the previous year, and we 
added $25 million more to that last night, for $337 million, and this 
amendment would add $4 million more, for $341 million, rather than the 
$279 million that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] referred 
to.
  I have to say, if I may, that I have already met with the chairman of 
the full committee on this subject, which is a very high priority with 
both the gentleman from California and his full committee chairman, and 
we are committed to working as closely as we can to the highest number 
we can reach in terms of this account in the final bill. No one can say 
that this account has not been served well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
has expired.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 4 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, let me simply 
say that, as we know, the normal procedure is for Members to get one 
kick at the cat. The gentleman has had three occasions on which he has 
spoken on his own time. I have not objected.
  We have had a number of Members last night who asked unanimous 
consent to speak a second time. I did not object, and because they had 
done it on numerous occasions, I have done it once myself. But I simply 
want to say that I think Members need to be aware of the fact that the 
normal course around here is to speak once.
  I understand that there is a filibuster by amendment going on. I 
would simply ask, and I am not going to object at this point, but I 
would ask Members to show restraint in the number of times that they 
make that request, or I think Members will feel constrained to object.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request, 
and will reserve it to the end of the debate, as the author of the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, if I could speak under my reservation 
of objection, I think there has been a misunderstanding of how debate 
works. There is not assigned time. Members are generally allowed to 
strike the last word once. We do not have assigned blocks of time when 
we are operating under the 5-minute rule. The 5-minute rule is 
different than debating under conditions when we have time assigned to 
each amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has withdrawn 
his unanimous-consent request.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee, I want to assure 
Members that our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as 
well as our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], and the members of our committee worked incredibly hard to 
strike some kind of balance in the bill.
  This is a bill that addresses so many of the critical needs in our 
country, whether it is breast cancer research, ovarian cancer research, 
diabetes research. I cannot explain to the Members the difficult, 
difficult time we had trying to establish the priorities. Our chairman 
cares deeply about the NIH, about education, about all the issues that 
we concern ourselves with on this bill.
  I can assure the Members that there are dozens of areas in this bill 
where I personally and many of my colleagues would have liked to see 
additional funds. In fact, just today I have been talking to my 
colleagues about community schools, after-school programs. We would 
like to increase the numbers

[[Page H6935]]

in all these programs so we can get more money down to the local level 
and raise standards for our youngsters.
  This balance was achieved with a great deal of effort and a great 
deal of compromise. We were happy to come to the floor with a 
bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, some Members, for their own political 
purposes, want to address this balance that was carefully worked out in 
ways that I frankly find shameful and cynical.
  If we are going to get up here as mothers and grandmothers, well, I 
qualify. I am a mother and a grandmother. Mr. Chairman, in 1992 I was 
part of the committee that worked very hard and proudly passed the IDEA 
bill. In my district, if you reach out to the parents who have children 
that have benefited from this program, sure, we would like to increase 
the dollars even more, and as the chairman said, we did increase it 
$312 million. But that is not what this debate is all about.
  Let us, for a moment, think about the hardworking men and women who 
are parents of these children, who have to go to the store every day, 
who struggle to balance their lives, who work hard for a living, who 
have to take care of these children, and who work tremendously hard 
against the odds because they have additional burdens.
  Let us think about these parents and let us think about what this cut 
would do, and let us worry a little bit about the parents who are being 
exploited in many situations. That is what this division is all about. 
Sure, most employers respect their workers, but this division is trying 
to ensure that those workers who are not treated fairly, who are not 
getting a decent wage, are going to have to be treated fairly, or the 
law or the U.S. Government will take action.
  As one of my colleagues said before, why are we hiding behind these 
children that desperately need help, and whom our chairman and our 
minority member and all of us want to help? Why do Members not just 
come out and say they want to repeal this bill, that they do not like 
wage and hours enforcement? Why are they hiding behind these children?
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am strongly opposed to this 
amendment. I find it cynical and shameful, and I do wish the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] and others would have fought harder in the 
committee if they wanted to raise the money from $312 million to an 
additional number, but not try and pit one group against another.
  In fact, frankly, I find the debate on all these amendments cynical 
and shameful, because instead of coming right out and supporting the 
issue, they are trying to pit one group against another. Mr. Chairman, 
let us vote this amendment down and move on, and let us try and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, there was an agreement that we were not going to add 
riders to this bill, that we had worked very hard to get good 
compromises on each of these very difficult, difficult issues. Let us 
vote down these riders, move forward, and pass this bill.
  Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman 
Porter, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking 
minority member, on their outstanding work, and working in a bipartisan 
way. In contrast to last year, it was a pleasure working in a 
bipartisan way, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois, 
Chairman Porter, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the 
ranking minority member, for ushering through some very positive 
legislation with very limited resources, but appropriately, application 
of those resources for very, very critically needed programs to ensure 
the safety of the American people and American children in a diverse 
way. It is critically needed. It is done in a very difficult 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not on the authorization committee or the 
appropriating committee, but I do have a very critical need for dollars 
in the IDEA Program in my district. I do not want to get involved in 
the hornet's nest of discussion about the controversy or about 
anybody's motives. I stand firm in my belief that we should protect 
workers' wage and hour rights. The Department of Labor should do that 
with all due diligence, and the amount of money we appropriate for that 
purpose needs to be the amount that is necessary to perform their given 
responsibilities.
  We have to choose between critical programs. When we are talking 
about a program to educate children that are physically and mentally 
handicapped, where they have been underfunded for decades, probably for 
the existence of public schools, it is necessary, I believe, under 
those circumstances, and given the circumstances of the process that we 
use here in Congress, we are now ready to give a little more money to 
the IDEA program.

                              {time}  1130

  And I think the amount of money that goes to the IDEA program to 
ensure that the door remains open in our public schools for those 
children, to ensure that the right kind of professionals are hired to 
deal with those difficult problems, to ensure that there is a nurse 
nearby that knows how to administer to those children, to ensure that 
the technology is available in the school so those children can learn 
and have opportunities and some day have job opportunities and career 
opportunities, it takes a little money.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in my mind, the amount of money that is taken away 
from the wage and hour enforcement is a very small amount of money. I 
do not think the Department of Labor is going to miss that amount of 
money with the mission that they have to perform, their duties. But 
that small amount of money, Mr. Chairman, that 4-some million dollars 
going into the IDEA program, from my perspective and in my district, 
and knowing children in that program, and having former students who 
have grown up now and have children and, sadly enough, have children in 
the category of being mentally or physically handicapped, I know the 
parents, I know their despair, I know their sorrow, I know their 
frustration.
  So I am not involved in a turmoil of motives. I am involved in a few 
extra dollars going into a program that is really going to make a 
difference. So, Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest] if he knows how much the increased amount contained in 
the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] would affect 
those children in his district?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are talking about 
$4.3 million into the IDEA program nationwide. And I fully understand 
that it is a very insignificant amount of money, in all likelihood.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
does he understand that it is $1 per child?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I understand 
that $4.3 million in a $1,600,000,000,000 budget is minuscule. But for 
those parents that are listening, the discussion of the positive nature 
that we want to protect their children, teach their children, love 
their children, give their children opportunities, the joy that that 
brings into their hearts is worth that small amount of money and in my 
mind is worth the debate.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], am 
not going to challenge anybody's motivation. But I guess the Members 
who have spoken so far, or at least some who have spoken so far, when 
they have risen they have justified their reason for their position, 
and it included being related to or having someone in their family that 
has been handicapped or has a learning disability.
  Mr. Chairman, nine brothers and sisters. I have 106 nephews and 
nieces and grandnephews and grandnieces. I have 5 children of my own, 
14 grandchildren, and 2 great grandchildren. And I assure my colleagues 
in that number there have been those unfortunate children that have had 
disabilities and needed that education.

[[Page H6936]]

  Mr. Chairman, I was raised in a neighborhood and at a time that those 
children were being denied that equal education. So no Member, I think, 
has as great compassion for those children as I do that was raised in 
that kind of an environment. So like I say, I will not challenge the 
motivation, but I will challenge the reasoning, and let me say why.
  All of those children are being nurtured and cared for by someone who 
is working and trying to make a living. It is important to them that 
they make the kind of wages they need so they can take care of those 
children.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I wonder how far does the compassion of my 
colleagues go? For the entire family, or just the child? Because after 
all, it is that adult that is responsible for that child. And where my 
colleagues may want to see that child get a good education, that parent 
wants even more than that for that child, and I do not think we should 
be standing in between them and their ability to provide a good living 
for themselves and their children and their families.
  That is how important taking the money from one area to another is in 
this particular case, the Wage and Hour division.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues this, that that money that is 
used there is very important. All of the budgets of all the agencies 
have been cut over the last few years tremendously. They are not 
operating on surpluses; they are operating within the budget restraints 
we have given them and are working very hard with that money. They are 
trying to do more with less, is what the theme was.
  What really is a base here is what a Member on the other side of the 
aisle said: We have to prove that we can govern. Well, Mr. Chairman, my 
colleagues on the other side do not govern by political philosophy; 
they do not govern on dislikes or dislikes for one agency or the other 
and in their own selection of one priority or one agency over other. 
All of these things are good causes and all of these things have been 
considered by the Committee on the Budget in their deliberations.
  It has been more than 2 years now that our subcommittee, the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] as chairman, we have been deliberating that 
IDEA bill. In the last Congress it failed because we were not able to 
come to an agreement. Now, finally, we have come to an agreement on it 
and we passed out by almost unanimous vote a bill that was a compromise 
bill and everybody shook hands on it and thought what a great job we 
did.
  Mr. Chairman, always in those authorizing committees there is a 
consideration of how much money will be made available. Our chairman of 
the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] got 
up yesterday and got another $25 million for this program. That is not 
$4 million. That is $25 million.
  So we saw the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Appropriations, stand and say that he would work as 
hard as he could to get that money. I would think that Members on that 
side would trust their own leaders and allow them to do everything they 
can to increase that fund as much as they can.
  Mr. Chairman, let me go back to that mandate that my Republican 
colleagues keep talking about. That is not a mandate. The gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] and I studied this law considerably over 
the last few years getting ready to come to this bipartisan agreement 
on this bill. We can both tell our colleagues that there is no mandate 
in there. The States do not have to take that money, but the States do 
have to educate these children.
  Let me tell my colleagues why they have to educate the children. Not 
because Congress demanded it, but because the courts demanded it. There 
was a court case that ruled that these children were not being educated 
and that they must be educated by the State. So if the mandate comes, 
it comes from the courts, not from the Congress. The Congress simply 
took the initiative to make sure that they were in the mix of the 
effort to try to get these kids educated. That is how this all came 
about.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I beg my colleagues to consider this. That like 
my colleagues, I would love to see that 40 percent that we originally 
wrote into the bill reached. But we wrote that into a lot of other 
bills that we have never attained. Head Start, we promised full funding 
for I do not know how many years, and we have not reached that. But as 
the money would become available, we would do everything we could to 
make sure that the 40 percent was obtained.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for a good 
bill. I think 99 percent of the bill is on a bipartisan issue, and I 
think they have done a great job in bringing the consensus, whether it 
is breast cancer, prostate cancer, medical research, and the rest of 
it. But sometimes the priorities of the committee are a little bit 
different, and this is where I disagree with the chairman and the 
ranking minority member and support the amendment. Let me tell my 
colleagues why.
  Mr. Chairman, I was the subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on 
Early Childhood, Youth and Families on which many of my colleagues on 
the other side at whom I am looking served when we went through the 
IDEA bill. We have never funded IDEA, special education, higher than 7 
percent.
  Take a parent, a hopeful parent that is just first married and their 
whole future is ahead of them. Every single day a child is born with 
special education needs, disabilities, whether it is physical or 
mental. Now, that parent that had a bright future, whether they were a 
homecoming queen or scholar or whatever, is thrust into a nightmare 
with a special education child. They do not know where to go. They have 
no idea where to get the help.
  That is balanced between the schools' excessive costs and a parent's 
need to help their child. We brought the Congress together in the 
subcommittee and then in the committee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] on the authorization committee poured his heart into 
this bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and others, and 
Members on both sides of the aisle, tried to come to an agreement. It 
was like trying to put a Persian cat and a Siamese cat together when we 
sat in the committee and brought the school groups and the parent 
groups together, because of the different concerns.
  Finally, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] put both 
groups in a room, no food, no water, and asked them to come out with a 
solution, and they did. It was one that was acceptable and it was 
balanced, and yet it was underfunded and tensions on both sides were 
very great. But it is a critical issue.
  But the bottom line is whether we want money to go to labor or we 
want money to go to special education children. Our priority, most of 
us, is to support the children. Some of my colleagues say, what about 
taking care of the parents that are going to raise these children? If 
my colleagues are really concerned about that, then the balanced budget 
was very important because it gives them 2 to 6 percent more money in 
their pocket, instead of having to send it to the Federal Government.
  Welfare reform is more important, and many people opposed it. That is 
more important in taking care of those children. But the bottom line is 
that there is a difference between sending money to labor or sending 
money to children.
  Let me give an idea. Secretary Reich was Labor Secretary, and in his 
last book, and I ask my colleagues to be the judge whether they want 
the money to go there or not, and I challenge them to read his book. I 
quote, Secretary Reich said, there should be no employee or employer 
that should earn more than $200,000. A salary cap. That is socialism.
  Second, he said there should be no business other than for the 
welfare of the employee, no business for profit. Now, that is Mao.
  And I take a look at what labor has done versus small business. When 
we say, you are for the working person, unions only employ about 6 
percent, but yet most of the legislation kills

[[Page H6937]]

small business from the labor unions. Look at the AFL-CIO; they are 
Federal employees. They want bigger government which causes higher 
taxes which takes more money away from these people. And even if they 
get a minimum wage, they cannot make a living with the higher costs.
  So, Mr. Chairman, when we look at it, we are talking about money for 
labor or we are talking about money for children and special education, 
which has never been funded at higher than 7 percent. Now, the 
committee sat down and worked in both authorization and appropriations 
on a very balanced bill. But this is a case, I think, where we can set 
a priority and put our priorities with the children. As many of the 
others say: This is for the children. This is where they can put their 
money and where their ideas are and put it for the children.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] said that the choice is between money for the children and 
money for labor. Quite frankly, with all due respect to the gentleman, 
and he knows that I do respect him and consider him my friend and 
colleague from California, this debate here today is weird. Maybe my 
colleagues should all go to their offices and watch themselves on 
television.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is like a stream of consciousness. Whatever we 
think, we can attribute it to anything. It certainly is not a choice 
between children and labor. This is not about that. This is about my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle taking a poll and finding out 
what everybody in America knows: That education is important to the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, for most people in America, it is the opportunity for 
their children. And what is also important for their children is the 
economic security of their families. This $4 million, or whatever the 
cut is, is a small amount of money, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] said, in comparison to the needs that are there.
  Let us put our hand in the pocket where the money is, if we really 
want to get down to helping children in our country. So that the people 
listening know what is going on here, the Republicans took a poll. They 
found out that the American people care about education. Welcome to the 
world of the living. Everybody knows that.
  We have to establish our credentials around here. I have five 
children. I have grandchildren. I have two children, one daughter, and 
one son-in-law, who are special education teachers.

                              {time}  1145

  I know of what I speak here about the needs that are there. If you 
really want to help special ed teachers, what are you coming around for 
with this chump change, cheap shot $4 million on a $4.3 billion budget, 
taking the money out of what the American people want? And I am 
surprised your pollsters did not tell you that.
  That is family and medical leave. They want it enforced. That is what 
this department protects, family and medical leave, overtime, minimum 
wage, slave labor, child labor, enforces the law against employers 
illegally employing immigrants which apparently is a big priority for 
all of you except when it comes time to pay for it.
  Perhaps you were misled in our opening remarks yesterday when we 
praised the chairman of the committee for the bipartisan nature of the 
presentation of the bill and the cooperation with which we were able to 
come to this floor. Perhaps you were misled into thinking that because 
we complimented the chairman, it was the bill that each of us would 
have written on this side of the aisle. It most certainly is not. But 
it was a compliment to the chairman that he met the challenges before 
him and was able to reach some compromises.
  It is certainly not a list of the priorities as I would write the 
bill, but I respect his priorities. He is the chairman, and he did the 
best he could with what the Committee on the Budget gave him and the 
immunity that is given to the defense budget.
  So do not mistake our compliments to the chairman as saying this is 
the bill we would have written, because the priorities would have been 
quite different if we could have approached this from a saner 
standpoint, from the standpoint of the budget.
  It is important, I think, for Members to know that this is a few 
million dollars, $4 million on a budget of $4.3 billion. There are 6 
million children in special education, so we are going to give them 
under a dollar each, under this cheap-shot amendment, under a dollar 
each so that you can all go out there and say in Washington, DC, they 
do not think $3 million is a lot of money. It is not compared to the 
need. But it is on the worker protection wage and hour line item that 
this money is coming out of.
  So if you want to talk about children, certainly their education is a 
most critical issue. We must fund it appropriately and wisely, but not 
at the expense of the economic security of their parents and of their 
families. That is why you see an exploitation of this Labor-HHS bill.
  Last night we had an amendment on homeless vets and all night we 
spoke about education. It was not germane to the issue at hand. It was 
germane to the politics of the Republican majority trying to pose as 
the champions of education. So I lose patience after the committee has 
worked so hard under the leadership of our chairman to produce a 
bipartisan product that we can associate ourselves with, but as I say, 
it would not be the bill that I would have written, but one that I am 
proud to support the chairman's leadership under the circumstances.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
has had enough time. If he wants more, he can get it from his own side 
of the aisle.
  As you can see, I have lost patience with this exploitation of our 
bill. If you want to help the children of America, let us move this 
bill along, remove all doubt that we can engage in a civil debate with 
each other. Establish priorities. Make the compromises. Come forward 
with a bipartisan package that will be signed by the President and get 
on with the business of the House instead of this political 
exploitation of a bill that is very, very important to the future of 
our country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first do want to react to two things the gentlewoman 
just said. She always makes me feel so good when I see her because she 
is always so elegant. However, it was the President's poll, I think, 
that the gentlewoman was referring to, before he gave his State of the 
Union Address in relationship to education.
  And, second, I do not pose as a friend of education. I think I am 
known as a friend of education.
  But I take this time simply because I want to pay tribute to the 
chairman of the subcommittee and to the ranking member for their 
efforts in the area of IDEA. Again, if you were to ask anybody in the 
disability community who has been fighting for them for 20 years and 
not getting very much, I must admit, I am sure they would refer to me.
  However, in the last 2 years that has changed. For 20 years, I asked 
the majority at that time to put the money where they put the mandates. 
The mandates came from the Federal level, and therefore, the 40 percent 
that we promised should have come from the Federal level also. I have 
mentioned many times, it is the greatest expense that the local school 
district has and they do not have any control over it.
  We changed a lot of that by forcing all of those groups into a room 
and making them come up with some decent legislation. I realize that in 
that legislation, if we get another $1.2 billion, we can give some of 
that relief to the local school districts. I did not expect to get that 
overnight. I did not get anything for 20 years. Even combining with the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] in a bipartisan fashion on the 
Committee on the Budget, we got nowhere.
  But in the last 2 years we have made great strides. We got $784 
million last

[[Page H6938]]

year. We got $240 million this year. Then I asked them for more and we 
got $25 million more.
  We also got the promise that they will go to the Senate's figure, if 
there is any way possible, which is $834 million. That is getting us 
very, very close to the $1.2 billion, and if they continue the 
leadership that they have shown thus far, there is no question in my 
mind that in another year we will pass that $1.2 billion and we will 
give that relief to local districts.
  But I do want to make sure that everyone appreciates what this 
chairman of the subcommittee and this ranking member of the 
subcommittee have done in relationship to IDEA.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, we have gotten into a debate about 
weirdness and stream of consciousness. Let me interject one fact that I 
think is important from the report of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter]; that is, we are talking about $4.3 million. It has been stated 
that is not a lot for IDEA, but it is something in the right direction.
  It has also been stated that it would gut the wage and labor 
enforcement program. But the fact is the report indicates that last 
year's funding was $117 million. It is being increased, if I read this 
correctly; the chairman can correct me if I am misreading the report, 
but it is being increased to $121 million for that line item; $117 
million is plenty of dollars to enforce the labor standard laws that 
that department is in charge of. I think we should keep that fact in 
mind as we continue this debate.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his efforts on IDEA and 
for yielding to me.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up, if I can, where my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] left off. In terms of what 
this debate is actually all about and the reading of the poll data and 
the communications experts, front page of the Washington Post or the 
New York Times in the last couple of days talked about Mr. Frank Luntz, 
Republican consultant, who talked about communicating to the 
Republicans on how they should approach issues and what they ought to 
be saying.
  Sentences that work particularly well: All children deserve a chance 
at a quality education; your communications, direct quote, must always 
focus explicitly on one word, children.
  It is a veil, a thinly disguised veil to talk about what you want to 
do for children instead of what you really want to do to workers in 
this country.
  What you did not read in your poll data is that when Americans talk 
about cutting waste and bureaucracy, they do not mean eliminating vital 
protections like the Federal minimum wage and enforcing that minimum 
wage and enforcing family and medical leave. The Wage and Hour 
Division's mission is to make sure that we pass laws that regard and 
take into consideration basic worker pay and protections and that they 
are respected and carried out.
  Mr. Chairman, my mother is a seamstress. My mother worked in a 
sweatshop. She worked at earning pennies, 2 cents a collar. I went to 
that sweat shop when I was a kid. I watched what she did. She and other 
women with their backs bent over sewing machines, pumping dresses out 
as fast as they could so that in fact they could take care of their 
families. My mother and those women and those people who work there 
were exploited and so many others were exploited.
  I will tell my colleagues that today we have hard-working people out 
there. They are attempting to stay off of welfare, to earn a decent 
wage. They want to raise their kids to be productive and they want them 
to be contributing members of society.
  At a time when we have given tax breaks to the richest corporations 
in this country and at a time, in fact, when we have done some good 
about giving a tax break to parents to help them be able to keep more 
of their paycheck in their pockets, what we should not be doing here 
today is undermining their ability to earn that fair paycheck in the 
first place.
  I support IDEA. Other Members here do that. What you are doing here 
today is talking about essentially an increase of about 72 cents, 72 
cents, less than a dollar. Who are we kidding? Do not think we are 
going to kid the American people. We are not kidding anybody over here 
on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point that, far 
from benefiting Washington bureaucrats, the Wage and Hour Division, 
through the enforcement of our labor laws, last year was able to put an 
additional $132 million in money into the pockets of workers who had 
earned that money but were denied it by exploitation.
  That is the purpose of this account. This account leverages far more 
money into the pockets of workers than it costs us in the first place, 
and that is why it should not be diminished one dime.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the agenda is clear. It is antiworker. If 
you were concerned about children and their families, you truly would 
be working to increase funds to pay for research that will cure these 
youngsters, to help with the schools that will educate them, to deal 
with job training and help them to get jobs and to be productive 
citizens. Yet you will cut that off.
  In the wage and hour, they look at Davis-Bacon. You are always 
complaining about Davis-Bacon and how unfair it is. What this division 
does is look at Davis-Bacon. It says where wages are fair and where 
they are not biased, but what you want to do is you want to talk out of 
one side of your mouth about cutting back on Davis-Bacon and yet you 
want to cut out the money from the Wage and Hour Division that looks at 
that that will make it fair. This is a direct assault on American 
working families. It is nothing less than that. Truly, you should be 
ashamed of coming to the floor with this kind of an effort. These are 
false choices that you are asking people to make. It is wrong to do 
that. We need to be protecting American working families and their 
children.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, for the sake of a civil debate, as was earlier 
mentioned, even I will try to keep the tone civil and try not to come 
to this debate from such a limited vocabulary that refers to it as 
``weird.'' But I would simply say that we did not take a poll on this 
side because we do not need to.
  Long before America heard about Frank Luntz, they heard about Dick 
Morris and they had to hear about Dick Morris because someone talking 
to the President about education, that person had to take a poll about 
education because that person sent his child to private school.
  If you want to know about the course of education in America, you 
need to come to people that send their children to public school, such 
as I do, and so I do not need to take a poll to hear what is happening 
in education today. What is happening in education today is the Federal 
Government is expanding its influence in education.
  I was not going to talk about this amendment specifically, but when 
the issue of education and speaking out of one side of our mouths, I 
think that they are looking at the wrong institution. They should look 
at the White House when they talk about speaking out of one side of 
their mouths because they do not know the ills personally of the public 
school, public education system, and the problems that have been 
created by a tremendous Federal bureaucracy that was created in 1980, 
almost 200 years after the Founders created this country by the U.S. 
Constitution.

                              {time}  1200

  If we want to help the children of this country, let us put it in the 
hands of the people that really care about the children. Last night we 
heard in this debate that a program in this bill called whole school 
reform was created as the result of the research of a group of 
businessmen. Businessmen. I was glad that I heard the debate because I 
learned more about whole school reform last night than I knew before 
that time.

[[Page H6939]]

  But here today we are talking about we cannot hand over the issue of 
wage and hour compliance to what was earlier referred to as ``loathsome 
employers.'' Are these the same loathsome employers that we are asking 
to create education policy in our country? Are these the same sweatshop 
owners that we are entrusting the future of our children's education 
to? Maybe you had different people at your sweatshop hearings than you 
did at your businessmen to create education policy hearings. I do not 
know. I am not a member of that committee, but you can understand that.
  Last night we heard that there were problems with title I, from that 
side. We heard that there were problems with title I and that 
bureaucrats were not actually engaged in the actual creation of 
educational progress in our country and that they had problems with 
Goals 2000. So what is the solution? We bring businessmen into Congress 
and ask them how to educate our children. And then to evaluate the 
process, we ask bureaucrats to evaluate it as a creation of whole 
school reform.
  There is one entity that is taken out of the picture here. We did not 
ask the parents how to educate our children. We asked businessmen, or 
loathsome employers or sweat shop owners, or however you want to refer 
to them today, depending on the day of the month or the debate that we 
are talking about. But the fact is that we did not bring parents in. 
When it comes time for us to evaluate the progress of our children, we 
are not going to ask parents either.
  What are we going to do? One Member said last night, ``We're going to 
bring them in for coffee.'' Well, that is nice if they are coffee 
drinkers. But if they are parents concerned about education, why do we 
not ask the parents to evaluate the educational progress of our 
children? Is that unreasonable? If I gave my colleagues a list of 10 
people on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, Members of 
Congress, Senators, the President, even teachers or administrators, and 
I placed in there the term ``parent'' and asked you who is most 
interested in the educational progress of our children, I think 
everyone in this Chamber would say it is parents. But who have we not 
asked to develop educational policy in this country? Parents. Who have 
we not asked to evaluate the progress of our children in this country? 
Parents, as a result of this bill.
  There is a fundamental difference in America today and that 
difference is inside the Beltway and everywhere else in this country. 
There is a fundamental difference in how and why and to what extent our 
children should be educated and on what basis we should create that. If 
you want to do the right thing for children, help the children of this 
country, as I heard one individual so eloquently put it, and you want 
an agenda that is clear, then I say, let us ask the parents how to 
educate our children. Let us give them the flexibility.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hostettler was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, just to finalize this, the contrast here is 
not to hurt people who are working. The contrast here is to fund a 
program that we have mandated to the States to allow local people to 
decide what they are doing, to take and force efficiency on 
bureaucracies and move money from Washington to the local school 
districts. That is what this debate is about. There is not any ill 
intention on anyone's side. It is saying let us do the right thing. Let 
us move direction from Washington to the local community, from 
bureaucrats to local school districts and parents. That is what this 
debate is all about.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 260, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 367]

                               AYES--167

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh

[[Page H6940]]


     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Ballenger
     Boucher
     Gonzalez
     Pryce (OH)
     Schiff
     Stenholm

