[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4087-H4106]
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, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Pursuant to House Resolution 
518 and rule XVIII, 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. 4577.

                              {time}  1735


                     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. 4577) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) had been 
disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 2, line 3 to 
page 3, line 4.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Porter) if he would yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a brief 
colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, on April 12, 2000, I testified in the 
subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) with a 
group representing the bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus about a 
problem that affects women slightly more than men but has become a 
major national health problem across the entire population for children 
and for men and women of every age group and background.
  Alarming increases in overweight and obesity increasingly have become 
a major American health problem. More than 50 percent of Americans are 
overweight or obese.
  Surgeon General David Satcher says that overweight and obesity are 
major contributors to many preventable diseases and causes of death, 
including cardiovascular diseases, stroke, high blood pressure, high 
cholesterol, Type II diabetes, arthritis, gallbladder disease, asthma, 
and some cancers, including breast, endometrial, prostate, and colon 
cancers. The incidence of overweight and obesity is the worst in our 
history.
  Obesity trends are particularly serious among the youngest Americans. 
Almost 25 percent of young people ages 6 to 17 are overweight, and the 
percentage who are seriously overweight has doubled in the last 30 
years. The responsibility of lifestyle for this troubling trend, 
especially fast food and lack of exercise, is very clear.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for 
including $125 million in this Labor, HHS appropriations bill that will 
allow the Centers for Disease Control to begin a more aggressive 
national effort against overweight and obesity.
  I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Porter) for his support of the bill I introduced, the Lifelong 
Improvements in Food and Exercise Act, building on the work his 
subcommittee has already done in making grants to the CDC. I am also 
pleased that the CDC supports my bill.
  As the gentleman knows, Mr. Chairman, the LIFE bill authorizes the 
CDC to address overweight, obesity, and sedentary lifestyles in three 
ways: by training health professionals to recognize the signs of 
obesity and to recommend prevention activities and several other ways.
  Would the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) agree that some 
of the $125 million in this Labor HHS bill be spent on the activities 
specified in the LIFE legislation?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the LIFE bill, and 
I believe that the goals of the national campaign to change children's 
health behaviors will address the initiatives in the LIFE legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, toward 
that end, will the gentleman join me in requesting the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), ranking member of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, 
the House Committee on Commerce, to support inclusion of the LIFE bill 
in the conference agreement on this bill?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do so.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Porter) for his support and for the leadership on this vital 
health issue he has shown throughout his career here in the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Bass

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Bass:
       Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $42,000,000)''.
       Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $42,000,000)''.
       Page 20, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $134,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $130,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 21, after each dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $78,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 12, after each dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $480,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''.

[[Page H4088]]

       Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,011,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 17, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $1,001,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee, for 
his attention and his patience and, frankly, his extraordinary wisdom 
concerning the issues that all of us are concerned about here, most 
notably with this amendment, the issue of special education IDEA 
funding.
  Now, this is the first of two amendments I plan to offer during the 
course of debate on this appropriation. Now, the bill before my 
colleagues, as we have previously discussed, raises special ed funding 
by $500 million from $5 billion to $5.5 billion a year. This amendment 
that I offer here now will increase that funding further by $1 billion 
for a total increase of $1.5 billion in the next fiscal year.
  Now, at a subsequent time later on this evening, I intend to offer 
another amendment that will increase special education funding by an 
additional $200 million. It is my understanding that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, (Mr. Ryan) plans to offer another amendment that will 
further increase this program by an additional $300 million, bringing 
the total funding for special education up to $2 billion, which is the 
amount that we agreed to try to attain in the resolution that we passed 
a couple of weeks ago.
  The net effect of this amendment will be to bring the total funding 
for special education up to $6.9 billion. This amendment increases 
funding for this critical program to $6.5 billion, which would be a 
16.5 percent total of the total cost of the program.
  Now, I am not going to spend more than 30 seconds reviewing the need 
for this important program. All of us in this body share the need to 
adequately address the issues of IDEA and education for those who are 
less fortunate than all of us here in this body this evening.
  As one who has been committed to attaining as much funding for this 
program as possible, I would like to see full funding of special 
education, the full amount, $15 billion a year. But I also understand 
the limitations under which we operate in this body, and I want to 
support this appropriation; but I want to support it with the maximum 
amount of funding that I can possibly find for this important program.
  Now, there are 14 other programs that my amendment targets for 
reallocation in order to increase funding for special education. Not 
one of these programs, not one of these programs that I ever targeted 
for reductions would be reduced below the spending level for the fiscal 
year we are in today.

                              {time}  1745

  Some of them would still have significant increases.
  I want to see us reach our goal of full funding of special education. 
I am proud of the fact that since I have been in Congress we have 
increased special education funding from about $2.3 billion, and, 
hopefully, after this amendment passes, up to $6.5 billion, or 16.5 
percent of the total amount we need to provide in this body.
  I just want to urge my colleagues to join me in passing this 
amendment, understanding that these funds will free up money on the 
local level for other programs, for property tax relief, for classroom 
construction, for hiring of teachers. It is a good amendment, its time 
has come, and I urge the Congress to adopt it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know how strongly the gentleman from New Hampshire 
feels about the importance of the IDEA program, and I share those 
feelings. But in order to increase IDEA State grants by over $1 billion 
dollars, it would cut Job Corps $42 million, health professions $69 
million, Ryan White $65 million, abstinence education $10 million, CDC 
by $130 million, SAMSHA by $60 million, mental health by $15 million, 
Impact Aid by $78 million, the Teacher Empowerment Act by $450 million, 
charter schools by $30 million, Indian education by $30 million, 
Gallaudet University by $3 million, vocational ed by $22 million, and 
Howard University by $7 million.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason these programs are funded above the 
budget request or above last year's level in the bill is that these 
programs are doing a good job of meeting the needs of people. We have 
increased funding for IDEA at a very, very fast rate. It has been a 
high priority for us. We have added $2.7 billion of new funding to IDEA 
during our tenure; and we have brought the additional per pupil 
percentage costs to serve disabled children up to 13 percent. It was at 
9 percent in 1995. Other Federal funding brings it to 18 percent. We 
have put this particular account, IDEA, at a very, very high priority.
  We have added a $500 million to the bill already. We would like to, 
and hope that in some time in the course of the process of considering 
this bill in conference with the Senate and in negotiation with the 
White House, we can add more. At this time, I think that the cuts that 
would be made in very important programs would be very severe and would 
not serve the interests of the persons served by those programs at all 
well. These are needed monies in every case.
  For that reason, while I respect the gentleman's concern about IDEA, 
I believe that this amendment should not be adopted.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. I respect the gentleman's concern about this, and I would 
only point out that we have time and time again in this body said that 
special education is, if not our very highest priority, it is certainly 
at the very top of the list. And I would only point out that at least 
five of these programs that the gentleman mentioned still have 
increases in them, and not one of them, not one of them is cut from the 
level of spending from last year.
  I agree with the gentleman, it is not an easy job to propose an 
amendment like this, but I think special education is important enough 
to me that it deserves to be funded at a $2 billion increase.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  As the leader of trying to get the Congress to put its money where 
its mouth has been for 20 years in the minority, and now 6 years in the 
majority, I have to rise to oppose this very effort for several 
reasons.
  First of all, this takes money from the Teacher Empowerment Act. The 
whole purpose of the Teacher Empowerment Act is to get quality teachers 
in the classroom so that, as a matter of fact, we do not keep 
increasing the number of young people who get placed into a special 
needs class.
  Charter schools. They are working, and they are working to make sure 
that we do not increase the number of children who end up in a special 
needs program.
  Job Corps. Last chance for these young people. And let me tell my 
colleagues, if we do not succeed on that last chance, the cost of 
taking care of those people will even be far greater than the cost of 
meeting special needs.
  Impact Aid. We take it from them one place and give it back to them 
in another. So I think this is positively the wrong way to go if we 
really want to reduce the number of special needs children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the gentleman from New Hampshire, 
and I respect his concern for special education. I have a special 
interest in special education which I have to confess. I have a nephew 
who is a Down syndrome child, and I know many other good friends who 
have children in need of the same kind of services. But

[[Page H4089]]

there is a way to do something and a way not to do something.
  This chart shows, as the gentleman indicated, that just 36 days ago 
this House promised that it was going to spend $7 billion on special 
education. This bill contains $5.5 billion for special education. We 
were trying to offer an amendment to add $1.5 billion to special 
education, not by cutting all of the programs that the gentleman from 
Illinois has just listed but by changing this equation.
  We wanted the majority party to take 20 percent of the tax cuts which 
they are voting through this place this year, eliminate 20 percent of 
those tax cuts so that we could fully fund not only education for the 
handicapped but so that we could fully fund other education and health 
and worker training programs. We could have funded all of those 
amendments by simply scaling back the size of the tax cut by 20 
percent. And before anybody has a heart attack, 73 percent of the 
benefits from those tax cuts are scheduled to go to the richest 1 
percent of people in the country. The other 99 out of 100 are only 
scheduled to get 27 percent.
  Now, that is a better way to finance this amendment than the way that 
the gentleman is proposing. A couple of hours ago, when the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) was on the floor, he presented the House with 
a chart and he was bragging about how much the majority party has 
increased funding for the Job Corps. And I stood up and I said, hooray, 
Allah be praised, hallelujah, everything else I could think of, welcome 
to the club, because I remember fighting on this floor in 1981 when 
Ronald Reagan was trying to zero out the Job Corps. So I welcomed the 
gentleman and I welcomed the conversion of the majority party to 
support for Job Corps. This amendment, 3 hours later, would cut Job 
Corps by $42 million.
  Job Corps has only a 50 percent success rate, but we are starting out 
in Job Corps with kids who have been losers 100 percent of the time. So 
a 50 percent rate of saving kids who otherwise are on a short route to 
nowhere is a whole lot better batting average than Babe Ruth ever had.
  But this would cut Job Corps. It would cut nurses training. It would 
cut community health funding. That is where poor people go to get their 
health care because they often cannot go to a normal middle-class 
hospital and get that health care without begging. It would cut that 
back. It would cut back the abstinence aid that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma is so interested in. It would cut back public health funding 
in the Center for Disease Control. It would cut back funding to fight 
drug abuse. It would cut back Impact Aid. It would make a $450 million 
cut in the class size block grant.
  The majority has asked us on this side of the aisle why we do not 
block grant this money instead of requiring that money be spent to 
reduce class sizes? And we have said because we have seen what happens 
when we block grant money. First, we block grant it, and then after it 
is put in one block, then it is cut; and you can escape the political 
attention that comes from having to cut the programs individually 
because they are all in one lump.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. So we have evidence right here in this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, to verify our fears. We do not even yet have the block grant 
put into law and already this amendment is trying to cut it by $450 
million.
  Then it cuts Indian education. It even cuts $3 million out of 
Gallaudet, the school for the blind. And there are some other cuts.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that even the people who are the 
beneficiaries of this amendment are asking that it not be passed. The 
Council for Exceptional Children, that is the group that lobbies for 
funding for special education is saying, ``Do we want the money? Yes. 
But do we want it at the expense of cutting these other educational 
programs? No, we do not.'' PTA is saying the same thing. Our local 
school administrators are saying the same thing.
  I do not blame the gentleman for offering this amendment, because he 
has a legitimate heartfelt concern. But what this amendment 
demonstrates is what we have been trying to say all year on this side 
of the aisle. It demonstrates there is simply not enough funding in 
this bill for education of all kinds and for health care and for job 
training. Sooner or later the majority will recognize that. Sooner or 
later it is going to have to change this equation so that we get a 
better deal for middle-class taxpayers; and, at the same time, sooner 
or later we will put back not only the money for special education but 
the additional money we need for Pell Grants, for Title I, and the list 
goes on and on.
  It, unfortunately, is going to take longer than it ought. But, 
meanwhile, we should not complicate it by passing this amendment. So I 
regretfully urge its rejection.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just want to talk a little bit about broken promises. It was not 
Republicans in 1975 that said to the American people that we will move 
this legislation and within a few years we will give 40 percent of 
excess costs. We were not in the majority.
  During that entire time, while that majority was here, we never got 
anywhere near the 40 percent. We never got above 6 percent. At least in 
the last 5 years we have gotten up to 13 percent.
  So do not tell me about broken promises. They were made from the 
other side of the aisle and they were made back in 1975, and nothing 
was done when they had a 2-to-1 majority in this Congress of the United 
States.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I sympathize with 
the gentleman that is offering the amendment. I was chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Authorization when this bill came through for the first 
time on IDEA. If my colleagues have ever had a tangle where they put 
parent groups and school groups together, it is like putting a Persian 
and a Siamese cat together. It is a very difficult and it is a very 
complicated bill.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman. And I was the 
IDEA man of the year that year for pushing the bill through. And then 
later we had a colleague take over that position when I came to 
Appropriations.
  But if the gentlemen on both sides really want to help, and I think 
they do legitimately, Alan Bersin is the superintendent of San Diego 
City Schools. He was the appointee of President Clinton on the border. 
He did a pretty good job, and now he is a superintendent. His number 
one problem is IDEA in the schools.
  Why? Not so much the funding, but we are losing good teachers that 
want to help special-needs children. They are being forced into the 
courts by liberal trial lawyers that form cottage organizations and go 
to these parent groups and demand super Cadillac systems when they may 
only qualify for a small portion.
  We have a school in San Diego where it costs $200,000 a year for one 
child in special education. And the schools cannot afford that. Quite 
often, as we increase the money, the trial lawyers come in and steal 
that money.
  I agree with the gentleman, special education does need more money. I 
would like to work with the gentleman on that. But some of these 
programs, for example Impact Aid, do my colleagues know how negatively 
that affects military families and Native American families? It really 
impacts them negatively. And so, I would say to the gentleman, I agree 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that these are programs 
some of us feel are very, very important, Impact Aid, Galludet 
University. Republicans and Democrats play in a basketball game there 
every year just to raise a little bit of money.
  Howard University. I went out and visited the president. When we talk 
about minority education, look and see the job they are doing. Over 
half of the new teachers hired in the last couple of

