THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 -- (House of Representatives - June 08, 2000)

uments to the contrary attempt to reduce all workers to the status of

[Page: H4103]  GPO's PDF
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: 20:00]

   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]  GPO's PDF
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]  GPO's PDF

   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.


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents