[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25724-25730]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 662, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 121), 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 121 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 121

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 106-275, is further amended by striking the date 
     specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``November 1, 
     2000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Joint Resolution 662, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I advise our colleagues in the House that this is 
another 1-day continuing resolution to make sure that the government 
continues to operate until midnight tomorrow night, while we continue 
to work away in a friendly, cooperative, bipartisan way to resolve the 
final outstanding issues before this Congress can adjourn.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I announce to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), my friend, that I do not intend to have a lengthy debate on 
our side. And so I am going to reserve the balance of my time, probably 
until I get to my closing statement, depending on what issues might 
come up in the meantime.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am wearing this wrist band in solidarity with the over 
300,000 workers who will suffer repetitive motion injuries, some of 
them career-ending, because of the gutlessness of this Congress in 
refusing, for over a 10-year period, to put some protection for those 
folks into the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I have gone into plant after plant in my district and I 
have seen especially women at computer terminals, at shoe-stitching 
machines, wearing things like this or even worse.
  Look at this picture and tell me what is different. What separates us 
as Members of Congress from this woman? What separates us is that when 
we have a repetitive motion injury, like I had for several weeks last 
year when I was wearing one of these, we can stop doing what we were 
doing until we recover. People like this woman cannot. They have to 
keep going until they cannot go any more.
  That is the difference. The only repetitive motion injury that most 
Members of Congress are likely to get is to their knees from the 
repetitive genuflecting to the big business lobbyists who persuaded the 
Republican leadership to blow up the agreement on the Labor, Health, 
and Education bill by denying some protection to people like this.
  That is a fact. That is a fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recite to my colleagues the history of the 
repetitive motion struggle that we have had. On June 29 of 1995, the 
House for the first time took action to prohibit OSHA from putting in 
place a repetitive motion injury rule that would protect workers like 
this. That was delay number one.
  On July 27, 1995, the House Committee on Appropriations again 
reported language to do the same thing.
  When it was finally adopted, it again said that none of the funds in 
the bill would be used to enforce or implement an OSHA rule protecting 
workers like this from repetitive motion injury. That was delay number 
two.
  Then, on July of 1996, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education again tried to delay action for another year. 
That time the House had guts enough to stand up and say no and they 
were defeated on the House floor. But they came back; and on July 25 of 
1997, they again adopted new language which for another year delayed 
the implementation of the rule to protect workers like this. And they 
won. And so, we had delay number three that delayed yet another year.
  The only difference was that that time the House said it would be the 
last time. This is a copy of the front page of the committee report 
dated July 25, 1997, which outlines the fact that yet another year's 
delay was being undertaken to prevent these repetitive

[[Page 25725]]

motion injuries. But it said ``the committee will refrain from any 
further restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation, or 
issuance of an ergonomics standard following fiscal year 1998.''
  And you know what? For a year the Congress abided by that. It is true 
that the Congress did provide additional funding to do yet an 
additional study by the National Academy of Sciences of the issue. But 
at the same time that was done, the chairman of the committee, Bob 
Livingston, our former colleague, in good faith signed a letter with me 
which indicated that even though that money was being provided that 
nonetheless ``we understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule 
on ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear 
by funding of the NAS study it is in no way our intent to block or 
delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.''
  And yet this year, here is the rollcall if you want to look at it, 
some of the same people who were here when the Congress made the 
agreement not to delay this any further voted once again to genuflect 
to the interests of big business and forget the interests of workers 
and they signed on to another year delay.
  Now, in conference, finally, against my wishes, the White House 2 
days ago agreed to yet another 6-month delay in the implementation of 
the standards to protect these workers. But what we got in return for 
that additional 6-month delay in implementation was the right of this 
President to at least promulgate the rule.
  Now, in my view, there is only one reason why the majority leadership 
blew up that agreement. Because that agreement was understood, we had 
an agreement to the entire bill! It was even sealed with toasts of 
Merlot at 1:30 in the morning. And I do not know of anything more 
``sacred'' in conference than a toast of Merlot. But nonetheless, after 
there was an agreement, then we walk out of there and the next morning 
what do we get? We get ``Operation Blow Up'' by the Republican 
leadership because apparently the Chamber of Commerce lobbyists got to 
them and said, ``Boys, we do not want it.'' So they blew it up. They 
blew it up.
  In my view, there is only one reason they did it. It is because if 
their candidate for President wins the election, they did not want 
their candidate for President to have to take the public heat that 
would come from reversing that rule.
  The language in the compromise gives the new President, whoever he 
is, the right to suspend and then reverse that rule through the 
Administrative Procedures Act. I do not like that. But that was the 
deal. But they do not even want to do that on that side of the aisle. 
If their candidate gets elected, they are afraid to have their 
candidate for President have to take the public heat from repealing 
this rule to help these people.

                              {time}  1845

  They want him to be able to do it on the sly. That is what is at 
stake.
  So my suggestion to our friends on the majority side of the aisle, 
and I am not speaking about the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), he 
negotiated in good faith. My suggestion to the House leadership is, if 
you have the courage of your convictions, then let us do this straight 
and clean. Stick to the agreement that was negotiated. Each side will 
have to take a chance and see who is elected President, and the public 
will know in either case what side we are on. That is the only question 
that is before us tonight. Whose side are you on?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the front page of the Washington Post has a 
headline today. It says: ``Budget Deal is Torpedoed by House GOP. Move 
by Leadership Angers Negotiators on Both Sides.''
  On the front page of the Los Angeles Times, quote, ``GOP Leaders 
Scuttle Deal in Budget Battle.''
  Now, these and other stories tell how a team of Republican 
legislators was empowered by the Republican leadership to negotiate a 
budget agreement with congressional Democrats and the White House. And 
that is exactly what they did. Neither side got everything that they 
wanted, but the American people were well served with this agreement. 
The compromise would have provided one of the largest educational 
increases in the history of this government. And perhaps that was one 
of the reasons why it did not pass muster once it reached the leaders. 
It would have modernized and repaired 5,000 schools. It would have 
provided 12,000 new teachers to reduce class size. It would have 
created after-school programs for 850,000 new students in this country. 
And as we heard from the gentleman from Wisconsin, when the negotiators 
wrapped up their discussions at 1:30 in the morning, they toasted, they 
shook hands, and then not 12 hours later, the leadership on the 
Republican side of the aisle decided to totally repudiate the agreement 
that their team negotiated.
  One of their reasons besides the education issue, as we heard, was 
the question of repetitive stress motion, which takes a terrible toll 
on our workers. We have been battling this issue for 14 years. Libby 
Dole when she was the head of the Labor Department, a Republican, put 
these regulations forward because she saw the need to deal with the 
question of repetitive illnesses that we can cure with some reasonable, 
sensible, rational regulations that will help people be able to hold 
their child when they get home from work, or open a jar of peanut 
butter at lunchtime, which they cannot do now as a result of these 
terrible musculoskeletal diseases.
  Now where are we? Well, this Republican Congress, from George Bush 
all the way on down, have talked a very good game about bipartisanship 
and bringing people together. But this week the Republican leadership 
gave the American people a sneak preview of their bipartisanship and 
how it is really going to work and their passionate conservatism. It is 
something those of us who have worked in this Congress have seen over 
and over again.
  Opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on prescription drug 
coverage, on campaign finance reform, on curbing the powers of the 
HMOs, and overcrowding in schools, all vetoed by the Republican 
leadership, either in this body or in the other body. They play this 
game where one body passes it, but the leaders in the other body make 
sure that it does not reach the President's desk. Torpedoed by men who 
are more committed to their partisan Republican agenda than the 
American agenda, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, a Member of this House once said, ``You earn trust by 
saying what you mean and meaning what you say.'' That Congressman who 
said that was the past Republican leader, a man named Gerald Ford. 
Today's House Republican leaders would do well to heed his words.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from Florida, 
does he intend to yield time?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of yielding at 
this point. If I do, before the time is expired, I would advise the 
gentleman in advance.
  Mr. OBEY. I want to take 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, to simply say that 
the gentleman from Florida was absolutely honorable in these 
negotiations. We disagreed vehemently on a number of these issues. But 
I know him to be a man of his word. I am uncomfortable that we have to 
say what we have to say in his presence, because if anyone blew up the 
deal, it was certainly not his fault.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the century, the last century, 100 years 
ago, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair shocked this Nation with their 
accounts of dangers in the workplace to American

[[Page 25726]]

workers. The exploitation of American workers challenged the conscience 
of our country.
  Here we are 100 years later, and we have scientific evidence of that 
same kind of exploitation, that same kind of danger to American 
workers. Yet the Republican majority is opposing any opportunity to 
correct that. If you use a computer, if you drive a truck for a living, 
if you are in the health care industry and lift patients, if you are in 
the food processing industry, if you have to chop off the leg of a 
chicken for 8 hours a day with very little interruption and rest, there 
are so many occupations that are affected by this. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, women who are prevalent in occupations that are mostly for 
women have a disproportionate share of these musculoskeletal injuries.
  Every year 600,000 workers in America lose time from work because of 
repetitive motion, back, and other disabling injuries. These injuries 
are often extremely painful and disabling. Sometimes they are 
permanent. The gentleman from Michigan pointed out the cost to our 
economy of this, the cost to the personal quality of life for workers 
because of this. By the way, not all businesses are so unenlightened. 
Those who have instituted voluntary guidelines have a payback on their 
bottom line of greater productivity from their workers, much higher 
morale from their workers, and lower cost for health care for these 
workers.
  This is not just about everybody in business, painting them all with 
the same brush; but it is about some that the Republican majority 
cannot say ``no'' to. In order not to say ``no'' to their special 
interest friends, they will not say ``yes'' to the Democrats who have 
bipartisan support for the prescription drug benefit, we have 
bipartisan support for the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have bipartisan 
support for the minimum wage bill, and now they have blown up the 
Labor-HHS bill, which has so much in it for education for America's 
children.
  We do a lot of talking around here about family values. But what is 
more of a family value? The economic security of America's families has 
an impact on children and their education and the pension security and 
the health security of their seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the support for these 
repetitive motion injuries guidelines has bipartisan support. It has 
been referenced that Secretary Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor 
Elizabeth Dole has stated, and these are her words, quote, ``By 
reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety 
and productivity of America's workforce.'' She said, ``I have no higher 
priority than accomplishing just that.''
  Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin said, ``OSHA agrees that ergonomic 
hazards are well recognized occupational hazards and OSHA's review of 
the available data has persuaded the agency.'' She also supported that. 
Chairman Livingston did, too. There is bipartisan support.
  I say to our colleagues, take ``yes'' for an answer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great 
plea for bipartisan behavior on behalf of the Republicans and 
Democrats. Yet as we see the Congress respond where we have a 
bipartisan agreement on a Patients' Bill of Rights, to control the 
HMOs, to guarantee people the health care they need, on the minimum 
wage to make sure the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans 
who are working at that wage will have the ability to provide for their 
family, on campaign finance reform, on common sense gun safety 
provisions, and now on workplace safety, each and every time we achieve 
that bipartisan agreement, we have the Republican leadership coming in 
and blowing up those agreements. They come in the back door, they come 
in the middle of the night, they come after everybody has left and they 
blow up these agreements. They find some way to kill it even though a 
bipartisan majority in the House and Senate support these measures. 
They blow them up.
  They are our legislative terrorists. They do not play by the rules. 
They do not accept the will of the majority. They do not accept 
bipartisan agreements. They do not accept written agreements that have 
been entered into the record. They do not accept any of that. Because 
they are terrorists. They are legislative terrorists. They have made a 
decision. It will be their way or no way. They could have chosen to 
side with the American public and protect the workers, the 1,500 
workers a day that are disabled because of injuries, because of 
repetitive motion, workers who will not be able to pick up their 
children at the end of the day, workers who will lose their earning 
capacity to provide for their families, whether or not Halloween is as 
nice as it could have been or whether Christmas will be as nice or 
whether or not they will be able to buy school supplies for their 
children because their hours have been diminished because of that kind 
of injury.
  And each and every time we have reached an agreement to protect these 
workers in the workplace, they come in in the middle of the night and 
blow those agreements up. They disenfranchise Members of the House, 
they disenfranchise their own committee chairmen, they disenfranchise 
their committee members, because they apparently have the right, the 
supreme right to overrule any decision, any agreement that is 
democratically arrived at in the House or in the Senate.
  The time has come for the American people to understand that these 
Republicans leaders could have chosen to stand with Americans against 
the HMOs so they could get health care, to stand with low wage earners 
so they could provide for their families, to stand with those workers 
who are threatened by this illness every day. Every day 1,500 workers. 
They could have stood with the public interest in campaign finance 
reform. But when they had a chance to choose, each and every time the 
Republican leadership has chosen the narrowest of special interests, 
the narrowest of special interests against that of the public interest 
of American workers, American families, and American children.
  This is a sad day for this Congress. It is a sad day for the 
legislative process. But I guess it is a healthy day for Republican 
legislative terrorists.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I advised the gentleman that I 
would tell him if I had another speaker, and I would like to yield to 
another speaker now if the gentleman does not want to yield time now. I 
do so because the accusation of legislative terrorists cannot go 
unanswered. That is so far out of the realm of what is right, it is 
just not even something we should consider. But it was said. We did not 
demand that the words be taken down because we are trying to keep some 
comity here. We are trying to keep this on a basis that we are doing 
the people's business and not out here accusing and calling names. But 
legislative terrorists? That goes pretty far. I do not think that we 
can allow it to go unanswered.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do take exception to the statement of 
legislative terrorism. Obviously, we have recently experienced 
terrorism very real and very hurtful to citizens of our country on the 
U.S.S. Cole, and to link deliberation on very important issues before 
the American public to a terrorist-type activity, I think, is 
regrettable and it is shameful.