                              {time}  1231

  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, WHITE, HUTCHINSON, and DICKEY changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my purpose in moving to strike the last word is to 
engage the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] in a 
colloquy on an important portion of the overall bill of which he is the 
prime mover, and I would ask his indulgence to stand with me for this 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] for his assistance to disabled Medicare claimants in 
Pennsylvania and in other States that I brought to his attention last 
year regarding their difficulties with filing deadlines to have their 
claims paid.
  These Medicare claims involve situations where an individual has been 
employed, for example, at Bethlehem Steel, and becomes totally disabled 
and is no longer able to work. They are fortunate to have employer 
health care plans as well as Medicare to cover their health care 
expenses.
  However, there has been a problem with changing their claim status 
with Medicare contractors once they become permanently disabled and 
Medicare happens to be the primary payer. If the request for status 
change takes longer than 1 year, Medicare will not pay the claim due to 
the 1 year timely filing deadline. The employer and the disabled 
employee have requested the change in the timely manner, and through no 
fault of their own, the Medicare contractor has not processed the 
request within a year of the date of service.
  Status change requests take between 4 to 6 months to process by 
Medicare contractors. This delay results in the inability of the 
employer and the disabled employee to meet timely filing deadlines.
  Medicare contractors will not accept claims for services until the 
status change has been completed. As a result, the disabled claimant is 
unable to get the claim for medical services paid due to inaction 
beyond their control.
  Additional delays of 3 to 6 months in processing Part B Medicare 
physician services through Social Security also results in employers 
and disabled employees not meeting the timely filing requirements.
  Last year, to address this problem, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] provided fiscal year 1997 appropriations report 
language that ``encouraged the Health Care Financing Administration, 
HCFA, to consider these claims as timely filed,'' where the request for 
a change in status was made.
  Unfortunately, this request to the HCFA has not been communicated by 
HCFA to the Medicare contractors.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
would he request HCFA to communicate to Medicare contractors that they 
are encouraged to consider these claims as timely filed? I think this 
might solve the problem.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for bringing this failure in communication by HCFA to my 
attention, which impacts the permanently disabled who are no longer 
able to work and are seeking Medicare coverage for their medical 
claims. I fully intended that Medicare contractors be aware of our 
requests, and thought that they would have been issued a directive last 
year about our intention.
  I will request HCFA to pass along this request to the Medicare 
contractors who process the change in status for the formerly employed 
disabled and will consider these claims as timely filed. It is our 
intention that any Medicare claim filed within a year after making a 
change in status or Medicare part B enrollment would be considered 
timely.
  I encourage HCFA to issue directives to Medicare contractors to make 
these status changes effective efficiently within 30 to 60 days of the 
request, giving the contractors such time to verify the correct 
Medicare status. Disabled Medicare claimants should not have to wait 6 
months for Medicare contractors to act on a request for status change.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the chairman 
to follow through with that, and I know he will. We thank the chairman 
for his help in this matter.
  I hope the directives issued by HCFA to Medicare contractors will 
solve the problems we have heard about from our constituents.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note in response to the latest 
colloquy that there is a very serious backlog problem at the Social 
Security Administration, as well, and I would like to simply inform the 
House, if they are not aware of it, that the budget agreement which the 
Congress passed and the President agreed to has a very unfortunate side 
effect with respect to the extensions of delay in response to requests 
for Social Security Administration determinations. It is going to grow 
substantially.
  One of the assumptions in that budget is that the Social Security 
Administration costs will be cut by one-quarter over the next 5 years. 
There is already about a 3-month delay in responding to claims requests 
in Social Security. That is expected to grow to about 9 months to a 
year under the budget agreement that was reached.
  So I recognize the legitimacy of the gentleman's concern about this 
backlog. I want Members to know with the budget deal that Congress 
signed on to, we can expect to see a very serious backlog also grow in 
the Social Security area, and I do not think any of us are going to be 
very happy with that.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Riggs.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offered amendment 
No. 21 printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 19, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $9,800,000)''.
       Page 44, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $19,600,000)''.
       Page 44, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $9,800,000)''.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate to my colleagues that it 
is unlikely as we progress with the debate on my amendment that I will 
insist on a vote, and in fact, I would like to alert the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] of my 
hope and intention to engage in a colloquy with those gentlemen.
  First, let me explain the purpose of my amendment. My amendment is 
very simple and straightforward. It would restore the $19.6 million cut 
from the Older Americans Act program.
  I understand why the appropriators have decided to make a reduction 
in Older Americans Act program funding. I understand, of course, that 
the Older Americans Act has not been reauthorized for several years 
now, and it is my intention on my watch as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, with jurisdiction 
over the Older Americans Act, that we will reauthorize that very 
important legislation in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, under my amendment, I propose to reduce overhead 
accounts at the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services in 
order to again restore this $19.6 million in funding for the Older 
Americans Act, so the programs can be funded for at least the current 
fiscal year level.
  I would like to go ahead now and move to my colloquy before time 
expires, but would simply point out that the senior population is 
growing in America, and so is the need for the types of senior services 
provided under the Older Americans Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from

[[Page H6941]]

Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee, and hopefully, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  As I have already expressed, I am deeply concerned that the bill 
before us today funds some programs for older Americans below their 
current levels, despite an increased need for the services. We have 
already heard anecdotal evidence to that effect in the early hearings 
we have been having in our subcommittee on reauthorization of the Older 
Americans Act.
  As the gentlemen know, the other body has included, I am told anyway, 
an increase of over $56 million for Older Americans Act programs in 
their version of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
spending bill for fiscal year 1998; and I understand yesterday an 
amendment was accepted in the other body to further increase the 
funding by an additional $40 million.
  I would like to yield to the ranking member of the full 
Appropriations Committee, as well as the subcommittee, to ask whether 
it is his intention to attempt to reach higher funding levels for Older 
Americans Act programs when he goes to conference with the other body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the question. Let 
me simply say that every year I have been on the subcommittee I have 
attempted to raise funding levels for these programs.
  The Senate has a higher allocation overall for the bill, so they are 
able to provide more funding than our House committee is. I certainly 
in conference expect to try to move very close to the Senate position 
and increase this account significantly.
  I agree with the concerns expressed by the gentleman, and that is why 
I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment so that we can, in 
fact, work in conference to achieve the end that the amendment has 
expressed.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his assurances. I understand that the allocation provided to the 
subcommittee, as I have already indicated in debate on the previous 
amendment, has required making some tough choices in the bill, but I do 
hope that the subcommittee's allocation might increase during 
conference with the other body.
  I would also like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] to ask whether it is his intention also to strive for a higher 
funding level for the Older Americans Act programs during conference on 
this bill with the other body.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would intend, as does the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to do everything we can to provide a higher 
funding level for the Older Americans Act programs in the conference.
  As the gentleman said, the Senate has been armed in their budget 
allocation with a significantly higher amount of funds to work with, 
and we will not know until we get to conference what the level is for 
both Houses. But within those numbers, we will do our very best to fund 
these important programs.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's sincere 
intentions, and with the assurances of the chairman and the ranking 
member, Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is no longer necessary, 
and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the chairman and the ranking member 
would allow, if I can enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], most 
of us support the initiative and what the gentlemen are doing, the 
ranking member and the chairman.
  I would ask the chairman, the last term, in the 104th Congress, the 
GAO report came out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Cunningham, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.]
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There were excessive administrative costs in all 
areas under the administration here in Washington by the Older 
Americans group, of the 10 different groups. When we ask for funds, I 
would just like to make sure that the ranking minority member and the 
chairman would look into making sure that the fraud, waste, and abuse 
that is present in the Older Americans Act is eliminated, and they will 
do everything they can to reduce that so we can actually get more money 
to them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman, as the 
gentleman knows, the Congress does not administer the laws, we only 
pass them. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch of 
government to administer them in such a way that we have minimum 
leakage.
  I am certain the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I will both 
pursue every reasonable avenue in order to minimize that leakage, 
because we certainly want to see moneys expended to deliver services to 
people, and not to go out the window for no good purpose.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree. We can put leverage on those that do abuse 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] to withdraw his amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] is withdrawn.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the funding levels 
for the Older Americans Act, as well, in this bill. I was unsuccessful 
in obtaining the needed increases in committee, and I know we worked 
very hard with the chairman and the ranking minority member to do so, 
but I know these programs do enjoy support in our committee.
  The Senate bill as reported out of committee provided $42 million 
more than the House did, and I look forward to working with the 
chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to 
move toward the Senate levels as we go to these vital programs which 
provide meals and other services to seniors to enable them to remain 
independent in their own homes.
  These programs have not had a noticeable increase for quite some time 
and are feeling squeezed. Our senior centers just do not and cannot 
meet the demand for services. I visit many of these senior centers, as 
I know my colleagues do, and we see the really outstanding work they 
do, and the need for these services in our communities.
  These seniors have a lifeline in these centers. They provide 
nutritious meals, they provide a place where they can congregate. I 
know that, working together, we can do better for our seniors, and I 
look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking minority 
member in the conference to do so. I thank the chairman for his 
cooperation.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blunt:
       Page 17, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,250,000)''
       Page 69, line 26, after each dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $11,250,000).
       Level-funds OSHA; transfers increase to Vocational and 
     Adult education.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as has been read, transfers 
the increase in OSHA to vocational and adult education. In the last 
debate I believe I heard the gentlewoman from

[[Page H6942]]

Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] suggest that we need to challenge the House 
to spend more money on training. This amendment meets that challenge, 
and may be more timely even because of that challenge, that we spend 
more of our money on training.
  I think increasing spending in OSHA, as opposed to increasing 
spending in vocational and adult education, really just does not make 
sense to me, so this amendment is to transfer that increase. OSHA would 
be frozen. OSHA is being studied. There are field hearings on OSHA. 
There is nobody who is a member of this body who does not believe that 
OSHA needs to be significantly restructured in the way it does its job.
  At the same time, vocational and adult education have been incredibly 
successful programs that are actually funded below the 1997 levels. In 
a bill that funds programs that are not even authorized, vocational 
education and adult education are funded below last year's levels. I 
find that unacceptable.
  In fact, as we match these two things together, the best place to 
ensure workplace safety is in training. The best place to prevent 
accidents is before they happen. The best place to have workers prepare 
to be safe workers is not on the job, but before they get on the job, 
and vocational education has a track record of doing that effectively.
  This transfer would make sense from the training point of view. It 
freezes OSHA at the 1997 level. With this transfer we actually fund 
vocational education and adult education above the 1997 level. I urge 
its passage. I think when we look at the number of people that work in 
OSHA, the average business that is affected by OSHA really can 
anticipate a visit maybe as infrequently as once every 10 years. That 
does not ensure workplace safety.
  Well-trained workers do ensure workplace safety. Vocational education 
money and adult education money get people to work who have not been to 
work before. They increase the skills of those people who have not been 
to work before.
  On the other hand, OSHA often encourages people not to create jobs, 
and there are examples probably in every district represented in this 
House where people keep their employee numbers below 50 just so they 
will not have to deal with OSHA. When the OSHA inspector comes, it 
depends on which part of the OSHA code that inspector is familiar with 
on how the inspection goes that day. Training, Mr. Chairman, is the key 
to the workplace. It is the key to workplace safety.
  Leaving these two programs at levels below 1997 funding in this bill 
while we increase OSHA funding I think is unacceptable, so this 
amendment would rectify that situation. I urge its passage, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order, and rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is another example of an amendment being 
offered which attacks the ability of the U.S. Government to protect 
workers in the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress do not serve in very hazardous 
jobs. We may get an occasional threat against our lives, as a number of 
us have done, unfortunately, but by and large we do not serve in very 
hazardous duty. But I would point out last year, or just 3 years ago, 
some nearly 7 million workers were injured in 1 year on the job, and 
some 6,300 workers died on the job. A number of workers died in my 
district just last month. I have had four incidences in the last year 
of workers dying in my district on the job.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman is adding funding 
to an account to train workers, but the net effect of his amendment 
would be to reduce the safety of the workplace in which those workers 
are employed. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in the 
gentleman's own State, there were 155 workplace fatalities last year. I 
would like to point out that in the gentleman's own State, there are so 
many inspectors for OSHA that the average employer would be inspected 
once every 235 years. That is hardly overload, in terms of inspections. 
There are only 25 OSHA inspectors in the gentleman's own State to cover 
that entire State. There were 178,000 illnesses, workplace-related 
illnesses and injuries, reported in the gentleman's own State last 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that those numbers indicate the wisdom 
of reducing the committee recommendation about the amount of money 
necessary to protect the health and safety of workers. I take this 
issue very personally. I used to work with asbestos. My father ran a 
floor covering business and a home improvement business. I worked with 
asbestos for 11 years, off and on, until I found out what Johns 
Manville Corp. had known since 1939 that asbestos caused cancer.
  I also at that time smoked three packs of cigarettes a day. I did not 
know about the synergistic effect of asbestos and tobacco in terms of 
geometrically increasing your chances of getting lung cancer. I 
certainly do now. I did not know that 40 percent of the British 
shipyard workers who had worked with asbestos had died of mesothelioma 
as a result. I certainly know that now.
  The Government had an obligation to protect workers like me from 
hazards like that. They did not. That is why my colleague from 
Wisconsin, a good Republican by the name of Bill Steiger, who 
unfortunately died at a very early age from diabetes, that is why Bill 
Steiger led the fight to create OSHA, so we would have an agency of the 
Federal Government that would enforce the laws, so workers knew when 
they got up to go to work every morning and work 8 or 10 hours, 
whatever they worked, they would at least be guaranteed government 
protection, and seen to it that they performed their duties in a safe 
and hazard-free workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the OSHA budget that we provided 
here has a 1-percent increase, which is a pittance compared to the need 
in enforcing workplace health and safety. The only exception to that is 
the 12-percent increase that we have for compliance assistance.
  With Sylvio Conte, I started the first OSHA efforts to see to it that 
OSHA could go into a plant voluntarily, on the basis of a request from 
an employer, and review what they were doing and make suggestions about 
how they could improve their situation without subjecting the employer 
to a fine.
  We feel that that increase is necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we think it is important that those employers 
be able to provide or that OSHA be able to provide that additional 
assistance to employers, so that employers who want to can voluntarily 
figure out what they can do to make their workplace more safe.
  It just seems to me that anyone in this House would like to put more 
money in the program that the gentleman is talking about, but I doubt 
that a majority in this House on either side of the aisle would want to 
take the money from the area the gentleman wants to take it from.
  The bottom line, if we are going to train workers, they have the 
right to know that they are going to be working in a workplace which is 
safe and healthy. OSHA is the agency charged with that responsibility. 
They have some wonderful programs which we have utilized to increase 
safety many times over in the logging industry, a cooperative 
relationship which they worked out, for instance, so loggers who are 
engaged in one of the most hazardous occupations in the country can do 
so a bit more safely.
  We should not be cutting back this appropriation from the committee 
recommendation one dime. This is a gut, basic requirement that we have 
to workers in this country. We ought not to walk away from it to any 
degree whatsoever.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first put the numbers in a little 
perspective. The increase in the OSHA account overall for

[[Page H6943]]

the next fiscal year in the version of the bill that is on the floor is 
3.5 percent. That is $11.6 million below the President's budget 
request. When the cost increases and Federal pay raises are factored 
in, the amount provided is actually a reduction from last year's figure 
in terms of actual buying power.
  The Federal compliance assistance activities are increased by the 
subcommittee and full committee by 22 percent, while enforcement 
activities as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] described them, 
including the cost of paying for OSHA inspectors, would be only 1 
percent above fiscal year 1997. Compliance assistance activities 
involve the activities of OSHA working with employers in a cooperative 
way and not in a way of providing inspections and the heavy hand of 
Federal regulation on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment, if offered some years 
ago, would have been very relevant. I have watched OSHA the entire 16 
years I have been on the subcommittee, but most particularly since 
President Clinton became President. I believe that OSHA is in the 
process of truly transforming itself.
  The President brought in a new director named Joe Dear when he took 
office in 1993, and Joe Dear came in with the philosophy that OSHA 
could get a lot more done if they worked with employers, rather than 
worked against them.
  While it takes a long time for any agency, whether it is in the 
Federal Government or in the private sector, to change the thinking on-
the-ground. I believe that the thinking has definitely changed in the 
leadership in OSHA during the Dear administration, and that we are a 
long way toward having a very different OSHA today than we had 5 years 
ago.
  Mr. Chairman, while normally if I felt the same way about OSHA that I 
did 5 years ago, I would support this amendment and in our mark I would 
have cut OSHA very severely. I think that cutting the money we provide 
would send exactly the wrong message to a new OSHA that is attempting 
to do things in the way we want.
  Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances this amendment is simply a 
mistake. What we want to do is encourage OSHA to do better. I think 
that we have not given them a large increase. We are below the 
President's request. That sends our message in the way we want to send 
it. If we cut below that, I am afraid we are going to discourage the 
very things that we are trying to encourage. Mr. Chairman, I would 
oppose the amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no bigger champion of education and training 
in this House than I am: Training for our high school students so they 
leave high school ready and trained for a job that pays a livable wage, 
and training for our workers so they can stay in step with changes so 
they will be ready for the 21st century and do not lose their jobs 
because they are not trained adequately.
  When I first came to the Congress, I requested to serve on the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities because I believed 
that is the most important committee in the House of Representatives. I 
have been a member of that committee for 5 years now. I work long and I 
work hard to make sure that all American students get a world-class 
education and that all students get the training they need for their 
future and that all workers are trained for the jobs of the future 
also.
  Our students need world-class training and education. They need that 
so they can get high-skill, high-wage jobs, and they need that to 
ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace. 
Because, of course, a vast majority of American students become 
American workers. When they are workers, they also require additional 
training.
  But to that end, Mr. Chairman, it makes absolutely no sense to pit 
education funds against funds that will keep our American workers safe. 
Funding for important protections for American workers must stay 
intact. Funding for OSHA is particularly important. Funding for labor 
is important in general.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot leave American workers less safe. OSHA cuts, 
and by just adding 1 percent it is a cut, would mean more workplace 
accidents and injuries. Labor cuts will mean more American workers will 
become vulnerable to workplace discrimination and to the loss of 
important workplace protections. They need protections, not only for 
their own physical safety, their emotional safety, their mental safety, 
they also need the 40-hour work week.
  Mr. Chairman, much of today's rhetoric will place American workers at 
risk and that is just to make political points. That is what this 
debate is really about this morning. It is about pitting one deserving 
group of Americans against other groups of Americans for political 
gain.
  What my colleagues are offering in this amendment is not about the 
real world, because in the real world one group is not separate from 
another. American workers are not separate from American students and 
Americans that need training. American workers are students. American 
workers are requiring training, but many of them also expect and insist 
and need and depend upon OSHA for the protections they need to keep 
them safe on the job.
  They need labor protections also, so that they can earn a fair and 
livable wage and that they can go home every day and their children 
will know they will come home safe. They will know that they are 
protected because OSHA has been there for them.
  Americans will not fall for this obvious political cynicism, Mr. 
Chairman, and neither should my colleagues. We cannot vote to cut OSHA, 
because OSHA is important to the safety of our workers. It is important 
to those who we train as workers. It is important to the students of 
this country who are going to become workers. OSHA is the backbone for 
keeping American workers safe.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out, we have 
heard a lot about Hudson Foods lately, and the E. coli contamination 
which caused a number of deaths around the country. I should point out 
that OSHA is one of the agencies that has determined just how far from 
an acceptable norm that plant has been operating. OSHA reviewed that 
firm's activities and cited them for 34 different violations, including 
a number of sanitary condition violations.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the American public's health is 
being endangered when corporations like this are able to produce 
without having adequate resources that will enable the agencies that 
are charged with the responsibilities for public health and safety to 
do their jobs adequately.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). The time of the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Woolsey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, it 
just seems to me that there are so many examples where OSHA has not 
been able to reach where they needed to in time to protect workers' 
health and safety and for that matter the public health and safety. I 
think this amendment ought to be recognized as perhaps well 
intentioned, but ill advised.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for, I think, some 
very clear reasons. I would remind or inform the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that OSHA is in charge of health and safety in the 
workplace and perhaps they ought to do a little better inspection of 
their own people, since they had to close down the OSHA facilities in 
West Virginia to Legionnaires disease. I think they may want to take 
care of their own offices first.
  Second, I would remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that I suppose 
being in Congress is not hazardous duty, but I can assure the gentleman 
that if OSHA were to come to this Capitol, come to Cannon, Longworth, 
or Rayburn and do the same inspection that they do in the private 
industry, we will be meeting on Pennsylvania Avenue, because they would 
have to close these buildings down.