[[Page H4090]]

years were not qualified. And this funds the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
makes sure that those teachers are qualified.
  We have test scores that are slightly rising. But yet, when a student 
goes to the university, they have to take remedial education. Why? 
Because in many cases in our inner cities those teachers are not 
qualified; and unless we bring up the quality of those teachers, then 
our students are always going to fall behind, and they are going to be 
left behind.
  So it is with great reluctance I oppose the gentleman. I know it is 
in good faith. A large part of me wants to support him. But, overall, I 
have to oppose him.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I strongly agree that 
every child deserves the opportunity to benefit from a public education 
and is able to reach his or her fullest potential.
  In addition, I recognize the tremendous cost of this endeavor. If our 
schools are truly to serve all students, the federal government must 
increase IDEA funding.
  During my years in Congress, I have worked tirelessly to support 
increases in special education funding. I continue to support 
increasing funding for special education, and would like to see us 
funding it at $7 billion this year.
  But there is a right way, and a wrong way to go about this.
  The right way is to increase overall funding for education so that, 
in this time of extraordinary budget surpluses, we are meeting the 
needs of all students.
  The wrong way is what is proposed in this amendment--robbing Peter to 
pay Paul. This amendment takes money from other equally worthy programs 
in order to pay for IDEA. Simply shifting money around doesn't solve 
the problem.
  The Labor HHS Education bill is woefully underfunded. Why? Not 
because our nation cannot afford to invest in education. But because 
our Republican colleagues want to give large tax breaks to their 
wealthy friends.
  The result is that good programs are pitted against one another, 
forced to compete for artificially scarce resources. This is no way to 
govern.
  I am committed to moving ahead with fully funding the Federal 
government's promised 40% of IDEA expenses. But I will not do so at the 
expense of other equally worthy programs. As the Labor HHS Education 
bill goes to conference, I will be urging my colleagues in the House to 
accept the far more generous funding levels of the Senate bill, and to 
direct some of those additional resources toward special education.
  So I urge my colleagues to increase funding for IDEA, but to do it 
the right way. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act, 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and 
     other facilities, and the purchase of real property for 
     training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment 
     Act; $2,463,000,000 plus reimbursements, of which 
     $2,363,000,000 is available for obligation for the period 
     October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002; and of which 
     $100,000,000 is available for the period October 1, 2001 
     through June 30, 2004, for necessary expenses of 
     construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps 
     centers.


            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out the activities for national grants or 
     contracts with public agencies and public or private 
     nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section 
     506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, or to carry out older worker activities as 
     subsequently authorized, $343,356,000.
       To carry out the activities for grants to States under 
     paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older 
     worker activities as subsequently authorized, $96,844,000.


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and 
     for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and 
     related State administrative expenses under part II, 
     subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as amended, $406,550,000, together with such amounts as 
     may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15 of the current year.


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $43,452,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,054,338,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980), which may 
     be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     account in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of 
     administering section 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Immigration 
     Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, and of which the sums available in the allocation 
     for activities authorized by title III of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the sums available 
     in the allocation for necessary administrative expenses for 
     carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be available for 
     obligation by the States through December 31, 2001, except 
     that funds used for automation acquisitions shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through September 30, 
     2003; and of which $43,452,000, together with not to exceed 
     $738,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from said 
     trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, to fund activities under 
     the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost of 
     penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made 
     available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose: 
     Provided, That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 2001 is projected by the 
     Department of Labor to exceed 2,396,000, an additional 
     $28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every 
     100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata 
     amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the 
     Employment Security Administration account of the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center system, or which are used to 
     support the national activities of the Federal-State 
     unemployment insurance programs, may be obligated in 
     contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for 
     activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be 
     used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and 
     Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding 
     cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-87.


        advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and to the ``Federal 
     unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, $435,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 2001, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.


                         program administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs, $100,944,000, including $6,431,000 to support up to 
     75 full-time equivalent staff, the majority of which will be 
     term Federal appointments lasting no more than one year, to 
     administer welfare-to-work grants, together with not to 
     exceed $45,056,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $98,934,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program through September 
     30, 2001, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $11,148,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such 
     Corporation in connection with the termination of pension 
     plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and 
     investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration 
     services shall be considered as non-

[[Page H4091]]

     administrative expenses for the purposes hereof, and excluded 
     from the above limitation.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $337,030,000, together with $1,740,000 
     which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance 
     with sections 39(c), 44(d) and 44(j) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That $2,000,000 
     shall be for the development of an alternative system for the 
     electronic submission of reports as required to be filed 
     under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for a computer database of the 
     information for each submission by whatever means, that is 
     indexed and easily searchable by the public via the Internet: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized 
     to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in the name of 
     the Department of Labor, all sums of money ordered to be paid 
     to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the terms of 
     the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the 
     United States District Court for the District of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the 
     Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing 
     certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214) 
     and for processing applications and issuing registrations 
     under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).


                            special benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the heading ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the 
     Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the 
     Employees' Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; 
     sections 4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2012); and 50 percent of the additional 
     compensation and benefits required by section 10(h) of the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, 
     $56,000,000 together with such amounts as may be necessary to 
     be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation and other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided, That 
     amounts appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 
     5, United States Code, by the Secretary of Labor to reimburse 
     an employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, 
     for portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled 
     beneficiary: Provided further, That balances of 
     reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 2000, shall 
     remain available until expended for the payment of 
     compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That 
     in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation 
     from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or 
     instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of 
     the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be the cost of administration for employees of 
     such fair share entities through September 30, 2001: Provided 
     further, That of those funds transferred to this account from 
     the fair share entities to pay the cost of administration, 
     $30,510,000 shall be made available to the Secretary as 
     follows: (1) for the operation of and enhancement to the 
     automated data processing systems, including document 
     imaging, medical bill review, and periodic roll management, 
     in support of Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
     administration, $19,971,000; (2) for conversion to a 
     paperless office, $7,005,000; (3) for communications 
     redesign, $750,000; (4) for information technology 
     maintenance and support, $2,784,000; and (5) the remaining 
     funds shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous 
     receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary may require 
     that any person filing a notice of injury or a claim for 
     benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such notice and 
     claim, such identifying information (including Social 
     Security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.


                    black lung disability trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $1,028,000,000, of which $975,343,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2002, for payment of all benefits as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on 
     advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and 
     of which $30,393,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $21,590,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, $318,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for 
     payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the 
     Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and 
     administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as 
     authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That, 
     in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period 
     subsequent to August 15 of the current year.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $381,620,000, including not to exceed 
     $83,771,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 50 
     percent of the costs of State occupational safety and health 
     programs required to be incurred under plans approved by the 
     Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of 
     training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized 
     by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for 
     occupational safety and health training and education grants: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary 
     of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, to collect and retain fees for services 
     provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and 
     may utilize such sums, in accordance with the provisions of 
     29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and international 
     laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of 
     equipment and products used by workers in the workplace: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, 
     issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, 
     or order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
     which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming 
     operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and 
     employs 10 or fewer employees: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule, 
     regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of 10 or fewer 
     employees who is included within a category having an 
     occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most 
     precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or 
     fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $233,000,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     and, in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be collected by 
     the National Mine Health and Safety Academy for room, board, 
     tuition, and the sale of training materials, otherwise 
     authorized by law to be collected, to be available for mine 
     safety and health education and training activities, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302; the Secretary is authorized 
     to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other 
     contributions from public and private sources and to 
     prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, 
     Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration is authorized to promote health and safety 
     education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local

[[Page H4092]]

     agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $372,743,000, together with not to exceed $67,257,000, which 
     may be expended from the Employment Security Administration 
     account in the Unemployment Trust Fund.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including up to 
     $7,241,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of 
     People With Disabilities, and including the management or 
     operation of Departmental bilateral and multilateral foreign 
     technical assistance, $244,579,000; together with not to 
     exceed $310,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review 
     in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by 
     the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore 
     and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where 
     such participation is precluded by the decision of the United 
     States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers' 
     Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1278 (1995), notwithstanding any provisions to the 
     contrary contained in rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 
     Appellate Procedure: Provided further, That no funds made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor 
     to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been 
     appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review 
     Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any 
     such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board 
     for more than 1 year shall be considered affirmed by the 
     Benefits Review Board on the 1-year anniversary of the filing 
     of the appeal, and shall be considered the final order of the 
     Board for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States 
     courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions 
     shall not be applicable to the review or appeal of any 
     decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq.).


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $97,000,000)''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago, the Congress passed the 
China trade legislation. There were a lot of reasons why a lot of 
Members voted against that bill.
  One of the reasons is that a lot of us are concerned about the 
prospect of putting American workers in a position where they are going 
to be directly undercut by practices such as slave labor and child 
labor.
  The administration, the White House, tried to make at least a nominal 
effort to try to prevent those problems from becoming any worse than 
they are by raising funding for efforts to combat the incidence of 
child labor and weak labor standards.
  This committee chose not to agree with that funding. This amendment 
simply would restore for the international labor standards portion of 
the bill the amount of money requested by the administration that was 
not included in the bill.
  Let me explain in a little more detail what it does. It would add 
$730 million to reduce the incidence of child labor. It would add $17 
million to enforce core labor standards. And it would add $10 million 
for responding to the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Sahara Africa by 
supporting workplace education and prevention programs.
  I would simply point out, Mr. Chairman, that, according to the 
International Labor Organization, there are 250 million children 
between the ages of 5 and 14 who are working in developed nations with 
approximately half of them working full-time but not going to school.
  The President wants to expand the successful efforts of the ILO and 
the Department of Labor and USAID to develop education infrastructure 
and build data and monitoring systems to take kids out of factories and 
put them in schools.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs are working. In Bangladesh they have 
helped 9,000 kids get out of garment sweatshops and into classrooms. In 
Pakistan they have got 7,000 kids into school learning to read and 
write instead of sitting in a factory stitching soccer balls. In 
Guatemala they are getting kids out of quarries where they crush rocks 
by hand all day instead of sitting in a classroom where they could have 
a book in their hand instead of a rock.
  175 countries have signed the ILO Convention that calls for 
eliminating the worst forms of child labor. This budget is supposed to 
fund the technical assistance to help them make that pledge a reality.
  Now, we will be told we do not need this money because this program 
had a large increase last year. I would suggest that for years all 
countries, including ours, have ignored the tools that we could use to 
improve this situation. And so finally last year, for the first time, 
we began to provide a pittance for some of these programs.
  These programs are in the interest of every child in the third world. 
They are in the interest of every working American who has a right to a 
level playing field. I think this amendment ought to be adopted.
  Now, we will be told, ``Oh, you have not provided a corresponding cut 
in the bill.'' That is because under the rule under which this bill is 
being considered, the only other programs we could cut are other 
education or other health or other job training programs. We cannot get 
into other portions of the Federal budget, as the gentleman knows.
  And so, again, all we are suggesting is that all of these major 11 
amendments that we would like to offer could be financed by scaling 
back the size of the intended tax cut by 20 percent. I think that would 
do a whole lot more for children. It would certainly do a whole lot 
more for our consciences. I believe that the amendment ought to be 
adopted.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as late as 1997, this Bureau was funded at $9.5 
million. That is 3 years ago. In the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, it 
received funding of $70 million. This is an over-600 percent increase 
in just 3 years.
  The administration wants to add an additional $97 million, which 
would be an additional 140 percent increase from last year. At $167 
million, funding for this Bureau would be more than that requested for 
the Wage an Hour Division, which oversees labor standards in the United 
States, including child labor.
  We recognize that this country needs to be an international leader in 
labor issues, such as child labor and international labor standards, 
which is why we have agreed to such large increases in this Bureau over 
the last 3 years.
  I generally support the concept of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and would have funded this at the requested 
level if I could under our allocation. I will work with the gentleman 
to achieve the funding level in conference if we have sufficient 
allocation at that time. However, I regret that at the appropriate time 
I will have to press the point of order.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  One of the great things about the experiment that we live in this 
great democracy is as we provide more protection for those who have the 
least in society, we actually improve the living standard of every 
American. When we look to these developing nations, one of the economic 
systems that is in play is as more and more children work, and not in 
family farms as I did and so many others did growing up, not in a 
family loom or a small family business but often in the worst kind of 
conditions, chemicals endangering their future development and growth, 
hazardous materials that may bring their lives to an early end. Beyond 
even those dangers to these children that are put before some of the 
greatest dangers that are out there in the industrial world, it also 
deprives their families, their fathers and mothers of a living wage. 
Because a society that has dozens and dozens and hundreds and thousands 
of small children working means there is a surplus of labor. And so at 
the end of the day not only are

