[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6977-H6999]
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}  1805


                     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 Friday, 
September 5, 1997, the bill was open for amendment from page 11, line 
1, through page 25, line 8, and pending was the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Blunt amendment 
to increase Federal spending for vocational education programs by 
$11.25 million. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce worked very hard to improve vocational 
education opportunities for our country's youth so that the vocational 
education system will provide quality vocational education for 
students. These improvements will ensure that our students are equipped 
to thrive in today's business world.
  We worked to streamline and modernize this system because recent 
trends prove that about three-fourths of America's youth do not 
complete a 4-year college degree. All of America's young people should 
receive a high quality education regardless of whether they are bound 
for college, military service, or directly into the work force. This is 
even more true today than it was a few years ago as we focus on moving 
people off the welfare rolls and into work environments, many of whom 
will not go to college.
  We should empower our youth by giving them the vital tools they need 
to be productive wage earners. We should empower adults to go back and 
get the education they need to supplement and advance up the work 
force. We should work through vocational education to look at 
prevention and not just harassment of businesses as in many cases we 
find in OSHA. In contrast, in spending dollars on OSHA, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to the tune of $336 
million, we are funding an agency to issue rules that are not only 
silly but in some cases detrimental.
  Let me give an example. OSHA specifically disregarded clear evidence 
that their recent requirements changing brake composition would double 
the stopping distance for cars. Their best estimates, using bad 
science, indicated they might save three to five workers' lives every 
few years. By changing the composition of brake pads they increased 
stopping distance of vehicles by 20 feet. This, according to clear 
scientific studies by the National Safety Transportation Board, will 
cause at least 150 more deaths each year and thousands of unnecessary 
injuries. This was done despite the fact that auto accidents are still 
a major cause of fatalities among American workers. There is no data 
that asbestos brakes causes hazards to anybody but there is data that 
shortening the time it takes to stop a car causes deaths. Why would we 
as a Republican Congress increase funding for OSHA where

[[Page H6978]]

we have no scientific evidence that it has a reduction in the number of 
worker accidents? When funding increases for OSHA, we actually had a 
decline in rate of accidents. When we decreased funding for OSHA, we 
had a further decline in the rate of accidents. When we kept it level, 
we had a decline in rate of accidents. There is no corollary to the 
funding for OSHA and the accident rate. Yet when we spend the money on 
vocational education particularly at a time when we are looking at 
moving so many people off of welfare and into the work force, we can 
see substantive returns particularly now with the reforms that we had 
in a bill that moved with such high numbers of support through this 
Congress. If we put the money in vocational education, we are likely to 
see some actual results, when in fact to some degree the OSHA laws have 
been counterproductive. Nobody is proposing here to gut OSHA. If we 
eliminated OSHA, there would be a danger to employees all over this 
country. That is not the argument here. The question is should we 
increase OSHA or should we increase vocational education. Some Members 
do not like this choice. But that is in fact what we are going to be 
debating over the next few days, possibly the next couple of weeks as 
we go through this bill. We pretty much realize that we are going to 
spend more money. Not a lot of us are thrilled about that but we are 
going to spend more money. We pretty much realize we are going to grow 
the size of government. We may not all agree with that but it seems to 
be there. Now the question is which government are we going to grow? 
Which parts are we going to say deserve more funding and which parts do 
not? That is what this debate is going to be about. Are we going to 
support new Federal education programs without even hearings that 
expand the Federal bureaucracy and control in Washington over local 
standards and schools? Are we going to spend more money on abortions 
out of Washington, even distribute abortion information, birth control 
information, and other things without even telling the parents? Are we 
going to put more money out for needles for drug users? Or are we going 
to put it into programs like IDEA for developmentally disabled students 
and handicapped students? Are we going to put more money into 
vocational education? If we are going to spend the money and if we are 
backed into a corner where we have to spend more money and grow the 
size of government, the question is where are we going to spend this 
money? That is a debate we are going to be having on these amendments. 
The Blunt amendment before us tonight offers a clear choice. Do we as 
Republicans favor, and Democrats, and there are many moderate Democrats 
who hear from small businesses around this country about the problems 
with OSHA. I know Mr. Dear has tried to make changes but we still hear 
those problems. There is no scientific evidence that these marginal 
expenditures work, so are we going to give OSHA more money or are we 
going to give the money to vocational education? Are we going to do 
illogical things like force asbestos out of brakes because somebody 
decided that was the thing to do regardless of scientific evidence? Or 
are we going to put it into actual prevention of accidents by teaching 
people in vocational education and putting it into educating America's 
workers as opposed to just harassing and costing them jobs?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, Members do not like tough votes but that is 
in fact what a budget is. As we go through this appropriations process, 
we are going to have to make some priorities. This vote is do you want 
to increase spending for OSHA? Or do you want to increase spending for 
vocational education? It is a choice and it is a choice that I believe 
the preponderance of evidence goes to vocational education.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to support this amendment and the 
question that I think is before us is not workers' safety versus 
education. The question before us is, Can we be efficient and prudent 
with the tax dollars that the taxpayers of this country give us and 
demand that the bureaucracies in Washington expend that money in an 
efficient and proper manner?
  When we talk about putting money into vocational education and in 
light of the new welfare bill, it seems prudent to me that we would 
want to put as many dollars into vocational education as we can, 
especially as we reach down to those who do not have an education, who 
do not have a high school education.
  I want to share what happens in Oklahoma with vocational education. 
We have had a marked reduction of those number of people that are on 
our welfare rolls, those people who are getting supplements. One of the 
reasons that we have is because we have a vocational education 
department and system in Oklahoma that makes a difference for people. 
If somebody does not have a high school education, our vocational 
education gets them a GED and then teaches them computer skills. It 
teaches them a job skill and then lands them in a job. We take those 
dollars for people who would have been receiving dollars from the 
Federal Government and make them into productive, tax-paying citizens.

                              {time}  1815

  The other thing that we ought to talk about is in 1969, I believe 
that is correct, when OSHA was created, the annual death rate per 
100,000 workers was declining. It was 18. The rate has continued to 
decline, but it has declined much more slowly since OSHA was 
implemented than beforehand.
  No one on this side of the aisle and no one supporting this amendment 
thinks we should do away with OSHA, but we do think there ought to be a 
redirected purpose to do what OSHA was intended to do, and that is to 
preempt and secure workplace safety. That ought to be done in the most 
straightforward, comprehensive, and collaborative manner that we can 
secure.
  I would like to give you a few examples of some of the things that 
OSHA is doing currently and see if, in fact, we all agree that maybe 
OSHA might spend their money in a more prudent way, and, therefore, not 
need increased funds from the Federal Government to carry out their 
job.
  Just for example, OSHA fined a roofing company in California for 
failure to have a fire extinguisher in the proper place, in spite of 
the fact it had been moved to prevent it from being stolen by passersby 
as three other fire extinguishers had been done in the three previous 
days.
  Each day they would put a new fire extinguisher out there; it was 
stolen. Each day they would put another one out; it was stolen. So they 
put it in a place where everybody knew where it was but could not be 
stolen, and yet they were fined for trying to conceal the fact there 
was a fire extinguisher.
  North Carolina, a construction site was inspected by the State OSHA. 
Citations were subsequently issued for unprotected rebar, the steel 
that reinforces concrete, to have a rubber cap on the end of that. All 
of it was covered, except where they were pouring the concrete, which 
had inadvertently been knocked off as they poured the concrete. Never 
mind. They were fined for not having a rubber cap on the end of two or 
three pieces of rebar.
  Pennsylvania, an apparel maker was recently inspected by OSHA. At the 
conclusion of the inspection, the OSHA official told the company that 
they had an excellent record, they did a great job, they found two 
minor infractions.
  The company immediately corrected the minor infractions, sent the 
picture to OSHA demonstrating they had corrected the minor infractions, 
and, instead of congratulating the company, OSHA sent them a fine of 
$3,895.
  They spent their money on things that do not have anything to do with 
workplace safety. Their fines had been increased sevenfold to increase 
revenues to the Federal Government, not to enhance workplace safety.
  Florida, a company in Florida stated OSHA has a antibusiness attitude 
and is using its Agency power to lower its cost of operation through 
levying unfair citations and fines completely out of line for the 
violation.
  Here is the example: A company in business for 25 years without one 
violation received a fine of $1,715 because

[[Page H6979]]

out of 352 electrical outlets in the building, one had a broken plastic 
faceplate on it. One. The citation also noted that the outlet box was 
near a varnish dip tank.
  The owner of the company noted the outlet box was hidden from view 
and protected by steel plates to protect it from potential electrical 
spark.
  In addition, the outlet was near a varnish tank. This type of varnish 
had no explosive nature whatsoever. It did not matter that it was not 
really a significant thing to change it. They fined them anyway.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is not 
eliminating OSHA. We are asking OSHA to do it better, more efficiently, 
and properly, and to do it with some common sense that really enhances 
workplace safety. Instead of giving OSHA this kind of increase, let us 
spend the money on putting people in the workplace.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is 
pending.
  First, because we are starting a new week, there should be no one who 
is confused by what is happening. We have a filibuster by amendment 
going on on the floor. We understand that. This particular one is about 
vocational education, $11\1/2\ million out of here into vocational 
education.
  My side of the aisle are very strong supporters of vocational 
education. Under the Contract With America, in 1995, I dare say every 
Member on the ``mental'' side of the aisle there voted for this, 
perhaps I am wrong, I have not checked the specific record, and if I 
have mischaracterized, you will tell me, I am sure, in 1996 the 
rescission for vocational education was $119 million. You wanted to cut 
from vocational education. It was one of the first acts you did in 1995 
when the Contract With America came on line. It was in the rescission 
bill.
  Then, my friends, you had the fiscal year 1996 bill available to you. 
The Contract With America proposed that bill, cut Government, $326 
million cut in vocational education.
  I dare say all the previous speakers tonight voted for that bill. 
Maybe not. I have not checked the record. I am just speculating on 
that.
  The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for that bill, sent it 
to the President, he vetoed it, and they lamented the fact he vetoed 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in opposition to the Blunt 
amendment. We need OSHA to assist in ensuring the safety and health of 
more than 90 million people working in more than 6 million workplaces.
  The statistics are staggering. Every day in this country an average 
of 154 workers lose their lives as a result of workplace injuries or 
illness. One worker is injured every 5 seconds. Within its current 
budget, OSHA has only 900 inspectors to oversee 6 million sites.
  The compliance assistance program, and that is what we are talking 
about in this amendment, we are not talking about the examples that you 
bring up. Everybody has a horror story about OSHA, and, frankly, I 
think there are some horror stories and we ought to get on that. As a 
matter of fact, as the gentleman from Illinois [Chairman Porter] so 
correctly observed, Joe Dear was brought in by the Clinton 
administration to overcome those horror stories.
  What we are talking about in this instance is not inspections, but 
compliance assistance, going in and assisting businesses in making 
their places more safe, less risky; not to cite, but to assist.
  As a result of workplace injuries or illnesses, as I said, one worker 
is injured every 5 seconds. The compliance assistance program, which 
the Blunt amendment would cut, has received overwhelming support from 
the business community. There are long waiting lists for compliance 
assistance visits. People are asking this unit to come out and assist 
them so their workplaces will be safer.
  I want to tell my friends, in Calvert County, which I have the 
privilege of representing, there is an extraordinary place of business, 
produces some of the trash cans you see around here that will last for 
20 or 30 years, a small company, and MOSHA has been by and they have 
told me how helpful MOSHA, which is the Maryland Occupational Safety 
and Health Agency, how helpful they have been in terms of compliance, 
and not confrontational, but positive and assisting in their attitude. 
I have heard that with respect to OSHA as well.
  As I said, there are long waiting lists for people to get this 
assistance. It saves businesses large fines imposed during inspections 
by working with businesses to identify safety problems before 
inspections and before injuries occur. Employer and employee interests 
are protected by this program.
  OSHA, of course, is required by law to perform inspections, and, 
therefore, cannot choose if this amendment passed to take $11.5 million 
from inspections, which clearly much complaint has been made about, and 
switch that to compliance assistance. The reason being because they do 
not have sufficient resources to do the inspections.
  OSHA cannot choose, therefore, to simply shift this money. The Blunt 
amendment would undermine OSHA's ability to enforce and to assist 
businesses with complying, and to enforce the very worker protection 
laws that Congress implemented.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I am a strong 
supporter of vocational education. Tonight, I would say to my 
colleagues that this amendment is being used not to help vocational 
education. If that were the case, then the $119 million cut in 1995 and 
the proposed $325 million cut in fiscal year 1996 would never have 
occurred.
  Frankly, last year essentially you took the President's number. My 
opinion is you took the President's number because you did not want to 
shut down Government. You thought that was bad politics. I agreed with 
you.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. My question is, the gentleman attempted to explain why he 
felt it would come out of compliance assistance as opposed to 
enforcement, but in fact, now all the enforcement dollars are mandated 
by law. Could it not also come out of administrative overhead? 
Compliance assistance is only a small portion of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Souder, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, the amendment is 
generic in a sense. But because you have really two components, the 
compliance component and the inspection component, yes, they can take 
from other parts of their budget.
  There are some of us who have read statistics in terms I am sure the 
gentleman is familiar with where in some cases to get to some 
businesses in some States, it would take 90 to 100 years to inspect 
just once with the number of inspectors that you have to get to the 
requisite number of businesses.
  In other words, what I am saying is that currently in inspections now 
they do not have sufficient resources to do the job that we have 
mandated by law be done.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, the 
gentleman is saying the increase in the OSHA budget this year is an 
increase in the compliance or training section, as opposed to the other 
sections?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the increase is directed 
in part to beef up the compliance assistance component of OSHA, yes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if I 
am incorrect, and feel free to correct me, but I feel that is probably, 
at most, if any, 20 percent of the additional increase in funds, and we 
can address that through another amendment.
  Our attempt is not to get at the compliance and the working with 
businesses, but, rather, a lot of the horror

[[Page H6980]]

stories and other things. I am on the subcommittee on oversight and on 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce where we have worked with 
these issues, and I do not believe that Mr. Deal has been able to 
correct all the problems.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out the committee bill 
raises compliance assistance by, I believe, 12 percent. It raises other 
portions of their budget by about 1 percent. So, obviously, the give 
that they would have would be in the compliance assistance area.
  We would not want to see that happen, but I doubt very much that you 
could expect an agency to take a cut in an area where we did not 
provide an increase in the first place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very good point and we 
will look at addressing that. Our intent is not to get at compliance, 
but rather at the nonmandated parts of the law where we disagree with 
the expenditures. We will work with the minority to try to make sure 
compliance stays funded.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, quite obviously there is 
a strong feeling among some that OSHA ought to be cut very 
substantially. In fact, in committee we have had amendments suggesting 
cuts of 25 percent across the board and higher.
  We believe that would be very deleterious to the health and welfare 
and safety of the workers of America, not to mention to the cost of 
businesses, which, in my opinion, have been advantaged by lower 
insurance rates as a result of working with OSHA and its State 
complementary agencies to make their workplaces safer.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope this amendment would be rejected, because, 
again, I do not really think, not withstanding the debate, that it is 
directed at vocational education, lest we would not have had the guts 
we talked about earlier, but at getting at OSHA and some of the 
problems that folks believe exist with respect to OSHA.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly respond to the 
initial comments of the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer].
  Quite frankly, I am not sure, but I assume I did vote for the 
Contract items and some of the Republican budget votes of the first 
year.
  As I said in my opening statement tonight, and which you will hear 
over the next few days from many of us, it is that we agree with this 
basic premise. We did not come here to really increase most programs in 
the Federal Government; but, whether I am not one who believes that the 
government shutdown was the House Republicans' problem as much as it 
was the President's problem for vetoing the bills and we did a lousy 
job of working out a compromise.

