[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7277-H7287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                Amendment No. 131 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Griffith). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 131 printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 693, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 693, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 694, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 718, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that 
would increase funding for youth employment initiatives by $10 million.
  Michigan's unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, but for youth aged 16 to 
24, it is more than double that, over 11 percent. Young people face 
high unemployment, and the lack of opportunity to find meaning in the 
world of work has implications that go far beyond just those years that 
they might find meaningful employment.
  Investing in those young Americans ensures that they all do better. 
Providing those important employment

[[Page H7278]]

opportunities builds a strong foundation around the concept of hard 
work, and I know many Members support this effort. We just need to make 
sure that we find every opportunity that we can to make sure that every 
young person looking for an opportunity to earn a few dollars learns 
and, especially, understands the connection between their focus on work 
and the benefits that they will realize from that not only in terms of 
their own well-being, but the contributions they can make to their 
community.
  Just last month, I had an opportunity to visit a really great example 
about how youth employment can make a positive impact in my home 
community. I visited a community garden run by Greg Gaines, who employs 
Flint area youth in summer jobs. They learn to grow crops. They learn 
that hard work pays off. Over time, they see these crops come in that 
they sell at the local farmers market. Very few of them will work in 
agriculture, but they come to understand that some patience and some 
effort and the focus on showing up on time and doing a day's good work 
literally and figuratively will produce fruits that they can benefit 
from.
  So for 14- to 20-year-old kids in this program, obviously, it will 
make a difference in terms of the way their lives and their life 
trajectory goes forward, but it also sets a great example for their 
peers.
  This is just one of those things that we do in the Federal Government 
that is an investment in our future. It is an investment in the lives 
of these kids. It pays us back tenfold. We should support it with every 
dollar we can find, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying how much I, 
frankly, appreciate the gentleman's amendment.
  Many programs in this bill, frankly, were eliminated or substantially 
reduced to stay within the allocation, which, as I know my good friend 
knows, was $5 billion below the FY 2017 enacted level. Some other 
programs, including job training programs for youth, were reduced by 
relatively modest amounts, again, to stay within the allocation. The 
total amount in the bill for youth job training grants is $832 million, 
a reduction over last year of just 4.5 percent.
  While I support the job training grants and programs in question, I 
oppose the amendment out of concern that the offset to the Department 
of Labor's administration account will be too hard to absorb, including 
the administrative reductions already included in the bill.
  I will commit to my friend that we will try to work with him through 
the process and see if there is some way that we can get these funds 
restored going forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's comments. I 
understand the position he holds, and I do hope that we can work 
together, eventually, to make sure that this program is more fully 
funded.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the 
ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, appreciate the chairman's comments, 
and I do hope, during this process, we will respond to this important 
request.
  I rise in support of this amendment.
  The underlying bill cuts the Department of Labor's Youth Employment 
Program, which provides funding to all 50 States, by $42 million, a 
shortsighted proposal that ignores the needs of millions of young 
people.
  In the United States, there are roughly 5.5 million teenagers and 
young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 who are neither working nor 
in school. This translates to one in seven teens and young adults. The 
youth program helps prepare out-of-school and low-income youth in your 
communities for employment and postsecondary education. These youth 
represent extraordinary potential for our Nation's economy. Investing 
in them has a ripple effect on future generations of low-income 
children and families, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, a champion for this issue and many others.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, which would increase funding for youth employment activities 
under the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.
  As has been stated, about 5 million of our Nation's youth are both 
out of school and out of work, so we have a choice: Do we invest to 
help our youth get on a good path towards a good job, or do we pay 
considerably more later?
  We have to choose to invest now. This includes increased funding for 
youth employment activities that help out-of-school and out-of-work 
youth, and it helps fund summer jobs, on-the-job training, 
apprenticeship training, and others. The alternative is to pay much 
more later in incarceration, teen pregnancy, and public assistance. 
When we make these Federal investments now, we make investments in our 
communities, our Nation, and our shared future, and we save money in 
the future.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to join 
me in this. I think we all know of these individual cases where the 
life of a young person is changed permanently because of an experience 
that they had finding meaning in work.
  Again, as I said at the outset, my view is we should try to find 
every way we can to support including as many young people in that 
experience as possible. This amendment would do that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 133 Offered by Mr. Mitchell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 133 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 706, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,646,100)''.