[[Page H4093]]

the children deprived of an education, deprived of an opportunity to 
grow up not protected from these hazardous chemicals but the child's 
parents then earn not enough to survive.
  This small program here would help us to do what we need to do 
globally. If we do not want to see the kinds of crises develop across 
Asia and Africa as we have seen so often before, we have to lift these 
societies. A majority of the people in this Congress voted to give 
China PNTR without dealing with the environment, without dealing with 
labor issues. We were precluded from bringing those issues to the 
debate.
  Here is an opportunity to take a small step to provide some basic 
protection for children. We all come to the floor with speeches, we are 
pro family, we are for children. How about these children? How about 
making sure we have the resources to give their parents an even break, 
to give our workers an even break, and to give these children a chance 
to grow up and live a healthy life? If they are working when they are 5 
and 6 years old in these factories, they are not going to get an 
education; and these societies are not going to move forward. It is bad 
for us, it is bad for them, it dooms them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I find it ironic to 
consider how this bill has been handled today. We started out to deal 
with this bill this morning to try to provide Federal funding for 
education and health and job training programs.
  And then this bill was knocked off the floor for 2 hours while the 
majority party brought to the floor the rule that will allow them to 
consider their tax bill tomorrow. Their tax bill tomorrow will 
effectively eliminate the estate tax. In some cases that may be 
justified. But the way they brought it to the floor means that there 
will be some people who strike it rich, make huge amounts of money and 
are never taxed once on any of that money, while working people are 
taxed on every dollar they earn in the workplace every day.
  The eventual revenue lost to the treasury will be about $50 billion a 
year that will go into the pockets of Mr. Money Bags in this society. 
That is enough to provide health coverage for every single American who 
does not have it. But when you raise that possibility, they say, ``Oh, 
no, socialized medicine.'' And so forget it, we will not try that.
  ``At least,'' we say, ``what about the poorest wretches on this 
planet?'' Will you give them something other than a few conscience 
pennies, the way John D. Rockefeller used to give kids dimes? Will you 
do something real that improves their lives and protects the working 
standards and the living standards of American wage earners at the same 
time? The choice is whether you believe in putting the money here or 
whether you believe in putting it in places it will help those kids.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes an 
important point. The difference between providing a break for family 
farmers and small businesses which I think the Democrats believe in, 
although Mr. Gates was dealt a blow yesterday by the courts, I think 
economically he is okay and we do not need to give him a tax shelter at 
some point when he leaves it to his children. They will be fine as 
well. We ought to make sure we have the resources to provide the health 
care and education of this country and to also take a few small steps 
to bring others in this planet up just a little bit. I thank the 
gentleman for his efforts here and in so many other places.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important and I think 
legitimate debate to see the differences between two opinions and to do 
that in a legitimate way without casting aspersions. First of all, I do 
not want Hoss and Little Joe to have to sell the Ponderosa. I saw a 
movie. It was about a lady that emigrated, that had a child out of 
wedlock, she worked in a sweatshop back in the teens. She sold jelly, 
she sold everything she could for 5 years and finally saved some 
pennies and finally when she was able to bake cakes and things, she 
bought a little shack and started a store. The bottom line was she 
ended up with one of the largest department stores in New York. A true 
story. That is the American dream. I do not want that gentlewoman to 
have to give back 55 percent of everything she owns. I support that 
gentlewoman and the work and the taxes that she paid.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman the differences of opinion. 
For 30 years, the Democrats had control of this House. Did we have a 
balanced budget? No. Did we have tax increases? Yes. In 1993 when my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle controlled the House, the 
White House and the Senate, they wanted what they called was tax breaks 
for the middle class. But yet they gave us the highest tax increase in 
history. They increased the tax on Social Security. They increased the 
tax on the middle class. And they increased again the tax on Social 
Security.
  They increased the gas tax. And did it go into the transportation 
fund? No. It went into the general fund so that they could spend more 
money on socialized programs. And then they took every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund and spent that. In doing so they drove this 
country into debt.
  Now, the Republicans, when we took the majority, we balanced the 
budget. Many of my colleagues on the other side opposed that because it 
took the ability to spend money away. We had welfare reform. Many of my 
colleagues on the other side opposed that, because it took their 
ability to rain money down, but yet I think when you talk about the 
American dream, I look at the children that now see their parents 
coming home with a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Is there reason 
to look at the help that welfare people need? Yes. But 20 years, 
average, on welfare is wrong. Yet they wanted to keep dumping money 
into those programs time after time like in this bill.
  Education, when they had control for 30 years, take a look at what we 
started with. Schools, construction, falling down. We are last in math 
and science of all the industrialized nations. We have got less than 48 
cents out of the Federal dollar to the classroom. Programs like title I 
spent trillions of dollars in education but was there any 
accountability? No, just more money, more money.
  And we had more and more programs. Was this mean spirited? No. You 
had somebody that wanted a new program, but what happened was they 
spread it out so much that none of the programs, Head Start, IDEA, any 
of them got the funding they needed because everybody wanted a new 
program. But yet to get that, they had to keep taxing to pay for these 
new programs.
  Any tax cut we offer, they are going to fight. The mantra, and I 
think some of their constituencies actually believe it is only tax 
breaks for the rich. They say it over and over and over again. But the 
bottom line is they will not support any tax relief because it takes 
the power away from government, which they truly and legitimately 
believe does a better job. We disagree with that. I think that is a 
legitimate fact.
  We saved and locked up Social Security into a lockbox. That also 
prevented them from spending more money in bills like this, because we 
operate under a balanced budget and do not increase taxes like the 
President's budget did every time. We do not raid the Social Security 
trust fund, but we operate within the rules that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) has to operate under and classify these different 
programs. My colleagues want to keep spending above those amounts. That 
is a difference, ladies and gentlemen.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I find it interesting when we are talking about a program to try and 
provide technical assistance to some of the poorest nations and some of 
the poorest people on Earth that the gentleman would come down and make 
a case for giving 2 percent of the richest people maybe on the face of 
the Earth a tax cut worth almost $400 billion. But that is why we do 
not have the money to deal with this program, because they have already 
made their decisions.

[[Page H4094]]

  It is not the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Porter) problem. His 
problem is the money that the leadership gave him because they took 
most of the money for their tax cuts, tax cuts that have been rejected 
by the American public time and again because the American public 
understands there is an agenda that has to be dealt with by this 
Congress and by this Nation of securing Social Security, securing 
Medicare and paying down the debt, taking care of the education of our 
children. But they refuse to do that. So this appropriation bill comes 
to the floor with inadequate resources.
  Let us talk a little bit about the gentleman's amendment. This is an 
effort to continue to provide technical assistance to the ILO against 
child labor. These are efforts that have been successful. The gentleman 
talked about the effort in the soccer ball where before young children 
were given soccer balls to sew because theoretically they had flexible 
small hands and they could sew those soccer balls. They did it until 
such time as their hands were crippled. Then they were released from 
those jobs. They could not really go to work, and they had never been 
to school.
  Led by the Secretary of Labor, Senator Harkin, myself, and others, we 
brought the manufacturers of soccer balls together along with the ILO, 
along with various countries and those manufacturing processes were 
brought in-house. They were brought in-house and adults were given 
those jobs and children were sent to school and schools were built so 
that children could participate in an education and their parents could 
earn enough money.
  Now when American children play soccer in this country, they know 
that the soccer balls are not made by the misery of child labor in 
foreign countries. That model can be replicated and is being replicated 
time and again, but it needs assistance to do that. That was part of 
the debate about globalization that we went through last week, about 
whether or not American workers are going to have to compete against 
these kinds of unfair labor practices and whether or not it is just 
enough for America to say send us anything as long as you can keep the 
costs down and you do it through human misery.
  That is not what the American people want. They have said time and 
again they want child labor reduced, they do not want to buy articles 
of clothing, sporting goods, and other commodities that are made with 
child labor. This is an effort. The administration made the request, 
and the request could not be met. Not because this committee did not 
want to do it, because the priorities were set earlier in the year with 
the $1 trillion tax cut.
  What we are going to see time and again is appropriations bills come 
to this floor, the priorities of this Nation are not being met because 
of that tax cut. The interruption that took place earlier today to 
report the rule for the repeal of the estate tax is just part of that 
package. They could not pass the whole package, so now they are going 
to separate it into pieces. But that is going to address 2 percent of 
the wealthiest people in this country.
  It is going to cost us almost $400 billion over 10 years, and it is 
very hard to do justice if you do not have the money to try to help 
people who are far less fortunate than we are so that they can have a 
good life for their families, their children can go to school, and they 
can start to aspire to the same kind of dreams that we want for our 
children.
  I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

                              {time}  1830


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a sub-allocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 7, 2000, 
House report 106-656. This amendment would provide new budget authority 
in excess of the subcommittee's sub-allocation made under section 
302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for 
a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wish to be 
heard on the point of order against his amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say that given the 
fact that the rule under which this bill is being considered guarantees 
that at all costs that tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of 
people in this society will come before the needs of everybody else, I 
reluctantly agree that because of that rule, the gentleman is 
technically correct, and the amendment, while correct and just, is not 
in order under the Rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by the estimate of 
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312(a) of the Budget 
Act, that an amendment providing a net increase in new discretionary 
budget authority greater than $1 million would cause a breach of the 
pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on 
its face, proposes to increase the level of new discretionary budget 
authority in the bill by greater than $1 million. As such, the 
amendment would violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $184,341,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A, 4212, 4214, and 4321-4327, and Public Law 
     103-353, and which shall be available for obligation by the 
     States through December 31, 2001. To carry out the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and section 168 of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998, $16,936,000, of which 
     $7,300,000 shall be available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.


                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $48,095,000, together with 
     not to exceed $3,830,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended) which are appropriated for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this 
     Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     15 days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     to promulgate, issue, implement, administer, or enforce any 
     proposed, temporary, or final standard on ergonomic 
     protection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 19, strike lines 15 through 19 (section 103).

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, section 103 reads, ``None of the funds 
made available in this act may be used by the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to promulgate, issue, implement, administer, or 
enforce any proposed temporary or final standard on ergonomic 
protection.''
  The Traficant-Weldon amendment would simply strike the provision, and 
it would prevent OSHA from going forward with its proposed rule, 
requiring employers to come up with basic programs to prevent 
repetitive motion injuries.
  Last August the House passed H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation 
Act, to have OSHA wait until another study is complete to implement the 
standards. For the record, I voted against the bill. Now, this bill 
overrides the wait provision and tells OSHA that it cannot set those 
standards.
  We have many American workers, and I know what the complaints are, 
that some of these workers are taking advantage in the workplace of 
some of these musculoskeletal problems where, through repetitive work 
in industry, they develop these musculoskeletal problems and muscular 
problems that prevent them from working.

