[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              BLACK LUNG BENEFITS RESTORATION ACT OF 1994

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 428

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2108) to make improvements in the Black Lung 
     Benefits Act. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with section 401(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to 
     exceed three hours (excluding time consumed by recorded votes 
     and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4415. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1140

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Slaughter] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of 
debate time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 428 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits 
Restoration Act.
  The rule waives section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
against consideration of the bill only. That section of the Budget Act 
prohibits consideration of new entitlement authority which becomes 
effective prior to October 1 of the year in which it is reported. This 
is a technical waiver which will be corrected by the substitute which 
this rule will make in order. The original bill as reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor did not contain an effective date and 
therefore theoretically could have allowed spending to occur in fiscal 
year 1994.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 4415 as an original bill for the 
purposes of amendment. The substitute is identical to the reported bill 
except for adjustments to include an effective date. Therefore when the 
new text is made in order upon passage of the rule, there will not be 
any Budget Act violation.
  The substitute shall be considered as read.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  The rule further provides for a limit of 3 hours, excluding the time 
for votes, for consideration of the bill for amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2108, the bill for which the Rules Committee has 
recommended this rule, would amend the Black Lung Benefits Act to 
ensure that process of determining eligibility for black lung benefits 
is objective and that beneficiaries and their families and survivors 
are treated fairly.
  In a series of oversight hearings since 1990, the Education and Labor 
Committee discovered that the Black Lung Benefits Program had been 
restricted to the point that only 5 percent of miners' claims are 
approved. The committee heard repeated testimony that retired miners 
and their families have been terrorized by unscrupulous collection 
agencies hired by the Government to reclaim benefits legally paid to 
claimants while their cases were on appeal.
  H.R. 2108 is designed to make the determination of eligibility for 
black lung benefits fairer and speedier. In addition, the bill would 
remove the overpayment repayment requirement if those receiving interim 
benefits are later found to be ineligible.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this open rule so that we 
may proceed with consideration of the merits of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this open rule 
providing for consideration of the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act. 
We all know the problems in the coal mining areas which bring about the 
black lung disease, and they need help.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this is an open rule. Unusual, indeed, 
but nevertheless, welcome.
  Initially there was a great deal of concern that this bill violated 
the budget act because it technically could have allowed new 
entitlement authority in this fiscal year.
  Although the rule does waive section 401(b)(1) of the Budget Act, it 
also makes in order substitute text containing an October 1, 1994, 
effective date. Therefore, upon adoption of this rule, there will be no 
violation of the Budget Act.
  The Federal Black Lung Program provides monetary reimbursements to 
current and former coal miners who are totally disabled by black lung 
disease. The program also provides benefits for dependents and 
survivors.
  There are many problems with the current program. It is extremely 
difficult for claimants to obtain benefits. The Black Lung Trust Fund 
is about $3.9 billion in debt, and the financing is causing a financial 
hardship on the coal industry. This bill attempts to address these 
problems and others, but there are substantial concerns over many 
provisions of the bill, some of which I share.
  This open rule will allow Members to offer germane amendments to 
address their particular interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a comparative chart on open 
versus restrictive rules, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule 
so we can proceed with the consideration of this legislation.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           66      14         21       52         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 18, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   176 (D-118; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the rule. It is not all that I 
would like in the sense that it does waive the Budget Act in regard to 
section 401(b)(1). But as has been indicated, that is a technical 
objection. Yes, but it is a real problem, waiving pay-go for an 
entitlement program, because part of the deep problems of the Black 
Lung Benefits Act is indeed the fact that the trust fund, which 
represents all of those owners who cannot be found and who have to 
react to a workman's compensation claim from the miners of America who 
are suffering from black lung disease, that black lung fund is $4 
billion in debt and has been bailed out by the taxpayers once before by 
waiving all interest for several years. That is a deep, deep problem 
which we will be discussing later.
  So I would have hoped that we would have faced that before bringing 
this to the floor, and at least be able to take the roughly $200 
million of added expense on the black lung fund and at least cut in 
other areas under the domain of Committee on Education and Labor, so 
that there will be no threat upon the various allocations which the 
committee has already set forth for the fiscal year 1995.
  But we do rejoice in having an open rule. I think that is fine. A lot 
of us believe this is a very important act. Unfortunately, Congress has 
been a terrible, terrible insurer, you might say, which is what the 
black lung fund is, for the Workmen's Compensation Act, known as the 
Black Lung Benefits Act. If we were in private business, we long ago 
would have been closed and bankrupt and ridiculed for the terrible job 
that Congress has done in handling this. But that will all come in the 
debate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to approve 
House Resolution 428, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act of 1994. After receiving 
testimony from majority and minority members of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, the Committee on Rules approved H.R. 428 and now 
recommends its adoption by the House. I support the recommendation of 
the Committee on Rules and urge prompt ratification of the rule.
  H.R. 428 makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 2108, consisting of the text of H.R. 4415 as original text for the 
purpose of amendment. H.R. 2108, which is similar to a black lung 
reform bill approved by the House during the last Congress (H.R. 1637-
102d Cong.), was ordered reported by the Committee on Education and 
Labor, April 13, 1994, and is described in the committee report filed 
last week. (House Report 103-507, May 12, 1994.)
  The text of H.R. 4415, which this rule would substitute for the text 
of H.R. 2108, is identical to the committee-reported bill, 
except for the effective date. The language of H.R. 2108 would have the 
legislation effective upon enactment. The text of H.R. 4415 makes the 
legislation effective on the first day of the next fiscal year, October 
31, 1994.
  The effective date provision of H.R. 4415 and other conforming 
language which would be substituted for the text of H.R. 2108 cures a 
technical inconsistency with section 401(b)(1) of the Budget Act of 
1974. That provision of the Budget Act requires the spending contained 
in our bill begin after the fiscal year in which it is enacted. The 
effective date in the text of H.R. 4415 brings H.R. 2108 into 
compliance with this provision of the Budget Act.
  The rule, H.R. 428, which we have before us, waives section 401(b)(1) 
of the Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of new 
entitlement authority which becomes effective prior to October 1 of the 
year in which it is reported). Adoption of the rule cures any Budget 
Act infirmity and provides that all points of order against 
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 401(b)(1) 
of the Budget Act of 1974 are waived.
  With respect to the nature of the rule, the Committee on Rules has 
recommended an open rule. The chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee and I, in testimony before the Rules Committee, recommended a 
modified closed rule making in order three amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee on Monday, May 16. Republican members of our committee 
urged the Rules Committee to grant an open rule with no limit on the 
number of amendments and generous debate time.
  Reluctantly, I agreed to the minority's demands because I did not 
want our committee to be accused of being unfair or attempting to 
prevent a full debate on this important issue.
  The Committee on Rules, in H.R. 428, has granted the minority's wish.
  They have the open rule they asked for.
  They have no limits on the number of amendments as they requested. 
Yesterday our minority members told the Rules Committee they would have 
seven or eight amendments. I hope that is still true today and we 
haven't opened the gate to a flood of amendments designed to delay 
consideration of black lung reform legislation.
  They have 1 hour of debate on the rule, another hour of general 
debate on the bill, and 3 hours of debate on amendments. That's a total 
of 5 hours, not counting time consumed for votes.
  I assume, since the minority has gotten everything they requested in 
the rule, we can count on their support for adoption of the rule.
  Having participated in our committee's presentation to the Rules 
Committee, listening to the minority's demands, reluctantly assenting 
to their demands, and seeing their demands incorporated in the rule, I 
would consider it disingenuous to turn around and oppose the rule. 
Furthermore, since we have agreed to everything the minority wanted in 
the rule, I think we should dispense with further debate on the rule 
and proceed to substantive consideration of H.R. 2108.
  I urge my colleagues to approve H.Res. 428, the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2108, and allow us to proceed to bring 
comprehensive black lung reform legislation before the body for the 
second time in approximately 18 months.
  The last time the Education and Labor Committee brought a similar 
bill (H.R. 1637) before the House it was approved by a voice vote. I 
certainly hope we will enjoy the same success again today. The victims 
of this debilitating disease, some of whom traveled to Washington 
yesterday in the hope of seeing justice done today, have waited too 
long already.

                              {time}  1150

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
strong support of this bill. I think it is time. It is justice long 
overdue. It is not complete justice. It will not take care of all the 
inequities, but it is a start.
  It is a start, for instance, for those claimants who have been in 
this process year after year after year, who retire because of 
pneumoconiosis or black lung, as it is popularly known, and then begin 
to go through all the administrative hoops and procedural barriers of 
the black lung programs.
  It is the case, for instance, of people who have cases pending 
anywhere from 7 to 10 years. It is the case, for instance, of somebody 
who knows that they will never receive their benefits. Their one hope 
is that they will last long enough and so finally there will be victory 
and their spouse, usually their widow, will receive those benefits.
  This would, for instance, end the practice of running claimants 
around to different medical examiners until there is a decision adverse 
to them. So that it ends the practice of making them go to doctor after 
doctor after doctor trying to get that decision that will eventually 
rule against them. It would assume, for instance, that death that would 
come from pneumoconi- osis, if the claimant was receiving benefits or 
was disabled by pneumoconiosis at the time of death. That makes sense, 
does it not? Unfortunately, not in the administration of the black lung 
program.
  Some of my colleagues, and I understand some of them are not from 
coal-mining country, they wonder why, what is the problem here? Why can 
Medicare, as has been suggested, not cover it or COBRA. Nobody can 
afford COBRA that I have been able to see, but why COBRA cannot cover 
it.
  Let me try and create the picture for my colleagues of a mine. First 
of all, turn the lights out in here. Then, after that, pretend like 
there are cutting machines going in every corner. And just to make it 
complete, start the fans going that blow black coal dust at you and 
blows at you and you breathe it day after day after day, 30 or 40 
years. We will not even get into the occupational safety aspects of it, 
the fact that the roof is creaking overhead. We have to worry about 
roof falls. We have to worry about it being the most hazardous industry 
in the country.
  We will talk about the hazards that come after people retire and they 
are going to retire. And if they have worked in there 20 years at 
least, they are going to retire with black long. There is no way around 
it. They are going to be disabled, and it is going to be steadily 
degenerative as a result.
  My colleagues, they cannot eat and inhale black coal dust day after 
day after day without having severe respiratory problems resembling 
emphysema that are going to get worse and worse. Every day they walk 
out of that mine and, indeed, often for people long after they have 
left the mine, every time they cough, they are going to cough black 
dust.
  That is what black lung is. Most of us are fortunate. We do not have 
to worry about that. Men and women who work underground every day do. 
So that is what this program is about.
  After they have worked all that time, they ought not be frustrated by 
a program that is really procedurally almost designed to frustrate 
them.
  This is a chance to bring some justice. It is a chance to remove some 
of the administrative barriers. It is a chance, finally, to bring a 
little bit of light to an occupation that does not see a whole lot of 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and the bill.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule. If Members sat in the chair 
back in the district that I sit in, they would hear from claimants for 
black lung who have waited 5 or 10 years for benefits. And they beat 
around the mulberry bush.
  It is time that we take the burden off of the coal-operating 
companies and that we acknowledge obligation and we do something about 
it.
  By allowing these amendments on the floor of the House to be debated 
and the bill itself, we will get down to the business of helping and 
not destroying the lives of so many people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). Pursuant to House Resolution 
428 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2108.

                              {time}  1156


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2108) to make improvements in the Black Lung Benefits Act, with 
Mr. Wise in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2108, the 
Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act of 1993. The bill is essentially 
the same as the one which passed the House near the end of the 102d 
Congress. That bill was severely scaled back to meet both substantive 
and budgetary considerations. There are many provisions that we left 
out of this bill that I personally favored. We gave them up to get a 
bill that could and should pass the House of Representatives.
  Black lung is an occupational disease that destroys the lives of 
those who mine the coal on which this country depends. It is a savage 
disease that debilitates tens of thousands of once strong and energetic 
miners by denying them the very breath of life. No one who has visited 
the coal fields of this country can deny the horrible consequences of 
pneumoconiosis.
  In 1969, under the leadership of my good friend John Dent, who cared 
deeply for the people of the coal fields, we passed the first Black 
Lung Act, as part of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 
1969. The need for a compensation program for disabled miners was 
compelling then and is no less compelling today. Over the years, we 
have amended and reamended this law as we have attempted to better 
balance the demonstrable need for disability compensation with fiscal 
responsibility by ensuring that the legal standards establishing 
eligibility and causation were clear. This has not been an easy task. 
Unclear and inconsistent evidence with regard to work histories over 
long periods of time and the lack of conclusive medical evidence in 
this field has always plagued this program through no fault of either 
the miner or the operator.
  In 1981, the following other changes to the act in 1972 and 1977, 
this Congress severely restricted the presumptions of causation used to 
determine eligibility. As a result, the approval rates for claimants 
has dropped dramatically, virtually nullifying the act. This is 
especially true for the widows and survivors of miners.
  The current system is so stacked against the claimant that even the 
clearest case is often difficult to establish. The evidentiary 
standards and the lack of presumptions as to work histories and 
causation almost ensure that the party with the most money for the 
greater number of examinations and the greater number of expert 
witnesses wins--wins not on the basis of the quality of the evidence, 
but simply by the poundage of the evidence. My colleagues, the party 
with such funds available is not the miner or his or her survivors.
  This bill is a modest attempt to ensure a fairer and more balanced 
claims system for both parties to these cases. Specifically, the bill 
limits for all parties the number of medical examinations that can be 
required and the pieces of similar medical evidence that can be 
introduced which are derived from the same medical procedure. It also 
gives weight to the treating physicians of miners disabled by the 
disease if those physicians are appropriately qualified.
  This bill reestablishes the widows/widowers presumption--that if the 
miner was receiving benefits at the time of death, the miner's death 
shall be considered to have occurred as a result of the pneumoconiosis. 
It establishes a procedure for early designation by the Secretary of 
the named responsible operator so that the claimant does have not to 
litigate against an array of operators, all of whom wish to avoid 
liability. It makes it economically feasible for attorneys to represent 
black lung claimants in lengthy litigation against coal operators. It 
also extends the act to workers who contracted black lung while working 
at coke ovens.
  This is a good bill, a budget-conscious bill, and one that all my 
colleagues in the House should support. The work of miners deep inside 
the Earth has literally powered our Nation for decades. It you believe 
that over time we have eliminated the cause of black lung and therefore 
need not continue to provide compensation, may I just remind you of the 
recent dust sampling scandal which exposed miners to dust levels well 
above those allowed by law. Until the causes of black lung are remedied 
we, as a nation, owe a debt to our miners and their survivors. This 
bill is a repayment of that debt. The need is as important today as it 
was in 1969. Just ask the miner whose life is dependent on a respirator 
that must be carried by his side forever. Compassion for these hard-
working people requires that the House pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 18 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2108.
  First of all, I want to say that all of us here today are committed 
to responsible stewardship of the Black Lung Benefits program and with 
its basic purpose as a worker's compensation program, something of 
which I think we lost sight of from time to time, designed to provide 
payments to disabled miners based on a clear showing of employment-
related medical disability.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2108 would move the program far beyond 
congressional intent concerning the Black Lung Benefits Act and, 
indeed, move us backward to the 1970's.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, most of the people by now have forgotten that this $1.5 
billion per year program was a last-minute addition, indeed an 
afterthought to the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, a law 
concerned primarily with the technical safety requirements of coal 
mines.
  So it was that Congress with minimal debate or consideration tacked a 
rider on to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and created the Black 
Lung Benefits Act, a workers' compensation act.
  Mr. Chairman, the original Black Lung Act was limited, limited in 
duration, limited to underground coal miners who could establish that 
they were totally disabled as defined only in regard to being totally 
disabled to work in the mines only, not totally disabled in general, 
due to black lung disease arising out of coal mine employment and 
limited to governmental liability, also.
  But as we have seen before, Federal entitlement programs can attain a 
life and a momentum all of their own. In 1972 Congress decided that not 
enough miners were receiving black lung benefits and the so-called 
temporary act was suspended to cover surface miners and special 
presumptions were added so that miners were considered to have black 
lung disease simply because of the number of years that they worked in 
the mines, and the act ordered the review of all prior denials. Some 
70,000 claimants had their claims reversed, resulting in an additional 
$9 billion over the lifetime of those claimants of expense to the black 
lung trust fund, which is set up to be able to respond insofar as 
illness from black lung is concerned from owners of coal companies that 
no longer can be found.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1977 Congress proved that it could make things 
worse. The 1977 amendments gave a new meaning to the concept of 
retroactive liability. Congress again sought to ease the burden on 
claimants seeking benefits, so that all of the claims which were 
reviewed initially under the 1969 act and re-reviewed under the 1972 
amendments were to be reviewed yet again under the 1977 amendments. The 
1977 amendments created 125,000 claims to be refiled and relitigated 
which caused workers' compensation insurance companies, by the way, to 
deny liability for the claims they were insuring because they said, 
``Hey, we only really insured one bite at the apple in litigation, not 
several more,'' which caused the trust fund to go deeply into debt and 
caused the coal companies much consternation because they had to self-
insure for black lung liability and that set the stage for 1981.
  Thus in 1981 the administration, labor and management agreed on a 
compromise set of amendments to the Black Lung Act in order to 
stabilize programs and to hopefully steer the trust fund toward 
financial stability.
  By late 1981, it was clear that funding arrangements enacted in 1978 
were so inadequate that the trust fund had accumulated $1.5 billion of 
debt to the U.S. taxpayers with no prospect of future solvency.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1981 Congress passed amendments which doubled the 
tax on coal to provide additional income for the trust fund and 
repealed, repealed, Mr. Chairman, most of the presumptions and the 
restrictions on evidence passed in 1969, 1972 and 1978 designed to make 
proof of real medical illness that much easier.
  The purpose of the 1981 amendments was to ensure that entitlement of 
claims filed in the future would not be based on presumptions of 
eligibility and restrictions of evidence but on actual proof of total 
disability due to black lung disease arising from employment in the 
coal industry.
  By the way, about 12,000 claims against the coal operators were 
transferred over to the trust fund because of the enormous 
responsibilities that were involved because of those 1977 amendments, 
which kind of rigged, and that is not possibly the best way of 
expressing it, but changed the mode of procedure for approving these 
claims.
  Mr. Chairman, the result of the 1981 amendments was that the growth 
of the trust fund dramatically slowed, but it did not stop. So today 
the trust fund is approaching $4 billion of debt. All of the tax 
revenues which were increased in 1981 are sufficient, yes, to cover 
benefit outlays now and are sufficient to cover administration expenses 
now but not interest on the debt. So even with the 1981 reforms, the 
trust fund now is $4 billion in debt and growing.
  Mr. Chairman, the insurance company known as the trust fund operated 
by Congress is in tragic shape right now. And along comes H.R. 2108. 
What does it do? It goes back to the 1970's, to the good old days, and 
it says, we will bring back irrebuttable presumptions of eligibility, 
we will bring back restrictions of evidence that the black lung 
recoveries would again not necessarily have to be based on actual proof 
of total disability, and that is a disservice, I say, to the miners who 
really are deeply sick because of black lung disease. Thus, these 
miners are not thus getting the benefits they deserve because of the 
avalanche of all these claims being relitigated and relitigated time 
and time again when some members of Congress and some unions do not 
like the results of Black Lung workers compensation litigation. So in 
1972 Congress ordered re-litigation of Black Lung cases and they 
attempted to doctor the legal procedures to get better results. In 1977 
they did the same thing, ordering 125,000 the right to re-litigate 
their Black Lung cases which they had lost. All of this of course is 
tremendously expensive and cloggs up the adjudication process.

  Mr. Chairman, what are we doing? We are saying that interim benefits 
for total disability need never be repaid even if the claim is denied, 
even if it is admitted that there was no basis for the claim. A 
survivor widow is entitled to the irrebuttable presumption that death 
of the miner was caused by pneumoconiosis if the miner was totally 
disabled at his death regardless, Mr. Chairman, of what really caused 
death. He might have committed suicide, he might have had an accident. 
It does not matter. Automatically we extend these benefits.
  That means there is less for the ones who really, really need it.
  Mr. Chairman, the rules of evidence, what do we do here? The rules of 
evidence in black lung cases allow claimants to put three medical 
examinations into evidence while the trust fund, this is the people's 
insurance company, Congress' insurance company, and the responsible 
operators, the coal operators, can only offer one medical examination. 
Mr. Chairman, you can always find one doctor to be able to express your 
opinion all right. The opinion of the miner's treating physician shall 
be, get this, given substantial weight over the opinions of other 
physicians in determining the claimant's eligibility. That is a cost, 
by the way, of $22 million; the interim benefits, a cost of $56 million 
new; and the survivor's widow case to which I referred to, $7.5 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, we did not stop there with this legislation. There is 
more. There is also extended coverage. We are going to make the Black 
Lung Benefits Act extend farther and farther and wider and much more 
coverage. We are going to be covering coke oven workers. Nobody knows 
how many coke oven workers might be involved under the definition of 
coke oven workers as set forth in this bill. CBO makes the stab $11 
million more of costs, but nobody really knows.
  Mr. Chairman, we also redefine the definition of pneumoconiosis to 
include obstructive lung disease as well as restrictive lung disease. 
What does that mean? Basically it means that a style of life, for 
instance, if someone smokes too much and has respiratory problems is no 
defense. We are going to just compensate all of those people, too, who 
happen to have had any experience in the mines.
  Then for attorney fees, we also allow attorney fees and expert 
witness fees and costs even if the claim is denied.
  Mr. Chairman, we will say that even though a claim is denied, one 
gets attorney fees. By the way, under those circumstances, who pays for 
the attorney fees for the coal operators? Guess what? The people's 
insurance company, the trust fund, of course.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problems with attorney fees being 
ordered. I think it is a big problem in the Black Lung Act because a 
lot of very competent attorneys are not in there fighting for the 
miners to the degree they ought to, and I support the concept that 
there ought to be legal fees awarded. I would even go so far as to say 
that unlike all the other workers' compensation statutes, that the fee 
does not have to come out of the recovery, although that is generally 
true in the States where they have a contingent fee arrangement in 
workmen's compensation cases. I will go along with that even. I think 
also that if we really wanted to do some progress in regard to getting 
these cases over with, we would have contingent fees on recovery the 
way the State do and the way basically tort law and injury law is 
worked. Those are just my opinions. I think it would help a great deal.
  Mr. Chairman, the only thing I say is, no, no, I do not think anybody 
in this Congress believes that legal fees should be awarded when the 
claim is denied.

                              {time}  1210

  I do not think anybody believes that legal fees, when the claim is 
denied, then have to be shifted over to the trust fund.
  So what, in reality, does H.R. 2108 do? As I have said, it goes back 
to the 1970's. It treats the Black Lung Benefits Act more as an 
entitlement program to total disability payments, not a workers' 
compensation act.
  Mr. Chairman, you cannot go on refiling years and years and thousands 
and hundreds of thousands of claims over the years simply because you 
do not like the results that the Department of Labor is giving to you 
or the administrative judges. You know, what that does out in the 
private industry, it is absolute chaos. Yet in H.R. 2108 there is 
another requirement that some 87,000 miners may now--after have had 
their ``day in court''--and their claim denied, can refile. Anyone who 
lost his or her case since 1981 can refile their claim. And CBO says 
that at least 20,000 new awards will result from being able to 
relitigate under changed rules of evidence.
  Well, it does not bother Congress, because we just go along with 
those things, but let me tell you, anybody trying to run a coal 
business and trying to find anybody who might want to insure for 
workmen's compensation, you have a tough time when the insurance 
company says, ``Well, Congress may go and just cause us to relitigate 
four or five times.'' Well, that is one of the things that we are 
doing. It is a trust fund buster. It is made to order for more massive 
bailouts.