                              {time}  1830

  But regardless of how Members view that, we clearly have changed a 
lot from where we are coming from on this side of the aisle. Some of us 
would not have changed this much, but to some degree we have all 
changed our rhetoric. We clearly are not reducing the size of the 
Federal Government in this bill when we are increasing agencies that at 
one point we were proposing to radically transform.
  Vocational education in my opinion would be best handled by local and 
State governments. But the Federal Government has for a long time been 
involved in this, and helping with supplemental funding. Given a choice 
as to whose budget is going to increase, which is the choice we have in 
front of us today, whether I would increase the OSHA funding or 
increase the vocational education funding, I go with vocational 
education funding.
  If my choice is whether the taxpayers get to keep the money and the 
local communities and State communities raise funds for education and 
make the decisions in education, I favor that choice. But that is not 
the choice. I voted for the budget agreement. I understand that at 
times politics requires compromise even beyond where some of us would 
like to go.
  At the same time, in the context of these spending bills, we still 
should have a debate over which category in these spending bills should 
get the increase in funding and where it should go. From what I have 
seen sitting on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and also 
on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, with jurisdiction 
over the Education Department and the Labor Department, I realize there 
have been attempts to improve OSHA.
  I do not think they have been as successful, and by the way, I also 
need to point out we have passed a vocational education authorization 
bill since the first vote when we came here where we made a lot of 
changes in how vocational education works. We knocked out a lot of 
programs that we did not feel were effective; we improved a lot of 
programs. That bill is now pending in the Senate.
  If we can get our authorizations going with our appropriations, some 
of us will not necessarily oppose every spending bill that comes up in 
some of these categories, although I grant, up front, that we tend to 
favor more State and local as opposed to Federal.
  But now that is not our choice. Our choice tonight is whether we are 
going to vote for more money for OSHA, an increase this year in OSHA, 
or more money for vocational education. Our intent is to take it out of 
administrative and other areas.
  We are fully prepared and have an amendment to offer to make sure 
that the compliance funding inside OSHA gets funding, and we will 
transfer it from the other agencies. We have been planning that 
amendment for later tonight. I agree, as we work through OSHA reform, 
that our goal on OSHA reform was to try to have OSHA come in and 
identify and work with businesses on real health threats to the 
workers.
  Nobody wants an unsafe working environment. As somebody whose family 
has owned a small business for many years, and I have worked in the 
private sector for most of my life, I do not want parents at risk and 
kids at risk in working environments any more than anybody else. But 
there is no possible way to understand all the different regulations, 
and there are so many counterproductive regulations that the way to do 
it is to go in, identify and work with the businesses, most of whom do 
not want to have health problems for their employees either, because 
nothing is more expensive in today's competitive economy than losing 
good employees to downtime injuries, to even more serious accidents, or 
bad working conditions, where employees want to move to another 
company. It is in the business' best interest to have a safe, healthy, 
and pleasant working environment. We need to work with businesses to do 
that.
  We ought to focus on the grievous offenders and the large offenders. 
Everybody has horror stories about, we know this is happening over here 
and this is happening over here; that we have these crazy stories about 
ladders and asbestos breaks and so on that are taking tremendous 
amounts of time out of this agency.
  As we proceed, we are not proposing to abolish OSHA nor even to cut 
OSHA; what we are proposing is not to increase OSHA, and later we will 
be proposing to switch funds inside OSHA. But this particular amendment 
says we do not need the increase in OSHA, it should move to vocational 
education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by those who apparently have 
no interest in producing a bipartisan Labor-HHS appropriations bill. It 
is a sad and ironic commentary that many of those who now claim they 
support additional funding for vocational education are the same people 
who want to eliminate the Department of Education and the Federal role 
in education altogether.

[[Page H6981]]

  It should come as no surprise that these born-again devotees of 
vocational education choose worker health and safety protection as 
their sacrificial lamb. After all, many of the supporters of this 
amendment tried in vain last year to pass legislation to gut the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Since they failed to 
decapitate OSHA with a single blow of the axe, they now apparently have 
decided to try to kill OSHA cut by cut, dollar by dollar.
  Mr. Chairman, I will match my support of vocational education against 
that of any other Member of this House. But I will not support this 
insulting effort to pit worker safety against vocational education. 
Seventeen workers are killed on the job every day in this country. A 
recent comprehensive study of occupational injury and illness found 
that workplace illnesses and injuries cost this country at least $171 
billion a year. Yet, OSHA has only enough inspectors to inspect each 
workplace for which it is responsible once every 167 years. Six 
thousand five hundred workers die every year as a result of 
occupational injuries. Sixty thousand more workers are killed every 
year as a result of occupational illnesses. The cost of AIDS, 
Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular diseases are less than the cost of 
occupational death and illness.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1970 the job fatality rate in this country has 
been cut in half; since passage of OSHA, at least 140,000 lives have 
been saved. But we can do better. Let me remind the sponsor of this 
amendment, my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] that 
125 workers in the State of Missouri were killed in workplace accidents 
in 1995. Another 170,000 Missouri workers were injured on the job. 
There was only enough money to employ 37 OSHA inspectors for our State, 
and it would take these inspectors 339 years to inspect each workplace 
one time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in the best interests of the 
health and safety of Missouri workers, as well as millions of other 
workers across this Nation. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. For 3 years now my 
subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
Regulatory Affairs has held field hearings all over this country. We 
have talked to Americans outside of Washington about what works in our 
regulatory system and what does not work.
  Time and time again we heard from people that OSHA fails to perform 
its mission. Rather than protecting the safety of workers, it spends 
time playing ``gotcha'' with America's small businesses. Time and time 
again we heard from people about how OSHA inspectors were supposed to 
come and tell a small business how they can be safer at their 
workplace, but instead, they come and they harass them because they 
failed to fill out the paperwork.
  We have found out in these subcommittee hearings that 8 out of 10 of 
the top OSHA citations are for paperwork, not real safety concerns; not 
efforts to protect America's workers, but gotcha, because the 
businesses failed to fill out a Federal form.
  I had one gentleman come and talk to me in Minnesota who explained 
that he purposely keeps his employee work force below 50, so he does 
not get caught up in what he views as an even larger web of Federal 
regulations.
  I want to share with the Congress a couple of examples we heard from 
people, real Americans, outside of Washington about whether OSHA works 
for them or not. One gentleman named Rod Stewart owns and operates a 
small manufacturing company in Union City, IN. He makes brooms out of 
corn husks, and cotton mops.
  He found out that when OSHA came and inspected his plant, they did 
not want to give him advice about how to help those workers. He did not 
have any help from the Government. The Government did not find any 
safety concerns. But nonetheless, they fined Mr. Stewart $500 because 
he did not have the paperwork warning people about the grave danger of 
WD-40.
  When we have a bureaucracy that has to go and talk and harass the 
American small businesses about the grave danger of not having a form 
about the dangers of WD-40, and, Mr. Chairman, for those who are not 
that mechanical, this is something you can buy at any hardware store in 
America, and OSHA is fining this small businessman $500 because he did 
not have paperwork warning of the grave dangers of this common 
household substance.
  Mr. Chairman, we also heard from people who said that they had 
similar fines because they did not have the right paperwork for Dawn 
dishwashing liquid, again, an item that you can buy in every 
supermarket in America. Yet OSHA has so much money that they can hire 
people to go out and harass America's businesses and give them fines 
because they do not have paperwork warning about the dangers of Dawn 
dishwashing liquid.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because this amendment will 
send a message to OSHA that we want safer workplaces, but we do not 
want a bureaucracy that plays ``gotcha'' with the American small 
businessman. We want an OSHA that will do its job, that will look for 
real safety concerns, that will help American businessmen who want to 
have a safer workplace know what to do with new technology. We want an 
OSHA that will redirect its priorities to helping all of us work 
together to have a safer workplace for American workers.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we envision a workplace, we think, 
gosh, it is going to be unsafe because there are these machines, and it 
is a very dangerous place to work. We do not realize that OSHA also is 
in charge of inspecting doctors' offices, a very dangerous place for 
people to work.
  In fact, a good friend of mine, Dr. Probst, from Columbus, IN, a 
dermatologist, explained that he had been fined because he did not have 
a 260-page manual that detailed how to change the light bulb in his 
microscope in his laboratory. Once again, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask 
ourselves the common-sense question: Is OSHA really helping America's 
workers be safe when they fine doctors for not having the instruction 
manual to change the light bulb in their microscope? I think not, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I think we have an agency that has failed in its mission. I think we 
have an agency that does not deliver a safer workplace. I think we have 
an agency where even President Clinton has acknowledged that we have to 
change the direction and stop playing ``gotcha,'' and start helping 
American workers be safer in their workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote 
yes.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the 
frustration of the people who have offered this amendment, because this 
is an appropriations process, and more and more during the 
appropriations process, we seem to be legislating and taking away the 
function of the authorizing committee.
  Some members of the authorizing committee have spoken in favor of 
this legislation, and they know very well that we have been having 
hearings and discussing OSHA and various OSHA reforms for some time 
now. I wish they would be kind enough to yield today and take this 
amendment off the floor, and go back to the authorizing committee to 
continue that debate, because this is a dangerous game. It is guerilla 
warfare. They are ambushing OSHA from the floor on an appropriations 
bill, but it is a very serious place that they have chosen to conduct 
their ambush.
  OSHA saves lives. We do not want to improve the education of children 
at the cost of their parents coming home in some way crippled or even 
coming home as a corpse.
  The figures speak for themselves. The American Medical Association 
recently had a study which confirmed the figures we have been quoting 
for some time now. We have an estimated 30,000 people with various 
illnesses every year that are contracted in the workplace. We have 
another 20,000 who suffer from various cancers that are related to the 
workplace. That is more than 50,000 people. Then we have 6,588 deaths.
  Members might dispute the other two figures I mentioned, but we have 
the

[[Page H6982]]

proof, we have the corpses, we can document it with dead bodies, 6,588 
in 1994. That is generally what the level has been for some time now, 
large numbers of deaths in the workplace as a result of unsafe 
workplaces. This is a very serious business.
  If Members want to attack organized labor, if they want to go after 
the American workers, as they have been for the last 2 years, then I do 
not think OSHA is the place to do it. There are a lot of people out 
there, in fact, the vast majority of people out there, who benefit from 
OSHA. They are not members of labor unions, they are ordinary American 
people, workers who do not necessarily belong to unions, as well as 
those who belong to unions. They need the protection.
  Members have been giving one anecdote after another, one isolated 
anecdote after another, about the horrors of OSHA and what they are 
doing to the American people. Why do these Members not level with the 
American people and tell them how many inspectors there are, and what 
the ratio of inspectors to job sites would be in their particular 
State?

                              {time}  1845

  I think the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] mentioned that in the 
State of Missouri, it would take the number of OSHA inspectors, when 
applied to the number of job sites in the State of Missouri, it would 
take them 339 years, 339 years, to inspect each job site once.
  If we go to the State of Indiana, they are a little better off. The 
ratio of inspectors to job sites is such that the OSHA inspectors would 
inspect once every 50 years. And of course the greatest extreme is in 
Kansas where the ratio of OSHA inspectors to job sites would require 
that we have 421 years, 421 years would be necessary to inspect every 
job site.
  Mr. Chairman, does this sound like a hoard of inspectors, highly paid 
Federal employees, swarming over the American business community making 
life difficult for them for no reason, when we have this kind of ratio? 
Yes, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can have their 
isolated anecdotes, but they are isolated when we consider the number 
of inspectors available versus the number of job sites out there.
  OSHA's record, of course, has been a tremendous one, especially in 
those areas where we had the largest amount of injuries before OSHA was 
created. In the construction industries, and industries where heavy 
duty equipment is used, there is an outstanding record in reducing the 
number of deaths.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1970, when the OSHA Act was passed, the rate of 
workplace fatalities has been cut in half; over 140,000 lives that 
would have been lost were not lost. Workplaces where OSHA inspected and 
penalized employers for violations has an average of 22 percent 
reduction in injuries. They were not frivolous; they saved lives.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stop the game playing with the lives of the 
American workers. If my colleagues want more money for vocational 
education, we can take it from the B-2 bomber. It does not fly when it 
rains.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN [Mr. Goodlatte]. Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt]?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. Chairman, we obviously have a filibuster by amendment going on 
here. We have had a succession of occasions on which sponsors and 
supporters of these amendments ask to speak repeatedly on the House 
floor. I am not going to object in this instance, but I have to say 
that we are not going to sit by and allow Members to routinely engage 
in a convenient filibuster by continuing to ask for the privilege of 
addressing the House more than once on an issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we have 435 Members in this House and if each Member of 
this House successively asks for this privilege, we could be here until 
next Christmas. I understand what is happening. There is a small band 
of Members on that side of the aisle who are determined that this bill 
never see the light of day. That will bother me substantively but, 
frankly, politically it will make my day. It will make it a whole lot 
easier for us to explain in the next election just why it is that the 
other party ought not to be entrusted with control of this House after 
the next election.
  I would prefer that we not get into that, and I am not going to 
object in this instance. But it just seems to me that we have exercised 
this issue well enough Friday and today. There are no new thoughts 
being expressed and at some point, it seems rational to me to expect 
people to quit repeating themselves and move to a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. Chairman, my reservation, too, is I could understand we could be 
here forever if we do this. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt], 
the sponsor of this amendment, has not had a chance to address the 
House tonight. He did last Friday. Therefore, I am not going to object.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I also do not believe that the House should be 
subjected to the maligning of the motives of different Members. I do 
not intend to try to filibuster this bill. We are trying to have a 
debate on amendments. We are going to extend the debate longer than 
some Members would like, but we are not trying to avoid final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. 
I ask to speak to the House today only because we have carried the 
debate on this amendment over the weekend, from Friday to today.
  Certainly, the gentleman from Maryland suggested that there were 
people who would be supporting this amendment who had voted one way or 
another in 1995. I know many of my friends will support this amendment 
who are friends of vocational education and would not have been voting 
the way he suggested in 1995. I know for sure I did not vote that way 
in 1995, since I was not here in 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about whether we are going to 
increase funding for OSHA or increase funding for vocational education. 
It is $11 million, the increase in the OSHA bill. Apparently, the 
vocational education, adult education appropriation had no increase.
  At one time, in the early information that we received, it said that 
there was an $11 million decrease in vocational education. That got me 
to thinking about why at a time when we are focusing on welfare reform, 
when we are focusing on getting people to work, when we have just made 
the significant steps we made to encourage education beyond high school 
with the tax bill that many of the people who are speaking against this 
amendment were appropriately and actively for, we would want to just 
leave vocational education in place and perhaps even cut vocational 
education, as the early analysis of the bill said we were going to do.
  Mr. Chairman, assuming vocational education is where it was last 
year, and we have $11 million, the question that this amendment really 
brings to the floor is whether we take that $11 million and spend it 
for more OSHA or we take that $11 million and spend it for more 
vocational and adult education.
  This process is about choices. This amendment proposes a different 
choice than the choice presented by the committee. I am a believer in 
vocational education. I think vocational education may very well, one 
could argue, be more important than it has ever been as we try to move 
people to the workplace that have not been to the workplace.
  Clearly, OSHA is not achieving the results in the workplace that we 
want to achieve. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], who mentioned 
the numbers of deaths appropriately, we should be concerned about those 
numbers of deaths. But the gentleman also mentioned that there are 
inspectors in OSHA that would allow every business to be inspected only 
once every 167 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I think a better way to provide workplace safety, even 
these two choices, is to train people before they go to the workplace 
so that they