                              {time}  1900

  There are differences of opinion that are arising today in this 
Chamber about the direction of this country, and as one who has voted 
on so many issues that the minority has supported I would like to stand 
up and say I am always looking for common ground. When it was hate 
crimes, I signed on to the bill. When it was patients' bill of rights, 
I signed on and actively supported it, one of 27 Republicans. When it 
was campaign finance reform Shays-Meehan, I was there 100 percent, 
voting for no amendments but the Shays-Meehan legislation.

[[Page 25727]]

  Now we come to a point where we do have some disagreements. We have 
heard a lot of discussion about immigration, blanket amnesties. My 
grandmother came from Poland so I deeply, deeply respect the fact that 
this country gave our family a chance to escape from Communism and 
tyranny, but she came to Ellis Island and she was processed. She 
learned to speak English. She became a registered voter, worked at a 
Travelodge motel all of her life to raise her daughters. Her husband 
had died. This country has been awfully good to our family, Irish-
Polish immigrants, but I do have to question when we talk blanket 
amnesty because it does cause some consternation for the thousands of 
immigrants that are trying to be processed through INS in my office in 
Florida. The phone is ringing off the hook saying, does that include 
me? Am I allowed to come in as well? What are the rules for me to be 
allowed into this country since they have waited 2, 3, and 5 years 
being fingerprinted, being run around in circles trying to figure out 
how to be legal citizens of this country.
  Then the topic of ergonomics, yes, there is a difference of opinion; 
but I still do not understand how the President left town to go 
campaign for his wife in New York when we have so many pressing issues 
here before the American public. He vetoed a bill last night for no 
apparent reason.
  Now I am not an appropriator. I am on the Committee on Ways and 
Means. I understood, at least from the Speaker's letter today, that 
there was a certain agreement on that bill, but to throw a monkey 
wrench or a wrench into the works, the President chose to veto and 
skidaddle out of town so he can try to lift the sails for his wife who 
is campaigning for a seat in a State she does not reside in.
  Nonetheless, we are here today to hopefully get the people's work 
done. I voted for minimum wage, and it is in the bill. I voted for 
Medicare increases, and it is in the bill. Now, I did not bring in 
HMOs. I do not like them. HMOs, to me, stands for ``healthy members 
only,'' but yet our citizens in every district in America cry for 
satisfaction and want their managed care plans because they have 
prescription drugs and eyeglasses. That is in the bill.
  Marriage penalty has been vetoed. So many other things have been 
vetoed I cannot even keep score any longer. But I would suggest, Mr. 
Speaker, that the harsh rhetoric needs to stop. Members do, in fact, 
want to be home with their families tonight and certainly through the 
weekend and on to November 7; but control of the House is not that 
important on either side of the aisle to make words like legislative 
terrorism part of the demeanor and discourse tonight. So I hope in the 
waning hours tonight that those who are negotiating, and I commend 
again our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), whose wife, 
Beverly, and their two sons have gone without their daddy for many, 
many a week trying to bring some comity to this process, he has 
negotiated in, I think, very genuine good faith; and so we remain at 
gridlock over two or three remaining issues.
  I think it is sad. I think it is sad that grown men and women who 
have been sent from their districts around America cannot sit around 
the table and craft something that would make sense to everyone and not 
tie it up over one or two issues.
  There will be an election November 7. There will be a new President. 
There will be a new Congress, be it Republican or Democratic, and some 
of these issues will get resolved then; but to sit here and think you 
are winning some strategy by creating these types of arguments I think 
