Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to convey to the gentleman that I rise to support the gentleman's idea and to oppose his amendment, and let me say why and why it is we call it a poison pill. I think it was in 1995 when we voted for motor voter legislation. I voted against it and I drafted legislation to change it, not because I did not want to encourage Americans to register and to vote, but because I was afraid that we would never be able to purge people who should not vote, that, in fact, it would become a system too easily defrauded; and it does need to be changed, and I agree entirely with the gentleman and his proposal here. It is a poison pill because the coalition that we need to pass this legislation consists of a lot of Democrats, and the motor voter bill is based on relatively party lines. What we do not want to happen, those of us who are just determined to do away with soft money in these sham ads, what we do not want to do is let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We think that the gentleman's proposal, while it is a good one, becomes the enemy of the passage of our bill. It is not the idea that is poison, it is the way that it breaks up our coalition. I am sure that is not the gentleman's purpose.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As many Members know, I have submitted an amendment that would amend the language in the bill submitted by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The gentleman from Michigan's language makes it clear that no funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency could be used in the implementation or contemplation of implementation of the Kyoto protocol. In discussion with the advocates for this language on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others, I have decided, Mr. Chairman, not to offer my amendment, but I would like to take this time to address the House as to why it is that I thought it was important to offer this amendment in the first place. The issue of the Environmental Protection Agency's activities with regard to greenhouse gases has created suspicion on both sides of the argument. Suspicion on the part of industry that the Environmental Protection Agency would take a backdoor approach to implementing Kyoto. That is a legitimate concern. In fact, the United States Congress, namely, the Senate, has not given the authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to implement Kyoto and it should not do that without the proper authorization. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the environmental advocates in this country are concerned and have a deep suspicion on the other side, and that is that the Knollenberg language would not be used simply to prevent EPA from implementing Kyoto but in fact would stand in the way of the Environmental Protection Agency's legitimate role in studying greenhouse gases and modeling CO2 throughout the atmosphere and implementing voluntary reductions and promoting technology that would reduce carbon dioxide and in fact regulating other pollutants such as mercury in a way that has the least impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide. Why is this important, Mr. Chairman? Why is it so important that we ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is not stripped of these powers? Mr. Chairman, regardless of where one stands on the issues of climate change, there are certain facts that are absolutely beyond scientific dispute. One of them is that we are carbon-loading the atmosphere. We have been carbon-loading the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Age. The percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is now 20 percent over what it was before the Industrial Age began. The biosphere in fact consumes carbon dioxide and turns it into oxygen. Some of my colleagues and others have said, ``Well, that is the harmless and natural state of the planet.'' Well, it is except to the extent that the human race in burning fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, wood at an increasing and dizzying pace over the last 100 years has increased the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere far more than they can be consumed by the biosphere, and the trends are known that this will get worse until we humans learn to build societies that can meet the needs of our people without unbalancing that thin and precious and delicate layer of the atmosphere that allows us to live in this thin band of temperatures in which humans and other life on this planet can live. Mr. Chairman, we have to lead the world in research on global change, climate change. We have to lead the world in research on greenhouse gases. We cannot shrink from that. We cannot be in denial regardless of the interests that would have us do that. Some of my colleagues in the earlier debate this morning talked as if it were clear that we are experiencing global warming today. We cannot prove that, Mr. Chairman. We do not know that. What we do know is that this planet and its life is far, far too precious for us to be cavalier about this issue. Our children certainly will live in a world affected by what we do in our generation, in our time with regard to greenhouse gases. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer this amendment this evening, but those of us who care passionately about this issue will watch the effects of the Knollenberg language. If the Knollenberg language does what its advocates purport it to do, and, that is, to simply prevent the implementation of Kyoto in ways that are unauthorized, then that will be fine and we will move on from there. But if this language, Mr. Chairman, is used to subvert EPA's legitimate role in studying carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, then we will be back here next year and we will fight and we will not withdraw amendments because we stand firm on the proposition that the Environmental Protection Agency must lead this Nation in the study of this phenomenon.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) if he wishes to comment.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and stand to oppose the motion to discharge. The previous speaker, my colleague from New Jersey, said it is time for a reality check and a compassion check. I think that is quite true. Let us start with the reality check. My friend from New Jersey just described abortion in horrific, horrible terms, as if that is what abortion is all about. In fact, it was just last week that the gentleman from New Jersey stood at this podium and could not tell us whether the birth control pill was abortion. In fact, he told us the IUD is abortion. The reality check is, and I will turn to this chart, the reality check is that this is when abortions occur in America: Overwhelmingly early in pregnancy. Now, let us have a compassion check. Who could vote against this bill after it has been described in such horrific terms? I am going to vote against this bill, and I will match my compassion ratings with anyone. Most of my career, before I went into politics, was as a social worker. I worked with handicapped children. I worked with abused children. I held them in my arms. I rescued them from danger. I loved them and I cared about them. I love and I care about my children. I love babies. That is not what this is about. This bill is based on a fraud, and the fraud is that this procedure is used frequently late in pregnancies. As this chart shows, 99 percent of all of the abortions in America occur prior to the 20th week of gestation; the overwhelming majority, 89 percent, prior to 12 weeks; 99\1/2\ percent of the abortions in America occur before the 22nd week; and 99.94 percent of abortions in America occur before the 24th week. The reason Americans are confused about this bill is because people have intentionally tried to confuse them with the notion that somehow women in their 7th, 8th and 9th month of pregnancies are having abortions. And they are not, except for the most extraordinary, extraordinary medical reasons, and reasons that require compassion from all of us. Now, to put to an end this debate about whether somehow in America women are getting late-term abortions after the 6th month for frivolous reasons, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) and I offered a substitute to this bill which would have banned this procedure and all procedures beyond viability, beyond the 24th week, except for the most extraordinary cases, where the health of the mother or the life of the mother is at risk. What saddens me is that we, my friends, my colleagues, are not spending our time on the floor of this body trying to prevent 99 percent of the abortions, trying to prevent unintended pregnancy, which we could do in so many ways in which we could agree: Using birth control, using education, helping define mentors for young ladies in situations where they do not have proper guidance in their lives, so they are not the victims of sexual predators way beyond their age engaging them in inappropriate sexual activities and impregnating them. This is where America's work needs to be done. It does not need to be done out beyond 99.94 percent of the abortions in America. Because, in fact, those abortions are rare and done for the most extraordinary reasons and, again, reasons that require our compassion.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, it certainly is. It certainly is. And I know that the gentleman knows the facts, because he is a student of them, but anyone who knows the facts knows that that is not a loophole through which hundreds or dozens or scores of women would proceed. The fact of the matter is that under Roe versus Wade today doctors have the opportunity to allow late-term abortions for medical reasons. And the facts show indisputably that this is an exception that is not abused. We cannot find an abortionist in this country who will do a late-term abortion for frivolous reasons.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment and support of the chairman.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman knows, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act would provide safeguard for this Nation's precious and delicate migratory bird population. This program fosters nontraditional partnerships among the business community, nongovernmental organizations and Western Hemisphere nations. Joining private enterprise with international environmental organizations combines their capital and know-how needed for a successful venture. Partnering these entities with local organizations in the targeted countries encourages and trains local people to carry out the preservation of habitat critical to migratory birds. In the event that this legislation is enacted before the bill is conferenced with the Senate, I would like to request that consideration be given to funding by the conferees. However, if that is not the case, I would encourage the Department of Interior to consider the funding of this program a priority in its fiscal year 2000 budget. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the many challenges you face in balancing competing needs and projects in the Interior bill but I would like to emphasize the importance this program plays in arresting the decline of our Nation's neotropical migratory bird population.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations to enter into a colloquy to discuss legislation of particular importance to me and many of my colleagues, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself with the remarks made by Members on both sides of this debate about the difficulty of this debate. This is not an easy one. It really divides our own allegiances, those of us who are parents, and many of us have spoken about our parenthood in this debate. It divides our allegiance between the natural tendency of a parent to want to make sure that their children remain under their custody and their control, and our allegiance to want to do something to help those teenagers in America who are not so fortunate, who do not have parents who spend the time with them and talk with them, and who feel alone in these kinds of agonizing decisions. As a parent of two daughters, I know that for those of us who try as hard as we can to commit ourselves to communicating with and nurturing our children, the laws on parental consent and parental notification do not make a difference, because they cannot break that bond. The bond that a parent establishes with a child is not going to be broken one way or another by these laws. But I think I also know, and I think I know some of this from my days as a social worker working with children who were abused and neglected and otherwise had very agonizing and very difficult lives, for those parents who simply will not talk with their children, these kinds of laws cannot make that bond. It would be nice if we could pass this law and suddenly that would engender discussions between parents and children, but that will not be the