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      

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.

[Page: H11670]  GPO's PDF

   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: 18:45]

   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 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

[Page: H11671]  GPO's PDF

   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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   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: 19:00]

   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.

   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

[Page: H11672]  GPO's PDF

   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.

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