[[Page H6944]]

  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the process of 
spending money should be the prioritization of how we spend that money. 
Recognizing that for 40 years this body has not paid much attention to 
that, if they wanted to spend it, they borrowed it. But we are at a 
point now where we are not willing to borrow anymore, so we have to 
prioritize.
  This amendment is simply asking this: Do we want to cut spending in 
vocational education next year by $11 million or do we want to increase 
spending in OSHA next year by $11 million? Now, that is our choice 
here, and it is a process of prioritizing.
  Cutting OSHA back to last year's spending level of $325.7 million is 
not exactly closing it down. Are we not all pleased that the growth 
rate is good in this country, interest rates are down, unemployment is 
down, the stock market is up, things are going pretty well? Well, no 
small part of that was the belt tightening that working America has 
done over the last 10 years. Why can we never tighten our belt in 
Federal agencies? Why do we always insist on judging the efficiency of 
an agency by how many dollars we spend?
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], our chairman in the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, reported before the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] that there are lots of problems in OSHA. 
None of that was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois. But there 
are still lots of problems over there.
  Why can we not ask them to be more efficient and operate on the 
$325.7 million next year that they did last year, until they start 
dealing with some of the problems? And in the meantime, until they 
solve the problems that have been pointed out many times in oversight 
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, let us spent $11 
million on training young men and women in this country we need jobs.
  Now, if my colleagues believe that everything is just hunky-dory at 
OSHA, then I want to make a few points. In its latest move to get out 
an ergonomic standard, OSHA has plans to put the Ergonomics Technical 
Assistance Manual on the Internet. OSHA's ergonomic guidelines would 
require employers to take extreme steps to prevent repetitive motion 
injuries.
  Well, that may be a good idea, except we do not understand repetitive 
motion injuries. And what I mean by that, we could have two Americans, 
same sex, same age, doing the same job, working side by side, and one 
has a repetitive motion injury and the other does not. The medical 
community does not understand that.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are asking for OSHA to do is just be calm until 
they get the right science and then we can deal with this. If we put 
the ergonomic standard on the Internet, employers are going to be 
required not only to have written plans to prevent these injuries that 
they do not understand, but also to redesign work areas in hopes that 
it will help, not that we know it will help. We do not have the 
science. They will be asked to slow assembly lines and potentially pay 
for medical bills.
  Private industry, for example, estimates that a similar rule proposed 
by the California OSHA would cost $3.1 billion annually just in 
California. Other sources estimate the Federal rule would cost $21 
billion to implement. That is with nine zeros.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Norwood was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, OSHA insists that the manual is not for 
educational purposes, but on enforcement of a new standard. It is 
widely regarded as constituting guidelines which are enforceable under 
the general duty clause. They are not kidding. Too many of those of us 
who are on the right committee and are paying attention to them; of 
course they are going to enforce these standards.

                              {time}  1315

  Therefore, employers will have no choice but to comply with standards 
that we do not understand, nor does the medical community.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate now, because the 
gentleman has covered so much of this, that we read into the Record 
exactly what we have done on the ergonomics standards. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] of our subcommittee, along with the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay], took a major lead in this area and reached an 
agreement on what OSHA could and could not do in the next fiscal year.
  Let me read into the Record section 104 of the bill: ``None of the 
funds made available in this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration to promulgate or issue any proposed or final 
standard regarding ergonomic protection before September 30, 1998,'' 
that is for the entire fiscal year, ``provided that nothing in this 
section shall be construed to limit the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration from issuing voluntary guidelines on ergonomic 
protection or from developing a proposed standard regarding ergonomic 
protection: Provided further, that no funds made available in this Act 
may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to 
enforce voluntary ergonomic guidelines through section 5.''
  I do not think the gentleman has any worry about fining anyone.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do, because they made a deal saying 
that if we will do that for 1 year, ``The committee will refrain from 
any further restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation 
or issuance of an ergonomic standard following fiscal year 1998.'' That 
means it cannot be discussed again and that does not mean we will have 
the science.
  Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and in 
doing so, I really want to expose it for what I believe it is. It is a 
political agenda. It is part of an all-out assault on organized labor 
and on working men and women in this country. It is part of a pattern 
that we have seen in some quarters here, unfortunately on the 
Republican side of the aisle, for the past 3 years.
  First of all, last year we passed an increase in the minimum wage 
which was done so kicking and screaming by many Members on the other 
side of the aisle with great reluctance. They did not favor an increase 
in the minimum wage.
  The first thing that the GOP did when it controlled this Congress was 
to change the name of the Committee on Education and Labor and purge 
the word ``labor'' out of everything from the committee and the 
subcommittee. We have seen an all-out assault on OSHA.
  I have been to many of the hearings where Members on the other side 
of the aisle proposed to eliminate all kinds of OSHA standards and to 
eliminate all kinds of funds for OSHA. We have seen them try to cut 
funding for the National Labor Relations Board time and time again. 
This last amendment, which was defeated, thankfully, was part and 
parcel of this assault on working men and women, trying to cut wage and 
hour enforcement.
  We have seen them try to put back company unions with the so-called 
TEAM Act, unions that really would not, in my opinion, have the best 
interests of America's workers at heart. They are trying to eliminate 
Davis-Bacon, which is the prevailing wage in Federal contracts, so that 
people who are doing these contracts will not get a prevailing wage, 
which in turn would hurt union companies right-to-work laws they tried 
to pass. They have tried to gut the 40-hour workweek with all types of 
comp time and other regulation.
  So this is part and parcel of an assault on organized labor, but more 
importantly, an assault on working men and women in this country.
  One does not have to be a genius to understand that we need OSHA 
standards. We need a strong OSHA department. We need a strong OSHA. 
Workers are still being maimed and injured on the job.
  Let us look at the latest statistics. In 1993, there were 6,300 
workers who died from traumatic injuries in America on the job and more 
than 50,000 died from occupational diseases. Nearly 7

[[Page H6945]]

