[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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I was not going to speak on the bill. And while they are working out 
their differences, I would just like to make a few comments. It is 
evident that we have a committee, subcommittee and committee that have 
brought to the floor legislation that seems to be friendly to an 
American worker's interest. Friendly to American workers, in this case, 
friendly to coal miners who have suffered from black lung or other 
dysfunctions due to the nature of their workplace. Is that not 
refreshing? Congress is getting a little friendly, at least in this 
piece of legislation where coal miners have to jump through hoops, get 
five different opinions, go to 90 different elements to try and confirm 
that they are sick, sick from their workplace and may die to get some 
help from Uncle Sam.
  The few comments I want to make is, if you live in my area, you may 
have to move to Mexico to get a job in the first place. And we see a 
committee that is basically being attacked and challenged because they 
are trying to give a helping hand to members of the American workforce 
who are now dysfunctional because of the problems in environmental 
conditions that they have faced over the years.
  I am not speaking about the substantive issues of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] at all. ``Frankly, Scarlett, I 
don't give a damn.''
  I see a committee that has come forward trying to right a wrong that 
puts the American worker and the problems that the American workers 
face is No. 1 on their agenda. And I rise to say ``Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman; thank you, subcommittee; thank you, committee.'' I hope that 
Congress supports their efforts. We need a few more subcommittees like 
that.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Illinois.
  Section 3 of H.R. 2108 proposes a radical and fundamentally unfair 
change in black lung administrative law, for the first time, 
differentially restricting the presentation of evidence of medical 
examinations of miners.
  It would restrict the presently unabridged right of a claimant or 
defendant to submit medical examinations of the miner in support of or 
opposition to a claim and, in so doing, allow the claimant to offer up 
to three examinations but bar the defendant from submitting more than 
one examination. These examinations fundamentally underlie the entire 
factfinding process in black lung cases.
  The provision proposes a claims adjudication process formally biased 
in favor of the claimant, by legislatively manipulating the 
presentation of evidence, undercutting the adjudication process' 
integrity, fairness and ability to act as a check against mistaken 
decisions.
  The provision proposes a novel and unique warping of the normal 
adjudicative process historically established under Federal law, the 
Federal Rules of Evidence and the Administrative Procedure Act. 
Congress has the power to set and alter evidentiary procedures used in 
adjudicating administrative cases, but only so long as those procedures 
do not violate the Constitution. I believe, barring defendants, in 
black lung cases, from submitting more than one medical examination 
while allowing the claimant to submit three examinations, clearly and 
squarely, confronts the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has held that a fair trail in a fair tribunal is a 
basic requirement of due process and this applies to administrative 
agencies which adjudicate as well as to courts.
  Section 3 of H.R. 2108 would legislatively bias the fact-finding of 
the decisionmaker in the claim-adjudication in favor of the claimant. 
Not only is a biased decisionmaker constitutionally unacceptable, but 
our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability 
of unfairness.
  There is simply no governmental interest, in these cases, in 
preventing one party from submitting the same amount of like-kind 
evidence as the opposing party. In fact, there is a strong governmental 
interest in avoiding mistaken decisions and, in providing justice. 
Procedures are unreliable if they do not give a party an opportunity to 
test the strength of the evidence by confronting and cross-examining 
adverse witnesses and by presenting witnesses on its own behalf.
  As Justice Brennan said in Brock versus Roadway Express, Inc., 
``employers * * * are entitled to a fair opportunity to cross-examine 
witnesses, and to produce contrary records and testimony.''
  Supreme Court concern for ensuring this protection by allowing 
litigants to present their case has been longstanding. For example, the 
Supreme Court said in 1941: ``[o]ne of the most important safeguards of 
the rights of litigants and the minimal constitutional requirement, in 
proceedings before an administrative agency vested with discretion, is 
that it cannot rightly exclude from consideration, facts and 
circumstances relevant to its inquiry which upon due consideration may 
be of persuasive weight in the exercise of its discretion.'' Pittsburgh 
Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 31 U.S. 146, 177 (1941).
  The Supreme Court maintains a particular concern for allowing 
litigants to ultimately present their case where presumptions are used 
to shift the burden of going forward with evidence, such as in the 
black lung program.
  For the presumption to pass constitutional muster there must be some 
rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact 
presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another 
shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. 
However, by biasing the presentation of evidence, section 3 undermines 
the ability of the factfinder to discover the truth and, thus, be able 
to reasonably find the rational connection between the fact proved and 
the ultimate fact presumed.
  Section 3, as presently written is wrong from a policy point of view 
and, I believe, unconstitutional. The section is fundamentally unfair, 
unreasonable and contains a high risk of leading to mistaken decisions. 
The amendment of my colleague of Illinois striking section 3 should be 
adopted.
  I ask that my complete statement be printed in the Record.

                              {time}  1440

  I think there is a lot of very much historical, legal matter; 
certainly Brock versus Roadway Express, Inc., where it says, ``The 
employer is entitled to a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses 
and produce contrary records and testimony,'' that there is much legal 
background to support the fact that we should allow all litigants to 
ultimately present their case, and where presumptions are used to shift 
the burden of going forward with the evidence, such as in this program, 
that that gives one or the other side an unfair advantage.
  I want to give those who have the problems that this addresses an 
opportunity to have their day in court, but I think we ought to look at 
it from both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Lipinski). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 238, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--181

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

                               NOES--238

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Goodling
     Grandy
     McDermott
     Michel
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Pelosi
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Stokes
     Torkildsen
     Washington
     Williams

                              {time}  1442

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WALSH, QUILLEN, and DICKEY, and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 182 on H.R. 
2108 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted 
``no.''


                     amendment offered by Mr. Armey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Armey: Strike section 6 and on 
     page 11, line 22, strike ``(a) General Rule.--'' and on page 
     12 strike lines 1 through 6.