result. When we try to legislate in this area, we quickly discover that we are in an area where we do not belong. One cannot build a relationship with three pieces of paper. This is the legislation we are discussing today, three slim pieces of paper, and these three slim pieces of paper, even if signed by the President, and they will not be, they are not going to build a relationship between a mother and a daughter or between a father and a daughter. They are not going to change the behavior; the behavior will remain the same. When we try to legislate in this area, we recognize how foolish it is. Let me just cite some examples of the way this law does not make any sense and will not have any effect and will not be able to be enforced if a young lady comes to her aunt and says, I think I might be pregnant, and I think I want to go to the neighboring State across the river. I live in Pennsylvania; right across the river I can see New Jersey. If a young girl in my community went to her aunt and said, I cannot talk to Mom and Dad about this, or I do not have a mom, and my dad will not talk to me about any of this, will you go with me? And the aunt says, honey, I will be with you; I will see you through this decision. And the young lady, 17 years old, goes to the neighboring State of New Jersey and discovers that she is pregnant and decides then and there to have an abortion, and does so, legally, is the aunt that took her there now to be jailed because she transported her across the State line? If she drives her to the bridge in Frenchtown, New Jersey, and says, meet me on the other side, walk across the State line, and I will pick you up on the other side, is she to be jailed for that, or has she escaped these three thin pieces of paper with which we are trying to change this behavior? If the aunt buys her a bus ticket in Pittsburgh and says, I cannot go with you, but here is the bus ticket to New Jersey, will she be subject to these laws? I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is we cannot fix this with three thin pieces of paper. I wish we could. I wish that if this law went into effect, teenagers in America would say, hum, I cannot get an abortion out of State without parental consent; now no one can take me over without going to jail. Therefore, what I will do is change my sexual behavior or I will suddenly create a discussion with my parents. That will not happen. What will happen with this kind of law is most people will not know they are violating it, and most people will not get it enforced, but some people will end up in jail as a result of it, inadvertently. But mostly what will result will be kids alone in strange cities in other States forced to travel by themselves, safely or unsafely, hitchhiking, being driven by another minor, alone and not with someone who cares about them, not a relative, a grandmother, an aunt who would care for them. They will be there alone, they will be there unsafe; they will have their abortions later, because they will delay the decision, and we will have accomplished nothing. How much better would it be if we could be on this floor of this House of Representatives today actually structuring ways to prevent these teenagers from becoming pregnant, to prevent these teenagers from making the kinds of wrong decisions that they make that lead to the sexual behavior, that lead to the inadvertent pregnancies. I hope my colleagues will see the wisdom of voting against this bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been wanting to have some time for a while because I first want to speak on process, and I hope the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is listening, and I do not know if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is here or not. But I cannot let pass the nuance that the gentleman from Connecticut was in some way trying to interfere with the free flow of debate on this floor or was in any way disrespectful of his colleagues. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience in the 6 years that I have served in this House that there is not a Member of the House of Representatives who is more courteous, who is more respectful of his colleagues, who is more polite than the gentleman from Connecticut. He is a gentleman par excellence, and his motives in that regard should not be questioned. Mr. Chairman, it was clear that his concern simply was that in the format where we each seek 5 minutes and an infinite number of yields might prevent others from having an opportunity to speak. And it was only, I know, because of his courteous respect for his colleagues that he made that point and I think that should be clarified. On the merits of severability, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), neither he nor the proponents of his amendment have yet made the case that the elements of the Shays-Meehan bill, in fact, hinge upon and were dependent upon one another. The fact of the matter is that they are not. The first provision, the most important provision is that this bill bans soft money. Americans by overwhelming majorities understand that when huge corporations or huge labor unions are able to contribute huge sums of money to the parties, that they buy undue influence that individual Americans could never ever achieve. And Americans think that is wrong because this is not government by the corporations, for the corporations, or by the labor unions, for the labor unions. It is government by and for and of ``We the People.'' Americans understand that people should contribute to candidates, not corporations, not to parties, nor should labor unions. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is meritorious on its own regard. If the Supreme Court decided that codifying Beck with regard to paycheck protection or with regard to contributions by union members was unconstitutional, that in no way minimizes the value of banning soft money. No more than getting rid of sham issue ads, where they get around the rightful limitations on contributions of hard money and use other funds to go right after a specific candidate and malign him and attack him without ever owning up that the purpose of that ad was to go after a specific candidate. That stands on its own merit entirely. Whether the limitation on what wealthy candidates contribute was to stand or fall in the courts has nothing to do with the merits of getting rid of these sham ads, any more than limiting the ability of incumbents to use the franking privileges all the way up to elections. If that stands or does not stand in the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with whether foreign money and fund-raising on government property should stay in law. So until the proponents of the Thomas amendment can show in any way how these components of the Shays-Meehan act rely on, depend on, cannot exist without the other, they have not made anything like a case. The fact of the matter is that these provisions all stand on their own. All have merit, individually or collectively, and are not dependent upon one another in order to accomplish real campaign finance reform. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Thomas amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman's comments, it may be the candidates do not know where the money came from, but it is certainly the case that when the XYZ Corporation gives a huge sum of money to the Democratic or the Republican Party, Members of Congress in the House and the Senate were involved in raising that money. When the vote comes before the House, they are not adverse to reminding Members, the XYZ corporation or the XYZ labor union just gave us a million dollars, and they will really appreciate the right vote here. Do you think that does not happen?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am saying is that the proponents of this amendment have yet to make a coherent argument that, in fact, one provision of this bill relies upon the other. The burden of proof on an offer of an amendment is to prove that their argument has validity, and you have not done that.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, we can be for soft money, as the gentlewoman is, and be against it, as I am; and that is a legitimate and reasonable debate. The issue in this amendment is whether the ban on soft money is or is not a good idea, depending upon whether the courts decide that the ban on raising money in public offices stands or it does not. These provisions have merit on their own. They do not hinge one upon the other. They are not dependent upon one another for their effect. They should not be subject to this sham amendment which I think, although I have nothing but respect for the gentleman from California, is really intended to undo the provisions.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky to see what she says and to decide if I want to continue to yield.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that here in Washington sometimes education becomes a subject of controversy, when most Americans would look at us as politicians and say, what could be controversial about education. We all know that there is nothing more important in the world than that our precious children receive the best education that they can so that they can make the most of themselves in every way and that we can compete as a nation against every other country in the world as they educate their children. Of even less controversy, if that is possible, is the notion that children who have particular challenges, whether they are children with mental retardation or they have social or emotional problems, whether they have learning disabilities, speech impediments, what have you, that we as a society want to go overboard and do more for those kids than we do for other kids, if that is possible, because of the challenges that face them. None of that is controversial. We are all in support of that. What does get controversial is when we talk about whether it is the Federal responsibility or the State responsibility or the local responsibility to support certain aspects of education, and that is in fact very controversial. Most Republicans feel very strongly that the States should determine the curriculum, should determine the basics of education and that the localities should run the schools and make the decisions about hiring and firing and how they want to run their local school districts. But the President has proposed Federal responsibilities that would be new. He has proposed that the Federal Government get involved in school construction, that the Federal Government get involved in hiring teachers. Back to what is not controversial, IDEA is not controversial. The Congress 23 years ago said we have got to give these kids everything we can give them, the school districts are mandated to do that, and just last year, I believe it was, we reauthorized IDEA, I think with maybe one negative vote, if not unanimously, I think it was one negative vote out of 435 of us. This proposal, the Bass proposal, says let us put all the controversy aside and let us do what we agree on, let us finally fully fund special education, take this enormous burden that we have imposed on the States and shoulder our fair share as the Congress, and then the beautiful part of it is that every school district in America, so relieved of this burdensome Federal responsibility, has the opportunity to make a specific local decision what to do with the money it would have otherwise had to dedicate to special education and if they need a new roof, put a new roof on; if they need to hire new teachers, do that; if they need computers, do that. This, I think, is a complete win-win proposal, that we help the kids in America who need special education, who need special attention, help them the most and then at the same time free up every locality, every local school district in the country to then tailor-fit its budget to its particular needs. I urge support of the Bass resolution.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act and in appreciation of the inclusion of a provision, brought to my attention by my constituent, Mr. James Biscardi of Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Without his continued dedication, the men of the Navy Armed Guard, who served with honor, dignity, and courage, would still be awaiting their deserved congressional recognitioin. In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Biscardi, a true American Patriot, contacted my office seeking recognitioin for those who served in the Navy Armed Guard. By working with him, I drafted legislation, now part of the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act, that recognizes the outstanding service of the members of the Armed Guard during World Wars I and II and thanks the surviving crewmen of the Armed Guard for their service. The Armed Guard was created as a branch of the United States Navy during World War I to protect the merchant ships of the United States by maintaining weapons on 384 merchant ships. During World War II, the Armed Guard was reactivated as a response to the German strategy of attacking and sinking merchant ships, even those of neutral countries, which appeared to be bringing goods to the Allied Nations in Europe. Over 144,900 men served in the Armed Guard on 6,236 merchant ships during World War II. Nearly 2,000 of these men made the supreme sacrifice, and gave their lives in defense of their country. The dedication of, and sacrifices made, by the men of the Armed Guard deserve the recognition and gratitude of the United States. Through the passage of the Defense Authorization bill, the United States Congress will be acknowledging the outstanding service of the 144,970 men who served in the Armed Guard during World War II, and the men who served in World War I. These men have earned a heartfelt thanks from the country that they so gallantly fought to protect.