Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)

[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.

____________________