is a sad day, and I again urge every person listening to our voices to 
come together in a spirit that I think is in this Chamber, a spirit of 
patriotism that we can lead, that we can move, that we can resolve and 
that we can establish the principle of good government here tonight for 
future generations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, does the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) intend to yield to any further speakers?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
would advise the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that if there are 
any more suggestions of legislative terrorists or anything of that 
nature, I very likely will; but as far as the issues, we have debated 
them at least 69 times in the last month; and I do not intend to get 
back into that debate again. If there are some other outbursts like we 
heard here on legislative terrorists, which is just not acceptable, we 
would definitely respond to that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the gentleman will define 
as outbursts. I would suggest since he has much more time remaining 
than I do, if he intends to yield to any other speakers that he do so.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that the Republican 
leadership of this Congress refuses to protect American workers. They 
do not identify with America's workers, with their economic well-being, 
or with their health concerns. They have been opposed to raising the 
minimum wage, and they are opposed to sensible work safety standards. 
Twenty-four hours ago, we had a deal. This was the White House, 
Democrats, Republicans. They came to an agreement on the issue of 
worker safety standards and a variety of other issues, but then the 
Republican leadership ran the agreement by the United States Chamber of 
Commerce, who I might add, let me say what they are doing today, the 
Chamber of Commerce. They have shifted millions of dollars of funds to 
the pharmaceutical industries to keep us from bringing the cost of 
prescription drugs down with a television ad campaign. Do not take my 
word for it. You are seeing it every day on TV. They do not want to 
bring the costs of prescription drugs down. This is what the U.S. 
Chamber is doing. They ran the bill by these folks, and they are 
funding their campaigns so all bets were off. So we are back at square 
one. That is what is at issue here.
  Repetitive motion hazards are the biggest safety and health problem 
in the workforce today. They account for nearly a third of all serious 
job-related injuries. More than 600,000 workers suffered serious 
workplace injuries. Women workers are particularly affected. Women make 
up 46 percent of the overall workforce. Women accounted for 63 percent 
of all repetitive motion injuries. Seventy percent have reported carpal 
tunnel cases in 1997. These injuries are expensive. They cost our 
economy $15 billion to $20 billion a year in medical costs. We do not 
need any more studies. We do not need to delay.
  People deserve the same kind of protections as machinery. Good 
business practice shows us this makes no sense to overwork, overstress 
equipment, causing it to break down. We need to treat our workers the 
same way. But the issue is, the Republican leadership has hijacked 
patients' bill of rights, campaign finance reform, gun safety, minimum 
wage, now worker protections, because they do not support workers or 
want to protect them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Foley), talked about immigrants; but the bill the Republicans blew 
up had nothing to do with immigrants. And I would hope that we would 
stop using immigrants on this floor as a scapegoat for Republican 
inability to get their business done.
  You spoke about the President. John Podesta, his chief of staff is 
here, Jack Lew, the people who negotiate directly are here; and they 
have the authority to make a deal. And they are ready to do it and they 
made a deal and you broke it.
  Now, after 3 days of no negotiations with Democrats on education, 
Republicans and Democrats met Sunday night and they worked out a 
landmark education bill that included full funding towards 100,000 new 
teachers,