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding organization in our country called Students In Free Enterprise. Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE), is a non-profit organization located on over 500 college campuses across the United States. SIFE has continually encouraged the free enterprise system through educational programs since it's inception more than 20 years ago. Students in the organization dedicate their time and resources to helping others. SIFE's mission is to provide college students the best opportunity to develop leadership, teamwork and communications skills through learning, practicing and teaching the principles of free enterprise. SIFE is not only involved with the encouragement of free enterprise, but has also worked closely with international charitable organizations. Students involved in this organization gain valuable leadership, communication and business skills by teaching others, especially at risk youth. The Students In Free Enterprise organization is a valuable asset to the citizens of our country. In honor of their many charitable and civil contributions, I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives in recognizing May 12, 1998 as National Students In Free Enterprise Day. I congratulate SIFE as they continue their mission of helping people achieve their dreams through free enterprise education.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to treat the U.S. Postal Service the same as any private employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The fact that the Postal Service has not been covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the same way as private employers--including private employers with whom the Postal Service directly competes for business--is apparently due to the fact that both the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Postal Reorganization Act were being considered at the same time by Congress, in 1970. In any event, the Postal Service, although it is now ``an independent establishment of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States'' is considered a ``federal agency'' for purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. As a ``federal agency,'' under Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and Executive Order 12196, the Postal Service is supposed to comply with OSHA standards, but it is not subject to OSHA enforcement as are private employers. Instead, the Department of Labor is authorized under Executive Order 12196 to conduct inspections of agency workplaces ``when the Secretary [of Labor] determines necessary if an agency does not have occupational safety and health committees; or in response to reports of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions, upon request of occupational safety and health committees . . .; or, in the case of a report of an imminent danger, when such a committee has not responded to an employee who has alleged to it that the agency has not adequately responded to a report.'' In such cases, the Department of Labor is required to follow up its inspection with a report to the head of the agency. In addition, under the executive order, the Secretary of Labor submits an annual report to the President on each federal agency's workplace safety and health performance. However, neither the Department of Labor nor the state agencies which enforce OSHA requirements in 23 states have the legal authority to require the Postal Service to comply with OSHA requirements, or to issue citations or penalties against the Postal Service for violations of OSHA requirements. As my colleagues may know, I have been working for some time on much needed reforms of the workers compensation system for federal employees, known as the Federal Employees Compensation Act, or FECA, which is also the workers compensation program which covers Postal Service employees. The present program is expensive, has not been updated for years, continues to be afflicted by cases of fraud and abuse, and in many cases discourages employees' return to work. Measured by either total compensation costs or numer of claims, Postal Service employees comprise one of the largest components of FECA. During a hearing held on the FECA program on March 24 by the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, a representative of the American Postal Workers Union claimed that ``[in] our experience, the federal government's workplace safety and health program remains inadequate and deficient, and this is where the greatest savings could and should be achieved in the costs associated with workers injured on the job in the line of duty.'' While I certainly do not share the view that the only problem with the FECA program is the lack of effort by the Postal Service or federal agencies generally to seriously address workplace hazards in order to prevent workplace injuries, it does seem to me reasonable and appropriate to provide assurance that in addressing FECA we are not ignoring the issue of workplace safety. Nor does it seem unreasonable to me that the Postal Service, which increasing competes directly with private companies, should do so ``on a level playing field'' with regard to OSHA regulation and enforcement. So for both of these reasons I am introducing legislation to treat the Postal Service the same as private employers for purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under the bill, the Postal Service would be subject to inspection, citation, and penalty by OSHA and approved state OSHA programs. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in order to pass this legislation during this Congress.