  If without the new requirements of 2108 the trust fund has added $2.5 
billion to its debt since 1981 and has gone up to $4 billion, what do 
you think, Mr. Chairman, the new debt will be with all of these new 
costs and gimmicks and ways of rearranging rules of evidence in trials? 
This bill totally ignores the spirit of the requirements of pay-go by 
refusing to offset the new costs by cutting elsewhere.
  But really pay-go and CBO only look ahead for 5 years, and I am 
telling you that is not where the big debt here is. We ought to in 
Congress, in operating this particular insurance company known as the 
trust fund, we ought to be setting up reserves which would, therefore, 
guarantee that we would have the money without having to be bailed out 
by the taxpayers again in the future when these miners who have 
lifetime rights to total disability payments come along and ask for 
their payments.
  In truth, the full cost of this bill will be so immense over the 
years that the offsets that CBO is talking about, and they have 
suggested that there would be $195.5 million of pay-go violations here, 
but that is not going to alleviate the concern that I think the 
administration has, nor do I think it is going to alleviate the 
concerns that all of the rest of us have.
  In fact, in closing, let me say that H.R. 2108 creates more 
inequities in the black-lung program than it corrects and would 
substantially increase expenditures for black lung benefits. As I said, 
it is a black lung-fund buster.
  But do not take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Let us look at OMB. And 
what does OMB say about it? I do not know if the administration has 
endorsed this bill yet. I do not think they have. At least, it has been 
relatively quiet. But even OMB recoils, and here is what they say: 
``The administration is very concerned about the enormous debt in the 
black-lung disability trust fund, and the additional debt that would 
result from those revisions,'' and, Mr. Chairman, the actuary with whom 
I have been working to determine what the ultimate costs will be has 
estimated that on the basis of DOL estimates that there will be the 
80,000 refilings, that on the basis of 80,000 refilings which this bill 
requires, that you would have a lifetime cost of approximately 225,000 
per case lifetime total disability obligation.
  You multiply that by 10,000, which would be roughly the share of 
cases attributable to the trust fund, and you have got there alone $2.2 
billion. If we were a true insurance company, we would be putting out 
in reserves to make sure we are not going to bankrupt the future and 
can pay for those 10,000 new cases. But we are not going to be doing 
that. That does not even include the added costs in H.R. 2108--to which 
we will be addressing ourselves with our amendments.
  That does not, by the way, include either what the private sector is 
going to have to absorb, and the same actuary has stated that there we 
are talking about many billions of dollars upon the private sector 
which, as a practical matter, probably will have to be handled by new 
taxes, which is what Senator Simon is talking about.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if we were in a court of law, I would say this side 
rests at this point, because I think the gentleman has done a marvelous 
job of confusing the issue so badly that no one could follow his lead 
and vote against this bill, and ever be able to explain it later.
  The fact of the matter is the numbers he is throwing around outnumber 
the total number of people engaged in coal mining in this country by 
many thousands.
  If it occurs to one we could amend this bill so that a coal miner 
could never again, no matter how badly disabled, collect a dollar in 
order to get the gentleman's vote; it still would not work, because he 
would not vote for the bill even if we changed it in that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy], the chairman of the subcommittee, in order 
that he may allocate time to other speakers.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes to address the 
remarks.
  Let me say this is quite a fitting day for us to be considering the 
black-lung restoration benefits of 1994. Today the Education and Labor 
Committee is commemorating the passing and the service of our former 
chairman, Carl Perkins of Kentucky.
  Mr. Perkins was a champion of the cause of disabled miners, 
particularly in his eastern Kentucky district, and we enjoyed and 
greatly benefited by his chairmanship during many years here in the 
House.
  H.R. 2108, let me address that, is a very necessary matter. And let 
me say to all of the Members who are in their offices listening and 
here on the floor, for over 100 years the coal miners of this country 
mined the coal under our surface without safety regulations or rules 
imposed by the Federal Government. There were some in various States, 
but they were lax. they were not totally adequate to protect the health 
and safety of our miners.
  In 1969 this Congress, with the leadership of Carl Perkins, John 
Dent, and Bill Ford and others addressed those concerns with passage of 
the first Federal health and safety coal mine act, recognizing that 
during our war years of 1941 through 1945, there were very little 
safety regulations in coal mining. Many of the miners who worked in 
those days could not, nor would they consider, going out on strike over 
health matters or safety matters. They were serving the needs of this 
country in providing the energy, 80 percent of the energy, that our 
country needed in those years which was provided by the coal industry.

                              {time}  1220

  Those miners were totally exposed to the hazards of coal mining. 
Pneumoconiosis was the result of their rewards for service in those 
years and all through the years of coal mining.
  Pneumoconiosis, what is it? It is the graying and blackening of the 
coal miner's lungs when he is exposed day after day, hour after hour, 
sometimes working 10 and 12 hours during those years at the face of the 
coal mine where coal dust was not regulated. We recently, 
unfortunately, even though we passed in 1969, 1972, 1977, improvements 
in the Mine Health and Safety Act, we recently had a scandal of one or 
two of the major coal operators in this country fudging their coal air 
reports in their reports to our Federal health and safety divisions and 
to our Bureau of Mines. So we still have in some instances black lung 
still being acquired by those coal miners. It need not be so. If all of 
the mines adhere to the regulations we now have in effect, there will 
be no miners in 20 years or 15 years from now benefiting from these 
because there will not have to be. Black lung is gradually being 
eliminated.
  But what about those older miners who had to serve in those years? 
They have health costs, they have living costs that far exceed what 
they can get from their pittance on social security to take care of 
them. And now most of them are in their 70's and 80's, unable to drag 
their oxygen tent up the steps of a bank and rob a bank, as the 
gentleman from Illinois would have you believe that they are doing, to 
sustain their needs. No, they need these amendments.
  In 1972, with a Republican President and a divided Congress, the act 
was improved. In 1977, with a Democrat President, the act was further 
improved. But in 1981 the benefits were greatly reduced, and those are 
the benefits we are now trying to restore by this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time so that my other 
colleagues may have an opportunity to speak on it, and I will readdress 
it, if I have additional time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall].
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I again salute the committee and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford] the chairman of the committee, for bringing this legislation to 
the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. There may 
be Members in this Chamber, or watching this debate, who may be saying 
to themselves: ``I don't have any coal miners in my district. Why 
should I vote for this bill?''
  Well, who do you think produces the energy to provide the lighting, 
heating, and cooling in this very Chamber and in your offices?
  Our Nation's coal miners. That is who.
  You may be from New England, from Florida, from almost anywhere in 
this great Nation of ours and either all or some of your electricity is 
generated from coal. So I would submit that you, as do I, have a 
substantial stake in this bill, a bill to fulfill a promise this 
Congress, the Federal Government, made to the coal miners of our 
country back in 1969.
  And that promise was that we will compensate you for the black lung 
disease that you may contract for mining coal, for producing the energy 
so necessary for this Nation to maintain its industrial strength and 
our standard of living.
  My colleagues, that promise has been broken. That is the reason for 
the pending legislation. As it now stands, disabled miners who suffer 
from the crippling effects of black lung disease are faced with a 
Federal bureaucracy so totally lacking in compassion to their plight, 
that it appears intent upon harassing their efforts to obtain just 
compensation at every single step of the claim adjudication process.
  Today, we are witnessing less than a 10 percent approval rate on 
claims for black lung benefits. This figure does not attest to any 
reasonable and unbiased comportment of the facts.
  Rather, it represents nothing less than a cruel hoax being 
perpetrated against hard working citizens who have dedicated their 
lives to the energy security and economic well being of this Nation.
  We are faced with other problems as well, among them the long period 
of time it takes the Labor Department to process a claim; the inability 
to find legal representation, the denial of benefits to widowers, and 
perhaps one of the most insidious of them all, Government attempts to 
seek repayment of benefits paid under claims that are appealed years 
after the initial payment was made.
  This was, however, originally envisioned by Congress as being a 
fairly straightforward program.
  Yet, through years of administrative maneuverings aggravated by some 
extremely harmful judicial interpretations, there can be no denial of 
the fact that black lung proceedings before the Labor Department today 
are extremely adversarial in nature against the claimant.
  This type of philosophy certainly does not represent the statutory 
commitment we made to compensate coal miners and their families.
  The pending legislation, H.R. 2108, contains a number of provisions 
aimed at addressing the bona fide concerns of those who are afflicted 
with black lung.
  I urge the House to approve this legislation, for make no mistake 
about it. Victims of black lung disease are not people who are looking 
for a handout. They are people who worked their lives in one of the 
most dangerous occupations in this country. They are people who were 
promised compensation by their Government, and they are people who now 
see their Government break that promise.
  It is time, indeed, long past the time that Congress move legislation 
on behalf of the thousands of miners, their widows and families who are 
being victimized by this program, the very program that was intended to 
bring them relief.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for the work he has done 
on this subcommittee on this and many other subjects. Certainly those 
miners who have been afflicted with black lung over the years, before 
the dangers of underground mining were understood, deserve the support 
of this program, and that is why it was put into effect and still 
continues to operate.
  But I think we should all understand that this program has been 
fraught with problems since its inception. Part of that problem is that 
there are continuing to be a large number of miners who do not qualify 
for the program because they have diseases and other disabilities that 
have nothing to do with black lung.
  So we continue to have a lot of people rejected from this program 
because of that, and there have been attempts over the years at trying 
to open the program up for more and more miners who have disabilities.
  Now, it should not surprise any of us that Members who have brought 
this legislation to the floor and many of those who will speak today 
represent areas where there are large underground mines. I certainly 
understand that. But I and other colleagues in this body have a 
responsibility to look at the facts in this program and determine 
whether in fact we ought to make the changes being suggested by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Unfortunately, many of us believe that the Black Lung Program has 
become an extra pension, if you will, for a lot of those who have 
worked in mining areas that do have disabilities, unfortunately, coming 
from other problems, other than black lung.
  I would like to talk about two of the problems in this bill. One is 
the tax increase that is in this piece of legislation, $195 billion 
over the next 5 years. This does not include that coal mine operators 
are going to be required to pay if in fact these changes are made.
  Now, we have to remember there already is a $4 billion debt in the 
Black Lung Program that is not being addressed, and yet we want to not 
only exacerbate that problem but give even more benefits out, which is 
only going to compound the problem even worse.
  The other body at least is a little more honest with their 
legislation; they call for a 5.5-percent coal tax increase in order to 
meet the extra costs in their legislation that does not appear in this 
legislation at all.