[[Page 25728]]

teacher training, after-school programs, a $1.3 billion school 
construction and school modernization program and, yes, safety for 
workers on the job.
  It was a package Democrats could be proud of because it addressed the 
most pressing needs of local communities; and it promised to help our 
public schools lift them up, help our parents and our children. And 
less than 12 hours later, as we heard, you blew up the bipartisan 
agreement out of the water. Apparently you rejected the worker safety 
provisions because business lobbyists told you they would not have it 
that way, and maybe you did not like the increased education funding 
that we had finally agreed on together when it went to your leadership.
  Bipartisanship requires keeping your word, and it starts with a 
majority that controls the agenda of this House, and I would remind 
Governor Bush that if he wants to have some bipartisanship call the 
majority, pick up the phone, we can get this business done, and tell 
your party's leaders, here in the House and in the other body, to start 
getting to work on behalf of the American people. You have produced the 
most dysfunctional Congress in memory.
  The New York Times just reported that this is the latest the Congress 
has ever met since post World War II for the latest adjournment date, 
and on Halloween. This is the ultimate trick on the American people and 
it is the ultimate treat to big business.


                  Announcement by Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that 
remarks in the Chamber are to be addressed to the Chair and not to 
persons outside the Chamber.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I find it very sad when I listen to the 
dialogue from my colleagues on the Republican side because when I 
listen to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and 
also the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I think that they 
really do want to come to an agreement and they would like to see this 
agreement on the Labor HHS bill come to fruition. The problem is they 
cannot because of the special interests.
  They negotiated on the other side in good faith and they came to an 
agreement that would allow these worker safety rules to go into effect, 
but then they go back and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business 
interest, says no we cannot do it because we do not want you to protect 
the workers. We are giving you the money for the campaigns. We are the 
special interests. You cannot do it for the average person. We saw the 
same thing. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida, talked about the 
patients' bill of rights and how we supported the Norwood-Dingell bill; 
but after it passed, the HMOs said, no, we cannot have that because 
that is going to help the people and we cannot make any money. So you 
cannot do it. You forget it even if you care about the people.
  We saw the same thing with Medicare prescription drugs. Maybe some of 
them would like to see a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I 
have no doubt that some of my colleagues on the Republican side would 
love to see that, but they cannot do it because the pharmaceutical 
industry says, no, no, no, no, we cannot make any money. That is going 
to hurt us. We are not going to be able to finance your campaigns. We 
are not going to be able to run the ads. So what does it say? Oh, sure, 
you may want to help. Maybe even the leadership wants to help, but you 
cannot because you are in the pockets of the special interests, the 
corporate interests, the pharmaceuticals, whoever it happens to be, the 
insurance companies.
  Well, it says a lot about what you can accomplish here in the 
majority party. You cannot accomplish anything for the little guy. You 
cannot help the senior who wants prescription drugs. You cannot help 
the person who is suffering from HMO abuses. You cannot help the 
individual that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) showed that is 
having problem with their hands and cannot work because of this 
repetition. You cannot do it. Be honest. Explain to the American people 
that you cannot help the little guy. You cannot help us with the 
problems that the American people face because you are in the pocket of 
the special interests, and they say what to do even after you have 
negotiated the agreement.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
for a closing statement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think the issue here tonight is legislative 
terrorism. I think it is legislative obstructionism by the leadership 
of this House. The fact is that on prescription drugs, on the patients' 
bill of rights, on campaign finance reform, and on several other issues 
we have a bipartisan majority, but in each of those cases the will of 
that majority has been obstructed by the leadership that has prevented 
us from coming to closure on any of those issues.
  Now we have one more. We had an opportunity to close the 
appropriations cycle with one of the best bipartisan legislative 
agreements of the year, and instead the leadership decided to pull the 
rug out from under a bipartisan negotiated agreement. They decided to 
say to Wanda Jackson, whose fingers have almost turned into claws and 
cannot lift anything heavier than a milk carton because of hours of 
punching numbers in a computer, ``Sorry, you are not important.'' They 
said to Walt Frasier, who had to lift one chicken every two seconds, 
10,000 birds over an 8-hour shift every day, who now has had three 
operations on his hands and cannot work anymore, they have had to say, 
``Sorry, you are not as important as big business.''
  They say to Ursula Stafford, a 24-year-old para professional who was 
told by her doctor she may never be able to support a pregnancy because 
of a herniated disk that she suffered from lifting patients; they have 
said to her, ``Sorry, you are not important enough.'' We are not going 
to protect you.'' They have said that to many other workers.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, this is pure and simple another bipartisan agreement 
which had been reached after much hard slogging, which is now being 
arbitrarily tossed overboard because the leadership says ``no.'' That 
is unfortunate; and that, unfortunately, defines this session.
  So I feel great regret about this, but until the majority leadership 
decides to practice the bipartisan cooperation that it preaches, we are 
stuck here with a blown-up agreement that could have been, in fact, a 
landmark piece of legislation for this session.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  I would say to our colleagues that it is interesting to negotiate 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking 
minority member on the Committee on Appropriations. He negotiates in 
good faith. We have some very strong differences which have been 
established throughout the years, but he does negotiate in good faith 
and he keeps his word. But to suggest that all of those negotiations 
have been useless and have gone to naught is just not accurate. When we 
do negotiate at our level, then obviously, I take what the product is 
to my leadership. That is the way the system works.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that at the beginning of the 
negotiations 2 nights ago, our side asked both the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and Senator Stevens if you had full authority to 
negotiate all remaining issues, and the answer was yes? Is that not 
true?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I would say to 
the gentleman that we did just that, and we negotiated a settlement 
that we thought was a fair settlement. It did not provide everything 
that I wanted,

[[Page 25729]]