million workers in 1993 were injured on the job. These are American 
workers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, old, young, men and 
women. Unfortunately, injuries on the job and deaths on the job cut 
across all kinds of lines.
  On an average day, 154 workers lose their lives as a result of 
workplace injuries and illnesses and another 16,000 are injured. That 
is one workplace death or injury every 5 seconds in America. Should we 
be cutting back on OSHA funding which protects that and tries to 
mitigate against that? I think not.
  Workers need more OSHA protection, not less. OSHA is a small agency 
that does not have the funding or staff to oversee the safety and 
health of 90 million American workers in 6 million workplaces under its 
jurisdiction. Federal OSHA has only 900 inspectors and on the average 
it can inspect workplaces, on average once every 87 years. The current 
OSHA budget, which is 318 million, amounts to a little more than $1 per 
citizen.
  So let us really expose this for what it is. It is a continued 
assault by some Members on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately 
some GOP Members, against working men and women in this country.
  We all want more money for education, but again, pitting one group 
against the other is not the way to go. This does nothing, again, but 
advance an agenda which hurts America's workers, and I think this ought 
to be soundly defeated.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from 
New York, this is not an assault on anybody. I, for one, am sort of 
sick and tired of hearing it. Not one of us in this room has any clue 
how the $325.7 million was spent last year, whether it saved one life, 
how efficiently it was used; and we do not have a clue whether they 
need another $11 million. We do know we need another $11 million in 
vocational education. This is not an assault on anybody.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, why give OSHA an $11 million 
raise and take from vo-tech training and adult training? Why do that 
when I think the statistics that have been given to us from across the 
aisle indicate that OSHA has not been doing a very good job; if we look 
at the National Safety Council statistics indicating that OSHA, since 
its founding in 1970, has been irrelevant to the long-term decline in 
workplace fatalities?
  Moreover, a 1991 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research 
found that OSHA regulations significantly reduced productivity and 
growth in the United States, which undoubtedly means a parallel loss in 
employment opportunities.
  Is this good for the workers who take $11 million out of vocational 
training and adult training to cut them?
  I want to talk about a small town in my district, Campbellsville, KY, 
population 10,000. They just lost 1,400 workers from a textile company, 
1,400 workers. Is that good for the workers, and then to take $11 
million out of vocational training and adult training that could help 
these displaced workers find new jobs?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we have level-funded the 
vocational education account and that we have not taken anything out of 
it at all.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. It is $11 million less than the 1997 funding.
  Mr. PORTER. No, Mr. Chairman, it is level funded.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was not what I saw.
  Even with that, should we not be trying to help displaced workers 
with better vocational training, better adult training? That is the 
key.
  Look at OSHA, a bureaucracy that is out of, basically out of control, 
if we look at some of the horror stories. Rod Stewart owns and operates 
a small business that manufactures corn brooms and cotton mops in Union 
City, IN; Reit-Price Manufacturing Co., which he owns, started by his 
father in 1900, employs four people. When Indiana OSHA inspected his 
operation 3 years ago, even though it was a first-time inspection, the 
inspector fined Mr. Stewart $500 for not having paperwork on hand 
listing hazardous items in the shop.
  Well, Mr. Stewart did not need to fill out any paperwork because 
there was not any hazardous material that he deals with in his 
business. When Mr. Stewart realized that OSHA considered many items to 
be hazardous, even though they can be purchased anywhere, in a grocery 
store or a hardware store, he was able to talk the inspector out of 
fining him for not having paperwork on his Lava hand soap, but he was 
still fined $500 for other items, such as a standard oil can WD-40, 
which can be purchased at any gas station.
  Mr. Stewart has not always had just four employees. He used to have 
more than 20, but due to foreign competition, particularly from Mexico, 
seven corn broom manufacturers have gone out of business this year. 
That is 400 to 500 people who have lost their jobs.
  Mexican importers, they do not have to absorb the cost of regulatory 
agencies like OSHA. One thousand four hundred jobs in my district; $11 
million should be going for better training, better education, job 
opportunities that will allow them to take care of their families.
  I do not think an $11 million pay raise for OSHA is going to do 
anything that is going to help worker safety. The statistics do not 
bear it out. And my colleagues across the aisle, the numbers that they 
gave on workplace injuries and fatalities since 1970, these are recent 
reports; is OSHA doing their job with those kinds of negative numbers? 
I do not think so.
  Let us do something to help the workers in this country better than 
what OSHA is doing.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am proud to be here opposing the amendment because I think the 
amendment is cynical. Some of us have worked for many years to improve 
vocational education funding; and like some of my colleagues, I served 
on the committee that dealt with vocational authorization, and we 
worked to make sure that the funding was there.
  Yet on the floor of the House we say that we are going to give you 
vocational money to be trained, but we are not going to give you a safe 
workplace. We can train you, but you will be killed on your job. That 
is what this amendment will do.
  I have been to the memorial services for machinists in my district 
who were killed on the job site last year. I do not know if many of the 
other Members on the other side of aisle have seen what happens in an 
industrial-type district. Again, this looks like it is a war against 
workers who work with their hands because that is where the injuries 
are. They are in the trenches, they are in the chemical plants and 
refineries, they are in the machine shops, they are in the printing 
companies that I used to work at. That is where it is. Those are people 
who work with their hands that lose their limbs and also their lives.
  Is OSHA doing the best job that they can? Of course not. I went with 
OSHA inspectors when they were at my company and was disillusioned, but 
I thought they needed to be better trained. But they were not. They 
were looking for things that I thought were not really important 
enough. Maybe that is why we need to provide them better training and 
more funding. I want to increase vocational education money, but I do 
not want to take it away from a safe workplace because the United 
States has one of most dismal records of safe workplaces.
  My colleague from Kentucky who talked about the loss of jobs because 
the imports do not have to comply with regulations; well, if that is 
what you want to do, we would not have a minimum wage because around 
the world the minimum wage may be a dollar a day. They do not have job 
safety in some of the countries we have to compete with. Let us take 
that debate up on something else, on trade issues, and not on lowering 
our standards to compete with somewhere else in the world.
  I do not want to lower our standards. I do not want any more job 
deaths because OSHA did not go out there and was not able to inspect 
the plant. I do

[[Page H6946]]

not want to hear of any more chicken plants in North Carolina that keep 
the exit doors chained shut, and people die because of that. That is 
what this amendment is aiming for.
  Again, it looks like we are having a war against the workers because 
of the last amendment and this one; that is what is frustrating.
  In 1993, we had 6,300 workers die from traumatic injuries and more 
than 50,000 died from occupational diseases. On the average day, 154 
workers lose their lives as a result of workplace injuries and 
illnesses, and another 16,000 are injured.
  Again, I represent an industrial district that has people who work 
with their hands in refineries and machine shops. This amendment again 
is a cynical way to try and say, we are going to cut OSHA because we do 
not like what they are doing somewhere else.
  Let us give them some guidance, but not cut their funding. Let us put 
more inspectors out there, who are better trained, to make sure we can 
lower the number of deaths in our workplace.

                              {time}  1330

  Again that is what is frustrating to hear, an amendment like this 
today, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, I would just 
like to point out that this amendment does not discuss OSHA funding. It 
leaves the funding for OSHA at the same place it is this year.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that worries me because 
we have not seen a lessening of injuries on the job. Maybe what we need 
to do is make OSHA better by providing more funding for training of 
those inspectors and more inspectors to go out and inspect those sites. 
As the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member, said, there are 
only 900 OSHA inspectors and they inspect the average workplace once 
every 87 years. We need to do a better job.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply point 
out to the gentleman from Missouri, my understanding is that Hudson 
Foods of now notorious fame is from his State. OSHA had to cite them 
because their place of employment was not kept clean and orderly or in 
a sanitary condition. Drainage was not maintained where wet processes 
were used. That is the kind of problem that creates a hazard to not 
only workers but to the entire country as was demonstrated.
  The previous speaker from Georgia, I would point out, there were 249 
fatalities in the workplace in his State last year, 200,000 injuries, 
and the average workplace is inspected now once every 257 years. That 
is longer than this country has been in existence. In Kentucky, there 
were 158 fatalities, 115,000 injuries, one inspection per workplace 
every 79 years. That hardly is an agency which is overfunded.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 
2264, the 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations legislation, as reported by the Appropriations 
Committee. This legislation provides important and necessary funding 
for many important health and education programs, including the 
National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, Head Start, and Pell grants. I urge my colleagues to 
approve this bipartisan legislation without divisive amendments.
  Medical research is an investment that we must continue because it is 
so vital to our quality of life and will yield new treatments for 
diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. This 
legislation provides $13.5 billion for the NIH, an increase of 6 
percent over last year's budget. It is noteworthy that Congress has 
included more than an inflationary increase for the NIH for the third 
year in a row, even as we seek to balance the Federal budget. In 1995 
the majority part passed a budget which would have cut NIH by 5 
percent. I and other opposed that provision and ultimately we 
prevailed. We must ensure at least the level of NIH funding in H.R. 
2264 as the appropriations process moves forward.
  As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, one of our 
Nation's premier medical education and research centers, I know 
firsthand of the importance of NIH funding for medical research 
projects. Over the last 5 years, the Texas Medical Center has received 
more than $2 billion in grants from the NIH and other Federal agencies. 
From this investment, cutting edge medical research and discoveries 
have been made. For instance, some of the major discoveries at the 
Texas Medical Center include the DeBakery roller pump, a major 
component of the heart-lung machine which is now used in open-heart 
surgery around the world; the first artificial heart and successful 
heart transplant surgery by Dr. Denton Cooley, the gamma-knife 
diagnostic machine to treat brain disorders at Hermann Hospital; and 
the first approved gene therapy for lung cancer condjucted at M.D. 
Anderson Cancer Center. All of these treatments are possible because of 
our continued investment in the National Institutes of Health.
  I am also pleased that this legislation would provide $300 million 
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB]. CPB is an asset to 
children and families throughout the Nation. The quality and variety of 
educational, informational, and cultural programming found on public 
broadcast stations cannot be found anywhere else on radio or 
television. Public broadcast stations are among a limited selection of 
stations that cater to a large number of locally originated programs. 
In addition, public broadcast stations in rural and underserved urban 
areas greatly depend on federal funds for their economic base.
  CPB provides services that reach out to people of all backgrounds and 
ages throughout the country. CPB plays an essential role in our 
educational and cultural growth as a nation. For example, the Public 
Broadcasting Service is the leading provider of classroom video 
programming for all grades from kindergarten through 12th grade and 
provides college telecourses to more than half of America's campuses, 
making PBS the leading source of college-level telecourses. Public 
Broadcasting does what the market does not. It provides superior 
cultural and children's programs free.
  This legislation also maintains our Nation's commitment to Head Start 
by fully funding the President's request at $4.3 billion for fiscal 
year 1998, an 8-percent increase over last year's level. While many 
sacrifices have been made to balance the budget, I am pleased that 
Congress has continued its support of this vital program, which helps 
prepare millions of disadvantaged children to succeed in school and 
throughout their lives. Head Start helps to ensure that children in the 
most formative years of their development get the special attention and 
nourishment they need to learn and grow.
  I am also pleased that this legislation provides $9 billion for 
student financial assistance, including $7.4 billion in Pell grant 
funding for the 1998-99 academic year, a 26-percent increase from 
fiscal year 1997. The bill increases the maximum Pell grant award from 
its current level of $2,700 to $3,000. The Pell grant provisions in 
this bill, coupled with the higher education tax credits included in 
the tax relief portion of the balanced budget agreement, will make a 
college education more accessible and affordable so students can obtain 
the education and skills needed to succeed in our global, high-
technology economy.
  Because of these and other vital programs, this legislation in its 
current form merits a strong, bipartisan vote of support. Let's avoid 
divisive amendments and pass this important legislation.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the appropriations 
bill which Chairman Porter has brought before this Chamber. This 
legislation was carefully crafted to restoring bipartisan priorities 
for Federal health, labor, and education policy, and deserves the 
enthusiastic support of this House.
  I also want to draw particular attention to a small provision which 
has enormous implications for many communities across the Nation, 
including the town of Bourne, on Cape Cod, in my congressional 
district.
  As many of my colleagues know, the impact aid program was created in 
1950 to ensure compensation to local communities for at least part of 
the cost of educating children of families associated with military 
bases or other Federal installations.
  On reliance of that assurance, cities and towns have expended 
considerable sums to educate these kids. The Federal formulas were 
never even close to covering the actual educational costs, but for 
awhile there was at least lipservice to the commitment.
  For the past dozen years, however, Washington has done all it can to 
abandon its obligations altogether--while towns like Bourne have 
struggled under the weight of these extra financial burdens.
  The irony is that, as impact aid communities do their best to 
maintain opportunity for federally connected students, now 15 percent 
of the student population, the quantity and quality of school services 
inevitably suffer. In 1 year alone, Bourne was forced to lay off 74 
school employees.
  And when Washington saves, Bourne pays--in the form of increased 
local property