       Page 706, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $17,560,000)''.
       Page 708, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,750,000)''.
       Page 708, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,112,900)''.
       Page 708, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,450,000)''.
       Page 708, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $11,437,700)''.
       Page 713, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $53,147,000)''.
       Page 715, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $35,997,500)''.
       Page 717, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $54,400,000)''.
       Page 718, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $27,253,900)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $29,288,100)''.
       Page 805, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $43,100,000)''.
       Page 812, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,173,700)''.
       Page 817, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $24,900,000)''.
       Page 856, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $351,216,900)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H7279]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces a dire fiscal situation. 
We have now reached our debt ceiling and are determining how to control 
spending while funding necessary programs.
  The path we are on is not sustainable. It jeopardizes our future, our 
children's future, and our national security. We must get our fiscal 
house in order and take this problem seriously.
  Paying lip service to the problem will not solve it. We must be 
responsible now before it is too late. The reality is that we can make 
cuts to the size and cost of our Federal Government without impacting 
essential programs. In fact, the right cuts will allow our economy to 
grow by stopping overeager bureaucrats who seem to believe everything 
should be regulated until it no longer functions.
  We in Congress need to be focused on growing and protecting Main 
Street, not protecting an already bloated Federal Government and 
bureaucracy. The amendment I propose today is simple. It makes a cut to 
the bureaucracy of several offices of division F relating to Labor, 
Health and Human Services. My amendment cuts funds from the same 
Department of Labor that gave us the overtime rule and the persuader 
rule. This is an agency of bureaucrats that wishes to legislate through 
regulation.
  My amendment puts forth a modest 10 percent reduction of 
administrative expenses, which would save taxpayers $351 million 
annually on Labor and HHS alone. Let me restate that: We can actually 
save $351 million annually by just cutting administrative costs.
  We, in fact, may well find the money to put the additional $10 
million into youth employment services if we cut our bureaucracy.
  I come from a world of privacy business, so I understand that fiscal 
responsibility starts on a small scale and requires commitment to 
changing the trend. My amendment, when combined with similar measures 
across all appropriations, will yield big savings to taxpayers, and 
will do so without cutting projects or essential programs that we hold 
dear.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider my amendment as 
we work to secure our fiscal future, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my friend for the 
amendment, quite frankly. And while I understand and share many of the 
gentleman's concerns, most of the accounts that this amendment reduces 
have already been reduced in the bill. The allocations we are working 
on required us to find efficiencies and savings wherever possible.
  I believe that cutting the administrative accounts in this amendment 
by another 10 percent would unnecessarily increase the risk of 
significant disruption of services, and oversight responsibility the 
agencies in this bill are charged with.
  While I oppose the amendment for these reasons, I want to pledge to 
my friend that I will continue to work with him and others to identify 
specific areas where additional efficiencies and savings can be 
realized. And I know my friend also feels strongly about entitlement 
reform, where the real money is, and I look forward to working with him 
on that as well.
  But in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I must urge the rejection of the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman, 
and, in fact, all of the appropriations efforts. In fact, this week we 
will pass a full set of appropriations bills out of the House to send 
to the Senate--something that has not happened here in a very long 
time, although I am new.
  The reality is that many of the cuts we have talked about thus far 
are cuts to the increases many agencies requested. I worked in the 
private sector where a cut meant you really spent less real dollars.
  Now, I believe there are a number of programs we need to be very 
careful of. Item by item would be the best way, but at some point in 
time, we need to draw a line. We can't continue spending what we are 
spending, and I hope that we are going to be fiscally responsible down 
the road.
  So I appreciate the chairman's comments. I worked very carefully with 
him, and, yes, I agree that entitlement reform is a huge issue and we 
have got to take it on. We need to amend the Budget Control Act. There 
are so many things we need to accomplish.
  I am going to support our appropriations package and continue to try 
and work to tweak those so we actually save money, and we are 
efficient, and we save programs that we hold dear that are productive.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of 
the full Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would truly 
decimate the ability of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education to meet the needs of Americans by 
indiscriminately transferring $351 million to the spending reduction 
account.
  This does nothing to improve the bill, which is already underfunded. 
The majority has imposed more than a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS 
bill below the 2017 omnibus level. Further cuts are completely 
unnecessary, and that is not all. The committee's allocation was 
approximately $5 billion below the nondefense level allowed under the 
Budget Control Act.
  We have the resources available, yet the majority refuses to allocate 
them to the essential programs funded through this bill.

  This amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. 
Simply put, it would force the agencies and our constituents to do less 
with less.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce 
funding by 10 percent for programs administered by all accounts in the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. By making it across the board, it makes 
it more difficult for the agencies to actually administer their 
programs, making it harder, if not impossible, for the government to 
protect its citizens by enforcing wage and protection laws, ensuring 
safe workplaces, ensuring education for students with disabilities, 
support for those with drug addictions.
  The bill, as the gentlewoman has already indicated, is already 
underfunded, and this would just make matters worse.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we defeat this amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 134 Offered by Mr. Pocan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 134 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 706, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,400,000)''.
       Page 708, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 708, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,976,000)''.
       Page 708, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,051,000)''.
       Page 713, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,317,000)''.
       Page 715, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,841,000)''.
       Page 718, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $59,625,000)'' ``(decreased by $7,865,000)''.
       Page 740, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $51,901,000)''.
       Page 805, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $112,060,000)''.
       Page 817, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,224,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman

[[Page H7280]]

from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I am doing this on behalf of Ms. DeLauro. As 
we know, her mother passed this weekend, and she is in our thoughts.
  Mr. Chairman, this also incorporates two other amendments that we 
would have otherwise taken up separately under my name, but they are 
all-inclusive in here. So let me talk about what the amendment does.
  This amendment would restore funding to worker protection programs to 
keep to the fiscal year 2017 levels. The bill, as it stands, has a cut 
of $59 million to worker protection agencies, including a cut of $21 
million to OSHA, the elimination of the Susan Harwood training grants, 
and a cut of $14 million to the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
  This is the lowest budget OSHA has seen since 2009. We need OSHA. It 
saves lives. Since 1970, occupational deaths have been cut in half, 
saving over 80 million lives. But there is plenty of work left to do.
  Last year alone, 4,800 workers were killed on the job, and over 3 
million were seriously injured. An average of 15 workers die every day 
from job injuries, costing U.S. businesses over $170 billion.
  The proposed budget would further reduce enforcement personnel by 140 
investigators. That is 2,318 fewer workplace investigations. In 
addition, in the bill under consideration, safety training grants to 
reach workers in the highest risk jobs are eliminated, despite being a 
core OSHA program through every administration, Republican and 
Democrat, since 1978.
  OSHA has only enough funding to inspect every workplace under its 
jurisdiction every 159 years. Why would this bill eliminate funding for 
Susan Harwood training grants that protect and educate workers in the 
most dangerous jobs?
  This program costs less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Department 
of Labor's budget. This cut is irresponsible and reckless. We cannot 
cut NIOSH occupational health research, the primary Federal agency that 
conducts research to prevent work-related illness and injury. This 
research is a critical defense against tragedy. We must fund MSHA to 
keep our Nation's mines safe. There is too much on the line to neglect 
this sector.
  This amendment would restore funding to the Bureau of International 
Labor Affairs, which is tasked with enforcing labor provisions of free 
trade agreements that are intended to protect American workers.
  Finally, this amendment would restore funding to the National Labor 
Relations Board, which protects the rights of workers under the 
National Labor Relations Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying how much I regret--
I know my friend regrets that our good friend wasn't here to offer her 
amendment here this evening, and I appreciate my good friend from 
Wisconsin stepping up and doing that. He is a very valued member of 
this subcommittee, and one who contributes mightily to its 
deliberations.
  I certainly understand the concern of some with the relatively modest 
reductions in this bill at labor enforcement agencies at the Department 
of Labor. It has been the subcommittee's policy for many years to 
protect workers' health and safety by increasing funding for compliance 
assistance, and reducing enforcement activities. That is exactly what 
this bill actually does.
  I appreciate that the subcommittee has had to reduce funding for many 
programs in the bill to work within its allocation. My concern with 
this amendment is the substantial offset of the department management 
funds at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education.
  Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that I have been an 
employer for nearly 30 years; and on behalf of the vast majority of 
employers who have very responsible workplaces and care for their 
workers and take care of their workers, it is the irresponsible 
businesses that hurt all of the other businesses.
  When we don't inspect companies that could have workplace violations, 
when we can only get around every 159 years to every workplace that is 
under the jurisdiction, when we don't enforce wage laws, we hurt the 
responsible businesses in this country, and that is why it is important 
to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 135 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 136 Offered by Mr. Sablan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 136 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 713, line 4, after the dollar amount insert: 
     ``(increased by $500,000) (decreased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. My amendment moves a small amount of 
money within the OSHA bureaucracy in order to put enforcement Federal 
boots on the ground in the Pacific region where my district, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, is.

                              {time}  1730

  Some of you may know that the Northern Mariana Islands are in a 
transition from overreliance on foreign workers to an economy that is 
predominantly U.S. workers. As part of that transition effort, last 
month the House passed and the President signed into law an increase in 
the fee that is used to train U.S. workers to replace foreign workers. 
At the end of this month, minimum wage goes up bringing us within 20 
cents of the U.S. minimum wage, $7.05 an hour. These changes are all 
part of the strategy to make the workplace more accessible and 
attractive to U.S. workers who are still on the sidelines unemployed.
  There is one more small but important move we can make: assure these 
potential U.S. workers that job sites are safe. We are fortunate to 
have lots of investment in the resort industry in the Northern Mariana 
Islands right now. Hotels are going up, and waterlines are being laid. 
I imagine some Members have had a first job working construction, so 
they know there are inherent dangers on a construction site. Frankly, 
we have already had accidents.
  Now every State has an OSHA office. There is an OSHA office in 
Honolulu, but that is 4,000 miles away from my district, and we have no 
Federal safety officer on duty in the Northern Mariana Islands. We need 
a real Federal presence--boots on the ground--that will assure U.S. 
workers that if they get a job working construction, the workplace is 
safe. As I say, this is one more element in the strategy to put U.S. 
workers into jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I 
agree that worker safety is one of the

[[Page H7281]]

Department of Labor's most important functions. I think, however, we 
just disagree on the most effective ways the Federal Government can 
help with that effort. This bill actually increases compliance 
assistance programs at the OSHA to do just that, so I will oppose the 
gentleman's amendment which would offset the increases to OSHA 
enforcement by reducing critical compliance assistance efforts that 
many of our Members strongly support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, this is moving money. We have enough money 
for compliance education. The problem is that it is like having driver 
education knowing that the next sheriff is 4,000 miles away--you are 
not going to get caught driving. We need Federal boots on the ground.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in support of Mr. 
Sablan's amendment which would improve enforcement of workplace safety 
standards in the territories. I would note that, adjusted for 
inflation, OSHA's enforcement budget has been cut by more than 20 
percent since 2010, and OSHA's safety inspections declined by more than 
20 percent during that time.
  It is a sad commentary that we are placing less value on an American 
worker's safety at the workplace than we did a decade ago. We should be 
supporting workplace safety in the territories, and we should be 
supporting workplace safety in the 50 States as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Sablan's amendment.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I ask my 
friends and my colleagues to please support this lifesaving amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mitchell). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. 
Sablan).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 137 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 138 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 138 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 717, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,064,000)''.
       Page 718, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,064,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to increase funding for the 
Women's Bureau within the Department of Labor by slightly more than $1 
million and would decrease funding for the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 
Prices and Cost of Living Division by the same amount.
  This increase would restore the proposed cut the underlying bill 
would make to DOL's Women's Bureau while still allowing the BLS Prices 
and Cost of Living Division to be funded at almost $3.5 million above 
the current enacted funding level and more than half a million dollars 
over the President's request for the coming fiscal year.
  For those who might be unaware, the Women's Bureau within the 
Department of Labor conducts research to help departmental agencies 
develop policies that advance the interests of working women. It plans 
and executes research and advises other agencies on the structure and 
implementation of a wide range of worker programs.
  Unfortunately, the President's budget request for next fiscal year 
sought to cut more than three-quarters of the existing staff within the 
Bureau as well as almost $9 million. Thankfully, this bill does better 
than the request. My simple hope is that we can go one small step 
further and fund this program next year at the level it is currently 
funded at. That is all my amendment seeks to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support funding for the Women's Bureau within 
the Department of Labor at existing funding levels while offsetting 
this change with funds in a manner that still permits the BLS Prices 
and Cost of Living Division to be funded almost $3.5 million above the 
current enacted level and almost half a million above the President's 
request.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman from 
Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and 
I certainty support the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor.
  Many programs in this bill were eliminated or substantially reduced 
to stay within our allocation. In contrast, the Women's Bureau was 
reduced by a relatively modest $1 million. The administration budget 
request proposed reducing the Women's Bureau by $8.5 million, clearly a 
reduction the committee did not agree with in the bill.
  I understand the importance of many of these programs, and these are 
some of the difficult decisions that have to be made to fund bipartisan 
priorities in this bill like increases in funding to the NIH and to 
TRIO and yet still stay within our allocation. I expect and hope that 
as the process moves forward and we negotiate a bipartisan funding 
agreement, we will have further discussions regarding the funding of 
the Women's Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret having to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment 
at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the importance of the 
Department of Labor Women's Bureau. I believe that our government, 
especially, should have whatever advice, suggestions, and research that 
is needed to help all departmental agencies develop policies that 
further advance the interests of working women. Women currently in our 
country make, on average, 77 cents to every dollar that a man makes, 
and that amount is even lower for women of color. This Bureau would 
work on issues surrounding equal pay, employment rights of pregnant 
women and women who are breastfeeding in the workplace, paid family 
leave, and apprenticeships for women and women of color.
  These are important issues, and our government needs to do better, 
and I believe Members of both parties should care about this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend Ms. 
Meng's amendment which would restore the Women's Bureau to its FY 2017 
funding level. Women now comprise almost half of the Nation's 
workforce, and their contributions are vital to the country's economic 
prosperity. But there continue to be barriers to women's full and equal 
participation in many careers and industries. Women continue to earn 
less than men in the same positions, which means the research and 
policy advocacy supported by the Women's Bureau continues to be as 
important as ever.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Meng's amendment.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge support for this amendment. My 
amendment simply seeks to fund this program next year at the level it 
is currently funded at.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 139 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 139 
printed in House Report 115-297.