  Mr. ARMEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Lancaster). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2108, the Black Lung Benefits 
Restoration Act creates more problems than it solves. It already has 
been stated that the bill reported out of committee is one which places 
too heavy a burden on mine operators, violates the principle that all 
relevant evidence is admissible, and is fiscally irresponsible.
  Additionally, as if to establish some sort of coal miners' lottery, 
H.R. 2108 has a provision covering the award of attorneys' fees that 
could potentially create a nightmare. Under current law, reimbursements 
for attorneys' fees are paid out of either the black lung trust fund or 
by the mine operator at the final resolution of the case. No final 
judgment, no attorneys fee awards. The amendment I am offering will 
return us to this state of affairs.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2108 rejects this commonsense approach, and 
authorizes payments to be made by the mine operator to the claimant at 
every stage of the process where the claimant prevails. Under what can 
be characterized only as a lawyers' bounty, H.R. 2108 would make a 
miner, who has gone down to the local Division of Coal Miners Workers' 
Compensation Office to file a claim, eligible to receive attorneys' 
fees after the claims examiner rules in his favor in an initial 
determination.
  Such an award will have occurred even before the mine operator has 
even entered a Federal court. This Federal court. This outcome is 
unnecessary and unwarranted. The system is already generous enough. 
Today, any claimant who prevailed during the initial determination 
receives benefits from the trust fund while the case is being 
contested.
  But apparently this is not enough. H.R. 2108 would mandate payments 
for attorneys' fees for requests to reconsider determinations, 
proceedings before administrative law judges, and appeals before the 
Benefits Review Board.
  Remember, all of this is before the case even gets to a Federal 
court, and these awards are allowed even when it is the claimant that 
appeals or ask for reconsideration.
  Now supporters of this provision will tell you that all of this does 
not matter, because innocent mine operators get compensated too. This 
has a ring of truth in it, but the facts are that the mine operator has 
never been allowed to recover his own attorneys' fees.
  H.R. 2108 would not change this. Instead, it generously says that if 
the mine operator ultimately is successful, the Federal Government--via 
the black lung trust fund--will pay him back. Not for his own costs, 
but for any costs for the claimants attorneys' fees that we have forced 
him to pay out.
  The truth is that this provision in the bill will serve as little 
more than an inducement for more claimants to file against an already 
beleaguered trust fund. Even with a case that ultimately proves to have 
no merit, a claimant and his lawyer will have been given new incentives 
to file a claim. His lawyer recognizes that win or lose, he or she will 
likely be paid, and paid well.
  If the threat of such awards force a mine operator to settle the 
case, in the eyes of the trial lawyers, this is so much the better.
  Well, it is not better for the trust fund and ultimately the American 
taxpayer who will have to be responsible when the trust fund goes 
belly-up.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office projected expenditures 
for attorneys' fees is expected to be $25 million over 5 years, 
rivaling the administrative costs of $27 million during the same 
period.
  The trust fund is currently $4 billion in debt. We must not compound 
this by providing unwarranted awards to lawyers, and unduly stimulating 
suits against mine operators. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this amendment. It is a return to fiscal sanity and its good policy.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it denies an entire 
class of people--the aged, the ill, the infirm, the unemployed miner--
adequate legal representation. These individuals who filed under the 
harsh 1981 amendments, with their stricter standards, were unfairly 
excluded from eligibility. And now to deny these people sufficient 
representation on a rehearing is tantamount to total justice denied.
  The attorneys fee section was incorporated into this bill in response 
to testimony received throughout our oversight hearings. Numerous 
witnesses discussed the great difficulty they and their fellow coal 
miners have in finding any legal representation.
  Under the current system, attorneys are not paid until the claim is 
fully adjudicated. Now, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey] would have us believe, no attorney, no attorney would be paid 
any fee at all until and unless the claimant was granted benefits by 
the Department of Labor.
  This is not attorneys fees in advance; this is only attorneys fees 
that accumulate if the company then files and puts the miner through an 
appeals process. But no attorneys fee is paid until the claim is 
granted. After that, not if the miner appeals--he would not have to 
appeal--only if the company appeals would then the attorney be allowed 
to be paid and only paid for the work he has accumulated as having done 
at that stage of the proceedings.
  We found in instance after instance in the entire State of West 
Virginia, half a dozen attorneys representing the miners; in the entire 
State of Kentucky, a dozen attorneys who were willing to represent 
miners. They cannot afford to tie up their time and energy until a 10-
year period of appeals is up.
  What we are saying is companies have their lawyers at the table all 
through the proceedings; let us have the miner have his attorney at the 
table all throughout the proceeding.
  Remember, the attorney would not get paid a cent until he had 
received his first initial benefit; that means that he had won.
  Now they put them through the appeals process, and we are saying that 
is when the attorneys leave them. We would like the attorney to stick 
with them.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out the 
fact that in the State of West Virginia there are a half a dozen that 
will handle these black lung cases. During hearings that the 
gentleman's subcommittee graciously held in my home town of Beckley, 
WV, 5 years ago, we heard testimony there were only a dozen lawyers at 
that time that would handle black lung cases. The gentleman from 
Illinois earlier referred to the lack of lawyers handling these cases. 
This is precisely why. How would we like to get paid at the end of each 
term rather than each month during the term?
  Mr. MURPHY. And only if you got a bill passed.
  Mr. RAHALL. Right. And only if you got a bill passed. So I think the 
gentleman's amendment is bad policy, and I urge its defeat, and I 
associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to stop and really take 
a look at this section. There is no question in my mind, as I have 
indicated before--and I know that Chairman Murphy and I have discussed 
this on numerous occasions--that the present system insofar as legal 
fees are concerned is one that is not conducive to having competent 
attorneys. Not that those who are handling these matters are not 
competent, but it is not conducive to attracting a lot of attorneys to 
represent miners. Progress can be made. But I think Congressman Armey 
has circled and hit a very, very important point.
  Now, if you take a good long look at this section, you will find that 
there are two big detriments to it. No. 1 is that legal fees will be 
granted even in instances where the claim is denied.
  Now, that just is not the case, I think, in any workman's 
compensation statute in the Nation. Why do we do this here when we have 
a number of ways that we could really make progress?
  And this goes further: I think as a sweetener to kind of soften 
opposition, it goes further and says that legal fees which are awarded 
during the process of the suit when there is an ultimate denial of the 
claim--those legal fees must be reimbursed to the coal company employer 
who won the case. And guess who gets stuck with having to pay the legal 
fees? You are right, the ``U.S. Congress Insurance Company,'' the trust 
fund, has to pick up all of those legal fees in instances where 
ordinarily speaking in all the other workman's compensation statutes in 
this Nation there are no legal fees when you lose the case.
  Now, I have suggested, and I think Chairman Murphy is entertaining 
this point too, that why do we not look at what the rest of the world 
is doing? The rest of the world both in tort actions and in workman's 
compensation will recognize that contingent fees are not evil. I think 
the Department of Labor sometimes think they are. I would not even 
suggest that if contingent fees were possible and you would have a lot 
of good attorneys coming in and doing the work, that they necessarily 
had to be taken out of the recovery, which, by the way, is the way all 
other workman's compensation statutes in the States work. It is normal.
  But the chairman is quite right when he says there is no incentive if 
you are on hourly rate and you cannot be paid until the very end, and 
then if you do not win, of course you lose. You are not going to get 
many attorneys to buy that package.
  I do not know why we have not changed this long ago. I suppose that 
with all the work that I have done on this matter, I could have worked 
to put that in. I would be glad to work assiduously on this because I 
want to make it easier for miners too. But I will tell you what, all 
the changes you are making otherwise are not going to make a hoot of 
difference unless you recognize that an attorney can have that 
contingent fee arrangement, as I said, even if you want it not to come 
from the recovery. I think that is the way this ought to be, but it 
would hurt too many feelings there, I suppose; but Mr. Armey is 
absolutely zeroing in. He is objecting to the fact that, ``Hey, you 
don't get attorneys fees, my friends, when you lose the case.'' And 
then, ``You don't go out and charge the trust fund to pick up that 
bill.''
  How much more money will that be that the trust fund has to borrow 
from the U.S. taxpayers in order to finance that one? Does anybody 
know? None of us knows, none of us knew it very much, and we do not 
care. We are too busy, we cannot run an insurance company this way.
  I keep referring to the trust fund as an insurance company because 
that is the only entity that is going to be there for the miners who 
are suing under black lung fund when the owners have disappeared.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Lancaster). 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. So Mr. Armey goes and hits the bulls-eye, but he is not 
probably going to get much reaction here. I pledge to the chairman, 
Chairman Murphy, I would be more than glad to try to work with him to 
copy what is successful in all the other workman's compensation 
statutes where the attorneys do pitch in and do give the kind of 
representation that the miners ought to have and which they have not 
been getting. This is the most expensive, wasteful route you can 
possibly think of, and it is mollifying the coal operators. The only 
people left who would object are the taxpayers, here I am, one person, 
and there is another one over there, Mr. Armey, who brought this point 
up.
  That is all I have to say on the matter.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 176, 
noes 250, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--176

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

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     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
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     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
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Grandy
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Pelosi
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Washington

                              {time}  1520

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. HAYES and Mr. CLINGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HYDE and Mr. McHUGH 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. hoekstra