[[Page H4095]]

  By striking the language, very simply, we would affect, in my 
opinion, 650,000 workers in the positive. We have an opportunity to 
pass a very straightforward amendment. Some employers have had 
experience with these programs in meat packing, foot wear facilities 
that have seen significant reductions in these disorders, and I think 
today we should guarantee that other industries and employers see the 
same reduction in injuries and see fewer missed days of work.
  It does not seem like a tough job being a cashier, or nurses in 
nursing homes, or court reporters who sit with their fingers constantly 
moving and their hands subject to, over a period of years, much wear 
and tear, and that is not even getting to the point of those workers in 
manufacturing and assembly plants who, on a very repetitive motion, are 
bringing about certain heavy industrial tools and machinery.
  So without a doubt, I think in the best interest, certainly to serve 
the working community, and I think in the best interest of Congress, I 
think we should strike section 103. I think it is the right thing to 
do. By doing so, I think we would help many American workers.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize and agree with the concerns of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) who is offering this amendment. I 
believe that we are all worried about healthy workers, about workers 
who are important to this economy, they are important to their 
families, their income is important to their community and their 
family. This is an issue that is very important.
  The problem is that the Department of Labor has been absolutely tone 
deaf in developing this rule. They have had all of these years they 
have been talking about to develop a rule. There are many people that 
wish to come to the table and work on this issue. The fact is, in 
workplaces all across America we have employers, we have cities, we 
have States, we have hospitals, nursing homes, teachers, every single 
place across this country, people are looking for workers. It is in all 
of our best interests to keep our workers healthy and on the job.
  But the fact is that the Department of Labor has written a rule that 
is absolutely unacceptable. It does not at all bring all of the people 
concerned about this to the table and help work out a reasonable rule. 
It has put all of the costs on the employer, and it is not just 
businesses that are terribly concerned about this, it is schools; the 
school districts are talking about being absolutely unable to comply 
because of the cost. Nursing homes, hospitals, States, cities, the 
League of Cities. We all know that is not some conservative 
organization. They are saying that this rule is written in a way that 
they simply could not, could not comply with this.
  Mr. Chairman, it threatens the solvency of our workers' compensation 
program because it overrides current workers compensation programs that 
have worked so well in our States; and instead it provides an 
extraordinary level of reimbursement for our workers who would need 
time off because of repetitive motion injuries.
  The problem here is one of fairness. It is simply not fair to have 
two workers that work side by side, one that is truly injured, 
completely and totally on the job, to get one level of reimbursement 
and a worker who is off because of a repetitive motion that may be 
partly his job, partly what he does outside of his job, partly what 
happened before he came to this workplace, getting an extraordinary 
level of benefits. It places all of the responsibility on the employer. 
It has no regard to preexisting condition or what is done outside.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we need to work on ergonomics rules in 
total. What ergonomics are, are people that start to have injuries. 
Those of us over 50 probably do not have a friend that does not have an 
elbow, a shoulder, a neck, a backache, something that is a repetitive 
motion problem. Is it exacerbated in the workplace? Sometimes it is. So 
that is a component of it. But it also may be aggravated by what 
happens outside of the workplace.
  So what this rule does not do is recognize the outside of the 
workplace being part of the cause and what has to be addressed.
  In truth, what this bill does is chase our best jobs out of this 
country. It begins to make Mexico and Canada look like great places to 
put one's next plant or any expansion that one does, so that one can 
have a reasonable workplace where one can work with one's workers, work 
to address their concerns, and not absorb enormous costs that are open-
ended. It discriminates against older workers, because I hate to say, 
it does not take long for somebody to figure out that somebody like me 
in my 50s is more likely to have a joint or a backache or a carpal 
tunnel problem than it is for a 24-year-old. So if one is an employer 
and one knows that they have to keep spending money until this person's 
problem goes away, one can figure out that it is better to hire 23-
year-olds than it is 53-year-olds.

  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is exactly right. Companies 
are spending millions of dollars right now. They are doing everything 
they possibly can to reengineer the workplace, to trade and rotate 
jobs, to address their employees' needs. But it makes no sense to enact 
a rule or to let the Department of Labor go on with a rule that is so 
one-sided and does not really bring us solutions.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is one 
workplace that the OSHA rule would not apply, and that is the one 
workplace that the Federal Government has total control over. Federal 
employees would not be covered by this rule. It is not enforceable in 
Federal workplaces, and so they would be the one group that would be 
exempted.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), my friend and colleague, in offering this amendment and 
rise to express my concerns about the status of some of America's 
workers. I agree with the gentlewoman that we should have a great deal 
of concern about jobs going away from America. In fact, that is why I 
opposed NAFTA. I think if we look at the results of the implications of 
NAFTA, we would find that many of America's manufacturing jobs have, in 
fact, gone to Mexico and Canada and have left the U.S.
  But I want to talk about this issue in particular, and I do not rise 
in a vacuum. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I was an 
educator, and one of the assignments that I had as an educator was to 
run the corporate training department for a very large insurance 
company, the Insurance Company of North America, which later became 
known as the Cigna Corporation. My job at that corporation was to train 
their workers' comp specialists, and we had some 700 of them that 
worked with companies across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, during that experience, what I saw time and time again 
among our insureds were examples of workers suffering from carpal 
tunnel syndrome and suffering from problems associated with workplaces 
that were not properly considering the atmosphere of the worker, the 
conditions of the worker, the ergonomics of the workplace environment.
  Now, the rightful response by industry should have been, and in some 
cases has been, an effort to redesign the workplace, to make the job 
more conducive to the human body. Unfortunately, that has not always 
occurred.
  What OSHA has proposed to do is to set up some standards that, in 
fact, would allow that to happen. We can argue for and against the 
fairness, but I think the bottom line in my opinion is we have to very 
strongly say as a Congress that this issue of ergonomics must be 
addressed, and I think it is appropriate that it be addressed and 
supported by Members of both sides of the aisle.

                              {time}  1845

  If we look at the history of this issue in both the House and Senate, 
there have been a number of hearings on ergonomics and on the issues 
associated with it.
  In fact, it is interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the fiscal 
year 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, OSHA

[[Page H4096]]

was prohibited from funding the implementation of the ergonomics rule 
during that fiscal year. In the accompanying report, however, the 
committee specifically stated, ``The committee will refrain from any 
further restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation of 
issuance, or issuance of an ergonomics standard following fiscal year 
1998.''
  So here we had in the 1998 bill language that basically said we would 
not move to restrict these kinds of guidelines in the future. There is 
a feeling there have been enough studies on the subject, Mr. Chairman, 
including a 1998 study by the Academy of Sciences, a critical review by 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and over 
2,000 scientific articles on ergonomics. It is a major problem and is 
causing severe problems for our constituents across the country.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, in August of 1999, the full House passed H.R. 
987, which would deny funding for the ergonomics rule until the 
National Academy of Sciences completed its study on the proposal. This 
bill basically precludes the need to take the action that is included 
in this appropriation measure.
  In fact, the most interesting part of this whole debate, Mr. 
Chairman, is where this idea first originated for an ergonomics 
standard. It did not originate under Bill Clinton. An ergonomics 
standard within OSHA was first proposed by Labor Secretary Libby Dole 
under the Bush administration. Granted, it may not be the standard we 
are looking at today, but the idea of moving toward an ergonomic 
standard is one based in the tradition of both parties.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of this amendment. 
I ask my colleagues to look at it and support it in an effort to find 
support on this legislation, to show the workers of America that we are 
going to do more than give lip service to the concerns related to 
carpal tunnel syndrome and other similar workplace problems associated 
with the problem of ergonomics.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not question the sincerity of any Member of this 
House, but it is well known that all day the majority party leadership 
has been looking for a sponsor for this amendment. I doubt that it is 
because they have experienced a recent Damascus conversion which now 
suddenly makes them passionate defenders of worker health and safety 
issues.
  I think it might be legitimate to ask the question whether or not 
there are a number of Republican moderates in the House who are worried 
about having to cast a vote for this bill in the end because it cuts 
education from the President's request by $3 billion, it cuts the 
President's request on health care by well over $1 billion, and it cuts 
support for worker protection and worker training programs by almost $2 
billion.
  So I think it is fair to ask whether some of those moderates would 
not feel more comfortable if they had a little political cover by being 
able to vote for an amendment like this. Perhaps it might make it 
easier for some folks to vote against the interests of workers by 
voting for this bill on final passage with the deep cuts that it 
provides in programs that help workers.
  I also find it interesting that this vote occurs just 2 weeks after 
the China trade vote. I would ask myself the question whether or not we 
do not also have some Members who might be interested in trying to 
climb back into the good graces of labor by having an opportunity to 
vote on this amendment after they voted for the China trade bill a few 
weeks ago. I do not know, but I think a reasonable observer might come 
into the House and ask that question.
  Having said that, let me say, of course this amendment should pass. 
OSHA has been trying to develop a rule to protect workers from 
repetitive motion injury for over 10 years. For 5 of those years they 
have been blocked by the Congress of the United States. In my view, 
that has been a sometimes scurrilous action taken by this body.
  I would note that at my insistence the committee 2 years ago 
contained the following language in its report: ``The committee will 
refrain from any further restriction with regard to the development, 
promulgation, or issuance of an ergonomics standard following fiscal 
year 1998.''
  Despite the committee's declaration in writing, this committee chose 
to insert the language of the Northup amendment, which abrogated the 
agreement that the committee had announced to the country and the 
House.
  So of course this amendment should pass. But I do not believe 
American workers are going to be fooled. I do not believe that a vote 
for this amendment, followed by a vote for this bill, will be seen by 
American workers as doing them any favors. I think it will be seen for 
exactly what it is.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a defining moment and offers the 
opportunity for all of us in this body to actually show the American 
people whose side we are on.
  There are many of us who came to this body to fight for what we 
believe is the driving engine of America's economy, the small business 
out there, providing 80 to 85 percent of all jobs in America; people 
who work hard, people who are fighting for raises, for better benefits, 
for higher-paying jobs in their community, expanding the opportunity 
for jobs for people across the country.
  I believe that is what we should be doing here every day we come to 
work, because America has risen to great heights historically because 
of private sector growth.
  On the other side, we have OSHA bureaucrats and power-hungry union 
leaders who are trying desperately to implement an ergonomics rule that 
would put a noose around the neck of many employers in this country.
  This is an issue quite frankly that many Members have been struggling 
with for many years. I would ask rhetorically for Members of both sides 
of the aisle, when is the last time they had a town meeting and they 
had people stand up and say, my goodness, Congressman, we really need 
that OSHA ergonomics rule to be implemented as quickly as possible?
  I happen to represent an area that is very independent-minded, not 
necessarily a Republican or Democrat district, and I have not had one 
piece of mail, not one phone call, not one question at a town meeting 
where someone said, please, we need this regulation at our workplace.
  This is strictly driven by bureaucracy, bureaucrats at OSHA, and 
driven by power-hungry union leaders who are desperate to get a greater 
grip on the private sector of this country.
  On the side we are fighting for, we do have the small business 
community. We have small manufacturers, we have farmers, we have 
ranchers, we have hospitals, we have all of the folks out there who are 
working hard every day to make a living. It is mind-boggling to me that 
anyone could find even any gray on this issue at all.
  There is no science, there is no medical research that has 
conclusively shown that this regulation is necessary. In spite of what 
a lot of people up here who love big government like to say, believe it 
or not, the private sector is doing a lot to improve the work 
environment when it comes to dealing with repetitive stress injuries in 
the workplace.
  Grocery store chains, insurance companies, computer manufacturers, 
all of those that are creating this tremendous economic growth have 
dealt with this issue in the workplace privately, and it is working. 
Let us all review the statistics that OSHA has even been presenting 
over the last few years: Workplace injuries are down consistently over 
the last decade. There is a lot being done out there to improve the 
work environment for workers.
  Again, this is something that is going to have a high price tag, as 
well. Those who are trying to rush this rule into place have not 
acknowledged, for example, that for each particular industry, for 
whatever it may be, the cost of implementing it could run into the 
billions of dollars. In some industries the cost will be upwards of $20 
billion.
  The Post Office is even against this. So if Members cannot find that 
they can identify with small business in America, if they cannot 
identify with the farmers and ranchers and the doctors and the 
hospitals, maybe they can identify with the Post Office, because they 
are against it, as well. Or maybe they can identify it with the former 
OSHA director, who is also against this regulation.

[[Page H4097]]

  I asked a question recently in a hearing about this issue to the 
director of OSHA, the head of OSHA, of how, because of the vagueness of 
the way the rule is written, how would an employer even know they are 
in compliance, because there is tremendous vagueness in the rule? That 
is the problem with one-size-fits-all rules. They are written for dance 
studios, bakeries, restaurants, and farms and ranches. We cannot 
possibly apply a single rule like that, where everyone can fit in a 
particular category and say, yes, we are in compliance.
  The director of OSHA said, do not worry, we will let the employers 
know when they are in compliance, which means that this will give the 
Federal bureaucracy at OSHA a tremendous latitude in determining when 
employers are in compliance.
  This has the ability, Mr. Chairman, all across the board in America, 
again, whether it is an auto parts store, a customs broker office, a 
doctors office, a restaurant, a small manufacturing company, the cost 
of mailing a letter, all of this is going to increase, could increase 
greatly in cost for consumers out there if this rule is implemented the 
way it has been written.
  I would just strongly encourage all of my colleagues to look at whose 
side they are on on this issue. There is no gray. They are either on 
the side of the salt of the Earth economic engine that drives this 
country, the small business sector, or they are on the side of the 
power hungry union leaders who are trying to implement this.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on this 
amendment, debate be limited to 30 additional minutes, to be divided 
7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Traficant), 7\1/
2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), 7\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and 7\1/2\ to 
myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask, what was that? I did not hear that.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I asked 
unanimous consent that we limit further debate on this amendment to 30 
minutes, to be divided four ways, 7\1/2\ to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant), 7\1/2\ to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup), 7\1/2\ to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and 7\1/2\ 
to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would 
safeguard America's working women and America's working family. That is 
whose side we are on in this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a $60 billion national problem that affects 
650,000 workers each year. Ergonomic health disorders afflict female 
occupations, including nursing aides, orderlies, attendants, registered 
nurses, cashiers, and maids.
  Women suffer disproportionately. While ergonomic hazards produce 34 
percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses, they cause nearly one-
half of these among women. Although women comprise 46 percent of the 
work force and 33 percent of the injured workers, women represent 63 
percent of repetitive motion syndrome, including 69 percent of lost 
work time cases resulting from carpal tunnel syndrome.
  Congress' fight to protect workers' health and safety has been a long 
one. In 1996, I had an amendment on the floor which we won in a 
Republican Congress, which we won almost unanimous support from the 
Democratic side, a few votes on the Republican side.
  What this language in the legislation before us does, this is an 
obstruction to the implementation of that 1996 amendment. What the 
amendment of the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon and Mr. 
Traficant, would do is to strike that language.
  This is very constructive. I hope our colleagues will support the 
Department of Labor's ergonomic standards and oppose all delaying 
amendments, including the language in this bill, and support Weldon-
Traficant.
  Mr. Chairman, the scientific evidence supports OSHA's standard. The 
National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Occupational 
Health and Safety, the American Public Health Association, and many 
other scientific and public health organizations have already concluded 
that workplace risk factors contribute to health problems, and 
ergonomics programs reduce this risk. That is whose side we are on, the 
National Academy of Sciences.