[[Page H6983]]

are better prepared to be there. I think that is a better effort to get 
workplace safety than an $11 million increase in OSHA would be.
  Certainly, the vocational education reforms that this Congress will 
approve spend money more nearly at the local level. I think that is a 
good change in vocational education. Ninty percent of the money will be 
spent for the first time under these new guidelines at the local level. 
This will be money that is spent to strengthen academics, to broaden 
opportunities after high school, to send more dollars to classrooms for 
people who are not headed to college.
  Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of American youth do not complete a 4-year 
college degree. Those people are very much in need of additional 
beyond-high school training.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that more than half of the new jobs that 
have been and will be created in the decade of the 1990s will take 
education beyond high school. Well, 25 to 35 percent of the people 
going to high school are not graduating from high school to start with 
in virtually any State. The 75 percent that do not graduate from 
college need that additional training to fill the jobs that are created 
in this decade, for many of them their first decade in the workplace.
  I think vocational education is important. I think adult education is 
important. By the way, this amendment does not say to take the money 
out of compliance or even to take it out of inspection. It takes the 
money out of OSHA and puts money in the Perkins bill vocational 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of that money goes to vocational education; 
10 percent goes to programs for single parents; 8 percent to State 
level programs and activities; and 5 percent for State administration. 
Ninty cents of these dollars are getting directly to individuals.
  This is about choices. I am encouraging the choice that this 
amendment proposes and appreciate the opportunity to get to address the 
House on this day, the second day that we deal with this legislation.
  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, for the edification of Members, I just want 
to repeat something that I said early in the debate. Funding for OSHA 
in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is $11.6 million below the President's 
budget request. Yet, it is still an increase of 3.5 percent over the 
last fiscal year. When cost increases and Federal pay raises are 
factored in, the amount provided is actually a reduction from last 
year's level.
  In the bill, Federal compliance assistance activities is increased by 
22 percent. Compliance assistance includes such activities as technical 
assistance to employers, outreach to small businesses, development of 
voluntary protection programs, and training for employers and 
employees. While compliance assistance increases by 22 percent, 
enforcement activities, including the cost of paying for OSHA 
inspectors, increases only 1 percent above fiscal year 1997.
  The House bill continues to encourage OSHA to redirect its efforts 
toward compliance assistance and regulatory review, and OSHA is 
actually achieving change in this direction. We should be giving them 
every encouragement possible, because OSHA is definitely a changed 
organization; changing in the way Republicans would like to see it 
changed. I am afraid that if we do not give them some encouragement to 
continue in that direction, we will end up with an OSHA similar to the 
one of the past one that none of us wants.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment, while it has good 
intentions, would do harm to the priorities that we have set in the 
bill. They are the proper priorities and I would urge Members to oppose 
the amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, defend his 
bill and the appropriation in it for OSHA. Indeed, the new OSHA, under 
the leadership of Joe Dear, the former administrator, and under the 
leadership of the Clinton administration, is a new agency.
  Mr. Chairman, the old OSHA was often seen as adversarial, as some of 
our colleagues have pointed out, because it relied heavily on 
regulatory enforcement. But the new OSHA offers employers the choice 
between partnership and traditional enforcement. The new OSHA, under 
the leadership of President Clinton, focuses on serious hazards rather 
than technical violations.
  While the old OSHA frequently cited employers for paperwork 
violations, the new OSHA has seen an 82 percent decline in paperwork 
violations from fiscal year 1992 to 1996. And under the old OSHA, 
employers and workers may have had to hire consultants to comply with 
complex OSHA rules, but the new OSHA created interactive computer 
programs, called Expert Advisors, which have been commended by 
employers, and the media, for providing them with expert compliance 
advice in an easy, step-by-step process.
  I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because some of our colleagues have 
addressed the old OSHA as a justification for the cut that they are 
proposing. It is refreshing, frankly, to hear our Republican colleagues 
talk about the importance of funding vocational education. We all 
support that, and most of the Republicans who were here at the time 
voted for a large cut in vocational education, so hearing their defense 
of it this evening is a change and a refreshing one.

                              {time}  1900

  But I fear that it may just be an excuse for them to do, once again, 
on this amendment what they attempted to do on the previous amendment, 
where they find a benign program which we all stipulate is important 
and that we support, vocational education, and we agree with all the 
merits and benefits of supporting vocational education and wish that 
our Republican colleagues were with us when the major cut was proposed 
and passed in vocational education.
  They take a program like vocational education and then take money and 
say, OK, we all support that and then go to take the money to make the 
increase in vocational education from enforcement of workplace safety 
rules and regulations.
  Last week they took the money from the Wage and Hour administration, 
again, saying it was for the children, but, indeed, the economic 
security, the work safety of the workplace for the families of America 
in this amendment would be threatened and, in that amendment, family 
and medical leave, wages and hours, all of those other considerations 
were under assault.
  This is about a pattern that we see here in this legislation where 
our Republican colleagues are trying to hide behind the children of 
America or people who are in need of education in America and do so by 
nipping away at worker protections, whether it is in OSHA or in other 
parts of the Department of Labor which are there to advance wages and 
benefits for the American worker. That is why I urge our colleagues to 
vote against this amendment.
  Do not be misled by where the money goes. We all agree more money 
should be there, but that was a fight that was fought at the Committee 
on the Budget. Again, we should be putting our hand in the pocket of 
the defense budget or not giving big tax breaks to the wealthiest 
people in this country who do not need them, if we want to talk about 
finding more money for vocational education but not taking it from 
safety in the workplace.
  Another argument that is used in the argument against OSHA is about 
ergonomics. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues this 
recent GAO report that just came out, August 1997, worker protection, 
private sector ergonomics programs yield positive results. Simple 
ergonomic programs can reduce worker compensation costs and injuries, 
improving employee health and morale and boosting productivity and 
product quality, this report says, and I quote, Most importantly, we 
found these efforts do not necessarily have to involve costly or 
complicated processes or controls, says the report.
  So the issue of ergonomics is not any justification for cutting OSHA. 
Indeed,

[[Page H6984]]

it is a justification for increasing the OSHA budget. Freezing OSHA at 
the 1997 level, which is what this budget does, means significant cuts 
in the new OSHA's partnership and compliance assistance efforts aimed 
at helping businesses, especially small businesses, to achieve 
compliance results in the workplace.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment because the 
funding for OSHA in this bill is still less than the appropriation for 
OSHA in 1988, 10 years ago, and there are fewer OSHA employees in 1998 
than 10 years ago, thanks to the Clinton administration. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to this amendment 
which cuts funds from job safety and health. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] again and our ranking minority 
member for the important work they did in trying to balance the 
priorities, and there are so many important priorities in this bill.
  What this amendment does is pit one program, assisting hard-working 
families, against another. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues join me 
in seeing the irony in an amendment which adds funds to a program 
training high school students for the workplace by taking away funds 
from the very program which will ensure that they will be safe from 
job-related accidents once they are old enough to go to work.
  I am also outraged at this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason 
why OSHA was created 25 years ago and my colleagues have clearly stated 
the improvements that we have seen made in OSHA by Joe Dear and the 
other administrators of that department.
  Workplaces can be dangerous. While most employers do act responsibly, 
there are those who simply do not. I will never forget one, because in 
1991, just shortly after I was elected, a tragic fire took place in a 
chicken processing plant in Hamlet, NC. Twenty-five workers lost their 
lives and 50 were injured. It was a tragedy on par with New York's 
Shirtwaist Triangle fire 80 years before.
  When the Hamlet fire broke out, workers were trapped in the building 
because the fire doors were locked. In the aftermath of this tragedy, 
it was like Dante's Inferno, when we hear from the witnesses. I sat on 
the Education and Labor Committee at the time. Survivors of the Hamlet 
fire testified before us and, frankly, I will never forget their 
heartrending words.
  For the viewers who are listening, they are hearing about OSHA, and 
sometimes the initials may sound like gobbledygook to many of our 
viewers, but what they have to understand is OSHA is real and it has a 
real impact on people's lives.
  Let me quote: ``I was in the trim room,'' one female witness told us. 
``I saw ladies running, running, and they were just screaming and 
hollering. So I said, I am going with them. And I started running. When 
we got to the door, one of them stated that the door is locked. So we 
are trapped in here. So we are going to burn up. And when I look 
around, I see a big fire and then it was just pitch dark and you 
couldn't see anything because 50 to 60 of us are running into the area. 
Some of them were close enough to the door to knock and bang and beat 
on it. The next thing I know, they were still hollering at the door, 
stating, somebody let us out of here. Get us out. We are going to die. 
We are going to die.''
  Finally, our witness was able to escape when a bulldozer was used to 
knock the door open. She told us, ``I was coughing up black soot, big 
balls of soot. They were beginning to bring Mary Lillian Wall out, who 
was standing next to me. When they brought her out, she was already 
dead. They brought Bertha Jarrell out who I grew up with as a child. 
She was dead. Then they brought Mary Alice Quick out. I grew up with 
Mary Alice Quick. She was dead. Then they brought Brenda Kelly out who 
was a friend of mine who worked in the packing room. She was dead.''
  Mr. Chairman, government must ensure that hard-working Americans do 
not have to fear for their lives or their health on the job. OSHA must 
have the funding to enforce our health and safety laws or, frankly, I 
worry that we will see more tragedies like the Hamlet chicken plant 
fire.
  On an average day, 154 workers lose their lives as a result of 
workplace injuries and illnesses and another 16,000 are injured. In my 
home State of New York, the most recent statistics show us that 300 
workers died in 1 year while 270,900 faced on-the-job injuries and 
illnesses. Yet OSHA only has enough inspectors to reach every workplace 
once every 87 years. OSHA has 100 less staff than it did 10 years ago.
  So, Mr. Chairman, again, as we said last week, these are shameful and 
cynical amendments. I have been, throughout my whole years in Congress, 
and long before that, a strong supporter of vocational education. OSHA 
needs more funding, not less. Let us not pit one good program against 
the other. I urge my colleagues to vote against this shameful and 
cynical amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. 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 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I do not anticipate needing to use the 
entire time. The gentlewoman has just told us about one of the tragic 
episodes in this history of an industrial accident and a fire that did 
take several people's lives. But I doubt that the gentlewoman knew that 
when the administrator of OSHA came to my subcommittee and testified, 
he, too, mentioned this and I asked him, what had you done before the 
accident to protect those workers. Well, it turned out that OSHA had 
been notified of the dangerous working conditions in that plant and 
that they had failed to ever inspect that facility. Those people died, 
I would submit, because OSHA failed to look for real safety concerns. 
Perhaps because they are spending all of their time looking for 
paperwork violations for our Nation's small businesses.
  When we have an agency that will put paperwork concerns, and I talked 
earlier about Dawn dishwashing liquid and WD-40, when we put those 
above the real safety concerns like those workers that the gentlewoman 
mentioned and OSHA fails to ever inspect that plant, even when 
employees in that plant notify them of dangerous working conditions, 
this is an agency that is failing to do its job.
  This administrator was in the Clinton administration. This failure he 
had to acknowledge came about on an OSHA that he was the administrator 
for. I think this amendment is a good amendment because it does set the 
correct priorities. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take the opportunity to speak 
in favor of this amendment. I have worked with members of OSHA in 
Kansas in my home district. I found out that the members of OSHA and 
the business community, the small business community, the construction 
businesses had common ideas, common goals. They all wanted to have a 
safe work environment. But they were having a hard time achieving that 
safe work environment with the way they were being treated by OSHA. It 
seemed as though every time a representative from OSHA would come to a 
job site, the employer had to reach for their checkbook because they 
knew they were going to get fined, and in most cases they were.
  In several instances they had trouble being harassed by losing 
contractors in a job where more than one contractor would bid, one 
would lose and then call OSHA with alleged violations and then the 
winning contractor would have to go through all kinds of contortions 
trying to prove that there was no violation, that it was unjustified.
  And in another case, I met with members from a union, a business 
manager who said that he went around the area and found nonunion 
employers and would then call OSHA with alleged violations and have 
OSHA go out and harass these nonunion employers. He admitted it openly. 
So when you have an agency that allows itself to be abused and allows 
small businesses to be abused, then it is a wonder that we should not 
maybe give this money to a higher priority.
  This does leave funding at fiscal year 1997 levels. It does not take 
out the

[[Page H6985]]

program at all. It merely stays it at the current level that it is 
funded. Instead, it takes this small amount of money, $11.25 million, 
to vocational education, or vo-tech, which is, by the way, funded below 
the President's request, some $79 million.
  So what we are doing is taking money from big government and we are 
giving it to people who have an idea that they can capture the American 
dream and do so by getting not a college education but get educated in 
the building skills, electronics, masonry, carpentry, something of that 
sort.
  In Kansas, we have some very good examples of how vo-tech schools 
have worked with Wichita State University, the local community colleges 
like Butler County Community College, and come up with programs that 
not only give students skills to walk into a trade job, but also if 
they choose to pursue their education, they have an open avenue of 
transferring credits to these higher universities and can go on and get 
engineering degrees, degrees in the construction trades.
  So what we are doing is taking, diverting a little money away from 
big government to the American dream for these children. I think that 
is an admirable goal, something that we should all pursue, the American 
dream.
  But getting back to OSHA, I think what I would like to see, and I 
think many in America would like to see, is the common goals that we 
have being pursued, making a safe work environment but also doing it by 
working together.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague 
from Indiana. I would like to make three points. First of all, it was 
during the Bush administration in 1991, and for those of us who have 
been on the Committee on Appropriations serving with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], we were very privileged to hear Joe Dear speak 
to us and tell us about the major changes that have been made with the 
Clinton administration to OSHA, and we understand there have to be more 
changes, but I think it is important to know that there have been 
important changes made.

                              {time}  1915

  Second, in North Carolina, where this tragic fire took place, there 
were 119 inspectors for 175,000 businesses covering 3.3 million 
workers.
  And, third, perhaps the gentleman and I have a different view of 
government. I really believe that although government is imperfect, 
that it has an important responsibility to help people's lives, to 
improve their lives. And, frankly, if the changes Joe Dear has made are 
not sufficient, then I would like to reach out to my colleague from 
Indiana, work closely with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and make sure they make 
continuing changes to improve the lives of workers.
  Again, most of the employers are doing this on their own. We are 
talking about a small number. But it seems to me cynical and, in fact, 
shameful to say that the way to improve working conditions, to make 
sure that plants such as Hamlet and others, where terrible tragedies 
have taken place, do not occur again, to make sure that our workers are 
covered, the way to do it is to cut money from the OSHA program.
  I would think that my colleagues who do not like OSHA, who feel that 
OSHA is not working and not helping people, should just put in an 
amendment to repeal OSHA. I would respect that, and I am sure some of 
my colleagues may think that is the best way to go. I disagree.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I would love to take the 
gentlewoman up on that offer, very seriously, because there are some 
good proposals out there that have been tried in some of the States 
where they create incentives for the worst employers, with the worst 
records of safety, to come forward and change the habits and the 
working conditions without being fined. And then if they do not do it, 
they come down on them with a big hammer afterwards. So there are some 
good ideas we could work together on.
  But let me reassure my colleague that the purpose of this amendment 
is not only to assure that OSHA, but also, as the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Tiahrt] said, we do believe the funds would be very well used in 
trying to take the vocational education program up to the full level 
that the President had requested.
  And so it is a sincere effort to have those funds redirected, not 
eliminated from the budget but redirected in a way that we think will 
help workers and give more opportunity for people to find better jobs 
in industries that are suffering dislocation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to accept the 
gentleman's offer to work together to continue to make sure that OSHA 
continues to serve the people whom it was intended to serve. And I 
would be delighted to work with the gentleman, with the constraints 
that I know that the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and the committee worked under, to improve both vocational 
education funding and OSHA funding, because we want to be absolutely 
certain that another Hamlet does not take place; and we also want to 
work to help our young people enter the workplace and get a job so that 
they can raise a family and feel an important part of this great 
country of ours.
  So let us work together, and I would like to work with the gentleman 
to increase vocational education and OSHA funding because both have an 
important place in this bill.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to 
yield, let me just say that I look forward to working with her.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the supporters of 
this amendment that by cutting the appropriation levels for the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration you are sending a message 
to hard-working Americans that their health and their safety are not 
worth the money. While I certainly see the merits in increasing funds 
for the vocational education, I cannot support this amendment because 
it places too many people at risk. I agree vocational education will 
increase the number of trained workers. However, I cannot see how, as 
some of my colleagues have suggested, an increase of funding for 
vocational education will result in a large decrease in occupational 
hazards. These hazards are many times not the result of unskilled 
workers but the result of companies and businesses who choose not to 
comply with OSHA standards because of the cost. For example, in Newark, 
NJ, three workers died in a plant fire in 1992 because the plant did 
not comply with OSHA regulations. Also, we must take into consideration 
that some jobs are quite simply dangerous and need regulations to 
prevent accidents from occurring. Here in Congress, I think we forget 
that a majority of Americans count on OSHA inspectors and requirements 
to protect them from the daily dangers of their occupation. Therefore, 
I implore my colleagues to recognize the need to ensure the safety of 
our workers by not voting for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 237, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No 369]

                               AYES--160

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Foley
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H6986]]


     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     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 (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Baker
     Barcia
     Bliley
     Capps
     Carson
     Cooksey
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Miller (CA)
     Murtha
     Pickett
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)


                          personal explanation

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, because of a delay in 
transportation, I was regrettably absent for rollcall vote No. 369, 
concerning the Blunt amendment. If I had been present for that vote I 
would have voted ``no.''


                         personnal explanation

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 369, the 
Blunt amendment to Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation, I was unavoidably 
detained in transit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1938

  Messrs. KIM, FRANKS of New Jersey, SHIMKUS, and Ms. WATERS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WHITE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the parliamentarian has informed me that my amendment 
No. 45 to the Labor-HHS appropriation bill that addresses the substance 
abuse and mental health funding formula in all the States is not in 
order but, Mr. Chairman, this issue needs to be addressed.
  The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration is 
currently obligated under law to revise the formula that allocates 
money under the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program as 
well as the Community Mental Health Services block grants. My own State 
of Michigan will lose over 19 percent in one year of its funding for 
this 1998 program. Many other States will lose large amounts as well 
next year. The department has suggested that an alternative to a 1-year 
drastic change is that Congress provide for a phasein.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for raising this 
important issue before the House. When such formulas are altered, it 
should be in a manner that allows the States to adjust. I agree that no 
State should be forced to absorb huge losses at one time. I agree with 
the gentleman that this is an issue that should be resolved to ensure 
that all States are treated as equitably as possible.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have delayed 
the implementation of the new formula so that the appropriate 
authorizing committees would have an opportunity to address these 
issues properly. I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
the ranking member of the committee, if he agrees there is merit in 
some kind of a more gradual phasein for dramatic funding changes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that it certainly would be disruptive 
for many States. If dramatic changes are implemented in 1 year, States 
will not only lose large amounts of funding but would lose them 
overnight. It would seem to me that certainly for the effectiveness of 
State programs there should not be major disruptions in funding. Those 
changes should be gradual.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. I call to my 
colleagues' attention that the Department of Health and Human Services 
agrees that States should not have major disruption. The National 
Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors have just passed 
a resolution saying that we should use the current funding base.
  I thank the chairman of the committee and ranking member and hope it 
will be an issue of discussion in conference.

                              {time}  1945


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Norwood

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Norwood:
       Page 17, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,250,000)''.
       Page 68, line 17, after each dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $11,250,000)''.
       Level-funds OSHA, transfers increase to IDEA, Individuals 
     With Disabilities Education Act.

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that is very clear-
cut and very simple. We are trying to continue to fund IDEA special 
education. We are moving $11.25 million from OSHA into IDEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this movement of $11.25 
million from OSHA does not, in effect, cut the OSHA budget, but simply 
retains the same funding of $325.7 million.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this moves funding from OSHA, but it does not 
cut OSHA. It maintains its funding level at

[[Page H6987]]

the same amount, $325.7 million, for 1997.
  There are two reasons in my mind for this amendment. One, of course, 
is that special education is important. I think we all would agree that 
funding a program that is now 22 years old at the 12 percent level is 
not correct and it is wrong. The Federal law says that we have to fund 
special education at 40 percent, though we only do 12 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, funding of the special education program at 12 percent, 
which, thanks to the good works of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Goodling, and others has occurred just recently, is way 
inadequate for a Federal program that we are supposed to fund at a 40 
percent level.
  No one can disagree that the idea of taking children with 
disabilities and turning them into successful members of society is a 
very good thing to do.
  I noted the other day that one of our Members on the other side of 
the aisle said, ``Well, we are only funding at 12 percent, but it is 
not our fault. The courts made us do it.''
  Well, the courts are simply using the law passed by this Congress 22 
years ago and stating that the special education must be funded, but 
presently it is being funded by the taxpayers at home through property 
taxes.
  A Federal law that is a good law, though not funded by us, causes a 
great deal of concern for the local school boards, as well as local 
politicians who had nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us would disagree that it is 
important and it is critical that we do fund special education. I doubt 
there is a Member in this House that would think that we should not do 
that. This is just one more effort for us to try to beef up the funding 
to that program.
  Now, we are taking it from OSHA. I want to make it clear that I do 
not view this as a discussion about safety and health. I do not think 
there is a Member in this room who does not consider health and safety 
in the workplace very, very important.
  The debate is not about whether we need an OSHA or not; it is not 
about whether we wanted a safe and healthy workplace. It is about the 
process of OSHA, and it is about the process of prioritizing your 
spending.
  We are giving OSHA an increase in 1998 of $11.5 million, but you 
cannot justify that. Nobody in their right mind can come up with any 
data that says, yes, they do need that much more money.
  Now, many people relate an increase in dollars into an increase in 
the objective, which is a safer workplace. But I will tell you, you 
cannot go by the numbers to tell that.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, in 1993 we spent $291 million in OSHA, 
and, unfortunately, that year we had 6,331 deaths. Mr. Chairman, you 
cannot relate the dollars spent in OSHA to workplace deaths.
  In 1993 we spent $291 million; we had 6,331 deaths. Interestingly 
enough, in 1994 we increased our spending in OSHA and we spent $297.2 
million, but what happened? The death rate went up in the workplace, to 
6,588. Then we go to 1995 and we funded OSHA at $312 million, and we 
had 6,210 deaths. But then we lowered our spending in 1996 to $305 
million and the death rate came down when we lowered the spending.
  The only point I make there, Mr. Chairman, is it is not possible for 
us to simply say, looking at those numbers, that you can justify a rate 
increase in an agency that is not doing exactly what it ought to do, 
which is improve the health and the safety in the workplace.
  Also, tonight a number of times the death rate in 1994 was stated as 
6,588. That is the number that was used a number of times. But listen 
to those numbers. Think about those numbers. On the 6,588 occupational 
fatalities reported by the BLS in 1992, 42 percent were caused by 
transportation accidents, and another 20 percent were caused by acts of 
violence, suicide, and homicide. These are not considered workplace 
hazards.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Norwood was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we ask this agency to 
spend no more money than it spent last year until it reworks itself. 
Yes, it has improved; yes, it is better than it was 2 years ago; but it 
is not good enough. Why are they not focusing on those 40 percent of 
deaths where they occur out there? That is not what we do. We have to 
have one-size-fits-all, and everybody gets involved.
  Mr. Chairman, we should focus on the areas where there are the most 
deaths, those industries where they occur, not across the board.
  Yes, we only have 900 inspectors, and you may be assured there will 
never be enough money in OSHA to have enough inspectors to inspect 
every industry. But why is that agency not focused on where the deaths 
and injuries are occurring?
  Mr. Chairman, that alone is enough reason to send another message to 
OSHA saying that, yes, we want you to protect health and safety in the 
workplace, but we want you to rework how this particular Federal agency 
works so we can have some positive results from it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] speaks so 
movingly about the need to fund special education that I am almost 
persuaded. But then I note, however, that on August 3, 1995, just 2 
years ago, the gentleman voted to cut special education by $160 million 
below the previous year, and voted to cut it $250 million below the 
President's request at that time.
  Mr. Chairman, this year the special education account is up $313 
million above last year. The committee has funded it at $139 million 
above the President's budget. It is $1.1 billion above the level the 
gentleman voted to cut just 2 years ago.
  So I would simply say I am happy to welcome the gentleman to the 
ranks of those who believe that this is a good program, but I would say 
that I think what is happening here is pretty obvious. This committee, 
on a bipartisan basis, has provided a much higher level of funding for 
special education than it had last year or the year before that. Now we 
are being told in this amendment, which will take more of the House's 
time, that we ought to take a tiny amount out of OSHA and move it into 
this program.
  It would add to the amount in this program by only 0.2 percent, but 
it gives them an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to again beat up on OSHA, 
despite the fact that OSHA has had an 82 percent reduction in the 
number of paperwork citations which they have cited businesses for 
since President Clinton has come into office.
  It is apparent to me that this is not only an opportunity to bash 
OSHA, it simply represents another effort by a group of Members of the 
House to try to filibuster the House to death in the hopes that 
eventually this bill is taken from the House calendar, and the 
gentleman has a perfect right to do that if he wants.
  I would simply note, however, that despite the gentleman's efforts, 
or despite his suggestion that we cut this funding out of OSHA, there 
were 237 workplace deaths in his own State last year. There were 
187,000 workplace injuries in his State last year.
  So it seems to me that the proper thing to do is to try to fund both 
of these programs to the highest level that we possibly can. That is 
exactly what the committee has done on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment on 
that basis.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my friend from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that I am absolutely sure the gentleman does not 
know why I am doing this.
  I know the gentleman just told the Members why I am doing this, but I 
am confident that the gentleman does not know.
  Second, let me point out that, yes, I voted against special 
education, but that was before the Republican Congress came in and 
helped straighten that bill out. At the time, a considerable amount of 
that money was going to the attorneys, and until we could stop that 
particular bleeding problem, then it did not make sense to put taxpayer 
dollars in it.

[[Page H6988]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also note that 
during that time this Congress and this administration working 
cooperatively have greatly improved the performance of OSHA. I find it 
interesting, for instance, that much of the criticism these days 
leveled at OSHA is coming from organized labor, which feels that OSHA 
under Joe Dear went too far in trying to recognize legitimate concerns 
expressed by American businessmen.

                              {time}  2000

  So I would simply say, each of us is capable of reaching our own 
judgments. I am confident that the House will recognize that the 
committee achieved a reasonable balance in these accounts which 
deserves to be supported.
  Mr. NORWOOD. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to tell the gentleman, I do think OSHA has been improved. That is 
something we all should be proud of.
  Has OSHA moved far enough yet, to the point where we are doing a 
better job in the workplace, where most of the catastrophes occur? The 
answer would be no.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that OSHA has a long way 
to go in meeting its objectives, with over 6,000 Americans still dying 
each year. We ought to help them meet those objectives, just as we 
ought to help the responsible agencies in meeting their needs in 
dealing with handicapped children and special education-required 
children. I hope Congress will see fit to do both.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, to kind of pick up where my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia, left off, I also am on the Education and the Workforce 
Committee, and this is my third year in Congress, and hopefully every 
year you learn a bit about how programs work and where money ought to 
be spent.
  At the end of the day, it is a judgment call. The Committee on 
Appropriations has made some choices that are their version of how it 
ought to be. Now we have a chance, as Members, to come in and suggest 
how these choices might change, and does it make sense to rearrange the 
money and spend money here and take money from there.
  Mr. Chairman, the question of money and people is always an 
intriguing question. If I thought just by increasing appropriations 
bills we could prevent all workplace deaths, I would do so. If I 
thought just spending more money would take every family and every 
parent that has a disabled child and get the most out of that child, I 
would gladly spend the money. Sometimes it is not about how much you 
spend but the way you conduct the program, who is controlling the 
money, who has say-so of how it is spent; that is probably just as 
important as the amounts.
  The OSHA laws in this country, in my opinion, have in the past 
focused more on the bureaucracy and more on the paperwork side of the 
House, rather than on whether or not it is really making the workplace 
safe. I think that is inevitable. As an agency grows, just like any 
other business in America, it looks for ways to continue to grow.
  This Congress, the 104th Congress, the first Congress I was in, I 
think inherited a mess. I think we have been working at times in a 
bipartisan fashion to straighten that mess out. But when we look back 
at what it was like when we first came here, we had an OSHA agency 
where 8 out of 10 violations were paperwork violations, and there is no 
use blaming the Democratic Party for that, because many times the OSHA 
organization was under Republican control. The facts are it just was 
not working right. It got soft. We were throwing money in the name of 
worker safety, but we were not looking at outcomes.
  We have had numerous hearings in our committee about outcomes. That 
is the change I have seen in the last 3 years. We are asking questions 
about programs that have never been asked before, before we write the 
check.
  Let me tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] some of the 
questions we have asked about OSHA. One of the basic questions I have 
asked, if you had a limited pot of money, which I think it is time to 
start thinking in those terms, where would you spend that money? Would 
you increase the number of investigators and increase the fining 
capacity, or would you direct more money into the area of educating 
businesses to make the workplace safe? We have asked numerous people 
from OSHA about that mix, and they are doing studies right now: Where 
is the best place to put your money? Is it in enforcement or is it in 
education?
  We have been finding, I think, consistent----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I am 
the Member of Congress who, along with Sylvio Conte, first pushed OSHA 
into starting a voluntary compliance program.
  Second, I would like to point out, as the chairman already has on two 
occasions, that this budget gives a 12-percent increase for that 
voluntary compliance portion of OSHA's budget, and only a 1-percent 
increase, on average, for the other portions of OSHA's budget. So we 
are putting the emphasis, in fact, exactly where the gentleman thinks 
it ought to be.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I congratulate the gentleman on that move, because it has 
turned out to be a very good move. But that is not really the point I 
am trying to make.
  The point I am trying to make is, you have a certain number of people 
on the payroll of OSHA. What do they do every day? Voluntary compliance 
is one way for an employer to meet the goals and requirements that we 
place upon them. We have found that maybe if we have more business 
involvement in voluntary compliance programs that we can get there a 
little easier and save money for the employer, to let them share the 
benefits from the savings with their employees.
  What I am saying is, when you have a fixed population of workers at 
OSHA, where should they be spending their time? How should you fashion 
your work force at OSHA? How many people should be in the ``gotcha'' 
business, and how many people should go around every day informing and 
advising industry, ``Here is the latest thing out on worker safety''? 
That is what I am trying to talk about.
  We have gotten a lot of feedback. It seems to me they are on the 
enforcement end, the ``gotcha'' end; about two-thirds of their people 
do that job. We are trying to get a work force mix that probably will 
do a better job, if you take most of OSHA employees and get them away 
from the ``gotcha'' business and you send them into the industry and 
advise people, and you try to get people up to speed as to what is the 
best way to make sure that the workers are safe.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say there is a disconnect here with my 
colleague who just finished speaking. It is understood that in fact we 
could buy the argument that we inherited an OSHA that was a mess. But 
in fact, in the Contract With America, if Members might recall, their 
answer to that question was to cut OSHA about 50 percent.
  The fact of the matter is that under the Clinton administration, as 
my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out a 
minute ago, in fact, an innovative compliance assistance program, a 
voluntary compliance assistance program, was developed. It was begun in 
fact and in truth to help employers identify safety problems before the 
accidents occur and before inspections and fines occur.
  It happens, and it is a fact, that this is an enormously and hugely 
popular program with business owners. There is a very long waiting list 
of employers who want help to do the right thing. That is why the 
committee bill increases the compliance assistance program, as has been 
mentioned, by 12 percent, so in fact employers can get that kind of 
help and advice, and OSHA can provide that to the extent that 
businesses want it and need it.

[[Page H6989]]

  But quite honestly, what will happen is that compliance assistance is 
the part of the budget that will be cut if OSHA's budget is reduced. 
This is because in fact, first and foremost, OSHA has to enforce the 
law. So this amendment is shortsighted. It hurts workers and, in fact, 
hurts the businesses which my friends, some of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, seem to want to help. They want to help businesses. 
In fact, businesses are happy with these voluntary compliance programs.
  If we continue in this path, it will in fact cause more deaths, more 
injuries, and more threats to the health and safety of American 
consumers, like those that we saw at the Hudson Food plant.
  Let me just reiterate. Some Members, some Republicans of this House, 
seem to think that OSHA has not been cut enough over the past 3 years. 
But the majority of people do not want to cut it further. Clearly, the 
sponsors of this amendment share that belief that OSHA has not be cut 
enough, as do those who were engaged in the previous amendment. I 
disagree, and quite frankly, I think most Americans will disagree.
  There are some facts that I think just speak loud and clear and speak 
for themselves. Every 5 seconds, every 5 seconds, an American worker is 
injured or killed on the job. In 5 minutes while I stand here and 
speak, 60 people will be hurt or will die. We saw the incidents with 
the Hudson Food plant.
  Quite honestly, in that district in Missouri 155 people died of job-
related injuries or illnesses in the last year for which we have data. 
In the State of Missouri, there are 25 inspectors to monitor the safety 
of places of work. That means that the average Missouri business will 
not be inspected more than once every 235 years. Clearly the sponsors 
of these amendments here think that is too often, and they want to 
reduce it to 250 or 275 years.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I am a supporter of the IDEA 
Program. Last week we were going to cut wage and hour to support IDEA, 
giving about 67 cents per child to the IDEA Program. Ultimately, there 
are only some Members of the other party that want to engage in this 
kind of thing. There has been a very good bipartisan effort put 
together here in defense of OSHA. Some people are not happy with that.
  People have worked very, very hard over the last several months so we 
would have a good bill that in fact deals with the important issues 
that workers are facing and that others are facing. Now, all of a 
sudden, we see this opportunity to filibuster this bill in order to 
take money from here, take it there. In fact, these are thinly veiled 
efforts to cut programs here where we are only talking about $2 more 
per child for the IDEA Program.
  If we want to help kids, help children, I ask my colleagues to help 
their families make a decent, living wage, as we were talking about 
last week. Give their folks the opportunity to work in a safe 
environment and workplace. That is the kind of thing we ought to be 
doing to help these families.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, can Members of Congress malign the motives 
of other Members?
  The CHAIRMAN. Members should avoid discussing the motives of other 
Members.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the gentlewoman 
who just spoke. In 1997, we spent $325.7 million, and if our amendment 
passes, in 1998 we will spend $325.7 million. I would just like to 
point out that is not a cut of anything, that is just not giving them a 
raise.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point 
out, and the reason I asked my parliamentary inquiry is we have heard 
several times tonight that this is a filibuster because we are trying 
to discuss tough questions, when in fact the minority and the majority, 
as their differences arise from time to time, will speak for ours.
  We have not had motions to rise, motions to adjourn, all sorts of 
quorum calls, or that type of filibustering tactic. We have had some 
disagreements in our party, and we are likely to continue to have them 
in the future. The question comes as to how do we debate these and air 
them out.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and we have had many 
discussions. He said, let us have a wholesome debate. We are having a 
wholesome debate. A lot of Members do not like these choices. They want 
to talk about what we did not 2 or 3 years ago, or what we are 
allegedly going to do to a lot of the poor working people of America.
  This is an increase in OSHA. This is not wiping out OSHA. We are not 
fighting a battle over whether we are going to eliminate OSHA, whether 
we are going to eliminate anything here. It is whether we are going to 
increase OSHA. We are not even proposing to cut OSHA, for crying out 
loud.
  The effort here is to say, what are our priorities. Reluctantly, many 
of us voted for the budget agreement because it was a compromise. 
Spending is increasing. Now, as Members of Congress, we are elected to 
decide where we are going to put the money and what the priorities are.
  There are many of us, including many of us on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, who worked to pass a new IDEA bill. Part 
of that was increased parent participation; it had better connections 
to regular curriculum, increased accountability for educational 
results, improved access to information, opportunity for mediation, 
improved teaching and learning processes, supports the unique needs of 
individual students where there can be flexible developmental delay 
categories for identifying children, all sorts of details with the IDEA 
bill. We worked on that for 3 years.
  A chief staff person of Senator Lott spent hours and hours trying to 
reconcile those differences. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] moved it through our committees. The gentlemen from 
California, Mr. Riggs and Mr. Cunningham, the previous year, working 
with the subcommittee that I am on and I, as vice chairman of that 
subcommittee in my first term, worked hard on IDEA.
  But do Members know, we have now passed a bill that requires States 
and local communities to do a lot in their schools to address the needs 
of these students. We increased their funding, but we did not increase 
their funding enough.
  I would just as soon, quite frankly, the Federal Government was not 
always increasing their funding, and that we had more decisions at the 
local level and at the State level in education. But if we are going to 
spend money, which we are in this bill, I can think of no better place 
to put it than in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  As we go through this, I do not want to hear all the time that this 
is just a tactic and this is just a filibuster. This is not. This is 
saying, OK, if I am going to go along with this bill, I would like to 
see where the money goes.
  We are not gutting OSHA; we are doing increases. For those Members 
concerned about the compliance section, as I have stated, the next 
amendment we intend to offer will move some funds around inside OSHA to 
make sure the compliance section gets even more funding. I compliment 
those Members and the chairman of the subcommittee for increasing 
efforts in the compliance section.
  When we ran for office, that is what we ran for was to change OSHA 
from predominantly an organization that comes in, often unannounced, 
often resulting, in order to intimidate businesses into trying to 
follow the law, picking on fairly nit-picking-type things or things 
that are counterproductive, rather than focusing on the grievous 
offenders.

                              {time}  2015

  Nobody wants to defend anybody where there have been deaths and 
tragedies. Our friends are getting hurt. Our neighbors are getting 
hurt. Our relatives are at risk. But we need to do it in a logical way, 
and working with businesses in a positive way is the way we should do 
this.
  But, Mr. Chairman, they have enough money. The facts are this. We are 
hearing stories tonight, but the facts are

[[Page H6990]]

this: When Congress increases OSHA funding, the rate of accidents go 
down. When Congress has decreased funding, the rate of accidents has 
gone down. When we have level funding, the rate of accidents has gone 
down.
  The rate of accidents has dropped 4 years in a row, regardless of the 
funding level of OSHA here in Washington. That is a fact. The stories 
are tragic, but the fact is the rate of accidents has been going down, 
and we cannot make dramatic statements based on the OSHA funding. But 
the truth is this amendment is really a priorities amendment. Do we 
want to give the money to IDEA?
  Mr. Chairman, $11 million here is a drop in the bucket. We will have 
plenty of other amendments on this bill that will expand IDEA funding 
in other things. For those who say this is only 11 million, yes, 11 
million is 11 million, and we are going to try to get more to IDEA, 
too. We agree on supporting that.
  Mr. Chairman, let us take something where we have a consensus and we 
have an impact and put the money there, rather than in organizations 
that have been counterproductive.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder] that I am delighted to see the support for special education. 
And if the gentleman will forgive some of the skepticism among us, we 
do remember, for those of us who have been working very hard to fight 
for special education a long time, we do remember that in 1997 the 
Republicans voted to level-fund special education. We remember that in 
1996 the Republicans voted to cut $25 million for early childhood 
special education personnel training and cut $21 million for innovative 
special education research and development projects. The Republicans 
also voted to cut $90 million for special education teacher training.
  So I, frankly, am delighted to see this support for special 
education, and I would like to work with the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Souder], with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], our 
distinguished chairman, to continue to increase resources for these 
very vital programs. But it seems to me, again, to take it from OSHA 
does not make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana talked about how injuries 
are going down; however, when we look at the numbers and we see the 
tremendous need, we are beginning to see, under leaders like Joe Dear, 
some progress in reforming OSHA. With the help of a bipartisan effort 
in our committee, and in the gentleman's committee, I am sure, if we 
are beginning to see progress, let us continue to make progress, to 
make sure that we protect lives.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that if the 
House wants to make a real choice, rather than taking a few dollars out 
of OSHA and putting a few dollars into special education, I would 
simply note that this House voted to add $331 million to the Department 
of Defense budget for nine B-2 bombers that the Air Force did not want 
and cannot fly in the rain.
  In contrast, OSHA's entire budget is only $336 million. I would 
suggest that if my colleagues want to find money for special education, 
or anything else, rather than running the risk of added workplace 
injuries and deaths, we ought to go to a place that the Pentagon itself 
recognizes is a waste of money and simply eliminate that program. That 
would do a real service to this Nation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not sure if the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina is on the floor, but I talked before 
about the tragic fire in Hamlet, NC, and there was real action after 
that fire. In fact, the number of inspectors were increased 100 
percent. The leaders of that program in North Carolina happened to have 
such an exemplary record that the numbers of workplace injuries have 
continued to decline.
  So I would like to say to the gentleman from Indiana, let us work 
together to increase money for IDEA and other special education 
programs. But while we are working together to improve OSHA, to make 
sure that we are saving lives, let us look at programs like in North 
Carolina where their increased investments have really made a 
difference.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, one question that I would like to ask of 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is that we are not allowed 
to offer any amendments vis-a-vis the Defense bill to education; is 
that not correct? The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
was suggesting that we could find additional money, but we do not have 
that option here tonight.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 
the committee worked incredibly hard making very tough choices. The 
numbers for special education in this bill have increased, I believe it 
was over $313 million, plus 8 percent. So the chairman has done his 
best, working together in a bipartisan way, to invest in special 
education programs, and we welcome the gentleman from Indiana to join 
us so we can continue to look for other opportunities.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I believe the answer to my first question is ``no'', we cannot offer 
any Defense amendments.
  I too praise the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois for special 
education. At the local level, it will probably take between $1 and $2 
billion to meet what we passed in our bill on IDEA. We are doing what 
we can on these different efforts.
  As far as the OSHA questions in themselves, I put forth the actual 
data on the rate of accidents which have been declining, regardless of 
what funding levels we have in Washington. As we reorient those levels 
and work with Mr. Dear in our oversight, appropriations, and 
authorizing committees, I think we can make it more effective and more 
preventive, but it is not proven that it needs more money.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, money is a 
factor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from 
Indiana that money is a factor, because we saw in Hamlet, NC, again as 
I mentioned, after that terrible tragedy, the leaders of the OSHA 
program in North Carolina, working with the Federal Government, were 
able to increase their investment and the numbers of tragedies, the 
numbers of tragedies have gone down tremendously. We see this as a 
model program.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to welcome the gentleman from 
Indiana to our advocates for special education, and I hope we can work 
together to continue to make investments in that program, while not 
cutting other vital programs that make a difference for workers.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is critically important for us to discuss 
this issue and to debate it here on the floor. I, myself, have very, 
very strong feelings about the OSHA Program, about the importance of 
worker safety, and about the IDEA Program and its importance in our 
society.
  But, Mr. Chairman, before I get to the substance of my views on why 
this amendment is so critically important, I must comment on the debate 
that has been going on kind of through the evening. That is the debate 
which most recently was advanced by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro] that these amendments are somehow improper, and that it 
is somehow wrong to debate the priorities of spending in this Congress 
through amendments on the floor to an appropriation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I resent that immensely. This Congress is here 
precisely for that purpose. We have had a