and I know it did not provide everything that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin wanted; but it was a compromise, it was a negotiated 
settlement.
  But as I started to say, under our process, then I take that product 
to my leadership, the same as the gentleman from Wisconsin takes to his 
leadership. Also, he communicates with the White House, and we do that 
as well. We have spent a lot of time with White House representatives 
during this negotiating period. But to say that we are both satisfied 
with everything is just not true.
  But here is where the rub comes. So much has been said tonight about 
the fact that the GOP torpedoed the deal, or ``budget deal torpedoed by 
the GOP.'' That is not true. That is a headline. That headline was not 
written in any conference meeting that I was in. And I think what it 
does is it just proves once again that we should communicate with each 
other, not through the media. Whoever wrote that headline, I guarantee 
my colleagues, was not in that negotiating session that we had until 1 
o'clock Sunday night. They were not there. The deal was not torpedoed.
  Let me explain. Everybody pay attention to this. I want my colleagues 
to know exactly what it was that supposedly torpedoed the deal. We have 
heard so much talk about the language on the ergonomics that postpones 
the implementation.
  Now, in our negotiations, we agreed that we would allow time for the 
new President, whoever that new President might be, to make a decision 
on these rules; and we also at one point gave him until June of next 
year to implement or not implement.
  Now, we agreed on that; and we still agree on that. That is still our 
position. Now, where we had a bit of a problem is when the labor 
lawyers took a look at the language. They said, wait a minute, that is 
not what it does. So we thought maybe we better consult with our 
lawyers and find out how to write this language to make sure it does 
what we agreed to do.
  So that is where we are. The deal is not torpedoed. This issue is out 
there; and, of course, there are still some outstanding issues that 
have not been resolved yet that the gentleman from Wisconsin and I did 
not resolve during our negotiating session. But the deal is not 
torpedoed, I will say that again.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that both sides spent almost 4 
hours negotiating the language of that one item; and that many times, 
both negotiators left the room to consult with the lawyers? And is it 
not further true that after we had the Merlot and toasted the 
agreement, is it not true that the only two remaining issues were two 
language issues, one on snowmobiles and one on Alaska seals?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the 
gentleman that I do not think that is accurate. I did not leave the 
room to consult with any lawyer. There were two lawyers on our 
negotiating side. Senator Stevens is a lawyer, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the subcommittee, is a lawyer. 
And as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has suggested, we wrote 
that language for 3 or 4 hours, and we wrote the language, I think, at 
least seven times; but we all wrote the language trying to get us to 
the point that the law would say that the new President who is elected 
next week would be able to make the decision whether or not to 
implement these rules, and that this could take as long as until June 
of next year.
  Now, apparently some other lawyers decided the agreement was okay; 
and our leadership decided, hey, that agreement is fine, but the 
language as it was written in the view of the labor lawyers did not 
accomplish what we intended to accomplish.
  So on that, we have a little work yet; but we are working on it.
  It was also suggested that we ought not to be so partisan, and I 
really enjoy hearing the speakers on that side of the aisle talk about 
partisanship. I do not think we have raised any partisan issues. I have 
not attacked the Democrats; that is just not my style. I have worked 
all year, and last year as chairman, to have as fair and responsible 
relationship with both sides as I could possibly accomplish, and I 
think we have done a pretty good job there.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues who else thinks we did a 
pretty good job. The President of the United States yesterday in his 
press conference said: ``Again, we have accomplished so much in this 
session of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. It has been one of the 
most productive sessions.'' That was President Clinton who said that. 
Did everybody hear that? Just in case my colleagues did not hear it, 
let me read it again. He said, ``Again, we have accomplished so much in 
this session of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. It has been one of 
the most productive sessions.''
  Well, I do not agree with everything the President says, but I tend 
to agree with that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe everything the 
President says?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think I just answered that question.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I believe that about as often as 
the gentleman from Wisconsin does, and I do not think that is news to 
anybody.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we should all be very thankful that this political 
season is about over, because once the election is behind us, then we 
are going to find that we can get back to the business of doing the 
people's business. We will not need to use the floor of the House of 
Representatives for campaigning. We will put the people above the 
politics, and that is good. We need to get back to that.
  Somebody mentioned the other day that this was like a scene from the 
movie ``Groundhog Day.'' If my colleagues saw the movie ``Groundhog 
Day,'' Bill Murray is the main character and he is a weather reporter 
for a Pittsburgh news station, and he travels to Punxsutawney to do a 
story on Punxsutawney Phil coming out of his cave and giving a 
prediction on the weather, but something happens, and day after day 
after day he wakes up to the very same day over and over and over 
again. But, the way the movie ended, he went on to a new day and 
continued life after those many, many days of just repeating over and 
over again, by falling in love, and then he woke up the next day and 
everything was like it should be.
  If we can show a little more love and compassion, a little more 
spirit of determination to work together for the people that we 
represent, it is amazing how much we could get accomplished here. Just 
as President Clinton said: ``Again, we have accomplished so much in 
this session of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. It has been one of 
the most productive sessions.'' President Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the resolution, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for debate has expired.
  The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 662, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 361, 
nays 13, not voting 58, as follows:

[[Page 25730]]



                             [Roll No. 585]

                               YEAS--361

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--13

     Baird
     Barton
     Capuano
     Costello
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Ford
     Hilliard
     LaFalce
     Miller, George
     Phelps
     Stupak
     Visclosky

                             NOT VOTING--58

     Archer
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Collins
     Conyers
     Danner
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Etheridge
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (MT)
     Hostettler
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kingston
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mollohan
     Ose
     Pickering
     Portman
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Shaw
     Spratt
     Stark
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wise
     Wynn

                              {time}  1948

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________