[[Page H6947]]

taxes to defray the increased expenses, which compromise a substantial 
portion of the town's school budget.
  Local communities are perplexed at a Congress which decries unfunded 
mandates, but then shrugs its shoulders year after year at this direct, 
and regressive, hit on the local tax base. In all, the town of Bourne 
has subsidized the cost of educating federally related students to the 
tune of $7 million.
  I rise today, however, to suggest that, through the work of impact 
aid towns across the country, and the assistance of Chairman Porter, 
there is some hope. After a decade-long decline, this bill would 
increase impact aid funding levels for the 2nd year in a row--$66 
million more for fiscal year 1998.
  This increase, which restores program funding to its 1979 level, will 
not cover all current impact aid costs, much less retroactive 
obligations. However, it suggests that we are deciding, for the year to 
come, to do no more harm--and for that, at least, 1,800 school 
districts across America are grateful.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill represents in my estimation the most important 
Federal spending bill we consider each year. It represents our 
investment in the human capital of this country--our investment in 
education, employment, and the health and well-being of our people.
  The bill before us, H.R. 2264, is a significant improvement over 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bills we have seen the majority 
report out of committee over the last 2 years. This bill includes 
increase funding in priority areas such as health research at the 
National Institutes of Health, job training, and education programs. 
This, I believe, is a direct result of the persistence of our President 
and congressional Democrats in protecting several key spending areas 
during budget negotiations earlier this year.
  I am pleased that the bill includes increased funding for the 
National Institutes of Health by $764 million and that nearly $124 
million of this amount will be directed to increases for the National 
Cancer Institute. With language included in the committee report 
listing ovarian cancer as a research priority, I am confident that a 
portion of this increase will go to enhance efforts in ovarian cancer 
early detection and prevention research.
  This year 26,800 American women will be diagnosed with ovarian 
cancer. It is truly disheartening that most of them will be diagnosed 
too late and fewer than half of them will survive 5 more years. Why? 
Because there is no early detection screening test for ovarian cancer. 
Because although the 5-year relative survival rate for ovarian cancer 
is 92 percent when detected early, only a quarter of all cases are 
detected early.
  For the last 7 years I have fought hard for increases in ovarian 
cancer research. We have successfully increased funding from around $8 
million in 1989 to close to $40 million this year. Funding available in 
this bill will allow us to progress even further.
  The committee specifically calls for a specialized program of 
research excellence [SPORE] for ovarian cancer, a concentrated research 
initiative that has been successful in other research ares such as 
breast, lung, and prostate cancer. Legislation I introduced in the 
104th and 105th Congresses directs the NCI to establish such a program. 
I am pleased that the committee is supporting this provision of my 
bill, H.R. 953.
  It is time we take serious action to develop an early detection 
screening test for ovarian cancer and I applaud the committee for their 
support.
  H.R. 2209 also includes $2 million for Hansen's Disease Payments to 
Hawaii for the care of Hansen's disease patients who continue to live 
at Kalaupapa, Molokai.
  Authorized under Public Law 82-411 and later Public Law 99-117, the 
Federal Government has provided payments for health care and other 
support services for the Hansen's disease patients at Kalaupapa and 
additional outpatients at other facilities in Hawaii since 1954. 
Federal funding is an important supplement to the State's overall 
efforts to serve and provide for these individuals.
  The Hansen's disease program in Hawaii supports approximately 400 
individuals. Most are served through the Hale Mohalu Hospital in 
Honolulu and through outpatient services. However, about 60 individuals 
reside at Kalaupapa, a remote peninsula on the island of Molokai which 
was designated in the mid-1800's as the place of banishment for 
individuals with Hansen's disease.
  Over the years, Kalaupapa has become a place of comfort and 
tranquility for the patients--a home that they have grown to love. The 
Federal Government made a commitment to the patients that they will be 
allowed to live out their lives at Kalaupapa. These Federal funds help 
to fulfill this promise.
  I want to thank Chairman Porter for his willingness to continue 
funding for this program, and the effort he has made in the last 2 
years to assure that Federal support for Hansen's disease patients at 
Kalaupapa will continue.
  I would also note that funding for the Native Hawaiian Health Care 
Act would be continued under the $826 million allocated for the 
Consolidated Health Centers. The Native Hawaiian Health Care Act 
enacted in 1988 established health care systems on each island in the 
State of Hawaii to address the significant health care needs of the 
native population in our State.
  On the education front the bill includes $32.1 billion for education 
programs, a $3.2 billion increase over fiscal year 1997 appropriations.
  Priority items outlined by the President and congressional Democrats 
do well in this bill. Head Start, the early childhood education program 
for low-income children, is increased by 8 percent which brings the 
funding total to $4.3 billion. We have heard so much this year about 
the importance of the preschool years in the development of a child's 
brain. We now know that the Head Start Program, established over 30 
years ago to provide disadvantaged children with opportunities for 
early childhood education, was light years ahead of its time and on the 
right track.
  This bill also funds a 5-percent increase in the title I program for 
disadvantaged children in elementary and secondary schools. Bilingual 
education and immigrant education is increased by 35 percent with 
funding at a total of $354 million. Impact aid funding to help States 
provide education to military children is increased from $796 million 
in fiscal year 1997 to $862 million.

  The bill also provides a $300 increase in the maximum award for Pell 
grants. This means low-income students would be eligible for up to 
$3,000 a year in Federal Pell grants. To meet this new Pell grant 
maximum the bill increases funding for Pell grants by $1.5 billion. For 
the academic year 1998-99 a total of $7.4 billion will be provided for 
Pell grants.
  I would like to express my support for the $2 million allocated for 
the Women's Education Equity Act. In the past the majority has sought 
to eliminate this program, which I authorized in 1974. Last year we 
were able to restore WEEA funding through a floor amendment. I am 
pleased the committee included WEEA funding in its bill this year.
  While this bill generally moves us in a more positive direction in 
terms of spending on human resources in our country, there are some 
important areas of concern.
  I am deeply disappointed that the committee did not include funding 
for the Native Hawaiian Education Act. In existence for about 10 years 
the Native Hawaiian Education Act funds programs dedicated to improving 
educational opportunities for native Hawaiians. In was established as 
part of the Federal Government's effort to fulfill its trust 
responsibility to the native Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.
  Since 1921 the Federal Government has acknowledged its responsibility 
to assist in the rehabilitation of the native Hawaiian people and work 
toward improvement of their education, economic, and health status.
  Fifteen million dollars provided in fiscal year 1997 for the Native 
Hawaiian Education Act went to support six specific programs including, 
family-based early childhood centers, a higher education scholarship 
program, a Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Program, a special 
education program, curriculum development and teacher training program, 
and community-based education centers. The President requested 
continued funding at $15 million. I am very concerned that the 
committee did not include this funding in its bill.
  I sincerely hope the committee will reconsider its decision and 
concur with the Senate and fund the Native Hawaiian Education Act 
programs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of both the full committee and 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of 
the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations Act contains several provisions regarding important 
rural health programs which benefit rural communities across the 
Nation, as well as continued funding for the Ellender Fellowships.
  Regarding rural health funding, this Member would like to 
specifically mention two programs which this Member strongly supports 
and has expressed this support together with other Members of the House 
Rural Health Care Coalition to the subcommittee. These programs are 
Rural Outreach Grants, and the National Health Service Corps.
  This bill includes $27.8 million for Rural Outreach Grants, which is 
the same as the fiscal year 1997 level and $2.7 million above the

[[Page H6948]]

amount requested by the President. This important program supports 
projects that provide health services to rural populations not 
currently receiving them and that enhance access to existing services.
  The National Health Service Corps receives $120 million in this bill, 
which is a $4.6 million increase above both the fiscal year 1997 level 
and the amount requested by the President. One of the top health care 
concerns in rural America is the shortage of physicians and other 
health professionals due to the difficulties rural areas have in 
attracting and retaining primary health care professionals. The NHSC 
program addresses this need by providing scholarships to, and repays 
loans of, primary care professionals in exchange for obligated services 
in a health professional shortage area [HPSA].

  The program also provides matching grants to States for a loan 
repayment program. These incentives for health professionals and 
physicians to serve in rural areas are greatly needed.
  This Member is also pleased that H.R. 2264 includes $1.5 million for 
Ellender fellowships. Earlier this year, this Member testified before 
the subcommittee regarding this important program. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 1997 level, even though the President's budget 
did not include any funds for the extraordinarily valuable citizen 
education program for American high school students. The Ellender 
fellowships are used to enable low-income students to participate in 
the highly successful Washington Close Up Program.
  Each year the Close Up Foundation awards thousands of Ellender 
fellowships, which included 3,942 students during the 1995-96 school 
year. Nationally, since 1971 over 480,000 students and teachers have 
participated in the Washington Close Up Program. Almost 94,000 of those 
participants received full or partial fellowships.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member 
of both the full committee and the subcommittee for their continued 
support of these important programs.
  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. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, 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. 2264) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________