                              {time}  1230

  The surprising thing about the 5\1/2\-percent tax that the other body 
has in their legislation is that it is on surface mines as well as 
underground mines. It is a well-known fact that miners who work in 
surface mines do not contract black lung. I do not know what 
responsibilities surface mine operators have to this program, but, in 
fact, that is what the other body is attempting to do.
  Another issue in this bill is the refiling area, and I will be 
offering an amendment later in this debate to strip out the refiling 
language. We have allowed those who have been denied claims, up until 
1972, to refile claims, and some, in the tens of thousands of miners 
who have been denied claims, refiled at the time. In 1977 we had 
another bite at the apple where those who had been denied up to 1997 
were allowed to refile, and what we are attempting to do in this piece 
of legislation is to allow the 87 claimants who have been denied their 
claim since 1981 another bite at the apple. Well, not only are we going 
to give them another bite at the apple, but we are going to give them 
another bite with new evidentiary rules. We are also going to say that 
the claimants can go out and get three doctors' opinions, but the 
defendant, the operators, can only bring one medical opinion in.
  It also says in the legislation, if my colleagues can believe it or 
not, that preference should be given to the personal physician's 
statement for the claimant above all others that might want to produce 
evidence. All previous evidence that has been put in the file from this 
claim where it was denied is all off the record and not allowed to be 
considered. I think that we are asking for a lot of trouble here. We 
are opening this program up to even more abuse than what we have seen 
in the past, and I think it is a grave mistake for this body to 
continue to move in this direction with this program.
  Mr. Chairman, there ought to be real reform of this program, and 
unfortunately this bill does not bring it to us.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] for yielding this time to me.
  Reform with justice in the black lung benefits program is long 
overdue, and hopefully, with passage of this legislation today, and I 
might say without gutting amendments, it will bring us a lot closer to 
justice for senior citizens in the coal fields of our country. Only a 
minuscule amount of applicants, less than 5 percent of deserving 
applicants, are ever certified for this program. Especially tragic is a 
longstanding Department of Labor practice of demanding immediate 
repayment of sums for benefits paid under the interim benefit 
procedure.
  Mr. Chairman, one elderly widow in my district in southwestern 
Indiana was told by the Bush Department of Labor to repay $60,000 in 
interim benefits or she would be turned over to private bill 
collectors. I ask my colleagues, ``Can you imagine the stress and 
strain imposed on people in their late sixties, seventies, and eighties 
being told within 60 or 70 days they are going to have to pay 30, 40, 
50, 60, $70,000 out or face the consequences, and in at least one case 
it has resulted in the loss of a home in my district, in the Eighth 
District of Indiana, to a miner's estate.
  Mr. Chairman, black lung sufferers are senior citizens. They 
certainly do not have the resources or the energy to be at constant 
battle with the system. they have devoted their lives to working in the 
coal fields and want a peaceful and stable retirement. In one case an 
80-year-old man lost his entire savings. In another case the Department 
of Labor harassed a miner for 8 years, and, when he died, his family 
lost his house. In my district it is estimated that 120 retired miners 
or their dependents are being hounded, or at least fairly regularly 
dunned, to repay $3.5 million in interim black lung benefits. Many of 
these miners, under previous practices which I understand are getting 
better, were not aware that the claim paid out in this process was 
subject to repayment. They are being punished for bringing forward 
their appeal to the Government.
  Section 2 of H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act, 
rectifies this unjust situation. It provides that a miner or if a 
miner's dependent receives interim black lung benefits, during the 
claim processing period in the final decision provides that the miner 
is ineligible for benefits. Any interim benefits paid will not be 
subject to repayment. I might say this only makes for common sense, 
simple justice, administrative simplicity. How are we going to ask 
retired working people to pay back in many cases 30, 40, or 50, in many 
cases $60,000? It hardly makes any sense to have a program like this if 
there is going to be a provision like this imposed.
  I might note that they were told by qualified medical physicians that 
they had this condition to start with, and surely a system like this 
should not go on. Some have claimed this provision is a giveaway and 
incompatible with integrity of the black lung program. It is not true. 
It simply asks that simple justice be done. We have to realize that the 
retired miner, or their widows, do not have the resources to fight the 
claims. They are much outstaffed, outgunned, outspent, if my colleagues 
will, by the coal companies' doctors and their lawyers.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is vitally important to our Nation's 
coal miners and their survivors. I want to commend again my colleagues 
on the Committee on Education and Labor, particularly the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford], also the leadership of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] on this concern for simple justice for miners and their 
families which is longstanding. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the legislation and against any amendments that strike sections of 
H.R. 2108.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois, Thank you for the time.
  I rise in opposition to the bill. No one disagrees with the proper 
implementation of a black lung program. No one disagrees that eligible 
miners should receive care. Nobody says black lung victims should not 
receive compensation. But sometimes it seems to me on this floor we 
argue largely on emotion.
  I recall people standing up and saying, ``I'm for kids.'' Of course 
they are. ``I'm for miners.'' Of course they are. ``I'm for people.'' 
Of course they are. But what we need to look for is a balanced 
distribution of a program to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this would amend the law to 
provide the revision of evidentiary standards to determine the 
eligibility of disability benefits, limit a defendant's ability to 
defend against unjustified claims, require the reconsideration of 
approximately 90,000 previously denied claims, provide automatic 
entitlement for survivor benefits even when a miner's benefit resulted 
totally unrelated to coal work, expand the definition of miners to 
include individuals whose work is unrelated to mine and coal 
employment.
  Someone mentioned, ``Does it affect you?'' Yes, it affects me. I come 
from the State that is the largest producer of coal, and I am very much 
interested in it.
  Mr. Chairman, the black lung program was created to provide monetary 
reimbursements to current and former members stricken with, miners 
stricken with, black lung disease, and unfortunately it has become a 
Federal entitlement program that is nearly $3.5 million in debt. The 
bill before us simply makes this worse. We act as if nothing has been 
done. It is my understanding that in excess of $30 billion has been 
expended for monthly disability and medical benefits to approximately 
225,000 miners and survivors. The expenditure exceeds $1.5 billion 
annually and is in the hole nearly $4 billion.
  No one denies we should help this horrible disease, but it is 
important to remember who pays for it. The ratepayers of America pay 
for this program, my colleagues' constituents and mine. Although the 
black lung disability fund is financed through excise tax on 
underground and surface-mined coal, the true costs, of course, are 
borne by consumers. So, we need to deal with this issue with some 
balance. It is not just an idea of saying that we ought to throw the 
dough out there.
  Mr. Chairman, when are we going to learn we cannot continue to strap 
businesses with new and excessive costs? it creates unemployment and 
limits the economic growth across this country. This bill is not a good 
resolution to the problem. If we need to change the administration, we 
should do that. This bill goes far beyond that. It creates an unfunded 
Federal entitlement program that will end up costing Americans billions 
of dollars.
  I say to my colleagues, Let's defeat this measure and start to bring 
a little common sense into the way we do things around here.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Barlow].
  Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the committee very much for 
bringing H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act, before us. 
This brings up the principle of fairness. That is what we are dealing 
with here, fairness.
  I say that to the Members on the other side of the aisle who are 
focusing on this issue today. That is the word that summarizes this 
bill--fairness. This bill provides fairness to the miners, it provides 
fairness to the coke workers, it provides fairness to the families, the 
widows and widowers, and it even provides fairness to the operators.
  Miners who received interim benefits and later were deemed ineligible 
have been forced to repay these benefits. Through heavy-handed methods, 
these benefits were collected, devastating families who had no means to 
save from their limited incomes. Many used that money to buy groceries 
and pay rent.
  H.R. 2108 would not consider interim benefits as an overpayment, and 
miners would not be responsible for repayment.
  H.R. 2108 will provide fairness to widows and widowers. If a miner 
dies and the cause of death is black lung, then the wife and children 
are entitled to the benefits. Men and women who have dedicated their 
lives to the mines deserve to have their families provided for if they 
die of black lung.
  H.R. 2108 will provide fairness to the coke workers. In the past, 
coke workers were exposed to the same substances as miners but were not 
eligible for black lung benefits. These long-suffering men and women 
deserve the black lung benefits that this bill will provide.
  H.R. 2108 gives an even playing field for the miners. It allows them 
to compete fairly with opposing legal expertise by providing prompt 
payment to their attorneys and only requesting one necessary medical 
examination.
  H.R. 2108 provides fairness for the coal operator. No longer will the 
operator be falsely accused as the responsible party. This will save 
operators witness fees and attorney fees. This bill provides fairness 
for all.
  I wish the Members could hear, as I do, as I go through the coal 
fields in my district, stories from retired miners of conditions in the 
mines in days gone by when you could not see your hand in front of your 
face, when the heat was over 100 degrees for the long hours you toiled 
in the mine, and then you coughed and spit mine dust for your life, for 
the rest of your life going forward. If Members could hear these 
stories, they would know that this bill is very necessary and its 
benefits very deserved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform both sides that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] has 11 minute remaining, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] has 5 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] will have the right to close.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy].
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, we are waiting for a member of the 
committee, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, those of us who come from Pennsylvania have 
a historic bond with the coal mines and the courageous people who have 
harvested that precious fuel over the generations. So we have almost 
uniformly supported the efforts to provide recompense to the miners who 
become afflicted with the deadly disease which is the subject of 
today's legislation.
  So I begin this process in this debate with a hard leaning towards 
supporting the benefits package that is before us, but I do owe it to 
my own nature in watching carefully the extent of the funding and the 
spending that might be included in this legislation, so I will reserve 
final judgment on the bill as I review the amendments as they will be 
offered to see whether or not the process which is so important in the 
ultimate funding of that process would merit final support.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time first to assure my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that we do not believe this 
is a budget-busting bill. We received estimates from the CBO that, yes, 
the trust fund owes the Federal Government $3.4 billion. It is not $4 
billion or $3.9 billion; it is $3.4 billion. Most of that was incurred 
as a result of instituting the benefits following 1972.
  At the present time the coal operators will pay in more than enough 
to pay current benefits by the extent of $20 million to $25 million 
more than the cost to administer the program and pay the benefits.
  The interim benefits that were previously paid, and now, since 1981 
and 1982, the amounts the claimants have been required to repay have 
not been going back to reduce the $3.4 billion that is owed by the 
trust fund; they are going into the general treasury. We would hope 
that the Treasury Department would give us credit for that, but they 
have not.
  In addition to that, on the $3.4 billion that we owe the Treasury, 
the trust fund is being assessed 10\1/2\ percent interest. I would 
submit to the Treasury that I hope we can work that out with the 
Committee on Ways and Means in the coming months before we start paying 
benefits on this, so that they would refloat the $3.5 billion that the 
trust fund owes. Today they could sell the Treasury bonds in the open 
market for 4.2 percent, for a savings of almost $200 million a year. 
The trust fund could actually bail itself out if the Treasury 
Department would cooperate. We are going to approach the Committee on 
Ways and Means with this theory.
  We would take the $25 million in excess, we would pay that toward the 
trust fund debt, we would refinance the trust fund at today's current 
interest rate, 4.2 percent, and we would be able to retire the debt.
  In addition to that, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, and the opponents of this measure that we are not talking 
about 80,000 claims being automatically reopened. We are talking about 
the right of those miners who are still living who have been denied 
benefits only since 1981 to have a right to have their claims 
reexamined. They must first refile, and then they would be reexamined. 
We are talking about probably 10,000 to 12,000 or 13,000 miners. The 
80,000-miner pool is no longer out there, as it was in 1972. Yes, when 
the 1972 act required a reexamination of all the claims, there were 
80,000. Those miners are dead. This is 18 years later from that time, 
or over 20 years later. There were 18,000 since 1972 reviewed, and 
there were only 77,000 at that time. The number of miners that would be 
eligible is greatly reduced, probably to the extent of less than 
10,000.
  I might also say that the estimates from the administration and the 
Department of Labor are that even if all these provisions in today's 
proposed Act are approved, we are only going to have a 5 to 10 percent 
approval rate of all the claims filed, even if we take Mr. Fawell's 
figure of 80,000, which is far in excess. Ten percent of that is 8,000. 
The figures they are throwing around here are just ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to caution the Members to listen to the 
debate on the amendments, follow the debate, listen to the real 
statistics, get the CBO estimates, get the Department of Labor 
estimates of costs, and be guided by that in their votes.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act. This 
bill represents yet another expansion of entitlements without a single 
thought dedicated to paying for the new spending. The changes made by 
this legislation, far from enhancing the availability of benefits under 
the Black Lung Program, will only serve to undermine the long-run 
financial viability of the entire program.
  To those in this Congress who have fought to add fiscal 
responsibility to the Federal budget process, the history of the Black 
Lung Program in an all-too-familiar tale. A last minute add-on to 
another piece of legislation in 1969, the costs of this small, 
temporary entitlement ballooned far beyond original estimates. Each 
successive change expanded eligibility and benefits under the program, 
and by the late seventies, the Black Lung Program had become a 
permanent entitlement and a significant burden on U.S. taxpayers.
  It is easy to dole out new benefits to laudable causes, but few 
Members ever talk about the costs and tradeoffs each program expansion 
necessitates. Every new Federal dollar spent must be taken from 
somewhere else. All too often it comes from future generations of 
American taxpayers. Such careless compassion turns out not to be very 
compassionate at all, because it ignores the real costs associated with 
any budget decision.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the expansion of 
available benefits in the Black Lung Program provided for under H.R. 
2108 will cost $195.5 million. Where will the money come from? Nobody 
knows.
  Unfortunately, the Black Lung Trust Fund--intended to pay for the 
benefits--is already almost $4 billion in debt and that debt continues 
to grow. It is time for the proponents of this legislation to come 
clean with the American people. This latest expansion of this poorly-
managed entitlement is nothing more than a raid on the Federal 
Treasury. I urge my colleagues to vote against this fiscal folly. Vote 
against H.R. 2108.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], a member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise 
in strong support of H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, western Pennsylvania is coal country. Thousands of our 
neighbors there worked in the coal mines and now many of them are 
afflicted with black lung.
  We know that black lung is caused by overexposure to coal dust. It is 
a terrible disease, and bad enough by itself. But when black lung is 
combined with the paper work, red tape, and bureaucracy that a victim 
must face in trying to obtain benefits, the situation becomes almost 
overwhelming.
  In one of my district offices, a caseworker is working on a black 
lung case that is 20 years old. That is wrong.
  This legislation will help ease the burden of those afflicted with 
black lung and restore the fairness to the black lung benefits system 
that has been missing since the early 1980's.
  H.R. 2108 would change the requirement that beneficiaries must repay 
interim benefits if they are denied regular black lung benefits and 
provides for survivors benefits for widows of black lung beneficiaries.
  The bill places reasonable limits on what potential beneficiaries 
must provide as evidence of a claim. The legislation also provides for 
the designation of a ``responsible operator'' or mining company 
responsible for black lung benefits payment and allows for reasonable 
attorney's fees to be paid by that operator.
  Finally, the bill allows that any black lung claim denied after 1982 
may be refiled as a new claim.
  I want to commend my friend and colleague, Chairman Murphy, for his 
diligent work on this bill and on behalf of the coal mining families of 
western Pennsylvania. He has earned their gratitude.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2108 will restore fairness and equity to the black 
lung system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose the 
amendments to it. Miners and their families have waited long enough.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the body, we are going to have amendments 
which will address these particular concerns which have been 
highlighted. I think after Members carefully listen to what we have to 
say, they will agree with us that this is deja vu all over again. What 
we have here is the 1977 amendments, where once again the effort is 
simply to relitigate all the cases because the results did not turn out 
as we wanted them, and then try to set up new regulations and rules of 
evidence, in order to try to increase the number of awards that are 
being granted. That is what is being done.
  But in 1977, that is when, by the way, the debt began to grow. Not 
before then. It came after 1977, and went up to $1.5 billion. There was 
a complete catastrophe, consensus legislation, that eliminated all 
these rules and regulations about trying to have evidence that is going 
to help your person win and so forth and so on, and it has worked to a 
degree, but we also had mammoth taxes in the private industry.
  But it is still going down hill. The trust fund is $4 billion in 
debt. I verified that the other day. But bit by bit, we will be taking 
all of these changes that are in this bill and showing you how it is 
not going to help the people who really need the help, who are not 
getting that help.
  I think we can suggest, too, how you really can do the job to be able 
to help the Black Lung Act so that those who are most in need, those 
who are suffering the most from pneumoconiosis, will be helped.
  The answer is not to expand this program even further, to liberalize 
the spending even more. The answer is fairness in regard to the program 
itself. The unfairness of the program is that it does not help the 
people that ought to be helped.
  Mr. Chairman, I think our amendments, one-by-one, if we will only 
listen carefully to them, I think we will prove that. This is a 
catastrophe in terms of money for the taxpayers of the country. We must 
think of that also.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard], in whose district we conducted one of the 
hearings.
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in the coal mines of southern 
Illinois, and I have been a strong supporter of legislative efforts to 
revise the Black Lung Benefits Act since my arrival in Congress in 
1989. And I rise again today to express my support for passage of H.R. 
2108, the Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act of 1994, and to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Murphy, and the others who have 
worked so diligently on this bill.
  I personally witnessed the cruel suffering caused by black lung 
disease endured by coal miners of southern Illinois. It is 
heartbreaking to see miners denied legitimate claims, who have worked 
for decades in the mines and contracted this disease through no fault 
of their own. And there are numerous instances where a miner may be 
granted benefits that under current laws appeals by the coal companies 
prevail, and benefits are revoked, requiring a miner to pay back 
thousands of dollars in payments already made.
  This is unconscionable, especially for the people who have spent 
their entire lives in the coal mines, to be dealt this kind of blow. 
And these situations must be remedied, and this is the bill in which 
they must be remedied.
  Since the 1981 amendments to the Black Lung Benefits Act eliminated 
several presumptions and evidentiary rules which had previously 
assisted claimants in establishing their entitlements to benefits, the 
lengthy maze of litigation miners have had to tolerate in order to 
prove their claims has been truly inhumane.
  Since the 1981 changes, Department of Labor statistics show that less 
than 4 percent, less than 4 percent, Mr. Speaker, of total claims 
submitted, are actually approved.
  Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, that less than 4 percent of those miners 
who got up every morning, went to the coal mines, went down to the 
belly of the earth to bring up the plentiful energy supply that this 
Nation has to offer its people, who breathed the coal dust and the 
smoke and the gaseous fumes from those underground mines, less than 4 
percent of the miners who ever applied for these benefits, not the ones 
who worked there, but who even bothered to apply, less than 4 percent 
of these people have ever been given claim to their rightful benefits 
that they should enjoy under this act.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, that, too, is unconscionable. Countless eligible miners 
over the years have refrained from even submitting claims, seeing the 
difficulties their fellow workers have encountered.
  The growth of this country was powered by the coal these miners 
brought up out of the depths of the earth. I urge the House to take up 
their cause, to make a difference in the lives of these American 
workers who are deserving of these benefits from which they have 
effectively been cut off in the past decade.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2108, the 
Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act. This legislation eases the 
requirements necessary to qualify for black lung benefits. It provides 
relief for dependents and survivors of black lung victims. And most 
importantly, it provides that disability claimants who are later found 
to be ineligible for black lung benefits will not be required to pay 
back any of the benefits they may have already received.
  Seldom do victims of black lung have the means to put aside benefit 
payments in the event of a later negative decision in their case. Most 
who receive these benefit payments find they must use them to pay for 
daily living expenses, making it impossible to recover these funds.
  I have heard from several miners and their families in my 
congressional district of Tennessee who often complain of their 
financial hardship of trying to repay moneys long ago spent to 
supplement their daily living while waiting for their claim to be 
approved. In some cases a levy is placed against a miner's home in an 
effort to recover payments. Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscious ask 
the coal miners and their families of the Third District of Tennessee 
to suffer the devastating effects of such actions. Coal miners have 
given so much for our country. They have worked hard and some have died 
with such a disability.
  It is long past time that we move legislation on behalf of the 
thousands of miners, their widows, and families who are suffering 
financially under a program that was intended to bring them relief.
  I believe this bill does an excellent job of returning to a program 
that more closely reflects the commitment of Congress, to compensate 
those coal miners who suffer from the crippling effects of black lung. 
This legislation is in the best interest of the thousands of black lung 
victims who have earned the right to retire with dignity.
  I urge my colleagues to restore an important measure of fairness and 
equity to a program that is badly in need of repair.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
important legislation. I want to commend my colleagues on the Education 
and Labor Committee, especially chairman Ford and Chairman Murphy, for 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  H.R. 2108 will bring needed relief to our Nation's coal miners * * * 
many who have suffered physical disability from years of hard labor in 
the coal fields of this country.
  Under current law, miners are paid interim benefits while their claim 
is evaluated by officials at the Department of Labor. This process 
takes an average of 8 years.
  If their claim is eventually denied, they are forced to repay these 
benefits. And I can tell you that these are not wealthy people. There 
have even been cases of miners receiving a letter from the Government 
and--in a panic--selling off their possessions. In one case, a miner 
sold his home to meet this obligation.
  This policy clearly imposes a real hardship on many miners, and I 
think it is time for us to affect a change. Over the years, I have 
witnessed firsthand the problems with the current system. And I believe 
this bill will address these injustices.
  It will expedite and improve the process through which black lung 
benefits are provided. By doing so, it will make the process more 
equitable, more accessible and more in keeping with the intent of the 
Black Lung Program as initially conceived.
  It will make it easier for widows to receive survivor benefits, 
protecting such benefits upon the remarriage of a widow.
  And it will allow claimants denied benefits since 1982 to refile 
their claims. These miners were subject to the more stringent 
guidelines which were enacted to protect the solvency of the trust 
fund.
  From my experience, I believe that the strict medical and reporting 
requirements of the Black Lung Benefits Program too often act as a 
deterrent to miners who should apply for benefits. This legislation 
would simplify the process, and make the program more responsive to 
those it was meant to serve.
  We all know that this is not the first time the House has considered 
this bill. I hope it is the last time. Our miners have greatly 
contributed to this Nation's energy security. And they have suffered as 
a result of their long years of work. We must not turn our backs on 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and against any 
weakening amendments.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2108, the 
Black Lung Benefits Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
these reasonable and long overdue reforms for miners disabled with 
black lung disease.
  As a representative of a coal-mining district, I have seen thousands 
of miners and their families who have been disabled with black lung 
disease. All you have to do is listen, as I have over the years, to the 
difficulty these miners have in breathing to know about the health 
hazards they faced in the mines and the price they have paid from years 
of inhaling coal dust. These hard-working citizens dedicated their 
lives to the energy security and economic well-being of this great 
Nation. They are often repaid with years of bureaucratic delays and 
unwarranted questions about their credibility.
  The legislation before us today is an entirely reasonable effort to 
bring simple justice to the process that was designed to provide 
monetary reimbursements to coal miners disabled by black lung, their 
survivors and dependents. The needed reforms in the bill will restore 
equity in a process that is all too often adversarial to the miner.
  The people who are impacted by this bill are not mere statistics. The 
are real people with real families who have worked hard in a dangerous 
occupation. They are not out to bilk the government. Rather, they are 
honest citizens who are afflicted by a painful and deadly disease.
  The bill before us does not change the intent of Congress to base 
benefits on sound medical evidence, but it does put the miners, who 
often have difficulty in even paying for a full medical exam, on a more 
equal footing with the operators who have the financial resources to 
pay for numerous exams and volumes of expert testimony.
  Another measure provides that, in cases where a minor dies before a 
claim can be perfected, a widow need only prove that the miner was 
disabled with black lung at the time of death. This is a simple matter 
of fairness to the families of those who were afflicted, and prevents 
the survivors from further financial distress.
  The legislation also addresses the problems miners have faced in 
finding legal representation with provisions providing prompt payment 
for the attorney at each step in the claims procedure whenever a formal 
decision is rendered.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation without weakening 
amendments, and I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, Austin 
Murphy, for his skill, dedication, and compassion in bringing this 
measure to the floor.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). Pursuant to the rule, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of H.R. 
4415, is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
and is considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4415

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Black Lung 
     Benefits Restoration Act of 1994''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act (other than section 
     9(a)(1)) an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Black Lung Benefits Act.

     SEC. 2. BENEFIT OVERPAYMENT.

       Part C is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 436. (a) The repayment of benefits paid on a claim 
     filed under this part before the final adjudication of the 
     claim shall not be required if the claim was finally denied, 
     unless fraud or deception was used to procure the payment of 
     such benefits.
       ``(b) The trust fund shall refund any payments made to it 
     as a reimbursement of benefits paid on a claim filed under 
     this part before the final adjudication of the claim, unless 
     fraud or deception was used to procure the payment of such 
     benefits.
       ``(c) the trust fund shall reimburse an operator for any 
     benefits paid on a claim filed under this part before the 
     final adjudication of the claim if the claim was finally 
     denied.
       ``(d) If on a claim for benefits filed under this part--
       ``(1) the Secretary makes an initial determination--
       ``(A) of eligibility, or
       ``(B) that particular medical benefits are payable, or
       ``(2) an award of benefits is made,

     the operator found to be the responsible operator under 
     section 422(h) shall, within 30 days of the date of such 
     determination or award, commence the payment of monthly 
     benefits accruing thereafter and of medical benefits that 
     have been found payable. If an operator fails to timely make 
     any payment required by an initial determination or by an 
     award, such determination or award shall be considered final 
     as of the date of its issuance.''

     SEC. 3. EVIDENCE.

       Section 422 (430 U.S.C. 932) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(m)(1)(A) During the course of all proceedings on a claim 
     for benefits under this part, the results of no more than 3 
     medical examinations offered by the claimant may be received 
     as evidence to support eligibility for benefits.
       ``(B) During the course of all proceedings on a claim for 
     benefits under this part, the responsible operator and the 
     trust fund--
       (i) may each require, at no expense to the claimant, not 
     more than one medical examination of the miner, and
       ``(ii) may not each offer as evidence the results of more 
     than one medical examination of the miner.
       ``(C) An administrative law judge may require the miner to 
     submit to a medical examination by a physician assigned by 
     the District Director if the administrative law judge 
     determines that, at any time, there is good cause for 
     requiring such examination. For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, good cause shall exist only when the 
     administrative law judge is unable to determine from 
     existing evidence whether the claimant is entitled to 
     benefits.
       ``(D) The complete pulmonary evaluation provided each miner 
     under section 413(b) and any consultive evaluation developed 
     by the District Director shall be received into evidence 
     notwithstanding subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(E) Any record of--
       ``(i) hospitalization for a pulmonary or related disease;
       ``(ii) medical treatment for a pulmonary or related 
     disease, and
       ``(iii) a biopsy or an autopsy,

     may be received into evidence notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       ``(2) In addition to the medical examinations authorized by 
     paragraph (1), each party may submit one interpretive medical 
     opinion (whether presented as documentary evidence or in oral 
     testimony) reviewing each clinical study or physical 
     examination (including a consultive reading of a chest 
     roentgenogram, an evaluation of a blood gas study, and an 
     evaluation of a pulmonary function study) derived from any 
     medical examination or contained in a record referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(E).
       ``(3) A request for modification of a denied claim under 
     section 22 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
     Act, as made applicable to this Act by subsection (a) of this 
     section, shall be considered as if it were a new claim for 
     the purpose of applying the limitations prescribed by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(4) The opinion of a miner's treating physician, if 
     offered in accordance with paragraph (1)(A), shall be given 
     substantial weight over the opinion of other physicians in 
     determining the claimant's eligibility for benefits if the 
     treating physician is board-certified in a specialty relevant 
     to the diagnosis of total disability or death due to 
     pneumoconiosis.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, a medical 
     examination consists of a physical examination and all 
     appropriate clinical studies (not including a biopsy or an 
     autopsy) related to the diagnosis of total disability or 
     death due to pneumoconiosis.''.

     SEC. 4. SURVIVOR BENEFITS.

       (a) Death.--Section 422 (30 U.S.C. 932), as amended by 
     section 3, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) If an eligible survivor files a claim for benefits 
     under this part and if the miner--
       ``(1) was receiving benefits for pneumoconiosis 
     pursuant to a final adjudication under this part, or
       ``(2) was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis at 
     the time of the miner's death,

     the miner's death shall be considered to have occurred as a 
     result of the pneumoconiosis.''.
       (b) Rules for Widows and Widowers.--Section 422 (30 U.S.C. 
     932), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(o)(1) A widow or widower of a miner who was married to 
     the miner for less than 9 months at any time preceding the 
     miner's death is not qualified to receive surivior benefits 
     under this part unless the widow or widower was the natural 
     or adoptive parent of the miner's child.
       ``(2) The widow or widower of a miner is disqualified to 
     receive survivor benefits under this part if the widow or 
     widower remarries before attaining the age of 50.
       ``(3) A widow or widower may not receive an augmentation in 
     survivor benefits on any basis arising out of a remarriage of 
     the widow or widower.''.

     SEC. 5. RESPONSIBLE OPERATOR.

       Section 422(h) (30 U.S.C. 932(h)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(1)'' after ``(h)'' and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Prior to issuing an initial determination of 
     eligibility, the Secretary shall, after investigation, 
     notice, and a hearing as provided in section 19 of the 
     Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as made 
     applicable to this Act by subsection (a) of this section, 
     determine whether any operator meets the Secretary's criteria 
     for liability as a responsible operator under this Act. If a 
     hearing is timely requested on the liability issue, the 
     decision of the administrative law judge conducting the 
     hearing shall be issued not later than 120 days after such 
     request and shall not be subject to further appellate review.
       ``(B) If the administrative law judge determines that an 
     operator's request for a hearing on the liability issue was 
     made without reasonable grounds, the administrative law judge 
     may assess the operator for the costs of the proceeding (not 
     to exceed $750).''.

     SEC. 6. ATTORNEY FEES.

       Section 422 (30 U.S.C. 932), as amended by section 4(b), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1) If in any administrative or judicial proceeding on 
     a claim for benefits a determination is made that a claimant 
     is entitled to such benefits, the claimant shall be entitled 
     to receive all reasonable costs and expenses (including 
     expert witness and attorney's fees) incurred by the claimant 
     in such proceeding and in any other administrative or 
     judicial proceeding on such claim occurring before such 
     proceeding.
       ``(2) In the case of a proceeding held with respect to such 
     claim--
       ``(A) the person or Board which made the determination that 
     the claimant is entitled to benefits in an administrative 
     proceeding and any other person or Board which made a prior 
     determination in an administrative proceeding on such claim, 
     or
       ``(B) the court in the case of a judicial proceeding,

     shall determine the amount of all costs and expenses 
     (including expert witness and attorney's fees) incurred by 
     the claimant in connection with any such proceeding and shall 
     assess the operator responsible to the claimant for such 
     costs and expenses which are reasonable or if there is not an 
     operator responsible to the claimant, shall assess the fund 
     for such costs and expenses.
       ``(3) The determination of such costs and expenses shall be 
     made within 60 days of the date the claimant submits a 
     petition for the payment of such costs and expenses to a 
     person, the Board, or court which made a determination on the 
     claimant's claim. The person, Board, or court receiving such 
     petition shall take such action as may be necessary to assure 
     that such costs and expenses are paid within 45 days of the 
     date of the determination of such costs and expenses unless a 
     motion to reconsider--
       ``(A) the amount of such costs and expenses, or
       ``(B) the person liable for the payment of such amount,

     is pending.
       ``(4) If an operator pays costs and expenses assessed under 
     paragraph (1) and if the claimant for whom such costs and 
     expenses were paid is determined in a later proceeding and 
     expenses were paid is determined in a later proceeding not to 
     be eligible for benefits under this part, the fund shall pay 
     the operator the amount paid for such costs and expenses.
       ``(5) Section 28(e) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act shall apply with respect to any person who 
     receives costs and expenses which are paid under this 
     subsection on account of services rendered a claimant.''.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Appeals to the Benefits Review Board.--No appeal of an 
     order in a proceeding under the Black Lung Benefits Act may 
     be made by a claimant or respondent to the Benefits Review 
     Board unless such order has been made by an administrative 
     law judge.
       (b) Acquiescence.--The Secretary of Labor may not delegate 
     to the Benefits Review Board the authority to refuse to 
     acquiesce in a decision of a Federal court.

     SEC. 8. REFILING.

       Any Claim filed under the Black Lung Benefits Act after 
     January 1, 1982, but before the effective date of this Act 
     prescribed by section 11(a), may be refiled under such Act 
     after such effective date for a de novo review on the merits.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Coke Ovens.--
       (1) Federal mine safety and health act of 1977.--Section 3 
     of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (d), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``or who operates a coke oven or any machine shop 
     or other operation reasonably related to the coke oven'',
       (B) in paragraph (g), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``or working at a coke oven or in any other 
     operation reasonably related to the operation of a coke 
     oven'', and
       (C) in paragraph (h)(2), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``and includes a coke oven and any operation, 
     structure, or area of land reasonably related to the 
     operation of a coke oven''.
       (2) Black lung benefits act.--The first sentence of section 
     402(d) (30 U.S.C. 902(d)) is amended by inserting before the 
     period the following: (or who works or has worked at a coke 
     oven or in any other operation reasonably related to the 
     operation of a coke oven''.
       (b) Pneumoconiosis.--Section 402(b) (30 U.S.C. 902(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by adding after ``sequelae'' the following: ``which 
     disease or sequelae is restrictive or obstructive or both'', 
     and
       (2) by striking out ``coal mine'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``coal mine or coke oven''.

     SEC. 10. CONSTRUCTION.