[[Page H6991]]

budget agreement, some call it a tremendously historic budget 
agreement, with our President prior to today's debate. But that sets 
the broad parameter. The public policy within those numbers is decided 
here in the appropriations bill.
  The Committee on Rules set an open rule, as it has always done on 
appropriations matters, and I resent immensely any implication that 
these are other than meritorious debates on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a duty to the American people to 
debate the question of how we spend this money here and now as the bill 
goes through. Of course, we owe some respect to the committee and the 
committee process, but the committee process does not tie our hands. We 
have a duty, we have a right, we have an obligation on each 
appropriations bill that comes to this floor to debate those priorities 
and to decide as a country where the monies we have to spend are to be 
spent. And that is particularly true in difficult times where ample 
funding is not necessary.
  So any implication that we should not be debating this and that we 
have to act as a rubber stamp is dead wrong. And in that regard, I 
would like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
chairman of the subcommittee, who in meetings with myself and others 
prior to this debate made it clear that he fully welcomed a full-blown 
and exhaustive debate of the spending priorities in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, at no point, at no point in those discussions did the 
gentleman ever say that we have an obligation to defer to what the 
committee did; we have a duty to accept what the committee has done; we 
have written it and it is cast in stone.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said the exact opposite. He said that we 
have every single right, issue by issue, to debate the priorities that 
are set forth in this bill as it comes to the floor. The gentleman 
commended us to do it and said he would not criticize us for doing it. 
That is what the process is for, and he welcomed the process. Thank 
goodness we have that process.
  Mr. Chairman, let me turn then to the issue of OSHA and to the issue 
of IDEA and this particular amendment. This amendment does a simple 
thing. It says that OSHA funding, as set last year, is in fact adequate 
to protect America's workers. And any challenge that says, no, it is 
not, and that those who advocate this amendment do not care about 
worker safety, I suggest is an unfair challenge and an unfair attack.
  The facts are as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] stated them. 
Worker accidents have been declining for 4 years straight. They have 
declined when the budget went down. They have declined when the budget 
went up. They have declined when the budget remained constant. I 
suggest it is unfair to characterize those who support this amendment 
as being unconcerned with worker safety. The statistics simply do not 
bear that out.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make another point. I believe in worker safety. 
I once worked as a construction worker and carried a union card. I was 
deeply concerned about union safety. But that was before OSHA existed, 
and I thought the State of Arizona and its safety officials did a good 
job of working to protect the workers on the job site where I was 
earning my living.
  But I think that OSHA has, on occasion, run amuck. When I first got 
elected to Congress, many contractors in the State of Arizona came so 
see me about OSHA's proposed fall standards, and they complained 
bitterly that there was no rationale and no reason; that the fall 
standards were not well written; that they were not thought out. 
Roofers came to me, as well as others in the construction industry. I 
have a brother in Tucson, AZ, who builds homes, and when he saw the 
first draft of those regulations he said, ``John, they're absurd. They 
make me try to protect from falls for people I cannot protect when they 
are not even up in the air. They make me protect framing contractors, 
when I have nothing that I can hook a safety net to.''
  I think OSHA can be improved, but I do not necessarily think that 
every year just as the clock turns we automatically have to give it 
more money. And that brings me to the merits of this very worthwhile 
amendment.
  The IDEA Program is critical, and the parents in my district have 
come to see me about it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Shadegg was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me just recite briefly, also since my 
election in 1994, parents from schools throughout my congressional 
district have come to visit me. They have visited me about the issue of 
special education; both the parents of children who have special 
education needs and the parents of children who do not have special 
education needs. They have made a clear point to me, and that point is 
that at least the parents of those who have children who have special 
education needs think the Federal Government has done the right thing 
in IDEA and the goals it set, but the wrong thing in inadequately 
funding it. The parents of children who do not have special education 
needs have said the lack of funding for special education hurts them.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It ought not to be belittled 
as too small. It should be supported by each and every one of our 
colleagues as moving us in the right direction. And for those who say 
it is not enough, we will offer more amendments later in this debate 
when we get to the education title to move more money into IDEA fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I do think it is an 
amendment that deals with the debate over priorities of spending. We 
have come to a point in American history where we recognize that there 
are only a limited number of dollars available to be spent by 
Washington, because our families out in America are overtaxed already.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if we say there is only a limited number of dollars 
available, we have to do what every American family does. We have to 
decide where it is that is most important that we spend these dollars. 
That is what this debate is all about.
  In this particular debate, we are debating whether or not the dollars 
should be used to increase spending in OSHA or whether the increase 
should go to students with disabilities, to IDEA, instead.

                              {time}  2030

  I would like to start here by reemphasizing the fact that if this 
amendment passes, the OSHA spending does not, in fact, go down but 
rather OSHA spending remains constant at last year's level. In 
Wisconsin, where I come from, if you freeze it at last year's level, 
that is not a cut but spending has been frozen.
  As my colleague who spoke before me from Arizona mentioned, I, too, 
come from the construction industry. I am certainly aware of and 
familiar with safety standards.
  Frankly, you cannot run a business without being first and foremost 
concerned with the safety of your workers. So OSHA is important in 
protecting our workers and providing safety for the workers. That is a 
very high priority, not only to me but to many people out there in this 
country. But that is not what this is about. This is about where it is 
that we are going to allow spending increases to occur in the fiscal 
year 1998 budget process.
  In this particular case, what we are asking to do is redirect the 
increase in spending in OSHA, not a cut, but redirect the increased 
spending dollars over to help students with disabilities. This is about 
education. This is about educating the most needy children in the 
United States of America. This is about directing more dollars to the 
students who are most in need. That is really what this whole thing 
comes down to. What we are trying to do is redirect the $11 million 
increase that was slated for OSHA over to the most needy students in 
education in the whole United States of America; that is, our students 
with disabilities.
  I would reemphasize that this is not a cut in spending of OSHA but 
rather freezing OSHA spending at last year's levels. OSHA was set up in 
1970 to provide for worker safety and to help

[[Page H6992]]

make the workplace a safer facility for workers. In 1990, we had the 
only real amendment to the OSHA rule. They increased the fine sevenfold 
in 1990. We find that the majority of those fines deal with paperwork 
as opposed to some safety violation with roofing or something else of 
that nature. That is the reason for concern.
  But again, that is not the heart and soul of what this bill is about. 
This bill is about debating what it is that is the highest priority to 
spend tax dollars, money that is hard-earned by the working people out 
there in America, what is the highest priority that we spend those 
limited available dollars on and should it go to increase spending in 
OSHA, which hires more Washington people, or should it instead go to 
help students with disabilities, perhaps the most needy part of 
education in the whole country?
  For my vote, I certainly intend to vote to send the money to the 
students. Students with disabilities certainly have a high priority as 
far as I am concerned on where we should be spending money.
  Over the course of this debate we will be debating lots of amendments 
that deal with redirecting funds from one portion of this bill to 
another portion. All through the night we are going to be talking about 
what it is that is the most highest priority for people in this 
Congress to spend.
  So for me I plan to vote for the amendment. I am going to vote to 
freeze OSHA spending at last year's levels. No cuts. I am going to vote 
to freeze it at last year's levels and redirect the money to the 
neediest students in this country, to IDEA. I would certainly encourage 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee headed by our colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the members of that committee did 
a wonderful job in providing for real reform of the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Program earlier this year. Along with 
the reforms that they accomplished, it is very clear, and I think we 
all agree on both sides of the aisle, that additional moneys are needed 
to help kids with disabilities and to provide relief to local taxpayers 
for the mandate that IDEA imposes on States and local school districts.
  For that reason, last year we increased funding in this bill by $790 
million. This year we increased funding by an additional $312 million. 
And earlier in this bill we accepted an amendment from the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to add an additional $25 million. The 
total increase in the last 2 years is $1.127 billion.
  The Senate has provided even a greater increase this year in their 
bill, $600 million more than we provided in the House bill. I believe I 
can assure Members, depending on the level of allocation, that we are 
very likely to go as far as we can toward the Senate's higher number. 
IDEA is very high priority for us. We certainly are not shirking our 
responsibility to provide all the funding that we can for it.
  It has been said repeatedly that OSHA, on both sides of this debate, 
that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] is moving 
in the right direction, and that we ought to encourage them to continue 
to move in that direction. It is a direction that moves away from the 
``gotcha,'' and moves toward helping businesses to make the workplace 
safer. Its basic promise is that OSHA must work cooperatively with 
business to ensure greater worker protection.
  It has been said also that if we level-fund a program or department 
of government, that they are getting the same amount of money as the 
previous year. That would be true if there were no inflation in our 
economy. Unfortunately, there still is some, and what we did in this 
bill is provide an increase overall for OSHA of about 3.5 percent over 
last year.
  As I said earlier, a 3.5 percent increase is $11.6 million below the 
President's budget request. If you take the cost increases, that is, 
the inflation increases and Federal pay raises, you actually are 
providing a reduction from last year in terms of actual buying power. 
So we are attempting to do what has been said over and over by the 
proponents of this amendment, to hold OSHA at approximately the same 
spending level as last year, given inflation. In the process we have 
moved the additional dollars, into compliance assistance rather than 
into Federal enforcement. In fact, if you look at the overall figure on 
the Federal level of compliance assistance, we have increased that by 
22 percent whereas Federal enforcement has increased by only 1 percent.
  So I think we are moving in the direction that the gentleman would 
like to move. This amendment is basically the same amendment as the one 
we just considered. Rather than putting the money cut from OSHA into 
vocational education, it would take the funding and put it in IDEA. The 
amendment cuts exactly the same amount of money as the previous 
amendment.
  As I said before, we have done everything we possibly can to move 
money into IDEA. I believe that we have struck the right balance 
between each of these programs and that the amendment really is just 
not necessary.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] for increasing funding in IDEA. I want to point out to the 
gentleman that it is only at 12 percent level. We are funding at 100 
percent from home, from the districts and counties. The law that was 
passed in this Congress said that we would fund it at 40 percent. So 
that is what we are trying to ask to be done, is fund it at the level 
the law requires.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the increased funding for 
OSHA this year, the $11.25 million. Does the gentleman know that that 
will save one life?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I know that without it, we may lose more 
lives. I think the answer is that no one knows that, to reply to the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if you look at numbers over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of what the 
funding level was versus how many deaths we had in the workplace, you 
clearly can conclude pretty quickly we do not know that we will improve 
the situation at all by increased funding.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman, I believe that we are doing better now in terms of overall 
support for IDEA than we have ever done in the past. And while I agree 
with the gentleman, we have to do as much more as we possibly can, I 
think we have done a very, very good job of increasing funding for this 
vital program. This amendment would not make any substantial difference 
in what we have accomplished.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out, in answer 
to the other gentleman's question, that according to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, the combined rate of workplace injuries and illness 
in the private sector fell from 11 per hundred workers in 1973.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
fell from 11 per hundred workers in 1973, which is the first year that 
data were reported, to 8.4 per hundred workers in 1994. That is a 24-
percent decrease. The decrease in both injury and illnesses has been 
the most significant in the industries where we have had the toughest 
enforcement; namely, manufacturing, construction, and mining 
industries. So I think it is obvious that the less we do to finance 
OSHA, the less we do to create a safe and healthy workplace for 
American workers.

[[Page H6993]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the amendment in transferring 
money from OSHA to handicapped children and to the local school boards, 
the local school boards and the folks back home, the property taxpayers 
are making up the difference now in this important IDEA program. We 
need to help them out. This amendment gives us an opportunity to do 
that. But it also gives us an opportunity to send yet another message 
to OSHA that the American people want to get the Government off its 
back. OSHA is a nitpicking regulatory agency, far beyond their alleged 
mission of human safety. We talk about safety. It is like OSHA has the 
franchise on it, Mr. Chairman.
  The fact is that let us just say the businesses of America did not 
care about their workers. Let us just say it did not matter to them. 
What would be the consequence of having somebody hurt to a 
manufacturing plant? Workers compensation premiums would go up. That is 
a substantial amount of money. The workers who are injured would cause 
downtime to the production line. The machinery would be broken; the 
car, for example, would be wrecked. There would be bad will. There 
would be morale problems. There would be a PR problem. All of these 
things come into play in the event that a business is not concerned 
about safety.
  But the reality is, Mr. Chairman, businesses do care about their 
employees. They want their employees to stay there for a long time. 
They want their employees to be safe. They want their employees to be 
comfortable, secure, and happy. And that is why they take lots and lots 
of precautions on their own without OSHA coming in and interfering.
  Here is the light reading of the night, Mr. Chairman. You look like 
you have some spare moments up there. This is the OSHA regulation on 
asbestos. You will remember that the Environmental Protection Agency 
outlawed asbestos in all forms and a court threw that out and said, you 
can't go that far; you are going beyond your mission statement.
  But OSHA steps in and says, that is OK. We will enforce it, even 
though the court said not to. What fine work did they produce as a 
result of their interference? The first thing they did is they came up 
with a new brake for cars, even though using the asbestos in automobile 
brakes did not cause any damage in terms of people breathing asbestos 
or anything like that. OSHA came in and said, you have to have new 
brakes on cars.
  These new brakes, Mr. Chairman, take twice as long to brake, and as a 
result, according to a scientific study by the National Safety Board, 
Transportation, we have been losing 150 people more each year. I 
repeat, 150 deaths have been caused in addition because of OSHA's great 
work on taking asbestos out of brakes. That is not looking out for 
worker safety.
  What are some of the other fine examples of the great work that they 
do?
  Well, there was the case of a business that had a problem with 
employees stealing fire extinguishers, so the business put the fire 
extinguishers behind a very thin, breakable glass. But then the OSHA 
inspector came back around and said the fire extinguishers were no 
longer accessible because they were behind this breakable glass. The 
company was fined.
  Then there was the case of a shampoo manufacturer. The shampoo 
manufacturer, Mr. Chairman, used large stainless steel open vats to mix 
the product in. When they were cleaning the product, the bowl, of 
course, was empty and employees would actually go inside the bowl and 
clean it.
  Well, even though there was no top on them, not just during the 
cleaning but actually during the mixing of the product, there was not a 
top for these large vats or bowls, OSHA came in and said that the 
workers who were cleaning the bowls were in a confined space and, 
therefore, they needed to be treated like they were in an enclosed 
tank. So OSHA required the shampoo company to have rescue teams 
standing by with respirators and so forth. This is an absurd example of 
a bureaucracy that has gone crazy.
  A couple of other examples. In Indiana, there was a company called 
Zilkowski Construction Company that was fined for having a can of 
Pledge furniture polish in a trailer with no material safety data sheet 
on it. Is that not a real treacherous situation for workers to be 
exposed to a can of Pledge furniture polish?