                              {time}  1900

  The National Academy of Sciences 1998 study on ergonomics reported 
that risk factors at work cause musculoskeletal disorders and these are 
preventable. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
1997 peer review analysis of more than 600 prior reported reliable 
evidence that job-related heavy physical work contributes to workplace 
injuries and illnesses.
  Employer ergonomic programs are effective. Many very responsible 
businesses, large, medium, and small, in this country have decreased 
their recordable cases in worker compensation costs because they have 
invested in ergonomic programs and they have recouped the costs of 
implementing their program. This evidence is available from companies 
as diverse as Minnesota-based 3M with nearly 40,000 employees, to North 
Carolina's Charleston Forge with only 150 workers.
  OSHA's ergonomic standard is sensible, limited in scope, and based on 
success. Prior Congresses have voted in support of it. In 1996, as I 
mentioned, 1997, and 1998 Congress specifically agreed not to delay 
OSHA from finalizing an ergonomic standard. This language in the bill 
before us today would violate these standards.
  And as I said earlier, women are disproportionately affected by 
ergonomic injuries, and I talked about their percentage in the 
workforce, and the disproportionate impact on women and days lost.
  I do want to say, because the question was asked whose side are we 
on. We are on the side of America's working families. We are on the 
side of the National Academy of Sciences. We are on the sides of 
responsible business large, small, and moderate-size businesses in our 
counties who have taken the initiative.
  I stand here with the American Association of Occupational Health 
Nurses, the American College of Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine, the prior GOP Labor Secretaries, in support of OSHA's effort 
to finalize its ergonomic standard.
  Nearly 20 years ago, in April, 1979, OSHA hired its first ergonomist. 
Nearly a decade ago, in 1990, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole said, by 
reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety 
and the productivity of America's workforce.
  Secretary Dole said, I have no higher priority than accomplishing 
just that. And so 10 years ago, Elizabeth Dole was right. Let us not 
wait another day to protect America's working women, America's working 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), which will allow 
OSHA to rush forward with its flawed ergonomics rulemaking. I strongly 
support the provision in the underlying bill sponsored by my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), prohibiting OSHA from 
finalizing its risky ergonomics rule which is not based on good 
science.
  For more than 2 years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
has expressed concerns to OSHA about the lack of a scientific basis for 
an ergonomic standard through hearings and through letters to the 
Department of Labor.
  Last year, the House approved the bill, which would require OSHA to 
wait for the results of the congressionally funded National Academy of 
Sciences study and ergonomics, a million dollar study I might mention. 
The Northup language ensures that OSHA will abide

[[Page H4098]]

by the provisions of H.R. 987 passed by the House last year.
  Despite the significant scientific and economic questions about 
ergonomics in the workplace, OSHA continues to plow ahead, and the 
result of this can only be an arbitrary, unfair, and expensive mandate 
without the scientific knowledge to get it right.
  The health and safety of American workers is certainly a top priority 
of all Members of Congress. Nevertheless, it is important that Congress 
not stand idly by while a regulation is rushed through that is not 
based on sound science.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) 
for recognizing the importance of Congress' oversight role. The 
gentlewoman has genuine concern for the health and safety of workers. 
Despite loud and misguided opposition, she has had the fortitude to 
focus attention on the genuine and legitimate concerns with the 
ergonomics proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
to support a 1-year freeze. If we really want to help workers, then we 
need the results of an independent scientific study, let us get it 
right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the previous 
speaker and say we are all concerned about workers' safety. We all want 
workers to be able to prevent injury, but the Labor cabinet has not 
brought us anything that will help us do that, instead they bring us a 
one-sided rule. It does not include any collaborative effort, and it 
does not include any employee/employer partnership, which is what all 
of worker health is about.
  I would like to tell my colleagues that right here is a response to a 
request where the Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 to organize and 
to present testimony in their behalf. The people that oppose the rule 
that talked about the obstacles and the difficulties in complying came 
on their own behalf, as citizens, as individuals, as the private 
sector, to say, hey, listen to us, we want what you want, please, work 
with us.
  The Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 apiece to come and testify 
and enter into the record information to bolster their side. They had 
to pay people to support their position. So I think that what we see 
here is people who want to come to the table. They want to work with 
OSHA. They want best practice guidance.
  They want an idea of how they can look to best remedy their 
employee's problems, but what they do not want is a bang-you-over-the-
head elephant-in-a-china-shop approach of a big government bureaucracy 
that will do nothing but cost them money and not give them any good 
guidance on how to achieve what they very much want to achieve.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if my colleague from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup) knows what the average salary is of the lawyers who sit at the 
table who represent the big business industries, that have in the past 
been opposed to trying to do something to protect the safety of working 
men and women in this country.
  The story of ergonomics is one of unending scientific study in the 
support of ergonomics and unyielding and baseless delaying tactics on 
the part of ergonomics opponents. We have had an 8-year ordeal of 
exhaustive scientific study that supports the science of ergonomics as, 
in fact, a way to protect workers and to save America's businesses 
money.
  For each year of delay, another 1.8 million U.S. workers experience a 
work-related musculoskeletal disorder. The Department of Labor 
estimates that the ergonomics rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries 
per year, save $9 billion in workers' compensation and related costs, 
about one-third of general industry work sites should be covered by the 
rule, protecting 27 million workers.
  Fewer than 30 percent of general industry employers currently have 
effective ergonomics programs, and it is probably because of the high-
priced lawyers that they have hired to keep this rule from being 
promulgated. About a third of the industries, or over 600,000 
incidents, are serious enough to require time off from work and cost 
businesses 50 to $20 billion in workers' compensation.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34 percent of all lost 
workday injuries are related to ergonomic injuries.
  When my colleague introduced this rider into the bill, it was said 
that this was a limitation and not a rider. I said at that time and I 
say, again, you can dress up a pig, you can put lipstick on it, you can 
call it Monique, but it is still a pig. This is a rider.
  This is a continued delaying tactic in this legislation. The National 
Academy of Sciences concluded in 1998 that ergonomic industries are 
directly related to work, that higher on-the-job physical stress leads 
to more ergonomic injuries, that most people face their greatest 
exposure to physical stress at work. Interventions that reduce physical 
stress on the job reduce the risk of injury.
  Since the process was begun during the Bush administration, over 
1,000 witnesses have testified, more than 7,000 written comments have 
been submitted. OSHA has included 1,400 studies in the ergonomics 
rulemaking record. Science supports ergonomics. It protects worker 
health in this country. It will save American businesses billions of 
dollars.
  Why then do they want to continue to delay? Why do we want to do 
that? Let us support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant). Let us move ahead with an ergonomics rule, so, in fact, 
what we can do is to do what we are sent here to do and not to do harm, 
but, in fact, to protect working men and women in this country.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here again talking about this topic that has 
been pointed out by many of my colleagues, has been discussed many 
times in this Congress. In fact, last year, we had a debate on the 
floor of the House, not 1996, not 1997, not 1998, but in 1999, to wait 
until the study by the National Academy of Sciences that had just been 
started was completed until OSHA moved forward with this regulation.
  The House passed that legislation and said that is what we would like 
to do. OSHA started that study, a year ago, about the time that this 
provision would be exhausted, that we get to the end of the fiscal 
year, that this provision would make it impossible for OSHA to 
implement these ergonomics regulations, that study will be completed, 
there will have then 90 days to look at it. And, in fact, if you ask 
most Americans, if it made sense to spend a million dollars on a study 
and then look at it before you move forward with regulations, they 
would say it did.
  The last National Academy of Sciences effort on this may have been 
exhaustive, but if I have read it right, it was over a long weekend. 
And the last recommendation in that exhaustive National Academy of 
Sciences study was this needs more study. When we had hearings last 
year on the bill where we talked about waiting for the National Academy 
of Sciences study, the past two presidents of the American College of 
Hand Surgery, many others who work in this area came in and said we are 
not ready yet to fully understand the causes or the treatments for 
these injuries.
  At the same time, it has been pointed out by others of my colleagues 
that the American workforce as fully employed as it has been in a long 
time is a valued workforce, that we have seen without this regulation 
ergonomics-related injuries declining every single year during this 
time that it has been said that the Congress is stretching out rushing 
to these standards.
  It is like OSHA's contention that every year that OSHA has been in 
existence that fatalities at the workplace have declined; that is true. 
It is also true that they were declining faster in the 20 years before 
OSHA went into existence. You can prove anything you want to with 
figures, but the one figure that is undeniable here is that workplace 
injuries are declining without these standards. These standards will 
benefit from scientific study, this amendment added to the bill by the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) would give us the time we need 
for these studies to be completed,

[[Page H4099]]

for us to not rush to judgment on issues that really, I think, cost 
Americans their jobs, moves American companies to that final decision 
to make a capital investment instead of an investment in people.
  If Federal bureaucrats are going to mess with the jobs of working 
Americans, they should do that with great extreme caution. They should 
do that based on sound science. This prohibition to implementing the 
ergonomic standards gives us a chance to look at that sound science.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this striking amendment, to move 
forward with this prohibition and to do the right thing for American 
workers.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me a little bit about this objection to 
the provision that is in the appropriations bill before us today is 
that it ignores the work that States are doing on ergonomics.
  My State of Washington has worked for sometime with employers and 
others to develop ergonomic standards that are different than those 
that are part of the Federal standards or proposed to be the Federal 
standards.
  So what this does is put employers and employees in a dilemma in 
States like Washington State concerned that they want to comply with 
the State standard but also concerned that they will have to comply 
with the Federal standard that may be different.
  So I think we ought to be cautious in this whole effort to rush to 
judgment with respect to a Federal standard that will employ Federal 
employees to do Federal inspections that will put different burdens on 
people in States that are also facing the very real prospect of having 
State officials that the case of my State the Washington State 
Department of Labor and Industries also involved in inspections and 
oversight with respect to worker injuries.
  It is a given, I think, Mr. Chairman, that all of us want to make 
sure that our workers are protected and that they are not injured in 
the workplace. That is not in the best interest of employees; it is not 
in the best interest of employers. But to have this duplicate standard 
and the idea that the Federal standard is the only standard that is 
valuable is wrong.
  We do it, not only in OSHA, but we do it in other agencies as well 
where we have this sense that the Federal standard and the Federal 
Government is the only vehicle by which we can have fair and free and 
operating standards that affects citizens in our respective States.
  So I would just say my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that I respect the 
proponents of this amendment; but I think that it is not the right 
amendment. I am going to vote against it and support the bill as it 
came out of the full committee with the idea that let us let States 
take leads on this as well, in particular, take leads that are not 
going to burden onerously the employers and the employees of our 
respective States and our respected businesses who are working so hard 
to make this engine of our economy move forward.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
support of this amendment. They have dragged out every phrase that is 
designed to scare the American people that the big Federal Government 
is rushing into promulgating this rule. Only to the Republicans would 
10 years be a rush. Only to the Republicans would it be irresponsible 
to try to cover people who every day are getting crippled and losing 
job opportunities and losing compensation ability to support their 
families by a well thought-out rule.
  Only the Republicans would think that it is new science to have a 
report that reviews the existing science. There is no new science in 
this report. This is a review of literature as mandated by this 
Congress. But year after year, they have tried to delay this rule; and 
they have been successful in doing so.
  For those who say, well, we want our States to do it, what happens if 
one lives in a State that does not want to do it? I must say there is a 
lot of room for one's States to do whatever they want to do and a lot 
of room for one's employers to do whatever they want to do, because 
only 30 percent of the people working in general industry have any kind 
of effective program at all.
  Our committee in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education, they were suggesting they really did not see this. This 
was not a real injury. This was a fiction. I guess they do not go to 
the supermarket and they do not see the checkers who are wearing arm 
braces and wrist braces. They do not see the flight attendants who are 
wearing wrist braces. Maybe they do not go to Home Depot, an employer 
that has an ergonomics program and people are wearing back braces. They 
think that is dressing up. That is not a cumberbund; that is a back 
brace. Why? Because they are insurers and they work together, and they 
made a determination that they could reduce back injuries.
  Maybe the Republicans would recognize ergonomics injuries if we 
applied it to tennis and golf. Because certainly my colleagues have 
friends who are wearing arm braces on their left hand as they come 
through the ball and they have an ergonomics injury or from their 
forearm smash. Maybe then my colleagues would recognize that as 
ergonomics.
  But those people my colleagues see in the supermarket and the working 
place, on the construction site and the manufacturing areas, in the 
steel mills and the auto plants that are wearing those braces that is 
not for that reason. That is for the reason of repetitive motion.
  It is not to be laughed at. It is not to be made fun of. It is not to 
put people in the place of if they will have a responsible employer, 
they have protection; if they have an irresponsible employer, they will 
not have protection.
  The fact of the matter is that this rule is very well thought out. 
This rule is not one size fits all that is supposed to scare one away. 
It is not one size fits all. It is targeted where 60 percent of the 
injuries occur, of this kind of injury occur.
  It has been vetted. Thousands and thousands of people have commented 
on it. Seven thousand people I guess have had written comments. A 
thousand witnesses testified on this. OSHA went beyond the minimum 
requirements in terms of taking public testimony, and hearing witnesses 
went far beyond that. Yet, the gentlewoman from the other side would 
suggest to us that this is a rush, this is a hurry up. There is no such 
thing.
  This is a carefully thought-out rule designed to protect workers in 
the American workplace. It is a rule designed to save employers 
billions of dollars in worker compensation costs. It is designed to 
save employees millions of hours of lost time so they do not lose the 
wages that they use to support their families and provide for their 
families. That is what this rule is about.
  But every year, the Republicans have been able to stop it. Every 
year, the Republicans have been able to keep it from going into effect. 
Many of our colleagues refer to the fact that it was Elizabeth Dole, 
George Bush's Secretary of Labor, that brought this issue to the 
forefront and started this process. But that was 10 years ago. In that 
10 years' time, hundreds of thousands of Americans have suffered this 
injury and suffered the loss of work, the loss of opportunity, and the 
loss of the ability to provide for their families.
  That is what is at stake here tonight. That is all that is at stake 
here tonight is whether or not people will go and they will go into a 
safer and safer workplace or whether they will be put at the whims of 
the chicken factories and irresponsible businesses that use people up 
and then throw them away, people so badly crippled in their hands they 
cannot take another job if they can no longer do that job. We have seen 
that. It is time to get rid of it. That is what this rule does, and we 
should support the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protection, I had firsthand knowledge of the

[[Page H4100]]

 blatant disrespect that OSHA has shown Congress in the regulatory 
process in implementing its proposed ergonomic standard. As the 
gentleman previously said, they took 8 years and they have not changed 
nothing, allowing only a 60-day comment period, but 30-day extension 
for an analysis of a 1,200 page regulation. It is absurd. By limiting 
the total number of days allowed for comment on the proposed regulation 
to 90 days, OSHA simply told small business that their comments do not 
count.
  In case my colleagues do not know, business decisions are made on the 
basis of cost, as the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) said. 
Injured employees cannot work. So it is up to the companies' interest, 
it is in their interest to protect their physical health.
  The law says one must have workman's compensation. It is expensive. 
It is not free. So employers work to protect their employees, they buy 
forklifts, they build conveyors, all without any government mandates.
  OSHA says that the ergonomic standard will only cost $4 billion. That 
is a wild guess. Business says it could cost $80 billion to $90 billion 
for a single industry. Industry has two choices: automate the jobs out 
of existence or move the business out of the country. We need some more 
accurate ideas as to what it will cost.
  In October of 1998, Congress appropriated almost $1 million for a 
nonpartisan study by the National Academy of Science, NAS, to focus on 
the relationship between repetitive task and repetitive stress injuries 
and the validity of ergonomics as a science.
  On August 3 of last year, the House passed the Workplace and 
Preservation Act to prohibit OSHA from issuing a prepared or final rule 
on workplace ergonomics until after the NAS study is completed in the 
year 2001.
  As we have seen, OSHA believes that it does not have to adhere to the 
will of Congress or the medical community in seeking to finalize the 
proposed rule by this fall. They have got a study going, but it is run 
by NIOSH, which is a division of OSHA. Nothing like examining oneself.
  In conclusion, as currently written, the proposed ergonomics rule 
jeopardizes the jobs and welfare of both employers and employees. 
Pushing this inaccurate, unscientific proposal in such a short time 
period is both arrogant and reckless.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Traficant amendment and support 
the prohibitive language in this bill to stop OSHA from moving forward 
on an ergonomic standard.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I also want to 
oppose the overall bill. It is an anti-family bill overall. This 
amendment, if passed, would make it a little better but not good 
enough. This is an anti-working family's bill which takes away very 
vital parts that are necessary to keep working families afloat.
  The job-training section has been gutted. The school construction 
section, a mere $1.3 billion from school construction has been removed 
at a time when the public schools, only schools that working families 
can afford to attend, are being abandoned and in great need of repair.
  The National Education Association survey has recently shown that one 
needs $254 billion just to maintain the infrastructure of public 
schools across the country at the level to serve the present 
enrollment, let alone to prepare for future enrollments. Yet we have 
cut out $1.3 billion of a very modest proposal made by the President in 
this legislation. So if this amendment does pass, it will be slightly 
better; but we should still vote against the entire bill because it is 
against working families.
  This is against working families. It is against women in particular, 
because the philosophy here in opposing ergonomics is that, if an 
injury does not show blood, if there is no blood and there is no 
crushed bones, there is no pain. There is no injury. It is a 
Neanderthal approach to looking at the kinds of things that happen in 
the workplace.
  One does not have to go very far. One does not have to go to a town 
meeting to find people who are suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome. 
This place is full of them. We have lots of secretaries, lots of people 
who do the kind of work that results in carpal tunnel syndrome. Just 
look around. Do an honest survey. Republicans and Democrats should look 
around and do an honest survey.
  I have one person on my staff right now who has a problem with carpal 
tunnel syndrome. I had a person 12 years ago who worked on my staff and 
her hands gave out. She could not type. She had done a lot of typing 
before electric typewriters came on, before computers. She was ashamed 
to even complain and thought something was wrong with her. I did not 
know at that time what the problem was. I clearly identify it right 
now. It is a very real injury; 600,000 workers a year at minimum suffer 
from musculoskeletal disorders.
  There is a lot of talk about NAS doing another study. I want to 
emphasize the fact that it is a second study. They are calling for a 
second study by the National Academy of Sciences. They have done one 
already. They want it reversed. They want to hold out for it.
  The truth of it is the people who have called for this additional 
study are now showing their true colors in this particular legislation. 
The opponents had argued before that OSHA should wait for another 
National Academy of Sciences report before moving forward with the 
rule. They hope the National Academy of Sciences would change its 
earlier findings that support the ergonomics rule.
  Now they are not willing to wait for the NAS study. They are now 
saying that the rule should be stopped regardless of a conclusion of a 
new NAS study. There is kind of a blind ideological opposition to 
ergonomics. They have changed their tune either because they no longer 
hope NAS would change its findings or because they never really cared 
about a respected science in the first place. Backers of this rider are 
willing to ignore commitments and promises and sound science too.
  In 1997, NIOSH completed the most comprehensive review ever conducted 
of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace. NIOSH reviewed over 600 
epidemiologic studies and concluded there is strong evidence of an 
association between musculoskeletal disorders and work related 
disorders to high levels of repetition, forceful exertions, and awkward 
exposures.
  The study was peer reviewed by 27 experts from throughout the 
country. NAS, as I said before, came to the same conclusion after they 
conducted their own review.
  What we have here is a blind ideological refusal to accept the fact 
that, in this modern society, there are new kinds of disorders that can 
be very real and very painful and can rob a person of their ability to 
earn a living.
  I have seen many examples of women who have lost their ability to use 
their hands. They can no longer type, they can no longer make a living, 
the only way they knew how to make a living. It is very real. This 
anti-family bill is particularly harsh for women for that reason.
  Construction industries and many of the other standards that have 
been set by OSHA over the years relate to obvious kinds of injuries. 
When a person bleeds, when a bone is broken, nobody can quarrel about 
the fact that that is a real injury. But ergonomics produces very real 
injuries, also.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue of repetitive stress injury and repetitive 
motion injury is really a serious matter, and it is a very complex 
problem, and that is one of the reasons I think it has created as much 
debate as it has. It does have and can have a dramatic impact on the 
life of workers. But the problem is that it is extraordinarily 
difficult to separate these injuries that arise at the workplace from 
normal circumstances that just occur as a consequence of the wear and 
tear of the aging process. It is also complicated by the fact that 
workplaces are very complex places; and they are also very dynamic 
places, with circumstances and conditions changing all the time.
  The Labor Department's approach to this problem has been a 
complicated

[[Page H4101]]

set of rules that will literally micromanage every workplace in 
America. These rules will dictate changes in virtually every office, 
every dental office, every restaurant, every doctor's office, even 
those job locations where there is no evidence or any record of any 
kind of injury or any indication that there has been any threat of 
injury.
  What concerns many of us is that OSHA's approach to workplace safety 
has not worked. And it is generally not going to work, because if we 
take a one-size-fits-all set of safety rules and regulations and we try 
to apply it to these changing and complex workplaces, it does not 
produce the results that people expect. What these ergonomics rules do 
is they take what is a failed concept and they take it to its zenith. 
It will add dramatically to the cost of the operation of every small 
business in America, and it is going to fail to deliver on the promise 
of a safer workplace.
  There is a better way to do this, and the better way to do this is to 
focus on outcomes, setting goals, working with employer groups to 
reduce these kinds of injuries, providing employers with the 
flexibility that they need to be able to address their specific 
workplace with solutions to the problem.
  Now, how do we know that that is going to work? Because it is 
working. The safety rates in this country have increased dramatically 
in instances where employers and workers are given the flexibility to 
address workplace safety problems cooperatively. Injury rates of this 
kind are dropping. And that is because employers care about their 
employees. They are very concerned about their employees and they value 
them.
  Government cannot create a safe workplace, Mr. Chairman. Employers 
working with employees in a flexible setting addressing the specific 
problems in that business and that workplace do. I would oppose this 
amendment. Suspending this rule is a good idea. We need better science, 
we need better solutions.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, I would like to respond briefly to the gentleman from 
Montana. We deal with many complex issues in this body, and I would 
daresay if complexity is the excuse for nonaction, then we really would 
not be debating anything around here.
  And I would also like to respond to a second comment when the 
gentleman was talking about government cannot make our workplaces 
safer. Having served on this committee, and I am privileged to serve on 
the committee, government cannot make it better, most employees, most 
employers make the workplace better, but the government can encourage 
those employers, who may not make the workplace as safe as they can, to 
make it safer.
  I can remember very well the fire in the chicken factory when the 
employers locked the doors and 29 people died. So some employers, not 
most, may need an encouragement.
  I just want to comment on this particular amendment, because I do 
feel, my colleagues, enough is enough. The science exists, we have 
heard of it over and over again, the evidence has been gathered, the 
public comment has been heard and, frankly, our experience in our own 
offices confirm it. Each year more than 650,000 Americans suffer 
disorders caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting or awkward 
postures that occur in the workplace. These disorders account for more 
than a third of all workplace injuries.
  We have to try our best to prevent these injuries using simple 
collaborative steps where we can work together. These are serious 
health problems and OSHA should be able to go forward within its 
authority to work with employers and employees to prevent and relieve 
them. Let us prevent and relieve these injuries and save billions of 
dollars in health care and productivity costs. Let us live up to our 
obligation doing what we can to protect American workers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  I simply want to announce to the House that I am going to insert for 
the Record a letter from the American Federation of Labor, the AFL-CIO, 
in a letter dated June 8 to me. The letter says as follows:

       The Traficant amendment is being offered against the wishes 
     of the AFL-CIO. It is being done in a way that does not 
     provide an appropriate opportunity to work on behalf of its 
     passage. Further, it appears to be an effort on the part of 
     some to provide cover and encourage Members to support 
     legislation that is blatant anti working family. We do not 
     view this amendment as helpful to the effort to achieve final 
     promulgation of an effective ergonomic standard. With or 
     without this amendment, this legislation seriously harms the 
     interests of American workers and we will continue to 
     strongly oppose the passage of H.R. 4577.

  I simply note that so that Members understand that even if they vote 
for this amendment that is not going to fool anyone who represents 
American workers into thinking that that has made this bill acceptable 
to the interests of working families because it clearly is not and will 
not be so.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter I referred to above follows:

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,


                                 Washington, DC, June 8, 2000.