       If in any legal proceeding a term in any amendment made by 
     this Act is considered to be ambiguous, the legislative 
     history accompanying this Act shall be considered 
     controlling.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) General Rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect October 1, 1994.
       (b) Section 6.--The amendment made by section 6 shall apply 
     only with respect to claims which are filed for the first 
     time after October 1, 1994, and shall not apply with respect 
     to any claim which is filed before such date and which is 
     refiled under section 8 of this Act after such date.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule for a period not to 
exceed 3 hours, excluding time consumed by recorded votes and 
proceedings incidental thereto.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner: Page 11, beginning in 
     line 22, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert ``subsections 
     (b) and (c)'' and on page 12 add after line 6 the following:
       (c) Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.--The amendments made 
     by this Act shall not take effect unless the total 
     indebtedness of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is less 
     than $600,000,000.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, over 200,000 American citizens suffer from 
black lung disease. This disease disables the respiratory system and is 
irreversible.
  For those who suffer from black lung, they most often die from 
cardiac arrest. It is a sad fate of the people who provide resources 
for Americans to turn on their lights and heat for their homes. The 
everyday conveniences in America have their root, frankly, from the 
coal miners. But the black lung trust fund currently owes the Federal 
Government $3.4 billion because current disbursements are higher than 
revenue received by the trust fund. Meanwhile, the interest that the 
trust fund owes to the U.S. Treasury on the outstanding debt is $340 
million every day. Therefore, the debt owed to the U.S. Treasury 
continues to increase.
  Now, if H.R. 2108 passes, it will cost an additional $195 million 
over the next 5 years to the black lung trust fund.
  Let me explain that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
allowing claimants found ineligible for benefits to keep previously 
received benefits will cost $5 million annually. The government would 
also have to return any benefit repayments claimants made prior to the 
enactment of H.R. 2108, costing the trust fund $40 million over 3 
years.
  H.R. 2108 also changes the requirements for evidence to prove 
eligibility at a cost of, according to the CBO, $22 million over a 5-
year period.
  Expanding the survivor benefit provision will cost the trust fund 
$1.5 million annually, and expanding the payment of the attorney fees 
provision is going to cost the trust fund an additional $5 million 
annually.
  It sounds like it is becoming an entitlement program for lawyers.
  H.R. 2108, therefore, will necessitate a second mortgage on a house 
with a mortgage that has already grown by four times the prices of the 
house. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, makes sound business sense, 
something this entire bill lacks. My amendment puts the changes in 
current law enumerated in this bill on hold until the trust fund debt 
is lowered to $600 million a year.
  The reason for that is, it is about $600 million a year that comes in 
and out of this fund that should be the minimum before we begin to put 
these benefits into place.
  I believe the Congressional Budget Office estimation of an additional 
$195 million over the next 5 years is spending by the trust fund that 
it just does not have. It is obvious that a trust fund 3.4 billion 
dollars' worth of debt to the government would have to borrow this 
additional money from the Treasury every year to pay for the additional 
benefits that we are going to give, if this bill were to pass.
  I do not think that we should be passing this bill unless we are 
willing to pay for it, unless we are willing to fix the problems in the 
current system. But to hold out the hope of more benefits for those 
that are afflicted with this disease without coming up with the money 
to pay for them is irresponsible. We should not do it.
  This amendment, I believe, says very clearly, no new additional 
benefits until such time as the trust fund debt has been paid down to 
$600 million and we can proceed in a more sensible way.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, since fiscal year 1990, the coal tonnage--I remind my 
colleagues that the black-lung program is paid for by an excise tax on 
each ton of coal that is mined in the United States either by the deep 
or surface nine method--since 1990, coal tonnage tax receipts and 
penalties have exceeded benefit payments as well as administrative 
costs of the black-lung benefits program by more than $135 million.
  I will submit these individual statistics for the record showing that 
in each year the income exceeded the outgo.
  The trust fund, I addressed under general debate, was caused in the 
1972 and 1977 provisions of the act. And since 1981, every miner and 
miner's widow who received a notice from the Department of Justice and 
the Department of Labor to return their moneys to the fund, and there 
have been thousands of them, many in my district, they have been paying 
those moneys back. They have not been going into the trust fund. They 
have been going to the general Treasury.
  Again, I reiterate, if the Treasury Department and the Black Lung 
Trust Fund will refinance that $3.5 billion in notes, 10\1/2\-percent 
notes on today's current interest, and I have knowledge that this week 
the Treasury notes are going for 4.2 percent, we can wipe out half of 
that debt.
  I say to the bean counters, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] and 
others, this is not a matter of counting beans and counting past 
dollars. This is counting a benefit for miners who have been suffering 
for years and years with the loss of their lungs, their blackened 
lungs.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], all 
of the Members discussed under general debate why we are pleading for 
this program and its continuance, because only 2 or 3 percent of those 
who have filed for benefits, 2 or 3 people out of the 100 who file for 
benefits have been awarded benefits.
  In the year 2006, this program will be eliminated, and there will be 
more money coming in from the tonange to pay off this trust fund debt 
that we are talking about. current revenues are amortizing the cost of 
the program.
  Let us retire this debt when there are no more 70- and 80-year-old 
suffering coal miners to receive the benefits. then the debt will be 
paid off, unless the Treasury wants to refinance it before then, which 
I submit they can.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words, 
and I rise in support of the amendment.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] for presenting this 
amendment. It is good, common sense, businesswise. It is also extremely 
fair to all the potential recipients of the black-lung fund largess.
  I think if we were to think of Congress, as I have indicated before, 
as being in reality an insurance company and with the obligation to 
look ahead every time that we have an expansion of the act, which is 
what this legislation does do, there was reference to the fact that 
some of the coal miners may be going into other occupations, there 
would be less applicants.
  Well, we are taking care of that here. We are expanding the act to 
cover all coke oven workers with a very vague and liberal definition. 
Not even the steel companies have any idea of how many of their 
employees might be covered under this legislation.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. Chairman, we are redefining pneumoconiosis, too, so we are making 
it much more broader and liberal in regard to the recoveries that can 
be made.
  Congress, I know, does not like to look ahead and determine how much 
our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay for our 
latest exercises in what sometimes I think we have to laughingly call 
any kind of business efforts on our part at all. But the truth of the 
matter is that CBO has said we are going to produce in the next 5 years 
about $195 million of new costs, and if Members would talk to the 
people at DOL as I have done and as I am sure the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] has done, they will quickly say that what the 
CBO estimates for the first 5 years is surely not what the total costs 
of this program shall be.
  Mr. Chairman, I made reference in my opening comments, in the debate 
portion of this bill, that actuaries make it very, very clear that we 
are going to have something like $225,000 for lifetime total disability 
benefits of claims which are allowed.
  These are not my figures. DOL says there will be 20,000 claims, new 
claims allowed because of this legislation out of the 80,000 which are 
possible. If the past where we have done the same thing is any 
guidance, most of the miners to take advantage of refiling their 
claims.
  The actuaries point out that if we were an insurance company, what we 
would do is take $125,000, slap it in the reserve, figure over the 
years we would get back 6-percent interest averaging over a 30-year 
period, average it, and lo and behold we would guarantee we would have 
the money to be able to meet these expenses when they come up, but why 
worry about 20 or 30 years from now or even more than 5 years from now? 
Life is short, our kids will have to take care of it. Blow it away; 
$2.2 billion is what the actuaries say who have lived with these 
problems of trying to anticipate what costs will be.
  We can ask any insurance company that is in the business of insuring 
black-lung disease and they will say that it is about $125,000 which 
they will put in reserve for every one of those 20,000 cases.
  Mr. Chairman, 10,000 have to be handled by the coal operators because 
it is their liability, but 10,000 of those cases have to be handled by, 
guess what, the U.S. insurance company that Congress operates. God help 
us.
  We are not going to put any money in reserve. To heck with that. 
Insurance companies, actuaries will do it because, do my colleagues 
know why? They have to break even or they go out of business and they 
go bankrupt. We do not care about that because we can always tax the 
taxpayers some more and say, come on in and help us out where our 
prognosis was not very good.
  Mr. Chairman, to have an amendment like this that would say, Hey 
look, right now, Mr. Insurance Company, U.S. Congress Insurance 
Company, you are $4 billion in debt, don't you think you should bring 
the debt down a little bit before you start expanding and going out and 
writing new policies?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Kleczka]. The time of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, we do not have before us with the CBO 
estimates anything but the first 5 years. The testimony has already 
been given by the other side that, Hey, unfortunately these darn cases 
will take 4 to 6 years. We won't even be beginning the real cost until 
after 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the success of congressional budgeting: Push it 
off, push it out of our mind and we do have to worry about it.
  That is why I say as a practical matter, what we are doing is a 
disservice to the people who my colleagues have so ably described who 
need help and they are not getting it. We ought to be able once we have 
set this insurance company the way it ought to be set and know that we 
have funds, yes, we ought to be able to give more than just $400 a 
month for total disability and double that if there are dependents. We 
could do those things perhaps if we were not running a bankrupt 
company.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment I think is very proper.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I rise in 
opposition to the Boehner amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, carrying the amendment to its ultimate conclusion, why 
do not we just cut funding to education until the Federal budget is 
balanced? Why do not we stop paying Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, Federal pensions? In fact, why do not we just stop paying the 
military until we get the budget balanced?
  Mr. Chairman, in essence what we are saying is let us go ahead and 
balance the budget, the Federal, budget on the health of these miners 
that are dying. When these gentlemen were down in the mines crawling 
around, in some instances 18-foot seams lying on their backs, mining 
the coal, breathing the dust, breathing the poisonous gases, fueling 
this economy, fueling our industrial age, they were what made this 
Nation great.
  I guess it just seems that we automatically would follow the Boehner 
amendment and let us just go ahead and now that we have got fiscal 
problems in this Nation, let us wait for these men to die until we take 
some kind of action, and that is exactly what this amendment is saying.
  Mr. Chairman, some comment was made a few moments ago about when 
Congress took this up in 1977. I have get news for my colleagues. There 
are many, many fewer miners to be concerned about today than there were 
back in 1977 because these people who suffer with black lung are dying 
every day.
   We mentioned about the cases in my office, some of which are going 
back 20 years, where a lot of these miners are dying and even their 
widows are dying before these benefits are being adjudicated.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It makes 
absolutely no sense for the working men and women.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner amendment because it 
adds fiscal sanity to this budget. This whole budget process is just an 
unbelievable disaster. When we realize 50 percent of our budget is in 
entitlements, this is how it gets out of control and this is a classic 
case of out-of-control spending. It is $4 billion it has cost us, now 
we are getting it under control where revenues have basically come up 
to paying for the money going out, but we are going to expand the 
benefits and let it get out of control again.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to have some fiscal sanity. A few weeks ago we 
debated the issue of a balanced budget amendment. People said, we do 
not need a balanced budget amendment, all we need is the will to make 
the decisions. Here is one of those cases where we will have the chance 
to make the decision: Do we want to have a balanced budget and fiscal 
sanity?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of compassion. We are not 
talking about doing away with this program. We are saying keep the 
program the way it is, but let us not just open a box of unlimited 
benefits. That is how we got into the trouble in the 1970's. Let us 
keep this under control.
  The CBO says it is $200 million over 5 years. Very likely it is going 
to be much higher because CBO has always underestimated the cost of 
entitlements. This is one way to say if we are going to increase the 
benefits, let us make sure we have fiscal sanity first.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and I rise today in support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murphy], my good friend's bill that is pending before us, the 
Black Lung Restoration Act. I give personal testimony that prior to my 
service in Congress, I served as an administrative law judge in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this capacity, I administered and 
tried thousands of black-lung cases.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] is finally 
bringing reason to chaos. To have seen widows of miners required to 
take plugs of their husbands' lungs out of the mortuary in order to 
establish cause of death from black lung was an atrocious sight; to 
have seen the actual unearthing of remains in order to prove cause of 
death because some physician was sloppy or may not have been familiar 
with pneumoconiosis was unspeakable. I sat through thousands of 
hearings on these cases. I have listened to thousands of medical 
doctors testify. Often I could predict before the doctors even opened 
their mouths whether they were hired by the company or the insurance 
company. It was standard procedure for these doctors to testify that 
death was from almost any other cause but black lung.

                              {time}  1320

  I do not think we have a perfect system, but then, as a practical 
matter, I am reasonable enough to know that we are never going to have 
a perfect system. There are two provisions in this bill that I think 
are especially important: One provides that widows would not be caused 
to reprove the conditions for which their husbands were suffering and 
were receiving benefits at the time of death. That is just good 
government, good form, it is good practical process in the legal 
process. The other provision will finally end the ad infinitum 
hearings, the offering of testimony, and the practice of buying 
testimony by insurance companies and coal companies.
  Finally, all of us who have been in the Congress for the last 10 
years and who are at all familiar with the term pneumoconiosis have 
been waiting for an enlightened President and an enlightened Congress 
to reform the existing black-lung law. My hat goes off to the retiring 
Member from western Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] because he has had the 
tenacity, the nerve, and the sheer guts to withstand this battle 
through his tenure here in the House. I hope that this bill passes 
overwhelmingly as a tribute to his skill as a legislator and to his 
tenacity as a human being.
  I say to my friends on the other side who propose amendments that 
would stultify this bill or cause other barriers to occur that until 
you have witnessed the life, and then the death, of someone who suffers 
from black lung, do not be too fast to judge these people and the 
benefits they receive.
  In my district in northeastern Pennsylvania, the heart of the 
anthracite coal region, I still have 19,000 recipients who gave their 
lives for the industrial revolution and the world-class economy this 
country has today. I think the least we can do here in the Congress, on 
behalf of the American people, is to recognize them for their wartime 
service. In their time of need, their latter part of life, when little 
exists for them other than minimal Social Security and no pension, it 
is our duty to assist them in living a decent life until death and to 
assist their widows in living a decent life by passing the Black Lung 
Benefits Restoration Act.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               AYES--189

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ballenger
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Grandy
     Hefner
     Kennedy
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Torkildsen
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1345

   The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. COLLINS of Illinois, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. DERRICK, and Mr. EVERETT 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LIVINGSTON, HOAGLAND, and CLINGER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 11, beginning in 
     line 22, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert ``subsections 
     (b) and (c)'' and on page 12 add after line 6 the following:
       (c) Costs Offset.--The amendment made by this Act shall not 
     take effect unless the costs of the amendments are fully 
     offset in each fiscal year through fiscal year 1999 by 
     changes to the Black Lung Benefits Program.

  Mr. GOODLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that the 
administration's position on H.R. 2108 agrees with my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], but mostly 
to request the ranking member of the committee to answer a couple of 
questions I may have on his amendment.
  At the present time the income from the tonnage on coal is sufficient 
to pay the current benefits that are being paid. There is also 
additional surplus in that, and I guess, as I understand the 
gentleman's amendment, it merely states that the excise tax on the coal 
that is being paid will be sufficient to pay the benefits, the benefit 
payments, until the year 1999.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Basically, Mr. Chairman, what it is indicating is that 
we follow the paygo procedure of the Budget Act, and so I think the 
answer to the gentleman's question is yes.
  Mr. MURPHY. If the answer is yes, then of course I have no objection 
to the gentleman's amendment because the excise tax now and in the 
future should provide sufficient benefits to pay benefits. But I would 
want to make sure that it does not now state that we then have to 
impose an additional tax on the coal operators to deal with the trust 
fund deficit, which is something we have been debating all morning.
  Mr. GOODLING. The reason I could not give the gentleman a totally 
unqualified yes was simply because of CBO and their scoring procedures 
and so on. But in my estimation the answer would be yes.
  Mr. MURPHY. With that understanding, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 
chairman of my committee I will accept the amendment, but also would 
respectfully address the gentleman and say that we may want to explore 
this in conference committee, and I would hope that my arrangement with 
the gentleman stands for today's acceptance providing that the 
gentleman and I have the same understanding.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

                              {time}  1350

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. fawell

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell: Strike section 3, 
     redesignate sections 4 through 11 as sections 3 through 10, 
     and on page 12, line 1, strike ``6'' each place it appears 
     and insert ``5''.

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delete section 3, 
which is the so-called evidence section.
  The bill proposes a radical change to Black Lung administrative law 
by placing, for the first time, I might add, restrictions on the 
presentation of evidence by employers and by the Black Lung Trust Fund. 
CBO estimates that the changes made by this provision will result in 
direct spending of $22 million in additional Black Lung benefits over a 
5-year period.
  The statutory procedures for the adjudication of Black Lung claims 
are set forth in the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act 
and are incorporated by reference into the Black Lung Benefits Act.
  The Act currently provides for a trial before an administrative law 
judge. Traditionally, each party has been allowed to present his or her 
case or defense, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such 
cross-examination as required for a full and true disclosure of the 
facts.
  Section 3 restricts for the first time the medical evidence offered 
by a claimant to 3 examinations, that is, by the miner, while the 
defendant, being the employer or being the indebted Trust Fund, would 
be restricted to just one medical examination. Given the size and the 
crucial impact of the benefit program on both claimants and the 
operators and the Trust Fund, it is critical that the process of claims 
adjudication be fundamentally fair to both sides. The sponsors of H.R. 
2108 maintain that this legislation is needed to establish a more 
objective process for determination entitlement to Black Lung benefits.
  This bill, however, proposes a novel and unique warping of the normal 
adjudicative process historically established under Federal law and 
under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Administrative Procedures 
Act. Congress has the power to set and to alter evidentiary procedures 
used in adjudicating administrative cases, but only so long as those 
procedures do not violate the Constitution.
  I believe that barring defendants in a Black Lung case from 
submitting more than one medical examination while allowing the 
claimant to submit three clearly confronts the due process clause of 
the U.S. Constitution.
  Furthermore, section 3 gives substantial weight to the treating 
physician's opinion in determination of the claimant's eligibility for 
benefits even if the other side presents a physician who is equally 
qualified. The claims adjudication process will become formally biased, 
I think, in favor of the claimant, and this will undercut the integrity 
and fairness of the adjudication process and its ability to act as a 
check against mistaken decisions.
  There are many other changes made by this bill, as we have discussed, 
which will make it much easier for one to be able to prove a case. 
While it may be the intent of the sponsors of the bill to address the 
imbalance in resources between the claimant and the defendant where 
multiple examinations could place undue hardship on a claimant, I 
believe that the end result will be to tip the scales in favor of the 
claimant.
  I frankly know of no law like this that can withstand constitutional 
scrutiny. It is just basic common law that we inherited from England 
and common sense that two parties that are litigating are treated the 
same.
  The problem I think, insofar as miners are concerned, it the fact 
that under the law that now exists not many competent attorneys even 
want to take the case because they cannot get compensated until the end 
of the case, and then they have to be held to an hourly rate, and under 
the circumstances where cases may go from 4 to 6 years, there are not a 
whole lot of attorneys who will be able to take the case. We ought to 
be addressing that problem, not trying to rig the rules of evidence. 
That makes no sense.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The simple fact is that anyone who is from mining areas knows there 
is not a level playing field right now. In essence, the mining 
companies are able to overwhelm the claimants with unlimited resources. 
The committee has a record of at least one case, I say to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], where the claimant was required to submit 
to 55 medical examinations. That basically amounts to just harassment 
and abuse. We think the present reform legislation basically provides 
for a much more fair situation, a level playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, section 3 of the legislation establishes that during 
the course of all proceedings on a claim, the results of not more than 
three medical examinations offered by the claimant, the miner, may be 
received as evidence. The respondent, the responsible coal operator, 
may only require the claimant to submit to one medical examination. An 
administrative law judge may require the claimant to submit to a 
medical examination if there is good cause. Substantial weight is 
granted to the claimant's treating physician over the opinion of other 
physicians in determining the claimant's eligibility if that physician 
is board certified relevant to diseases associated to black lung.
  Section 3 brings a basic fairness into the black lung determinant 
process that has not existed for years. Coal companies can no longer 
overwhelm a miner with their their doctors who sole purpose is to find 
reasons to disprove that the miner has black lung because of coal dust. 
They currently spend thousands of dollars on doctors and on attorney's 
fees to prove that miner's are not sick or that the coal company is not 
responsible for the miner's sickness. The miners, however, have few 
resources to fight the coal companies, and each day the number of 
lawyers who will accept a black lung benefit case grows smaller. Black 
lung benefit cases are not an example of David versus Goliath--David 
would never win if he had black lung.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Black lung sufferers 
do not have the voice that other, more powerful interests groups have. 
Congress must be the voice and the conscience for those who suffer from 
black lung.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fawell amendment.
  Mr. FAWELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it was maybe one case there were 55 medical 
examinations. Now, that is an absurdity that may have taken place, but 
certainly in the halls of justice and administrative law, you do not 
see any judge, usually, that would ever countenance something like 
that.
  I may say that we would have no problem if it was equal, three and 
three, or two and two perhaps. But you do not go around trashing the 
Constitution simply because you do not think that, for whatever reason, 
you are getting the judicial rulings that you would like to be able to 
get now.
  I have as much heart and as much feeling for the miners of this 
Nation as anyone else. Let me tell you, there are millions and millions 
of people throughout this land who in their various occupations do have 
to go in and litigate under workmen's compensation statutes all over 
the land.
  Let me tell you also that nobody bends down and gives them any 
particular special privileges in regard to basic constitutional due 
process of law. Everyone, when they walk into a court of justice, when 
they walk into an administrative law court, they do expect to be able 
to be treated equally.
  Therefore, no matter how deeply and paternalistic you may feel, and 
understandably so, for the cause of the American miner and the 
particular occupational illness or injuries that he may face, you must 
also recognize that you cannot trample upon the Constitution.
  I think this is unconstitutional and probably it will be stricken 
when a court finds out about it. But it also illustrates this fact: 
That what we are trying to do, do you not see, is to liberalize the 
whole process, because we do not think we have gotten the recoveries we 
think we ought to get. In liberalizing the procedures and the basic 
laws that affect us all in courts of justice, we are saying relitigate. 
Relitigate 80,000 potential cases. That is taken seriously by CBO and 
DOL, who tell me they estimate that 20,000 indeed will then recover 
under these new, let us say, relaxed rules of evidence, under these 
presumptions, and under these kinds of restrictions.
  So, please, this is not antiminer or prominer. All the working people 
of America have to accept basic constitutional due process of law. If 
you can do it here, my friends, you can do it against anybody that 
Congress may not particularly like. We are going to give you only one 
bite at the apple, but the complainant, we favor him, we like him, he 
is a good guy, we are going to give him more.
  We do not want to do that. Are we thinking right now with our heads? 
No. With our hearts maybe, because we want to do something good for the 
miners. Actually, this bill is a catastrophe for the miners and a 
catastrophe for the taxpayers.
  But this is just generally not a major portion, but it is one I 
thought everyone would accept. How can you be against basic 
constitutional due process of law? This is not a partisan argument 
here. It is justice, my friends; it is fairness. And if you have to 
dispel with fairness to get your way, you are not getting something, 
you are taking something.
  So I would ask all those, maybe not the ones who have their minds 
made up, but all those who are listening in, please listen to this. It 
is something that will not stop this juggernaut from moving on, but, by 
George, it will bring us, and guarantee, justice.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say in response to the gentleman from Illinois, if 
leveling the playing field, which is what we are doing in this 
legislation, if that is called liberalizing, then I plead guilty. I am 
for liberalizing. I would go much farther than the pending legislation 
would go if I had my way. I think we have struck a very good compromise 
in this particular piece of legislation, a compromise that would be 
drastically upset by the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The time of the gentleman 
from Michigan has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say further that in regard to litigation that 
other vocations in this country have to face in regard to workmen's 
compensation, I would agree fully that this is a very difficult process 
as well. But I can think of no other group or no other profession in 
this country that has had to go through the catastrophe of the last 10 
years before the Department of Labor, in which the process has been 
skewered so dramatically against the claimant. I can think of no other 
vocation in this country that has faced a similar experience as our 
Nation's coal miners have over the past decade.
  The amendment seeks to strike from the bill, as I said, a compromise.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to 
bring out that these kinds of presumptions of alterations of evidence 
were in there before. They did not do what I think you would hope they 
would do and increase the awards that are being gathered. They were 
stricken by consensus of labor, management, and the administration, 
because they did not accomplish anything.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us go over the 
background very quickly to see in what frame these regulations were 
issued.
  Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that Congress passed the Black Lung 
Benefits Reform Act in 1977 because of its dissatisfaction with the low 
approval rate for black lung benefits.
  Today, in 1994, in part because the Labor Department did not fulfill 
its mandate under the 1977 Act, we are once again seeking legislation.
  The 1977 statute required the Labor Department to adopt interim 
eligibility standards that were to be no less restrictive than what had 
been in effect on June 30, 1973; a reference to a set of standards 
previously used by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
  The problem is that the interim standards promulgated by the Labor 
Department were far more restrictive than HEW's.
  Moreover, the permanent standards adopted in 1980, and the 1981 
amendments to the Act, further aggravated the situation and the number 
of claims approved continued to plummet.
  According to a 1990 GAO report, between 1973 and 1988 less than 10 
percent of claims were approved.
  This low claim approval rate does not attest to any reasonable and 
unbiased comportment of the facts.
  Rather, the low claim approval rate that Congress sought to address 
in 1977, and that we are again seeking to rectify with this bill, is 
due to years of administrative maneuverings over the program's 
eligibility criteria.
  Under H.R. 2108, we will return to a program that more closely 
reflects the statutory commitment Congress, and indeed, the Nation, 
made to compensate those coal miners who suffer from the crippling 
effects of black lung.
  However, and with all due respect to the committee, while the bill 
contains helpful provisions relating to the evidence a claimant or 
opposing party must provide, they do not in my view go far enough.
  I would maintain that a black lung claimant need only to produce a 
single piece of qualifying evidence. That is what Congress originally 
intended.
  This is however, not what the bill requires and we have a compromise 
here.
  And this amendment would break that compromise and it would gut the 
bill. It is a truly killer amendment. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill and dissect the problems that 
we have with it, one of the most major problems is in fact this 
language in there that changes the evidence that can be presented and 
allows the claimant to bring in statements from three physicians, while 
the company's coal company operator can bring in a statement from one 
physician. If that is not bad enough, it goes on to say that 
preferential treatment shall be given to the personal physician of the 
claimant in adjudicating the claim.
  Now, this is entirely unfair. Congress has no business proceeding to 
do this type of legislating in the bill that is before us.
  We are here to represent all of the citizens of the United States and 
to do what is fair and to do what is right, and we are given a sacred 
trust by the American people to carry out legislation on their behalf 
in fairness to all.

                              {time}  1410

  Now, we have heard for some time from the other side that the reason 
we have these changes coming before us in this bill is because there 
are a reduced number of claims being approved by the Department. That 
probably has something to do with the fact that over the years, as 
these new safety initiatives were put into place, less and less miners 
were contracting black lung disease.
  What this bill purports to do is to give all of them a second bite at 
the apple, to liberalize the process. But the language that the 
gentleman from Illinois, who is offering this amendment, the language 
that he seeks to strike out is, as I believe he mentioned, 
unconstitutional on its face.
  We have a responsibility to live under the Constitution. When we all 
are sworn in here, we will swear that we will uphold the Constitution. 
The fact is, this language is unconstitutional. It should be stripped 
from the bill, and the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois should 
be passed.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I might say that if the gentleman from Illinois had an amendment that 
he was concerned with making an equal playing field, I think those of 
us here in the majority and the proponents of this measures would be 
willing to discuss it with him. But he is not proposing an equal 
playing field. He wants to revert to what we have now as existing law.
  Let me state, one ALJ said, after he had reviewed all of the matters 
coming in, all of the medical evidence, ``What happens is the employers 
inundate the record with consulting medical reports and rereadings of x 
rays and then argue nonentitlements to benefits based on the 
preponderance of the evidence.''
  What has been happening is that the coal companies, in defense of 
their claims, run the poor coal miner all over the country for 
additional medical reports. Time after time they request a continuance 
of the hearing until they can get one or more x ray reading, one more 
hired gun, medical gun, one more report adverse to the coal miner's 
interest.
  The miner himself can hardly afford to pay the $200 to $250 to his 
own physician to come in with one single medical report, to the extent 
where one ALJ said, ``Hiring armies of experts often results in 
needless expense. If such a system continues unchallenged, justice is 
not served while monied interests thrive.''
  That is what is happening today. If the gentleman were sincerely 
interested, he would not be striking the entire section of evidence. He 
would come in here with something there will be an even playing field. 
The coal miner treats under his family physician for years. He has a 
hospital record. He has a clinic record. He has x rays. He should be 
entitled to bring these in.
  The coal company sends him to one expert for a 15-minute exam. Three 
months later, so that he can delay the hearing, he sends him to a 
hospital in Pittsburgh for another exam and x rays. Three or four 
months later he sends him to another medical expert. Finally, the miner 
dies and he then sends all of the evidence to other experts to review 
his death certificates. The miner cannot afford to continually fight 
this total weight and preponderance of the evidence that the coal 
companies are using as hired medical guns.
  Let us make this an even playing field. I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell], he can accept an amendment as we had in the last 
bill two years ago, which he opposed, and then accept this bill and 
then we have a deal. But until that time, he is against the miners when 
he wants to strike all the evidentiary section.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have two basic complaints to which I made 
reference. Both are as unconstitutional as one can possibly be.
  Mr. MURPHY. Let the courts decide that.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would say that to all of the attorneys at least in Congress, if they 
have heard what we have been talking about, would concur. But my 
esteemed colleague, who is also an attorney, I gather does not agree, 
but I certainly, if it was 3 and 3 and if we removed the wording about 
the treating physician having to have been given substantial weight, a 
good treating physician for the miner, he is going to have the weight 
of being the treating physician. The judge is going to see his demeanor 
and be able to obviously decide how much weight he is going to give 
him.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will withdraw his 
amendment, I will commit it in the conference committee. He and I will 
work it out so there will be an equal playing field. The identical 
language I had in my bill in the last session of Congress, we will put 
in place in this one.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offer.
  Let me understand what we are talking about. We would be deleting 
then the three to one to make it three and three.
  Mr. MURPHY. Three and three.
  Mr. FAWELL. And we would be deleting the words that would require 
that the treating physician be given substantial weight over the 
opinion of other physicians? Obviously, a court is going to make that 
decision all by itself without our having to demand that that be done.
  Mr. MURPHY. It probably would. But I submit to the gentleman, the 
treating physician, he has equal qualifications.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Lipinski). The time of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] has expired.
  The Committee will rise informally in order that the House may 
receive a message.

                          ____________________