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

       Amendment offered by Mr Hoekstra: Strike section 10 and 
     redesignate section 11 as section 10.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, fewer than half of the cases decided by 
the Supreme Court involve constitutional issues, but well over half 
involve the interpretation of laws (CRS Review/Sept. 1991).
  Although the Court has sent mixed signals about deference to agency 
interpretations of statutes, there is a trend toward increased reliance 
on the text of law and a decreased reliance on legislative history, 
such as committee reports and floor debate (CRS Review/Sept. 1991).
  Section 10 of this legislation is obviously a reaction to some recent 
opinions of the Supreme Court, particularly by Justice Scalia. In fact, 
I think, legal experts would say that while the Court may be more 
skeptical of using legislative history opinions have varied a great 
deal about how and when it is appropriate, and Judge Breyer's 
appointment, assuming he is confirmed, will add to the mix of views on 
this issue in the court.
  But, I read somewhere that one of the things Justice Scalia has said 
is that efforts to use committee reports as authoritative legislative 
history should be discounted because they are written by staffers and 
members often don't even read them. Is he wrong about that? Not in my 
experience. I would say he is exactly right in the majority of 
instances. So why are we trying to undercut him? There should be more 
emphasis on what the statute says, and less on trying to read the minds 
of the staff persons who wrote the committee report.
  The Supreme Court should not need to go to legislative history to 
interpret what it is we intend. This body needs to make sure it knows 
what it is authoring and putting into law and that it is not vague and 
overly broad. Too often, it is the intellectually and politically lazy 
road to draft legislation and amendments which we either don't know 
enough about to send definite messages or we are too chicken to make a 
choice between two approaches.
  Ambiguity is defined by Websters as uncertainty. If we are uncertain, 
we had better go back to the drawing board and start the process over 
again.
  This provision sets a brand new precedent that, in and of itself, 
should be thoroughly debated and analyzed--not just stuck in a bill. It 
is an invitation for Members of Congress to load every piece of 
legislation up with rhetoric, some of which may end up being 
contradictory.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that I do not oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. It is my belief that legislative intention 
should be reviewed by the courts when they are in doubt as to the 
actual ambiguity of a statute. However, though I may disagree with 
Justice Scalia, I do agree with the philosophy, legal philosophy, of 
court nominee Breyer, attorney Breyer, and I believe that perhaps these 
two may offset each other in the court procedure.
  Therefore, I do not find it absolutely necessary to include this 
statutory construction-type language to encumber the black lung bill. 
Inasmuch there is an objection to it, I would agree to strike it at 
this point, and just hope the courts would more favor my legal 
philosophy on it than that of a strict constructionist, such as the 
gentleman from Michigan. But we will agree to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  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 2, 
     redesignate sections 3 through 11 as sections 2 through 10, 
     and on page 23, line 1, strike ``6'' each place it appears 
     and insert ``5''.

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 2, which deals 
with a very controversial and I think somewhat emotional topic, interim 
benefits to claimants. A little background on interim payments is 
helpful to better understand my amendment.
  Under current law, individuals who file for black lung benefits can 
receive interim benefit payments, that is, total disability payments, 
once the Department of Labor makes an initial determination that the 
claimant is eligible for benefits.
  Basically a claimant can be found by the Department of Labor to be 
entitled to benefits if the medical evidence shows that the miner has 
black lung disease and is completely unable to perform his or her 
customary coal mine work as a result of the disease.
  Note, you can still be totally disabled and be able to otherwise 
support yourself. Total disability under this act does not mean total 
disability. It means total disability insofar as doing work in the 
mines.
  A reduction of 40 percent from the expected normal respiratory 
function is regarded as totally disabling for coal mine workers in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary. Interim benefits are then paid to 
the claimant, and this is important, with a clear understanding that 
they will have to be repaid if the claimant loses his case. In other 
words, claim denied.

  These interim benefits, again total disability benefits, have always 
been paid to the claimant with the understanding that they will have to 
be repaid if the claimant is ultimately found to be ineligible for the 
benefits. Section 2 of this bill would eliminate this requirement 
entirely. The section states that if interim benefits, total disability 
benefits, have been granted and paid to a claimant whose claim is 
ultimately denied, the claimant will no longer have to repay these 
funds.

                              {time}  1530

  I happen to be one that thinks that they should get these interim 
benefits, but they should get them after they win, then they relate 
back, which is the law, by the way. In other words, one can get total 
disability payments under this provision even it one has no right 
whatsoever to any total disability payments.
  Additionally, section 2(b) requires the trust fund to refund any 
payments made to it as a reimbursement of benefits paid on a claim 
which was ultimately denied. Claimants do, by the way, repay interim 
benefits paid to them if their claim is ultimately denied. But section 
2(b) would require the trust fund to retroactively reimburse any such 
benefits going all the way back to 1973. CBO scores this requirement as 
costing CBO $40 million over 3 years, 1995 through 1997.
  Section 2(c) also required the trust fund to indemnify, guess who, 
the responsible operators for any interim benefits paid on the claim 
which is later denied. The trust fund, there is our insurance company 
again.
  If we have these situations where a claim is denied but interim 
benefits have been ordered to be paid and they no longer have to be 
repaid, then the good old trust fund is going to indemnify the coal 
operators who were the ones who contested the claim and ultimately 
caused the claim to be denied.
  I ask Members, what section 2 is doing in requiring that the trust 
fund has to subsidize the cost of interim benefits which the coal 
operators are under order to pay in cases where the claim is ultimately 
denied. Obviously, there is no justification in that.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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. All of this is in spite of the fact that the Department 
of Labor already waives repayment in cases where a claimant 
demonstrates financial hardship. The Department waives repayment if the 
recovery of interim benefits would deprive the individual of income 
needed for order and necessary living expenses or otherwise is against 
equity and good conscience.
  It makes no sense whatsoever to have an act which when a person loses 
the case, we have already said he loses the case and the attorney still 
gets paid, now we say he loses the case and it may go on for 4 to 6 
years, but he can keep all the total disability payments though he 
never was entitled to the total disability payments. Only a bankrupt 
insurance company could dream up that kind of a scenario.
  I know my colleagues' hearts think that is right, but it is the 
dumbest thing from a viewpoint of business that one could think of. Any 
wonder why the trust fund is $4 billion in debt and the taxpayers are 
now bailing it out.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been discussed already, but in all good will, 
I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Falwell] does not recognize 
the human element and the actual reality, and I think we from the 
minefields know this, as far as it affects the practical workings of 
people's lives and what happens to them.
  What we have under this program, and as we all know the final 
certification on black lung eligibility has taken in some cases 6, 8, 
sometimes 9, 10 years. People are living in their old age, having 
served their Nation, having worked in the minefields, and all of a 
sudden that notice, and we have all seen them, comes in from the 
Department of Labor saying, ``Dear Mr. Smith/Mrs. Jones, you owe 
$60,000 to the Department of Labor. You have been found ineligible for 
permanent black lung benefits. Please pay it back within 60 to 90 days 
or get in touch with us and we will talk about it. A certified check 
will be accepted.''
  That is all very fine, but how many miners and their families, who 
have to live on these benefits as they are ascertained on an interim 
basis, have $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000? In many cases, 
it can cause emotional to the point of heart attack and medical 
problems. That is an obvious.
  Many people in my district, the 8th District of Indiana, have been 
bewildered by this. The simple fact is that these claims were not filed 
fraudulently. They were filed in good will, in good faith. Even at that 
point they may very well have black lung. All that is is a particular 
certification most often after many years have gone by.
  I dare say that this proposal not to have these payments have to be 
repaid, not only being compassionate and common sense, is also an 
incentive in a system for the DOL and the Federal process to get the 
permanent resolution of these cases ascertained.
  We all know what it means for a 70-year-old retired miner or widow 
being told to pay, they owe $50,000, $60,000 and in some cases houses 
and homes have been lost. It is simply a very weird Alice in Wonderland 
way to treat the working people of this fine Nation.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, again, we want to do 
justice for the miner. We want to hope that this insurance company of 
ours, called the trust fund, is going to be able to exist.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the cost of this 
provision, which I initially authored and we have been working on for 
some years, over 5 years is $56 million. In the line of what we are 
talking about, this is more than a reasonable cost for simplification 
of the system, basic justice and, indeed, as the gentleman has said, an 
incentive that the system would work faster so that in essence the loss 
to the mine fund as to the black lung payments, would not go on so 
much.
  I dare say, does the gentleman have any retired mine families on 
black lung benefits in his district?
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
no, I do not. But I do want to point out that the law already states 
that once you win the case, the interim benefits relate back to the 
time you filed the case. So they are going to get those benefits if 
they win.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. But if they do not, as the gentleman knows, that is 
what we are talking about, if they lose, so to speak, at that point, is 
it not true that working people who are middle class, not upper middle 
class, they have worked their whole lives and they have spent their 
life savings, are in effect being told very often, let us say a typical 
demand is $40,000. Do my colleagues know what is means for even many of 
us in the Congress to be told we have to pay $40,000 within 3 months.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, we can say this for all the families in 
America who are in a position where they have to go to a workmen's 
compensation statute. The point is that we then best change the statute 
and simply provide for total temporary types of aids pending a case in 
action. But we have not done that.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. We have not done that.
  Mr. FAWELL. When we make this change though, this is going to be 
around for many, many years. Actuarially speaking, we are going to 
bankrupt the fund.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with this system today.

                              {time} 1540

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this amendment would continue a practice 
that has evolved under the previous Administrations of robbing victims 
of black lung disease of the benefits they receive on an interim basis.
  The effect of this amendment, if it should pass, is to cause black 
lung beneficiaries to be placed on the welfare rolls.
  We are not talking about rich people here. Let us get real.
  We are talking about people who are suffering from black lung. Who 
can barely breath. Who can hardly walk.
  They receive their benefits about a ruling that they are eligible.
  Once that happens, the coal companies with their legions of lawyers 
and doctors seek to challenge that ruling. It is commonplace. There is 
no discrimination in this regard. Every positive ruling of eligibility 
is challenged.
  And so we have our black lung victim, barely able to maintain himself 
at a substandard level of living, faced with the challenge of trying to 
defend himself against these high-powered doctors.
  Is it any surprise that the black lung victim may ultimately find 
himself being ruled against?
  With this legislation we are saying that once you receive benefits, 
and through no fault of yourself, that their is no fraud or abuse 
involved, you will not be required to repay those benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope all of the Members who are listening in their 
offices and in committee will understand that interim benefits are not 
paid unless the miner has secured and award of benefits from the 
administrative Department of Labor proceedings. He must file his claim.
  I had one Member ask me about a half an hour ago, ``Does everybody 
that files a claim get interim benefits until his case is decided?'' 
Heavens, I hope that no one is under that misapprehension. No one gets 
interim benefits paid unless he has secured an award. Those interim 
benefits are then the benefits that are paid until or unless there is 
an appeal process. The miner does not cause the appeal process, the 
coal company then appeals. They take them on for another 5 or 10 years.
  If eventually, under the 1981 rules and regulations, the company is 
successful, which has been the case in 97 percent of the cases, then 
interim benefits stop, all benefits stop, and the miner gets no more.
  I am pointing out to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell], that there perhaps is the best equity in the entire 
proceedings. At least the miner got half a loaf, because he was paid 
after he had an award, he was paid up until the time they drove him 
into bankruptcy with an appeal, and then they finally win because they 
outlasted him. Then the benefits stop. He at least got some benefits. 
He did not get the whole loaf.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, my point, of course, is that we should not 
be giving interim benefits. That is not done in other workmen's 
compensation statutes. I do not know why it has to be done here. If you 
win, you will get all the interim payments.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, they are not 
interim payments at that point. The interim are that a person gets paid 
after he has won the first round.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, but it goes 
back to that interim period. It covers the interim period. If the 
person wins, he goes back to the date he filed and is given total 
disability coverage.
  What I am saying is that if he loses, though we should never have 
even thought of creating a system whereby we give interim benefit 
payments before the final adjudication.
  Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman may be correct, if the person loses, but I 
am saying that he has won. He has won before he gets his interim 
benefits. That is the inequity we are trying to point out. He did not 
just file, he had to prove his case. He proved it to the DOL, and they 
are tough enough to prove it to. Then he was awarded his benefits.
  Once he starts the benefits, then what has happened in the last 12 
years, and I wish the gentleman from Illinois could have some of those 
poor people come into the office and say, ``Here is my letter from the 
Department of Justice. They are going to take me to jail. They are 
going to sue me for all this money. I am borrowing the money from my 
daughter out in San Francisco so I can help pay. I am going to the 
bank. I am going to pay it back.'' This is what has been happening.
  The DOL, the Department of Labor, for the last 12 years has been 
harassing these people, even though they got an award, they got their 
benefits. Now they are saying, ``Send it back,'' and the total inequity 
to all the taxpayers is it did not go back in the trust fund, it went 
to the general treasury.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, why should the 
trust fund then pick up these interim benefits in losing situations, 
where the coal company ends up losing?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that that is 
because they had an award and they proved their case.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will yield further, it is a case against 
the coal company. The trust fund is not even involved, but not these 
interim benefits, in a case where they lose against the coal company, 
the trust fund has sent the bill and the trust fund has to pay it, the 
good old friendly insurance company from the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. MURPHY. In the proceedings before the person files the petition, 
he has to get a lawyer, if he can beg one to represent him for nothing 
under the current law. The coal company will send him to seven or eight 
doctors. If he can go before the hearing and the Department of Labor 
grants him an award, boy, I say he is entitled to it. If he has gotten 
that far, he is among the 3 percent, the 3 out of 100 that got a 
benefit, and now he is being harassed to send it back.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, my inquiry is, 
the order is against the coal company to pay the interim. They are 
contesting it, so they do not. Ultimately, if the coal company wins, 
the man loses, and the gentleman has legislation saying the trust fund 
has to cough up the money and indemnify the coal company. Why in the 
world has he done that?
  Mr. MURPHY. Let us have the coal company and the Department of 
Justice put the money back in the trust fund.
  Mr. FAWELL. The gentleman's bill says the trust fund has to pay this.
  Mr. MURPHY. I will be very happy to say the Department of Justice 
will pay it out of the money they have already collected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The amendment was rejected.


              amendment offered by mr. barrett of nebraska

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett of Nebraska: Add at the 
     end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 11. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Black Lung Advisory Committee, 
     established under subsection (d) and referred to in this 
     section as the ``committee'', shall--
       (1) examine State workers' compensation laws to determine 
     the effectiveness of the laws in providing benefits on the 
     amount of disability or death due to pneumoconiosis, and
       (2) evaluate the information collected in conducting the 
     examination under paragraph (1).
       (b) Considerations.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     committee shall consider--
       (1) whether a State's law providing monthly benefits for 
     total disability or death due to a coal miner's 
     pneumoconiosis in an amount that is comparable to or that 
     exceeds the amounts payable under the Federal black lung 
     program under part C of the Black Lung Benefits Act,
       (2) whether the State law provides adequate coverage for 
     health care needs generated by a coal miner's pneumoconiosis,
       (3) whether a State's law precludes awards by virtue of 
     periods of limitation or other provisions that unreasonably 
     restrict the filing of claims or awards for a coal miner's 
     pneumoconiosis,
       (4) whether the medical or legal criteria for determining 
     entitlement in a State are fair and reasonable, and
       (5) whether a State workers' compensation system 
     facilitates reasonably prompt awards or settlements.
       (c)Report.--The committee shall transmit to the Secretary 
     of Labor, not later than 12 months after its establishment, a 
     final report containing a detailed statement of its findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations under subsection (a).
       (d) Committee Establishment.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish the Federal Black Lung Advisory Committee with 9 
     members. The Chairman of the committee and a majority of the 
     members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary 
     from individuals who have no economic interests in the coal 
     mining industry and who are not officers, directors, 
     employees, or representatives of groups organized to assist 
     claimants in the processing of their claims under the Federal 
     black lung program under part C of the Black Lung Benefits 
     Act. Of the 9 members, 2 shall be representatives of labor 
     and 2 shall be representatives of coal mine operators. 5 
     members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the 
     purpose of doing business. Members of the committee who are 
     not officers or employees of a Federal, State, or local 
     government shall be, for each day (including traveltime) 
     during which they are performing committee business, entitled 
     to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary but 
     not in excess of the daily rate in effect for grade GS-18 
     under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, and shall 
     be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and 
     other necessary expenses.

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska (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 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to pay my 
respects to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy] for the 
openness that he has exhibited, and for the decision of the Committee 
on Rules in offering an open rule. I also want to compliment the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] for the excellent job he has done 
in shepherding this measure through.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would call for an advisory committee to be 
appointed by the Secretary of Labor, to study the effectiveness of 
State workers' compensation programs to determine first, the 
effectiveness of the laws that include black lung as a compensable 
occupational illness; and secondly, whether there exists a need for the 
continuation of the Federal Black Lung Program.
  The Black Lung Benefits Act was enacted in 1969 and was designed to 
provide to coal miners who were totally disabled due to black lung 
disease.
  The sponsors of this act intended for it to be a temporary program of 
limited size duration, and cost.
  The program was to be administered by the Social Security 
Administration, which would receive and adjudicate the expected claims 
arising from past exposures. Once the existing backlog was dealt with, 
the Department of Labor, would handle new incoming claims under a 
workers' compensation system.
  Aside from the continuing benefits paid to successful claimants under 
the Social Security Administration-managed part of the program, the 
Federal involvement in black lung compensation was to cease 7 years 
after the law's enactment, that is, by December 30, 1976, 18 years ago.
  It was thought that the program would become unnecessary once the 
individual States developed adequate occupational disease compensation 
systems of their own.
  Including claims for health benefits and refilings, more than 1 
million claims have been filed, and more than $30 billion has been paid 
to worthy beneficiaries. It is almost certain by now that all coal 
mining families that had been overlooked by State laws have had a fair 
chance to obtain benefits under the Federal program.
  The Department of Labor, in fact, reports that all workers' 
compensation laws in coal mining States today afford higher benefits 
for total disability or death due to black lung disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that many State laws currently meet the 
Federal requirements under the statute, and that a careful review of 
them would show that the Federal Black Lung Program has fully achieved 
its original objectives.
  It is for that reason that I offered an amendment during Education 
and Labor Committee consideration that is similar to that which I am 
offering today, with one major change.
  A provision in my committee amendment called for the termination of 
the Black Lung Program in 1998, whereas my amendment today does not 
include that provision. Instead, my amendment simply calls for a 
study--nothing more and nothing less.
  This amendment calls for the creation of a nine-member advisory 
committee, a majority of which shall have no economic interest in the 
coal mining industry. The rest of which shall be equally represented by 
coal mine operators and labor representatives.
  This advisory committee would study various State workers' 
compensation laws to determine their effectiveness in providing 
benefits for victims of black lung, and to determine whether there 
exists a need to continue the Federal program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Barrett amendment.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered in the committee, it was 
debated at some length and was soundly defeated, as it should be here.
  I am reaching out now to the people who talk about unfunded mandates. 
In 1969, we amended the Coal Mine Safety Act with an amendment that 
covered black lung for the first time and we said this is a national 
problem because coal is used all over the country. Then we said the way 
to pay for it is to have the people who make the profit out of coal pay 
a tonnage cost, and that is the way it is paid for. It is not like 
workers compensation. The owners do not pay any premium based on the 
number of people that work for them who get black lung as in workers 
compensation which is experience-based rated.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an industrywide assessment that creates a trust 
from which it is paid wherever the person happens to be when black lung 
brings them down and totally disables or kills them.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman wants to do is completely rewrite 
the thrust of this legislation. I guess Nebraska does not have any coal 
mines and, therefore, Nebraska would be completely out of any future 
responsibility for this dreadful national problem. But those people who 
come from States that either have coal mines or States like mine that 
while it does not have coal mines has automobile plants to which former 
coal miners migrate for employment can tell us that if they had to try 
to handle the cost of this out of their State workers compensation 
fund, they would have a real problem on their hands. So we have the 
heating and the powering of the entire United States by the coal States 
with them bearing the subsequent costs that come after the fact for the 
inevitable disease that comes from working around coal dust. I do not 
believe that we want to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, it is going to be argued, I am sure, that this is only 
a study, and what difference does it make? It is a study predicated on 
the presumption that there is a valid way to turn this into a State 
workers compensation piece of legislation. We had State workers 
compensation before this act was passed and there were a couple of 
States that did in fact compensate for pneumoconiosis. The fact of the 
matter was that it was kind of spotty and we decided that it really was 
not fair to that very small part of the country that provides all the 
energy for the rest of the country to have to bear the cost of this 
once we identified a national problem with pneumoconiosis and this 
would turn us back to where we were before 1969. I would therefore 
recommend that we not give a seal of approval to the idea of going in 
that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening on this floor all of this session 
to people talking about unfunded mandates. Imagine my State that is a 
receiving State for former coal miners in our work force having to pick 
up in our State workers compensation program money collected from all 
the businesses in the State to pay for the problems created by a 
business located in another State. This is truly an interstate problem 
and should be kept on an interstate basis. The only way we can do that 
is with a national focus.
  Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect the gentleman from Nebraska and if I 
were representing Nebraska, I would be voting for the gentleman's 
amendment. I ask Members to defeat it.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not totally disagree with the concept of my 
colelague, the gentleman from Nebaraska. All Federal programs, of 
course, should be periodically examined. It does concern me that in the 
first sentence the gentleman strikes out all after the enacting clause 
of our measure, that does concern me, because then we have no bill.
  Next I would like to remind the gentleman from Nebraska that prior to 
1969, this Congress and the Department of Labor did an exhaustive----
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska. I think the 
gentleman has something important to tell me.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. yes. I wonder if the gentleman is on the 
correct amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY. I have the only copy of the amendment, the one I received 
yesterday in the subcommittee wherein the gentleman from Nebraska says, 
``An amendment to H.R. 2108 is reported offered by Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska,'' sir. It says, ``Strike out all afte rthe enacting clause 
and insert the following.''
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. There was an addition then at the end of the 
bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman has an addition to that at the end of the 
bill, something about paying these committee people to a GS-18 level.
  When does the gentleman propose to strike after the enacting clause, 
before or after?
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. It is an addition to the end of the bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. Then I will address myself to the contents of your 
resolution.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. It does not deny current benefits. It does 
not touch the current statute. It simply is a stopgap to pause and step 
back and take a look and decide whether or not we want to continue or 
not. Essentially that is it.
  Mr. MURPHY. I will tell the gentleman, perhaps, then, in view of 
that, I was not aware of that at subcommittee or at full committee 
because the amendment was in its original form. I would like and will 
discuss with the gentleman the possibility of some type of a review, 
but I would remind the gentleman that our committee, the committee on 
which we serve, we are charged with the responsibility of reviewing 
these acts and I, therefore, think we should be considered in meeting 
with this committee or be a part of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, next I would say that paying these committee members 
who someone else appoints, the Secretary of Labor or the President, 
they are going to be paid at a grade GS-18 level, that is a lot of 
money and we are going to be wrapping up a lot of money in the study 
that this Congress itself should be doing and I believe does do. They 
did it prior to the enactment of the first act in 1969, we have been 
doing it since then, we have been studying this measure now for 4 to 5 
years. We have found that many States do not compensate any of the 
disabled miners because they moved to their States following their 
disabilities.
  Again I would say I am not adverse to the concept but I must oppose 
the gentleman's amendment at this time because I do not think it is 
comprised in the right way and I think it is adding more dollars to it. 
By paying them to a GS-18 level, they will make as much as a 
Congressman.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. We have had studies as the gentleman 
suggests, I believe, we have had study after study and today we are 
looking at a massive, massive expansion of the current program.
  Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman is saying one more study would cure that?
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Yes, we need to take that last look to 
determine whether or not a temporary program, and it was to be a 
temporary program, should continue. We of course have spent an 
additional $195.5 billion, have we not, and I would urge that the body 
adopt the amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, at this point I am still reluctant to 
accept it, saying that one more study merely adds to the total cost of 
our program and may not solve it any more than all the studies we have 
had.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, in support of this particular 
amendment, I think it is good that we pause and look back to 1969 when 
the Black Lung Benefits Act was amended to another bill, and at that 
time that it was created, the idea was that the black lung fund would 
cease to exist as of December 30, 1976, and that it was temporary only 
until such time as the State workers' compensation laws would take 
over.
  Obviously, like many programs that we have created of a temporary 
nature, it grows into a behemoth and continues to gobble up taxpayers' 
funds to the point where, as we all know, we have a black lung fund 
which is indebted to the tune of $4 billion and will be getting further 
into debt.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to me that it is a bad idea, 
therefore, and I know that the unions and the coal association are 
discussing this right now, of how indeed we might be able to make that 
transition which was planned back in 1969 so that pneumoconiosis and 
respiratory diseases coming from coal dust would indeed be inculcated 
into the State workers' compensation laws.

                              {time}  1600

  I know in West Virginia they are, and in Pennsylvania they are, and 
in Kentucky they are, and in Illinois they are, and, indeed, a 
successful complainant can get more money under the State workmen's 
compensation laws in those States than he can from the Federal law.
  Someday we will actually make the transition and eliminate the 
Federal black lung law and merge it into the State worker compensation 
laws. There is nothing wrong with that, and we should not feel as 
though there is a challenge or to be frightened by the suggestion that 
we have a study on this. I think the unions would welcome it and the 
coal association.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell], the gentleman is correct in what he has stated.
  I was in the Pennsylvania Senate at the time that this was passed 
down here in 1971 in Pennsylvania. We amended our State workers' 
compensation law to include disabled miners into the program, and they 
have been benefited by that ever since.
  I again go back to say I do not object to a review of this, and 
perhaps sometime between now and conference committee the gentleman 
from Nebraska, myself, and the gentleman from Illinois can sit down and 
say how can we review this. My concern is that many miners have now 
migrated throughout the country, and I would want to retain some 
benefits for them.
  I think part of our study has to say, well, OK, if it is necessary to 
have a Federal program for some who are now living in Florida or 
California or somewhere else, these are the things we should be 
exploring. I just am reluctant to say that we will allow the Secretary 
of Labor to create this now and shift it all back to some States that 
may not be willing to accept the burden.
  That is why I respectfully oppose it. But I do say you have a point, 
and what you have stated is correct.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman, and I think that eventually that 
transition will be made by the various unions and the coal companies 
both of whom, I believe, rightfully think that the disability payments 
here are not what they should be, and that all respiratory illnesses, 
without any question, if they come from one's occupation, one ought to 
have an avenue within the State workmen's compensation laws to be able 
to utilize, and so I would think the Federal Government, and 
considering its record, would be glad to get out of this business, 
assuming that workers are going to be protected.
  But I think they can be protected when they are protected much better 
in the States of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and West Virginia 
with the laws they have right there than what we have in our Federal 
Black Lung Act.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania a quick question? In light of the very conciliatory nature 
of the gentleman's previous statements which are greatly appreciated, 
would he be willing to accept my amendment and then work it out in 
conference with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], between 
myself and yourself?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would rather work it out with you without 
accepting it into our deliberations and, in fact, I just whispered in 
my staff's ear to get hold of your staff person, whoever is in charge 
of this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The time of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. MURPHY and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fawell 
was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. MURPHY. If the gentleman will yield further, I will, regardless 
of whether you call for a vote or withdraw or do not, I would like to 
work that out, because I think we should properly review it. I just do 
not want it to cost us a lot of money. I do think that Members of 
Congress, and I will not be here, I think Members of Congress should be 
included in that study, because this is ultimately where the decision 
has to be made.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I appreciate the answer, and I appreciate 
the openness of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Barrett.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and Labor I opposed H.R. 
2108 in committee on the grounds that it is fiscally irresponsible--I 
continue to oppose it today for the same reasons.
  As we have mentioned before the Black Lung Benefits Act was intended 
to be a temporary program--with limited size, with limited duration, 
with limited cost, none of which have been followed through.
  The program, despite reforms, continues to escalate in cost, and 25 
years later, is hardly temporary.
  Today, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will 
increase costs under the black-lung benefits program by $195.5 million 
over 5 years--however this bill does not provide any increase in 
revenues to offset the increase in direct spending. This trust fund is 
already nearly $4 billion in debt.
  This program will continue to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars over the next 5 years.
  Coal mining families that had previously been overlooked by State 
laws have had a fair chance to obtain benefits under the Federal 
program.
  And in fact, the Department of Labor has reported that all workers' 
compensation laws in coal-mining States today afford higher benefits 
for total disability or death due to black-lung disease.
  So the time has come to take some action. This amendment would 
provide for an independent and impartial review of whether the Federal 
temporary black-lung program should be terminated.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 265, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               AYES--162

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--265

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blackwell
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gibbons
     Grandy
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Stokes
     Washington

                              {time}  1626

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  Mr. VALENTINE and Ms. SHEPHERD changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. boehner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner: Strike section 8 and 
     redesignate sections 9, 10, and 11 as sections 8, 9, and 10, 
     respectively.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the great thing about this country is that 
people who fail are often times given a second chance to succeed. In 
business, there is always another venture. In sports, there is always 
another game. However, the bill before us would give another chance to 
87,000 individuals who have had their black lung claims denied since 
1982. They will be able to refile their claims, as if their original 
claim had never been filed. While giving them another chance may sound 
all-American, it is in reality, fiscal and administrative nonsense. 
This is why I am offering this amendment to strike the refiling 
section.
  Many of the individuals who had their claims denied did not satisfy 
the medical criteria for black lung benefits. Under the provisions of 
this bill, these people, without having to show any change in their 
medical condition, will be able to refile their claims. Not only will 
the file from the previous claim be totally ignored, new rules of 
evidence will be in effect. For those who are unfamiliar with these new 
rules, let me briefly explain them to you. They allow the claimant to 
submit three medical exams, while the opposing party only gets to 
submit one exam. To top it all off, prevailing weight is to be given to 
the claimant's physician. I am hard pressed to figure out how we can 
tilt the playing field any more favorably toward the claimants.
  This refiling section is blatantly unfair. After legitimately losing 
a claim, we are going to give claimants another bite at the apple, and 
on much more favorable terms. In the end, the Congressional Budget 
Office estimates this section will cost the American taxpayer $42 
million--and this estimate does not include the new awards that will 
have to be paid out of the black lung trust fund or the ensuing 
administrative nightmare.
  We only need to look back to 1972 and 1977 to realize the financial 
implications of this section. In both years, rejected claimants were 
permitted to refile. In 1972, 70,000 claims ended up being reversed at 
a cost of $9 billion. In 1977, 60,000 claims ended up being reversed at 
a cost of $7.5 billion.
  There is also the issue of whether this section is necessary in the 
first place. Current law provides for a refiling of a claim if a 
claimant has new medical evidence or experiences a material change in 
their condition.
  Finally, I have received the administration's position on this bill. 
They have requested that this measure be limited to eight separate 
provisions. Allowing failed claimants to refile their claim is not 
among these provisions. In short, the administration's silence on this 
point speaks volumes about their position on this section.
  This section is unnecessary. Out of a sense of fairness, and fiscal 
and administrative sanity, I urge my colleagues' support of this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. As the 
debate throughout the course of today has shown on numerous occasions, 
the process through which these denied claimants have been put over the 
last decade or so has been horrendous. The black lung program has been 
administered in a fashion that has been aimed squarely at reducing the 
number of claims that have been approved.
  This amendment would say that people who in the past, who are victims 
of this horrendous journey, who are victims of this bureaucratic 
nightmare, cold and uncaring, could not come forth to seek a new day in 
court. These are claimants, mind you, that have been denied their 
benefits in the past by administrative shenanigans, by maneuverings 
that have been aimed solely at denying them their legitimate benefits.
  During a hearing on the black lung program conducted by the 
Subcommittee on Labor Standards several years ago in my hometown of 
Beckley, WV, one witness aptly described the current situation in this 
way, quoting from his testimony:

       Coal miners who were strong and vigorous workers have been 
     reduced by years of inhaling coal dust to broken bodies, to 
     strain for every breath. They are forced to go through 
     degrading, humiliating and seemingly endless contests in a 
     generally futile effort to obtain benefits and medical care, 
     a paltry compensation for the destruction of their health.

  Indeed, they have been humiliated. They have been subject to endless 
contests. They have been subject to maneuverings and lawyers and big 
company protests, and delays that have caused them only suffering of 
their health. Indeed, many of them have succumbed to death.
  So I say, let us defeat this amendment. Let us give these people a 
chance to be reviewed under a fair and just system, that levels the 
playing field, rather than the slanted, stilted system that has existed 
in the past.
  I urge defeat of the Boehner amendment.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if this is not deja vu all over again, I do not know 
what is. The previous speaker said that everything has been aimed at 
causing miners to go through all kinds of circumstances, and that the 
failure to have awards was due to the system.
  Yet in 1972, I do not know how many thousands of refilings were 
allowed. In 1977, 125,000 refilings were allowed; in 1995, another 
87,000. Ever since the Black Lung Benefits Act has been in being, it 
just has not delivered the bacon, and therefore we just refile and 
refile and refile. I have never known a system of justice that has done 
it like this.
  Still in 1977 it was done in spades, all kinds of presumptions, all 
kinds of restrictions. Everything in the world was done to be able to 
get victory for more and more awards. But for some reason it does not 
happen.
  We found out, unfortunately, in 1977, when there was no black lung 
fund debt, that, lo and behold, we created a monster. And by 1981, what 
did we have? $1.5 billion. We had all those refiled cases. And what 
happened? The insurance companies took a walk and said: ``We walk away 
from our workmen's comp policies. We didn't hire out to sell our 
policies on the basis we had to defend over and over again, just 
because the Congress doesn't like the results.''
  So they took a walk. And we found the responsible operators, coal 
operators, they had to self-insure. There was catastrophe. So bad, in 
fact, that unions and coal operators and the administration all got 
together and said ``Oh, my God, we have to do something. We have 
screwed this up so badly.'' And they came up with the reforms.
  They got rid of these presumptions. They got rid of these evidentiary 
restrictions. They transferred 12,000 cases from the operators over to 
the black lung fund, or else they would not have been able to even put 
the reform program through.
  Indeed, we finally did have some success in slowing the fantastic 
growth of debt. We did not stop it, because now the black lung fund is 
$4 billion and growing. So we know we still have to do something to 
control this bankrupt insurance company that we are operating.
  And what do we do? We say let us go to the future by going back to 
the 1970's. Do it in spades. Do it again. You have a different 
administration. They might even sign it. They might be dumb enough to 
sign it. But the administration is not that dumb. They are not 
endorsing what you are doing. They are saying no.

  OMB comes out and points out that the damage which is going to be 
done to the black lung fund, my friends, is more than just what they 
have estimated for the first 5 years, because the real avalanche comes 
in years 5, 6, 7, and on out to 19, 20, and 25 years. Under the 
actuarial studies that nobody has rebutted because of the absolute 
truth, for every case that is successful, and CBO says you are going to 
have 20,000 new awards, new successes, out of the 80,000 that can file, 
20,000 will hit the jackpot and win this time.

                              {time}  1640

  Ten thousand will be cases against the coal operators. Ten thousand 
will be against the black lung fund, the bankrupt black lung fund. That 
is going to be $225,000 per case, because it is a total disability for 
life.
  I know that we in Congress do not like to look at things like that, 
but do Members know what the coal operators will do? Do they know what 
the insurance companies will do? The will immediately take $125,000. 
They will put it in reserve, and that is how they are going to pay for 
this.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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, that is what sensible people will do. But 
sensible things we do not do in Congress. Workmen's comp insurers will 
put down $125,000, will invest it, and they know that as you go through 
the next 10, 20, 30 years or so, whatever it may be, you have got the 
money there to be able to give the help that you are planning to give.
  We do not do that. We just simply say, when the time comes, when the 
bills start rolling in, we will just borrow more from the taxpayers. So 
we can build a $4 billion fiasco into a $8 billion fiasco. That is what 
we are doing.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is hitting the very heart, the 
very heartbeat of this bill, which is special interests, unfortunately, 
and it is not doing any favors for the people who really have black 
lung disease.
  They have to prove it. They have to prove it. They have to have some 
doctors come in and show that they have respiratory illness that comes 
from coal dust, not from smoking or something like that. I would say, 
this is a must amendment. If we cannot vote for this, I do not know 
what we can do to help posterity in this country.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  As the great grandson and grandson of anthracite coal miners, I rise 
in strong opposition to the amendment and in strong support of the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1981, the scales were tipped against hard-working 
men who gave their health and in many cases their lives to fuel this 
country. Many deserving men have been denied benefits. Many deserving 
widows have been denied benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues today, do what is fair. That is 
what we are asking. We want to level the playing field. We want to give 
people a chance to hand in legitimate claims and have those claims 
awarded. We are not asking for illegitimate claims to be awarded. We 
are asking for legitimate claims to be awarded.
  I ask my colleagues, do what is right, allow for a fair hearing and 
allow people to go back to 1981, when the scales were tipped against 
them, and allow them a fair day in court and a fair hearing.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that this 
is a very sad day for me to be in the House of Representatives. I never 
thought I would hear on the floor of this House the kind of rhetoric 
that I have heard today.
  We ought to be ashamed. How can you stand up and talk about hitting 
the jackpot as if this were some kind of a lottery that you are going 
to have on the 6 o'clock news. These people are sick. These people are 
ill. And if they are hurt and they are Americans, we should be taking 
care of them.
  You do not mind spending billions of dollars, I heard you get up on 
this floor, many of you today that are voting against this, and say, 
let us give billions of dollars across the seas to our so-called allies 
who will not ever support us, our American fighting men and women. But 
you will not devote a dime to people that are dying.
  You talk about people getting $225,000 for total disability for life. 
$245,000, you think that is enough? Shame on you.
  It is a disgrace for you to be on the floor and say this kind of 
thing to us. And if you want to associate yourselves as Republicans, I 
am going to tell you, it is not the kind of Republicans I have been 
dealing with on so many of these issues. How can you stand there with 
people who are ill and dying and say to them and look in their faces 
and say, you are a statistic and you do not count in this Congress. You 
are not a good enough American to have the same kind of health care.
  I want to know how many of you have black lung disease? I want to 
know how many of you are going to stand up here and tell everybody else 
who has it that they are not eligible for this. You talk about 
posterity. What will the posterity be for these people who have it?
  I do not have anybody in my district with black lung disease, but by 
god, I am an American who is going to stand here and say to all of us, 
let us end this disgraceful debate. How can anybody be seeing us on 
this floor, watching us across the country and not weep with despair 
that the Congress of the United States would deny a single American in 
the situation that these people are in what we would give anybody who 
is in need.
  Jesus wept. Jesus wept, indeed, that we can have this kind of 
conversation today. End this disgraceful episode. Vote against this 
amendment, and let us vote through what these people deserve.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio. We ought to take a little look at the facts. 
It is great to get up with great emotion, and I understand and everyone 
in here is as caring as the gentleman who just spoke.
  If someone came from somewhere else and listened to that, they would 
say we have not done anything for people with black lung. We spend $30 
billion, and we continue to and we should. That is not the question. 
That is not the point.
  The point is to deal with the issues in a balanced way so that we can 
continue to do it, that we can pay our bills and that we can do these 
things.
  A Member can come up the next day and have the very same speech about 
some other group, if they have to find some way to do it levelly and 
balanced, and that is what we are seeking to do.
  This amendment deals with a particularly troublesome aspect of the 
legislation. Under this bill all claimants with black lung benefits 
would be given the opportunity to refile claims and have their cases 
reconsidered. This does not make sense.
  In addition, this bill throws out all the evidence compiled prior to 
this one on the claim and against the process from square one. How much 
sense does that make? How much sense does that make?
  Provisions in this bill allow for claimants to refile their claims, 
providing no better example of why this bill is a massive expansion of 
a Federal entitlement program that has already cost $30 billion, that 
is already $3.5 billion in the hole. That is where it is, and that is 
what we are trying to do here today, is to do something that is 
reasonable, to do something that we can pay for.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Hawaii made certainly 
an emotional appeal to all of us. Nothing that we are trying to do here 
is trying to deny legitimate black lung benefits to any American who 
has that disease.
  But I find it interesting that in 1972, we had to open up this 
program and allow people to re-file because not enough people were 
getting benefits under the program the way it was originally designed. 
And then in 1977, we opened up the program again and allowed everybody 
who had been denied a chance to re-file their claim. And here we are, 
again in 1994, wanting to go back for the last 13 years and say, if you 
have had your claim denied, we are going to let you have another bite 
at it under more liberalized rules.
  The fact is that we want to help those who legitimately have black 
lung, but what we do not want to do is to put the American taxpayer at 
risk for a pension program for people who live in coal areas that are 
disabled not from black lung but for a bunch of other reasons.
  It is that responsibility to the American taxpayers that some of us 
in this Chamber take very seriously and stand here today and say, this 
program brought here by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is going to 
cause abuse. And it is going to put American taxpayers at risk and 
those people who mine coal and their operators, also put them at risk.
  This amendment is a good amendment. It eliminates the re-filing which 
is the most onerous part of the bill that we have in front of us today.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and oppose the amendment and very seriously so.
  The gentleman from Ohio would have us believe that these ill, 
infirmed, and I mean, aged miners are committing fraud and deception 
and they are getting benefits for some other reason that 
pneumoconiosis, the destruction of their lungs.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. Chairman, we have specifically always had in the law, and we 
include in this bill, that any fraud and deception in the filing of 
these claims will eliminate all interim benefits, will eliminate all 
benefits and throw them out the door forever. I would not want Members 
to have our colleagues believe that any of these benefits have been 
granted where there is that type of fraud and deception. There is not, 
Mr. Chairman.
  What this amendment proposes to do is strike out the clause that 
merely says that a miner who has been denied benefits since 1981, and I 
will remind the gentleman that his party and his President in 1981 
stripped 97 percent of the eligible Black Lung recipients from their 
benefits in that reconciliation bill in 1981. I remember it well. Since 
that time, very, very few miners' claims have been approved.
  We do not say reexamine every claim, as we done in the 1972 act 
signed by President Nixon, as was done in the 1977 act signed by 
President Carter. We do not mandate that. We merely say that a miner 
who has been denied benefits since 1981, and we are not going back to 
1972, 1977, or 1969, only those who have been denied under the unfair 
rules that we have been operating with for the past 14 years, be 
allowed, just be allowed to fill out a lengthy form, submit it to the 
department, and say, ``Do I have it or not,'' under some fair rules 
where he may bring in an equal amount of medical evidence, where he may 
have an attorney that is at least paid a few dollars to represent him 
and help him fill out the forms.
  All we are asking is for a level playing field, and that those miners 
not have their claim automatically renewed; not 80,000 or all those 
figures they come up with. I will bet there will not be 8,000 to 10,000 
applications total nationwide. There are not that many left. We are 
talking about 14 years preceding this, none before, and only those in 
the 14 years. There were only 70,000 of them at that time who were 
eligible to file, so there cannot be that many of them left.
  We do not order a review, only that they have a right, Mr. Chairman, 
and the gentleman himself said that we give everybody a second chance; 
yes, everybody except a disabled miner.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  The question was taken; and the chairman 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 166, 
noes 258, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               AYES--166

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--258

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Grandy
     Hutto
     Lewis (FL)
     Markey
     McMillan
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Thomas (CA)
     Torres
     Washington

                              {time}  1713

  Ms. LAMBERT changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messers. BUYER, GUNDERSON, OXLEY, and SCHAEFER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. de 
la Garza) having assumed the chair, Mr. Wise, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2108) to make 
improvements in the Black Lung Benefits Act, pursuant to House 
Resolution 428, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by Mr. Fawell

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FAWELL. Yes, I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Fawell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2108 to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 166, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--252

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

                               NOES--166

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Dixon
     Emerson
     Grandy
     Hoke
     Lewis (FL)
     Livingston
     Markey
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Pomeroy
     Slattery
     Thomas (CA)
     Torres
     Washington

                              {time}  1734

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Slattery for, with Mr. Thomas of California against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Grandy against.
       Mr. Nadler for, with Mr. Lewis of Florida against.

  Mr. ZIMMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOAGLAND, FOGLIETTA, and HUGHES changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________