     Hon. David Obey,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Obey: The Traficant amendment is being 
     offered against the wishes of the AFL-CIO. It is being done 
     in a way that does not provide an appropriate opportunity to 
     work in behalf of its passage. Further, it appears to be an 
     effort on the part of some to provide cover and encourage 
     members to support legislation that is blatantly anti working 
     family.
       We do not view this amendment as helpful to the effort to 
     achieve final promulgation of an effective ergonomic 
     standard.
       With or without this amendment, this legislation seriously 
     harms the interests of American workers and we will continue 
     to strongly oppose the passage of H.R. 4577.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Peggy Taylor,
                              Director, Department of Legislation.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
say, in conclusion, we as representatives of our community cannot solve 
all the problems, we cannot solve all the problems in the workplace, 
but we have a responsibility to do what we can, based on the science, 
to pass legislation that can make life a little better for workers who 
are working in many situations at a disadvantage to their health.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Traficant amendment. First 
of all, let me put in the Record that I am very proud that Elizabeth 
Dole initiated this national debate and that our former colleague, Lynn 
Martin, when she was Secretary of Labor, moved it forward. And I 
daresay that if either of them were Secretary of Labor now we would not 
be here tonight.
  We are here because the proposed regulations issued by the Department 
of Labor are so unfair to workers. It is unfair to workers to have the 
Federal Government mandate a 90 percent compensation because an 
individual is injured as the result of ergonomics and a lower level of 
compensation if injured some other way. Do my colleagues realize what 
that is going to do in the long run to the sense of equity and fairness 
in labor law for working Americans?
  We are here tonight because this sets up a really unfair system of 
compensation, for the first time ever people getting compensated 
differently depending on the origin of their injury. It also will 
interfere with the very mechanisms that in my district have been put in 
place. And, believe me, I have been in factory after factory over the 
last year. And if my colleagues have not been there and looked at how 
their factories are improving their safety records, then they cannot 
really understand how these regulations will prevent the very 
mechanisms that are creating an absolutely astounding reduction in 
workplace injuries.
  Do my colleagues realize that occupational injury and illness rates 
are at their lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began 
recording this information in the 1970s? And, in fact, since 1992, 
injuries resulting in the loss of workdays have dropped 20 percent. In 
my district I can tell my colleagues why that is happening. It is 
because people are very serious about keeping their employees healthy.
  In the factories in my district, teams of workers are out there 
looking at

[[Page H4102]]

this stuff all the time. They are improving it. These regulations the 
Department of Labor is interested in would lay over this employee 
activity that is working, a bureaucratic administrative mechanism that 
is only sort of didactically driven. It interferes with the very 
dynamic, the communication, the vitality, all the things that are 
happening in the workplace to reduce injuries.
  I have seen that in plant after plant after plant, and I have had 
workers stand there and ask me how we can tell them they are doing it 
wrong when they are doing so well. I was in one of the plants in my 
district that was used by OSHA to do its research to develop these 
regulations. And what appalled them was that together they did identify 
some things that were problems, for which none of them could think up 
any solutions. But under these regulations one incident, not a pattern 
of problems, not a pattern of injuries, not a pattern of even symptoms, 
but one injury would trigger the whole 1200 pages of Federal 
regulations coming down on their head, even though OSHA themselves 
could find no solution to the problem that jointly the workers, 
management, and OSHA had identified.
  So this regulation that OSHA has come out with is so wildly 
inappropriately related to the problem of getting working people and 
helping working people and giving them the resources to identify the 
problems and find solutions, when employers are clearly highly 
motivated to invest in safety. It is so wrong headed it cannot be fixed 
and it must be stopped.
  Lastly, the idea of providing a separate, different, higher 
compensation for people because they are injured as a result of one 
cause versus another is simply going to create a system of such gross 
inequity that we should not here tonight let that go forward. I want a 
good ergonomics regulation. This Secretary has not produced it. And 
these regulations must be stopped.
  At the rate the Department works, it will take them a year to figure 
out and look at what would be the next step. But these regulations 
would be catastrophic for the constructive employers who are winning 
awards for safety, and that ought to tell my colleagues something.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question has 
gone begging this evening. Frankly, what we should be discussing is an 
overall policy point of view that this Nation wants to take with 
respect to its American workers.
  I have great difficulty with this legislation and will oppose it, but 
in particular this amendment clearly begs or asks the question, what do 
we do about 1.8 million U.S. workers that experience a work-related 
musculoskeletal disorder, such as injuries from over-exertion or 
repetitive motion? How do we ignore that?
  The real question is not how we see it fitting in our respective 
districts but how we see it fitting across the Nation as it responds or 
relates to the idea that we must find some basis of dealing with this 
national issue, and that is that workers across the Nation are, in 
fact, experiencing these kinds of injuries. Do we also realize that 
over 600,000 incidences occur that are serious enough to require time 
off from work and cost businesses between $15 billion and $20 billion?
  I would beg to differ as to whether or not our Secretary of Labor and 
the Department of Labor have not done what they are supposed to do. 
Ergonomics regulations may affect some businesses to the extent that 
they do not want them to affect them, but our responsibility here on 
the floor of the House is to deal with individual workers who cannot 
address these issues themselves. It is a responsibility to make 
national policy that answers the question with respect to a safe 
workplace.
  The Department of Labor estimates that the ergonomics rule would 
prevent about 300,000 injuries a year. I would simply say that that is 
an important preventive measure. That is an important policy decision 
that responds to the needs of at least 300,000 workers. Why would we 
not want to do that? Why would an amendment even be accepted to 
eliminate that aspect of the Department of Labor's responsibility?
  I am dealing in another committee with a complaint that an agency has 
not written rules to address a particular legislative initiative.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, we have an agency that has and we have the claim that their 
regulations are unfair to workers and unfair, of course, to businesses. 
I am simply speechless. Because if they are unfair, why are we 
continuing to have these injuries? We obviously need to solve the 
problem in some way, shape, or form or fashion.
  I would argue that the ergonomics would prevent about 300,000 
injuries per year and save $9 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that about one-third of 
general-industry work sites will be covered by the rule, protecting 27 
million workers. Fewer than 30 percent of general industry employers 
currently have effective ergonomics programs.
  This is a policy question that I hope this House does not find itself 
on the wrong side of the street. I would like us to err on the side of 
protecting 27 million workers and preventing the injuries of 300,000 of 
those who are injured.
  Ergonomics are real. The injuries are real. The need is real. I would 
ask that we would support this amendment, at least to make the 
statement and to protect the workers as they work on a daily basis.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, section 103 of the bill says ``none of the funds made 
available in this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to promulgate, issue, implement, administer or enforce 
any proposed temporary or final standard on ergonomic protection.''
  Earlier in this debate, I rose and went to that well to speak to what 
was wrong with that section, and I joined my good friend, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in stating that I am opposed to this bill; 
but I am going to support this amendment. And the reason I am going to 
support this amendment is because in my district in Cleveland, when I 
go out and meet the people, as I do all the time and as many of us do 
in our own districts, I always study people. And when I go out to shake 
hands and hands reach out, I want to tell my colleagues how many times 
I would see over and over a scar on somebody's wrist, mostly women I 
might add.
  And my colleagues know what it is more often than not. Someone has 
had surgery to correct a carpal tunnel condition. So we see a hand 
reach out; and if there is a scar on that wrist, more often than not, 
that person has had a repetitive motion injury, carpal tunnel.
  Now, if we shake that hand of that person who had that injury and had 
surgery to correct the condition, we might consider the moral statement 
of joining hands with someone who has had that injury and then at the 
same time be willing to sweep aside any attempt to stop others from 
being able to be protected in the workplace.
  Now, I know about one such person because it happened to be my Aunt 
Betty. She helped to raise most of the children in our extended family. 
And Aunt Betty did it by working her 40 hours a week in a large 
corporation in downtown Cleveland as an executive secretary and spent 
30 years on the job typing away and then finally took retirement 
because her hand would not work anymore. That is why she quit. She 
would still be doing it, just that her hand would not work anymore.
  So she had surgery. And now she is in her seventies and enjoying life 
retired. She would have kept working as long as she could, but her 
hands would not work anymore.
  Well, I can tell my colleagues there are a lot of Aunt Bettys out 
there. And when I go and reach out in the crowd, I can see the little 
marks on their wrists. We need ergonomic standards. We need to have the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration be able to promulgate and 
issue and implement and administer and enforce temporary or final 
standards on ergonomic protection. That is why I am going to be 
supporting this amendment.
  Arguments to the contrary attempt to reduce all workers to the status 
of

[[Page H4103]]

cheats. I think most Americans who have a job want to work; they do not 
want to find a way out of work. I think most businesses who have well-
trained workers want their people to stay on the job; they do not want 
to waste the human capital.
  This is an issue about human beings and our dedication to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole 
announced a major initiative to reduce repetitive motion trauma. She 
said she intended to begin the rule-making process immediately. She 
said Assistant Secretary of Labor Scanell shall begin an inspection 
program in early 1991.
  My colleagues, this is 2000. I think 9 years is enough.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of 
additional debate be allowed on this amendment with 5 minutes allocated 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 5 minutes allocated to 
myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
like some time in the closing of this debate.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, how about 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 2\1/2\ minutes to me, and 2\1/
2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup)?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I shall accept that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity to address this committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office listening to the discussion 
with regard to ergonomics. I rise in opposition to the legislation but 
in support of the amendment.
  The reason I came over here is because I have a mother who turned 79 
years old this year, and we were sitting at the table the other day and 
her right hand is like this; and her right hand is like this because 
she worked in a factory folding boxes for 20 years.
  She ultimately retired from the factory from another injury, having 
fallen from a stool and busting her tailbone on the cement of that 
floor. But, ultimately, she is right now in the process of about, at 
79, to have this hook of her hand repaired. And it comes from carpal 
tunnel syndrome.
  I suggest to my colleagues the inability of the Department of Labor 
and the Secretary of Labor to promulgate rules hits me very close to 
home to my 79-year-old mother, Mary Tubbs.
  I would suggest that there are mothers across this country who are in 
the same condition as my mom, and I would say that we have the 
opportunity to address this terrible injury where people who have 
worked all of their lives end up being deformed as a result of 
ergonomics.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that we all 
agree that we need to look at ergonomics. The fact is that the mother 
of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and my mother and my mother-
in-law and many senior women, whether they have been in the workforce 
or not, are struggling with carpal tunnel. The fact is it is caused not 
just by the workplace, but in my case it was caused by years of cooking 
and sewing.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) just mentioned that 
the time that she struggled with it the most in her life and needed 
surgery on both hands was a result of the years of sewing and cooking. 
The fact is that whatever we are doing causes stress on certain joints 
if we use it over and over.
  But the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) also made the 
point that, even in the workplace that OSHA used to consider this rule, 
they identified problem after problem where all the employees and the 
employer and OSHA, working all together with consultants, could not 
devise a strategy for addressing this particular problem that an 
employee had.
  We do need a collaborative effort. We do need the authority of OSHA 
that has helped reduce workplace injuries. We need them to come to the 
table and help us to develop some best-thought-out strategies.
  But as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated, 
after 8 years and an amazing amount of money and pages in testimony, 
this bureaucracy has turned out a rule that did not take any of those 
things into consideration. They have been tone deaf to the people that 
have asked fair questions about what sort of solution really brings a 
remedy to their employees in the workplace.
  Another one of the speakers said complexity is not an excuse for 
inaction. But I want to tell my colleagues what it does call for. 
Complexity calls for balance. And we have not seen any balance in this 
rule, none of it, that reflects the fair concerns of employers and 
employees in the workplace. Instead, it is heavy-handed and it is 
extremely expensive.
  And for those jobs that are not offshore as a result, let me tell 
them what it does. It absorbs an enormous amount of money in the 
workplace. What does that mean? It means lower salaries for working 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, and so who is going to pay the price as the workplace 
begins to spend money and to spend money in ways just to experiment 
with possible remedies just to prove that they are doing something? The 
person that pays the price is the worker.
  As the employer says to the worker, I am sorry, I cannot give you the 
raise you deserve and need and your family wants because, instead, I 
have to spend the money in the workplace.
  Has this ever happened before? It has happened before when companies 
have had to swallow such large costs in health insurance that they have 
had to go to the bargaining table and reduce what they wanted to offer 
their employees in terms of salaries and their wages in order to meet 
the cost of their health insurance.
  What we are creating here in this rule is an enormous cost driver, 
and the people that are going to pay the price are the people that have 
to share what is left over after we meet this bureaucracy regulation.
  Workers in America are not asking for big, new costs, they are not 
asking for a big bureaucracy, and they are not asking for our 
intervention. They are asking us to do everything we can to help them 
raise their families, support their families, invest in their futures, 
and send their children to school. They are asking us not to drive up 
costs, not to drive up taxes, not to create big bureaucracies, and not 
to centralize more of the Federal Government but, instead, to help them 
and equip them to meet their needs.
  OSHA ought to be a partner in that. They should not be an obstacle in 
it, and they should not drive up the costs and suck out of our economy 
money that could be in the hands of our workers.
  This is not fair to our workers. It is not fair to those of us that 
are looking to OSHA to give us common sense regulation. It comes from a 
bureaucracy that created the home workplace regulations that were 
quickly withdrawn. That was not an accident, Mr. Speaker. That was not 
something that happened by a mistake or one person. That happened 
because we have an agency that is out of control, that is tone deaf, 
that will not listen, that does not understand the meaning of balance, 
and does not understand common sense regulation.

                              {time}  2000

  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this party is the majority party today 
because in 1994, the American people said enough is enough and that we 
are not getting balance, we are getting huge bureaucracies that have 
promised us everything and delivered us nothing.
  Please defeat this amendment and send back to the American families 
what they are really asking for.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I have heard arguments that protecting workers is shoving jobs 
overseas. I would like to make issue with

[[Page H4104]]

 that. I think our tax and trade policies are chasing American 
companies overseas. And here is how we are trying now to save a few 
jobs, on the backs of worker protection.
  You show me a 50-year-old court reporter who does not have carpal 
tunnel problems. Show me one. Maybe they never came forward with it. It 
started in 1990 with Elizabeth Dole, God bless her. In 1991, her 
assistant secretary was going to begin the process. It is 2000. Most of 
those workers are now so debilitated, they cannot function. I believe 
it is unconscionable for this Congress to try and create jobs on the 
back of destroying workers' rights.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the only repetitive motion injury that some Members of 
Congress are likely ever to endure will come from the routine 
genuflecting to special interests that so often goes on around here. We 
ought to have an exception to that general rule by passing this 
amendment tonight.
  But if you vote for it, do not think you can then go home and pretend 
to your workers that you are a friend of the working man and a friend 
of working families all over this country if you vote to pass this 
bill, because it will still be cutting education from the President's 
request by over $3 billion, it will be cutting health care by more than 
$1 billion, it will be cutting worker protection and job training 
programs by almost $2 billion. That is not going to fool anybody.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do not know how you are going to vote on final passage. That is 
your business. But I do know one thing that I say to the chairman and 
ranking member, that votes set precedents. You vote to keep this 
language in and you certify this language will become the law of the 
land and it will never be changed. I am here talking about a precedent, 
a precedent that says, and I do not give a damn what the AFL-CIO says. 
Quite frankly they did not even support me. If my workers do not know a 
damn thing about AFL-CIO, they know this. Their parents and their 
grandparents have problems, and Congress has put off and put off and 
put off.
  Let me say this to both parties. Elizabeth Dole started it 10 years 
ago. Congratulations, Republicans. Democrats, I do not care how you 
vote on final passage but tonight we set a precedent. What is that 
precedent going to be? Is that precedent going to be none of the funds 
may be used by OSHA to implement or enforce even temporary standards? 
God almighty. Shove that AFL-CIO letter right up your T-shirt. This 
amendment should be passed, and the Republicans should pass it with us.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to adopt appropriate language.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, to discuss one of the most important programs funded 
in this bill, the consolidated health centers program.
  The gentleman from Illinois has been a tremendous supporter of health 
centers. I realize that talking to him about this issue is like 
preaching to the choir. Members on both sides of the aisle of his 
subcommittee have united to advance this program, true testaments of 
the integral role health centers play in the delivery of health care 
for this Nation. Under his leadership, the subcommittee approved an 
increase of $81 million to this program, bringing its overall budget to 
$1.1 billion.
  While this commitment is a wonderful step in the right direction, it 
is my hope that the gentleman will continue to work throughout the 
process to increase funding for the program by a total of $150 million. 
Every day, community health centers provide critical services to the 
Nation's most vulnerable populations. These services are especially 
important for those under the age of 19 and those belonging to minority 
groups. Health centers serve one out of every six low-income children 
in America or 4.5 million children. That number also includes one out 
of every five or 1.6 million low-income, uninsured children. With the 
current number of uninsured Americans growing in excess of 44 million, 
the demand for more health centers and more services continues to rise. 
In addition, health centers provide quality care to more than 7 million 
people belonging to minority groups.
  As a former health center employee in the inner city of Chicago, I 
can attest that health centers provide a key solution to the health 
care crisis in America which continues to be one of the greatest 
challenges to our society. We must find a way to provide an additional 
$150 million to the health center program to help meet the challenges 
they face in providing care to our Nation's most vulnerable 
populations, the poor, the uninsured, the underinsured and those with 
nowhere else to turn for health care services.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the health care of our Nation, it 
remains divided. It is divided along the lines of those with access and 
those without. Health centers continue to bridge that divide and 
contribute to a healthier and a more productive America.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this program 
and hope that he will continue to work throughout the legislative 
process to ensure the health center program is provided an additional 
$150 million in the final bill.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for his very kind words. We have 
agreed in the subcommittee that health centers are among our highest 
priorities. Since 1995, we have increased this program by $365.5 
million, or 50 percent. We recognize that in too many cases, health 
centers provide the only access individuals have to our health care 
system.
  Obviously the health centers program within appropriated funds cannot 
solve the overall access problem. Nevertheless, in the absence of 
progress on access, we will do our best through the remainder of the 
process and within fiscal restraints to reach the $150 million 
increase. I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from Illinois to 
reach that goal.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The gentleman has truly been a champion for 
these programs. He will be sorely missed, and his leadership will be 
missed when he is gone.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       On page 19, after line 19, insert the following new 
     section:


                              minimum wage

       Sec. 104. Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 26(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997,
       ``(B) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning April 1, 
     2000, and
       ``(C) $6.15 an hour beginning April 1, 2001;''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be offered at the end of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. PORTER. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody is going to object to 
this amendment.

[[Page H4105]]

  This is one of 13 bills that will ultimately become law. Many of the 
things the Republicans have in the bill are not going to be in this 
final bill. There will be precedents set in this bill and there should 
be an opportunity to carve out opportunity in this bill. This amendment 
is the exact amendment that I passed to H.R. 3846, March 9 of this 
year. It passed 246-179. What is the shell game? Is it tied up in 
politics with the tax cut and now it is tied up with legislating on an 
appropriations bill?
  The Traficant amendment simply says there shall be an increase in the 
minimum wage, $1 over 2 years. The original language was $1 over 3 
years. The House has already spoken its will on this. It has not been 
signed into law, and it is being tied up with the tax cut. But it 
should not be tied up in a measure like this. I want to compliment the 
gentleman. He is one of the first chairmen to bring a bill out because 
these bills are folded into continuing resolutions because both parties 
are playing politics with it and it is an election.
  I want a minimum wage increase. Tell me how else we can get it, and I 
would be glad to support it. But if the labor appropriations bill is 
not the place for a minimum wage increase, God save America. Let me say 
this. The appropriators should have done this. The appropriators should 
have done this. I am disappointed the Democrat Party did not bang away 
on this issue. I guess they are more concerned about the AFL-CIO and 
election-year politics. Quite frankly, battle it out, folks. But I 
think the $1 over 2 years that passed overwhelmingly in this body with 
bipartisan support should be included in this bill. It would take a 
hell of a lot of politics out of it and it would make that White House 
take a good look at it and it would make that conference with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) very exciting.
  I think that is what Congress should do. I do understand it is 
legislating on an appropriations bill, but that has been going on 
around here for years, and I do ask for that exception and give the 
Congress an opportunity to vote on it. Otherwise, we just masquerade 
for party sakes, of proffering legislation designed to win majorities. 
I think it is time to win America, and I think it is time to do what is 
right for workers.
  I will say this. This rising tide that is raising all ships has left 
a lot of little people behind. I know this bill ultimately is going to 
be folded into some legislation, and I would hope that the chairman 
would reconsider his position and that the chairman would defer to the 
vote of the authorizing mechanism of this Congress who duly passed this 
amendment.

                              {time}  2015

  I say to the chairman of the subcommittee, he should do the right 
thing. I see politics being played on both sides. I see election year 
politics over here, election year politics over there. To be quite 
honest, I think I see more over here. But there are parts of this bill 
we cannot support. But I think if there are parts of this bill we 
cannot support, that sends it to conference, and maybe we can come out 
with a compromise that we can all live with, including the White House. 
I thought that was the reason for bringing this bill out, is a dead-
bang veto in the first place.
  So having stated that, I would hope that the chairman would 
reconsider his position, vote with me and allow the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to stand up in support of it as well.
  With that, I would request of the Chair that if there is an 
objection, that I be permitted the opportunity to contest that 
objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. 
The amendment directly amends existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman makes a point of order against the 
Traficant amendment.
  Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I believe the gentleman's 
argument is in order, save for the possible precedents of an unusual 
situation. Although it is not existing law, the authorizing committee 
of this body being the body of the full House, has already voted on the 
issue and spoken on the issue. That should make it subject to a 
parliamentary ruling that is quite different from an individual 
bringing out of the blue a minimum-wage increase with no prior 
authorizing foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not here make decisions for the other body. We 
can only make those decisions for ourselves. We have already made that 
decision. The House has technically authorized, if you will, and placed 
in motion the authorization of a minimum-wage increase. I do not 
believe we are striking new territory, and if such a precedent is 
needed, then maybe a precedent should be voted on.
  Now, I do not want to challenge the ruling of the Chair, and I fully 
respect the ruling of the Chair; but I want a minimum wage increase in 
this bill, and I am going to give it that shot. My final argument is 
this: when the House votes and authorizes, is it not a fact that one 
cannot have anything other than that authorization by law in an 
appropriation bill? So by law, if the appropriators put the Traficant 
language passed in H.R. 3846 in this bill, it could not have been 
stricken. So the appropriators now made a decision, relative to the 
full House, and I do not believe the appropriators should have control 
over the decisions of the full House. Thus, I believe, that precedent 
should be set, and the parliamentarians should rule, because the House 
has already spoken and a Member is attempting to put the authorization 
language of the House, the full House, into the appropriation bill. The 
authorization bill has not been passed by the other body; the 
appropriation bill has not been passed by the other body. Thus this 
bill is wide open for this amendment.
  Now, before the Chairman reads the bad news, I want to say this 
again. The other body has not voted on the authorizing package; but the 
other body has not voted nor, in fact, assembled over this 
appropriation bill. Since there is no objection from the other body, 
and this full House has authorized that provision, that should make a 
precedent and allow it to be included as an amendment to be offered on 
the floor, and it should not be prohibited from being heard in this 
appropriations cycle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
directly amends existing law. The amendment, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. On that, Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and 
pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held over 
until tomorrow, if it poses a hardship on Members.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. That unanimous consent is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
appeal tonight and to be allowed to appeal the Chair tomorrow on the 
issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. That unanimous consent is not in order. The gentleman 
could offer his amendment again when the Committee resumes its sitting 
if that is his choice, perhaps at a different place in the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to offer my amendment tomorrow and that it be limited to a 
total of 10 minutes debate, 5 minutes divided, by both parties, an 
opponent, and myself as the proponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole resumes its sitting, 
the gentleman could reoffer his amendment.

[[Page H4106]]

  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his appeal at this time?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, pending the fact that when we return to 
this bill, I will be able to, in fact, offer my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that option under the rule when the 
Committee resumes its sitting.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the appeal of the ruling of 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The appeal is withdrawn. The point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4577, despite my concerns 
about the funding of certain critical programs.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for his commitment 
and dedicated service to this body during his 11 years of service. The 
chairman has lead the bipartisan effort to increase funding for the 
National Institutes of Health and so many other valuable, worthy, and 
important programs. He has been a champion of increasing biomedical 
research and has tirelessly worked to ensure that no child is left 
behind in our educational system.
  I am particularly concerned about the Older Americans Act and, 
specifically, the congregate meal program funded under the act. I was 
disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the congregate meal 
program was once again flat funded, at the President's requested 
amount, marking the fourth consecutive fiscal year without an increase.
  Because the congregate meal program is unauthorized under H.R. 4577, 
given the failure of this body to reauthorize the Older American Act, I 
am unable to introduce an amendment to increase the earmark for the 
program included in the report language.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for the congregate meal program has not kept 
pace with inflation, increasing only $20 million over the past 10 
years. In 1999 dollars, funding for the program has actually decreased 
by $93 million over 10 years.
  Congregate meal programs serve the nutrition and social needs of 
seniors and operate in senior centers, community centers, schools and 
adult day care centers across the country. Many sites provide a variety 
of social services in addition to meals, including education, health 
screening, and social activities which enrich the lives of seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, this body has a responsibility to ensure that the 
program is funded adequately. A 1996 evaluation confirmed the senior 
nutrition program is an important part of ensuring our seniors are 
healthy. According to the evaluation, participants in the program are 
among our most vulnerable population. They are older, poorer, and more 
likely to be members of minority groups compared to the total elderly 
population. The evaluation also indicated that for every Federal dollar 
spent in congregate meals, other funding sources contributed $1.70.
  The Federal Government must uphold its end of the bargain by 
recognizing the changing buying power of the dollar and increase 
funding for the congregate meal program accordingly.
  I became deeply involved in this issue last November when I became 
aware that the Agency on Aging in my district began cutting back the 
congregate meal program after exhausting their reserve funds. In the 
face of a potential crisis, the State of Connecticut and local 
governments agreed to make up the financial shortfall for this fiscal 
year. The additional funds will allow the agency to temporarily 
overcome the financial shortfall and enable providers to serve the same 
number of meals this year as were served in 1999. While this financial 
contribution is significant and speaks volumes about the importance of 
the congregate meal program to seniors in Connecticut, it does nothing 
to prevent a similar funding shortfall from occurring next year and the 
year after that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by thanking this body for allowing me 
the opportunity to provide my colleagues with my thoughts on this issue 
of great importance to my district.
  It is my hope that the appropriators will work in conference to 
increase the earmark for congregate meal funding, above the President's 
requested level, in order to guarantee that seniors have access to the 
meals they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to vote this bill out. I believe that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) will be able to make it a better 
bill in conference. I know he has limited resources to work with, and I 
stand ready to help him in any way I can.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  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. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, 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. 4577), 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________