                              {time}  2045

  And then here is another one. 1992, a company in South Bend, IN was 
cited by OSHA for not having a brand specifics material data safety 
sheet for chalk. That is chalk that you would write with. That is the 
kind of ridiculous thing OSHA would do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply point out that the gentleman is 
talking about occurrences in OSHA which can no longer occur because Mr. 
Dear, when he became director, issued an order which told OSHA not to 
issue fines because of any consumer product problems that were found. 
That would deal with whether we are talking about Pledge or whether we 
are dealing with any of the other items that were raised on the 
gentleman's side tonight.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am glad the 
gentleman brings that out because it makes us think maybe there is hope 
for reform in this agency, but I am still not, and most of the folks 
back home who were employers who are suffering from all this 
nitpicking, I still believe they are saying, do not increase this 
agency, do not send more Government down here to my manufacturing 
plant.
  It is interesting, the manufacturing jobs in America in 1960 were 
two-thirds of the working population. Today they are one-third. One of 
the major reasons why businesses go overseas, Mr. Chairman, and we are 
losing the manufacturing base is because businesses here are having to 
pay too high a price to do business and commerce in America because of 
excessive regulatory agencies such as OSHA.
  I say, let us not increase them at this time, let us leave their 
funding at a level base and let us send the difference to handicapped 
and disabled children in our districts.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk about IDEA for just one moment. As a 
practicing physician, I have three patients that are very dear to me. 
One of them is Brandon Jones. I delivered Brandon about 9 years ago and 
he has a syndrome called Vader Syndrome. He has pulmonary hypertension. 
He wears oxygen all the time. He has a limited life expectancy, and yet 
in the public school system in Muskogee, OK, he has to, by Federal 
mandate, be offered every opportunity to do what every other child can 
do. The costs for him are approximately $100,000 a year, just for his 
education.
  There is Felicia Fallegey. At 2 years of age, she was shaken by a 
babysitter and now has severe, severe cerebral atrophy and damage, yet, 
by mandate and by right gets to attend school. The cost for this child, 
who cannot move, who cannot move any extremity, who is bedfast, the 
cost to care for her in terms of her educational assessment is 
significant.
  Finally, there is Courtney Johnson. Courtney was born with a cerebral 
accident of malformation at birth. Her developmental abilities have 
been limited. She is now 13 years of age and is required to have every 
opportunity for an education that any normal child can have.
  What is the problem with all that? We are $500 million short, Mr. 
Chairman, of what we should have in the IDEA program. And what we need 
to do is to look at the school system in Muskogee, OK, that is running 
a deficit this year. They will not be able to educate all the normal 
children in our district because we have multiple numbers like these 
children who deserve this opportunity. But the Federal Government, the 
U.S. Congress, refuses to send the money that rightfully should go to 
the individual school district.
  When we vote on this amendment, I hope my colleagues will remember

[[Page H6994]]

Courtney and I hope we will remember Brandon and I hope we will 
remember Felicia for the positive things IDEA will do for them. But I 
also hope we will remember the rest of the children who will not get 
the things they need because we have mandated a policy and we are not 
willing to pay for it.
  Remember Brandon, remember Felicia, and remember Courtney.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to take money that 
is currently going to be directed to OSHA and move it toward the IDEA 
program.
  Special education and special needs children have not been fully 
funded, as has been pointed out earlier, and I think this is a 
wonderful opportunity to do something about that. When I think of the 
extra costs that are associated with these children and the 
opportunities they could have by taking $11.25 million from OSHA and 
moving it to them, I think there should not be any question for a 
Member of Congress to rise to this opportunity to help these children.
  Now, we could go on and talk about some of these children and their 
special needs, as the gentleman from Oklahoma pointed out, who is also 
a physician and knows very well on personal terms. I know several 
children myself that are currently in special needs programs. My wife 
worked in special education as a speech therapist in public schools for 
4 years, working directly with these children, and there is a great 
need for us to rise to the occasion to give them this additional 
funding.
  If we talk to any school board member across the United States, and 
in Kansas I have spoken with members of the school board, and quite 
often their request is that we help with the funding for special needs 
children to give them the opportunity to be mainstreamed, give them the 
opportunity to share learning opportunities that are the same as other 
children have. Yet this is a mandate that they be educated, a mandate 
from the Federal Government, and we do not fully fund it. We do not 
give the financial backing for the mandate.
  This is something that has been around for some time, and it is a 
problem that has been around for quite a while, and yet tonight we have 
the opportunity to do something to correct that, one small step in the 
right direction.
  Where are we taking this money from? We are diverting it from OSHA, 
diverting it from an organization that has had a lot of problems and is 
in need of reform. I think we have seen some initial steps.
  I know that I have met with the regional director for OSHA in Kansas 
and he is open to making changes that will work toward a common goal of 
a safe work environment. And yet when he takes these ideas, and maybe I 
should explain a little how this came about, I was at the State fair 2 
years ago and he walked up to my booth and we struck up a conversation; 
and I asked him if he would be open to meeting with members of 
industry, with members of the construction trades and with members of 
people who interface with OSHA, because they are out there creating and 
trying to keep jobs in the Kansas area, and he said he would be glad to 
do that.
  So we got together about 30 members of business, small businesses, 
large businesses, and they met with OSHA, and they came up with a 
format where they could find onerous regulations and then come up with 
solutions to change those regulations to get to that common goal of a 
safe work environment. Well, these ideas are now flowing back up to 
Washington, DC, and so far we have not seen a lot of change.
  But we have seen changes even in the private sector where insurance 
companies will come into a plant and they will show a plant how they 
can make a more safe environment; and they work hand-in-hand with the 
people that are creating and keeping the jobs, work hand-in-hand 
because there is a common goal there of lowering insurance rates and 
creating a safer work environment. And they make suggestions.

  So one of the questions that I had for OSHA was, why can OSHA not 
work together with the companies and come up with a way of making a 
safer work environment? Why does there always have to be a fine on 
everyone the first visit? And some of the ideas that came out of these 
meetings with business and OSHA was that, well, why do we not, at the 
request of the employer, allow OSHA to come in with the guarantee there 
would not be any fines, but they would go through and list some things 
that would be potential hazards, get some kind of agreement and a time 
period to change this work situation or this work location, I should 
say, change this work location so that they can make a safe work 
environment, thereby working together, working together with the people 
who are making the jobs, with OSHA in getting a safe environment, much 
like the current insurance companies do when they come in and do a risk 
assessment.
  So OSHA would come in and do this risk assessment, it would give them 
the opportunity to tell the employer where they had shortcomings. The 
employer could then have a time period to make those changes; and the 
end result, the common goal, the whole reason that we have OSHA in the 
first place, would be a safer work environment.
  But that is not what has been happening. So this is an opportunity 
for OSHA to come about and change and move the money to children with 
special needs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of proponents of this amendment have risen 
with some degree of concern about the characterization of motives. I do 
not intend to characterize anybody's motive; however, I do intend to 
observe what I think is happening.
  There is a desire to cut OSHA. There have been a series of amendments 
to effect that end. The common theme of those amendments is to cut OSHA 
or worker-related wage and hour enforcement in the Department of Labor. 
So that is an observation; it is not a question of any motive.
  I frankly conclude that the effort is to cut $11.2 million out of 
OSHA from the last two amendments. I understand that. I am confused, I 
will tell my friend, when I see, as I have expressed before, the 1995 
budget offered by those who were here at that point in time and I see 
over $120 million cut in special education, including $90 million cut 
for special education teachers of those children that the doctor 
mentioned a little earlier.
  Frankly, my colleagues will forgive us on this side if we do not 
think there is somewhat of a dichotomy in that action, a contradiction.
  That aside, let me speak to OSHA and some of the other observations 
that have been made. A number of speakers, including the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia, have noted that the figures have gotten better 
in the last 4 years. Now, I do not necessarily think that is a 
surprise. Very frankly, there has been not a particularly warm feeling 
about OSHA demonstrated on the other side of the aisle and, frankly, in 
some respects, on our side of the aisle.
  The fact of the matter is, the new administration came in and said, 
we want to do business in a new way. Mr. Dear, whom the chairman has 
talked about and others of us have talked about, came in and did, in 
fact, redirect, reinvented in some respects, the OSHA regime. And in 
fact I do not think it is a coincidence that things have gotten better 
during the last 4 years under the Clinton administration and OSHA under 
the Clinton administration.
  But I will say in this context, as well, with respect to OSHA, that 
the other side wants to cut. In 1980, there were 2,962 employees in 
OSHA. Today there are 2,230. This is not a bureaucracy out of control. 
This is, in fact, a substantially reduced complement of employees at 
OSHA trying to cover more workplaces and more workers.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that figure 
includes State OSHA inspectors, as well?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say, no, this is 
Federal.
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, it 
is important that that is not the limited number of people who are 
inspecting the workplace.

[[Page H6995]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, obviously, we are not budgeting for the 
States, so I understand that.
  Mr. COBURN. Much of that has been shifted to the States who have 
received that clearance from OSHA; is that correct?
  Mr. HOYER. I tell the gentleman, as he well knows, this cut will not 
affect the States. This cut will only affect the Federal agency.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that one 
little issue?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that this is 
not a cut. We are simply freezing it at the same level it was last 
year, $325.7 million.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
gentleman's proposition. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
clearly and accurately pointed out, this is less than inflation plus 
the pay raise that is going to its employees. So as the gentleman from 
Illinois correctly pointed out, there is less buying power.
  But that aside, the number, frankly, in my opinion, is not the issue 
here, because although $11.2 million to all of us is a very large 
number, when compared with 90 million workers working in the workplace, 
it is a relatively small number when divided by that figure and the 
extension of protection.
  Let me make this point. The good doctor correctly observed that IDEA 
is serving some very, very important people and, frankly, I do not take 
a back seat to anybody in this body on a commitment to those with 
disabilities. But I will also tell my friend that there has been very, 
very, very substantial progress since 1970 when OSHA was adopted in 
workplace safety both at the State in the Federal level throughout the 
country and in each of our States because, in my opinion, of OSHA; and 
the statistics bear that out.

                              {time}  2100

  I tell my friend that while it is critically important that we spend 
money on those children with disabilities----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Critically important, I tell my friend the gentleman from 
Oklahoma who as a doctor I am sure has seen people injured in the 
workplace who are almost, if not in exactly the same condition because 
of a work-related injury, in similar conditions. And that it is equally 
important that we try to prevent those accidents from occurring, make 
the workplace more safe so that they will continue to be productive 
citizens, so that employers will save money, insurance companies will 
save money, and we will have a better economy and a more productive 
workforce.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. I happen to represent the district where the people were 
killed in Hamlet, NC, a very tragic thing that we had there. There was 
a lot of blame placed on different agencies. I also had people come to 
my office that said they had been in the textile business, that we have 
got to do something about OSHA.
  I said: ``How long you been in the textile business?"
  ``Our family has been in it 36 years.''
  ``How many times you been checked by OSHA?''
  ``Well, we've never been checked by OSHA but we know some people in 
Asheville that was checked and some of the horror stories.''
  Mr. Chairman, there needs to be some changes made. But I would like 
to ask the gentleman from Georgia, if we took the $11 million he is 
talking about and divided it up among the school districts across the 
United States, how much each school district would get.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I think as I recall it came out to about $30,000, but 
that is not all the point.
  Mr. HEFNER. The way I figured it up, each school district across the 
United States would get $700. Am I wrong?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. In Muskogee, Oklahoma, we would be happy to have the $700 
that would come to our school district since we have a deficit, and one 
of the reasons we do is because of the mandate of IDEA on us to educate 
all our children, not those with just special disabilities. This debate 
is about priorities. We are going to spend the money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. We are going to spend the money, we have all agreed to 
that. I did not vote for the budget, but that was the will of this 
House. The President and the Congress decided to do that. There is 
nothing wrong with having a debate about where we ought to spend it. We 
are not spending enough money on IDEA. We can achieve better efficiency 
within the bureaucracies. We can. To say we cannot, we should give up 
and go home now. That is what we are asking.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Oklahoma, if I 
may make this point, Mr. Chairman, the point here is you want to cut 
OSHA. I understand what is being talked about. This budget increases 
IDEA special education by $338 million, 8 percent. That is only 8 
percent. I have not extrapolated in my head what $11.2 million does but 
if 338 is 8 percent, it is obviously below 1 percent.
  Mr. COBURN. Three percent. I am talking about OSHA.
  Mr. HOYER. But in terms of IDEA, what you are doing for IDEA is 
essentially only in form, not in substance. The reason for that is that 
the need that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] talks about in 
terms of 40 percent, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. 
We would have to put a whole lot more money in there. We adopted a 
budget agreement. We would like to have a whole lot more money for 
almost every object in this bill. Why? Because as Mr. Natcher from 
Kentucky used to say, this is the people's bill. It deals with their 
health and with their education, their workplace safety, the very guts 
of their lives. That is why this bill is so popular. But when you 
increase an object by $338 million and then come back and say, well, we 
need $11 million additional, all of us know that that will not make a 
very big impact at all although it will make a big impact to reduce the 
compliance in OSHA.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. It is sort of like saving money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Norwood, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. We put $1 in at the 
time until we build it up and finally get IDEA funded. But the point 
here is we know what the $11.25 million would do in IDEA and we do not 
know what the $11.25 million would do in OSHA. There is no way for 
anybody in this room to say they know spending that extra $11 million 
next year is going to achieve a certain goal. You cannot prove it from 
the past numbers.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one of the great 
difficulties obviously talking about Federal expenditures, it is very 
difficult and clearly I think the gentleman would find it impossible to 
say we are going to make a marked difference between an increase of 
$338 million and an increase of $349 million in special education. I 
think that would be an appropriate step for us to take if we had the 
money available to do that. Having said that, I think one can show that 
there has been a marked increase in

[[Page H6996]]

worker safety as a result of the expenditures made in OSHA at the 
Federal and State levels.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. The gentleman from Georgia, I do not think one can have a 
guarantee that any program that we do is going to save one life or what 
have you. If we want to go under that assumption, we should not spend 
any money for breast cancer because we cannot say that the money we 
spend for breast cancer is going to save one person. But now this 
money, if you take $11 million, if you want to really do something, the 
gentleman from Illinois would like to have more 302 allocation to go to 
this program. Get the big bucks in there to fund it at 40 percent. But 
a lot of folks on that side did not even vote for the disabilities and 
did not vote for the bill, did not vote for minimum wage and for 
workers. To me, this is a little bit frivolous, and I am not judging, 
but to me we are making a whole lot of an argument out of $11 million. 
That is going to be $700 to each school district in this country. That 
just will not get it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception among many 
people on that side of the aisle that more spending means less deaths. 
I want to say in 1994 the number of work-related deaths was 6,632. That 
number dropped in 1996 to 6,112 and that was with very, very limited 
increases on the budget for OSHA, in fact so limited that you routinely 
call it a cut. Let us be honest with ourselves. There is not a proven 
relationship in spending more money on OSHA bureaucrats and saving 
workers.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to point out 
to the gentlemen who were just engaged a moment ago in the colloquy a 
couple of salient points I mentioned last week and I think bears 
mentioning again tonight. First of all, the contention has been made 
that amendments that involve a relatively small, even insignificant 
amount of money like 4 million extra, the vocational education 
amendment, or $11 million more will not do much to meet the Federal 
obligation to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education in 
America today. I would submit that just the opposite is true. We want 
colleagues to keep moving in the direction, and I should not have to 
tell this to a distinguished senior member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, but we want to move in the Senate's direction. The 
other body has increased funding in their version of this bill by $830 
million, building on the $700 million increase in last year's bill for 
special education. Why? Because apparently they take more serious than 
the House of Representatives the obligation of Federal taxpayers to pay 
40 percent of the cost of special education pursuant to the original 
legislation back in the mid-1970s.
  Second, again the point that I made last week, if we can reach $1 
billion in new Federal spending for special education, local school 
districts are then able to redirect the money that they are spending on 
special education to meet other important local educational needs. But 
what I do not understand about this debate is why those who oppose this 
amendment are not talking about holding government programs 
accountable. That is beyond me. Because in the case of the Department 
of Labor, we are talking about a $12 billion governmental bureaucracy 
based here in Washington, DC.
  We have been endeavoring to deliver better services at less cost to 
taxpayers. The Republican-controlled Congress can take pride in the 
fact that we have rooted out waste and duplication. We have eliminated 
320 Federal programs and grants, and we have now of course achieved a 
bipartisan agreement to balance the budget for the first time in a 
generation. We are going to continue our efforts to make sure 
government is held accountable for actual results, using legislation 
passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, the Government 
Performance and Results Act.
  It is a 1993 law, the purpose of which again is to make sure that the 
Federal Government is smarter and more accountable. Under this act, the 
Results Act, GPRA, it is called, every agency must submit to Congress 
clear and concise strategic plans to justify what it is trying to 
accomplish, why it matters, and whether the agency is successful in 
accomplishing its goals.
  To date, these executive branch agencies, these agencies of the 
Clinton administration, are receiving failing grades for compliance. In 
fact, only 4 of the 24 agencies received grades of at least 50 out of a 
possible 105 for their draft plans. The highest graded agency was the 
Social Security Administration, receiving a 62 percent, while the 
lowest, no surprise to my colleagues who want to find further grounds 
to vote for this amendment, the lowest was the Department of Labor, 
which received a pathetic 6.5 percent grade out of a possible 105.
  Do not buy the argument that this $11 million increase, new spending, 
will be lost somehow in this $12 billion bureaucracy. Do support the 
amendment, because this $11 million will go a lot further to meet the 
educational needs of children with learning disabilities and to fulfill 
that original Federal obligation, that mandate on Federal taxpayers 
that Federal taxpayers bear at least 40 percent of the cost of special 
education in America.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to address some of those who have been 
churlish enough to suggest that this is not the finest use of time of 
this body. This has been a very educational debate. For instance, I did 
not know until right now that if you were opposed to the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration you pronounce it AHSHA, whereas if you 
are in favor of its mission, you pronounce it OHSHA. I will now 
recommend to people that when you hear them say AHSHA they wish it was 
abolished. When they say OHSHA, they are in favor of it. That may be 
the only thing people will learn tonight.
  There is one other thing. I did want to extend condolences. I have 
some colleagues on our side who have been talking about slowing down 
the procedures of the House to demonstrate the importance of campaign 
financing. I congratulate some on the other side who have figured out 
how to preempt that because there is no way in the world anybody could 
be noticed as slowing down this process. So the Republican 
conservatives have here preempted the Democratic liberals. There is no 
way anyone will notice that people are trying to burlesque these 
proceedings with this set of amendments.
  But now let us get to the merits. I think it is very important. We 
are here choosing between worthy programs, because I think both aid to 
children with disabilities, and I heard one of my colleagues 
complaining that the Federal Government is insisting that children be 
educated. I suppose there are some who think that is a terrible thing 
for the Federal Government to do. I think it is rather a good thing for 
the government to do. But I would acknowledge, we are forced to choose 
between two good things, because I am in the ``pronounce it OHSHA'' 
category. I think having a Federal agency that tries to reduce death 
and industrial accidents is important. I think the history is clear 
that left to their own devices, corporations, not because they are evil 
but because they are profit maximizers, by instinct will not in fact 
put enough into safety and health. Unless you have a government entity 
insisting on that, there simply will not be enough. Is it perfect? No. 
But here is what strikes me. We are choosing between two goods. And we 
are choosing at very small margins.
  Meanwhile, this House continues to support tens of billions of 
dollars for the B-2 bomber. People have talked about problems with 
individual decisions of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, but the majority voted for an airplane that cannot go 
out in the rain.

                              {time}  2115

  If, in fact, OSHA had ever decided that you could not make umbrellas 
that would retract in the rain, we would be very upset. But we just did 
this with a big airplane.
  So what this demonstrates is the lack of sensible priorities that has 
been

[[Page H6997]]

governing in this House. If in fact we were to vote enough for the 
military, but not way too much, we would not have this problem.
  I should note one other thing for people to keep track of, and that 
is when is a level funding in dollars not a cut? Well, it is not a cut 
when it happens to deal with occupational safety and health.
  If you provide the same dollars for the Labor Department, that is not 
a cut; but if you were to provide the same dollars for the Defense 
Department, that is a cut. People who denounce the notion that level 
funding is a cut here will tell us that we are making a cut there.
  There is, of course, a difference. We are debating $11 million here. 
In the defense bill, we would not debate $11 million because of the 
principle de minimis non curat lex, or the law does not deal with 
trifles. Neither does the defense appropriation bill. Because 
``million,'' I do not think in the Pentagon there is an ``M'' on the 
typewriter, because they never deal with less than a billion.
  A million, nobody would notice a million. As a matter of fact, I 
think it would be a violation of occupational safety and health to tell 
the Pentagon to worry about millions, because they spend so much money, 
they would get severe eyestrain if they had to worry about millions.
  So what we have here is a very clear indication of the distorted 
priorities that obtain in this House. No, we should not have to choose 
between trying to prevent occupational disasters for working men and 
women and educating children.
  I hope when we vote again on the budget and when the appropriations 
committees' conferences come back, we will cut a tinsy-little bit out 
of that military, and they will be able to take care of OHSHA, AHSHA, 
and the children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 240, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               AYES--157

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

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     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
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Baker
     Barcia
     Bliley
     Capps
     Carson
     Cooksey
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     McInnis
     Miller (CA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Thomas
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2134

  The Clerk announcd the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Scarborough for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee against.

  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KIM changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the subcommittee chairman, as well as the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for bringing 
the bill before us.
  The measure contains over $2.5 billion for the National Cancer 
Institute, an agency whose mission is to support basic and applied 
cancer research and treatment. With that in mind, I would like to 
engage Chairman Porter in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, proton beam therapy is a promising form of treatment 
for cancer and other life-threatening afflictions. This type of 
treatment provides an increased dose to the tumor and because the dose 
distribution is delivered more precisely, damage to surrounding tissue 
is reduced in comparison to conventional radiation.
  The National Cancer Institute is presently funding a proton beam 
facility as part of its treatment research program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
does he believe it would be useful for the National Cancer Institute to 
fund additional proton beam facilities to further its research 
objectives?

[[Page H6998]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the committee has a 
strong tradition of refraining from directing NIH to conduct specific 
types of research with particular research mechanisms. I would be 
pleased, however, to consult with the National Cancer Institute to 
learn their views on the advisability of funding an additional proton 
beam program within the resources provided in this bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:

       Page 17, line 14, after the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``and including $68,725,000 for Federal compliance 
     assistance under the Occupational Safety an Health Act,''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] is recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment, 
which I believe the Parliamentarian has ruled in order.
  I am in strong support of this amendment to increase OSHA's 
compliance assistance program by 50 percent, $23 million over the 
recommended amount of $45.725 million. The increase in funding to this 
vital program would be offset by decreases to funding for Federal 
enforcement by $21 million, it has currently $127.166 million in the 
bill, and taking $2 million from executive administration, which has 
$6.586 million currently in the bill.
  The reason for the wording of the amendment is because it is on the 
same line. We had to increase the line on compliance, and then in the 
debate here, make clear what the amendment was intended to do.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from Members on the other side of 
the aisle tonight about the importance of compliance and working with 
businesses, and I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for having increased, as I said earlier, the amount of 
dollars in compliance.
  But I think we need more. In fact, I think the majority of the 
dollars should be used for compliance efforts, and the enforcement 
efforts should be used for highlighting and focusing on the high-risk 
cases and that the first goal should be to work to protect the safety 
of all the workers in this country, not in bureaucratic overhead and in 
harassment for the many types of stories that we have heard here 
tonight.
  So I presume that there will be a lot of support for this amendment 
on the other side of the aisle, as well, because this is consistent 
with the concerns we have heard all evening. This increases the 
compliance sector, which they were already doing. It goes along the 
lines of what Mr. Dear has testified in front of our Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and has said in front of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce that he wants to move more towards 
compliance.
  It increases on-site consultation programs by designated agencies. It 
increases conducting general outreach activities and providing 
technical assistance at the request of employers. It increases training 
and education grants. It fosters and promotes voluntary protection 
programs, and gives recognition and assistance to employers who 
establish occupational safety and health programs. It provides 
additional money for the OSHA Training Institute.
  To provide the additional funding, the amendment would reduce 
overhead and administrative costs in OSHA and transfer 16 percent of 
the funding for Federal enforcement for compliance. This does not 
eliminate Federal enforcement. Furthermore, it does not even touch the 
State category of, I think it is around $57 million in enforcement. So 
the bulk of the enforcement funding is there. It is just saying we need 
to move at a faster rate towards compliance and working with businesses 
and employees to avoid accidents, rather than the harassment that we 
have seen and illustrated.
  Furthermore, I believe we will see the science will change, where 
thus far, as we have pointed out several times tonight, funding went up 
1 year, down 1 year, stayed level another year, and in fact the rate of 
accidents and deaths have been declining steadily. It does not appear 
correlated with OSHA funding.
  If we move the OSHA funding more, with less money, in this case we 
are not even reducing the money, we are just transferring it, and we 
should get more bang for the buck through compliance than through 
enforcement. So I challenge my colleagues to put their money where 
their mouths have been earlier this evening, because we have heard a 
lot of good words from the other side of the aisle about the importance 
of compliance.
  I want to point out another thing. We have had a number of 
interesting votes here tonight, several votes, including one last week, 
where we had a clear choice: to put more money into IDEA and help 
children, or to give the money to Federal bureaucrats. Twice the House, 
with the majority of the Members from the other side, voted to put more 
money in the bureaucrats rather than towards the children.
  We also had one in vocational education for education versus money 
for the bureaucrats coming out of Washington. That was defeated, once 
again with the majority of the Members on the other side of the aisle 
side voting against more money for vocational education and more money 
for IDEA.
  But there is also an interesting phenomenon occurring on our side. 
That is, fully two-thirds to three-quarters of the Republicans have 
been voting against the bill that is being offered to a Republican 
Congress. It is just the start of a bill that we are going to hear 
debated at least the rest of this week and probably into next week, and 
we are only on title I.
  What we have seen is that the majority of the Republican Party here, 
along with some from the other side, in a bipartisan effort, are 
disturbed about the things in this bill that affect the business 
community and the workers of this country. We are soon going to hear in 
section 2 that we are concerned about drug needles, we are concerned 
about parental notification, we are concerned about lack of funds for 
breast cancer and other things that we believe are more deserving than 
some of the other parts of the bill.
  Then we will move into the education section, where we are concerned 
that we are creating new programs without any hearings, instead of 
funding programs like IDEA, which we have already agreed in the House 
needs funding.

                              {time}  2145

  Then we are going to move to the other agencies, of which there are 
several, that we said that when we were elected the majority we were 
going to change, and in fact are seeing either increases in funding or 
programmatic increases. This is not something that is just focused on 
this title, but this title has been very clear. I appreciate the 
opportunity that we have had to debate with the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] and other Members of Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist upon his point 
of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to debate this measure tonight with no 
one here, my understanding is that Members have been told that there 
would be no more votes tonight. Under those circumstances, it seems to 
me that since, I assume as was the case on previous amendments, the 
sponsors will want to be recognized again tomorrow to refresh the 
memory of the House with respect to their arguments, I see no point in 
debating this issue further tonight and would inquire what the 
intention of that side of the aisle in terms of debating this 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, my understanding, because the Chair was 
about to put the question because there was no more speakers, I would 
intend that the Committee would now rise.

[[Page H6999]]

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of more Members who did 
not realize that we were going to go to that procedure as fast. However 
we do that, we can either debate further tomorrow morning or have some 
of the debate tonight, but there is an intention to not have long 
debate on this necessarily, but there will be one more amendment on 
this title.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will strike the last 
word tomorrow and make my arguments then.
  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. 
Shadegg] 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.

                          ____________________