[[Page H7282]]

  

  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 717, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1)(decreased by $1)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment highlights the need to think 
about our future workforce and how it will change because of technology 
and to encourage the Bureau of Labor Statistics to accept a wider and 
more forward-looking range of inputs into its range of projections for 
its workforce of the future.
  I co-chair the New Democrat Coalition Future of Work Task Force with 
my colleagues, Congressman Seth Moulton and Congressman Jared Polis. 
Congressman Jim Himes, the chair of the New Dem Coalition, has been 
active in the task force work and joins me in cosponsoring this 
amendment today.
  Over the course of several months, the task force has held a series 
of forums to hear from experts on various areas that will require this 
body's attention in the coming years and decades. We have heard from 
historians, economists, and policy experts about how technological 
revolutions of the past have impacted social and political institutions 
and how lessons from those experiences and from current conditions can 
help us prepare for the future.
  We have also heard from labor and business leaders who are pioneering 
the way they attract talent, retain their services, and develop skills 
for the increasingly rapidly change economy. It is nearly unanimous 
among our experts that the economy will change significantly and change 
faster, but it is less clear just how quickly the workforce will need 
to adapt.
  For decades, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been doing excellent 
and invaluable work to track our labor trends, and its projections have 
been proven very reliable and useful--to business and to our 
educators--in times of slower and relatively predictable technological 
development.
  However, they are based on historical data and historical trends, and 
some of the anticipated changes in technology--such as robotics, self-
driving vehicles, and artificial intelligence--could fundamentally 
change our economy in ways that haven't been seen before. So, in its 
current form, the way the Bureau calculates and estimates future 
development of the workforce may not be able to capture the dramatic 
changes that our future holds.
  One panel convened by the task force suggested that it would be 
impossible to do projections in any single way to predict the 
workforce, but that, with additional resources, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics could model for a variety of scenarios of different rates of 
technological change in different areas.
  My amendment increases the BLS account by a dollar and decreases it 
by a dollar, and I intend it to mean that the BLS should submit to 
Congress an estimate of the resources it would need to make a range of 
forward-looking estimates, including consultation with those industries 
that are driving this rapid technological change and those that will be 
affected by that change to account for the increasing rate of 
technological job displacement.
  It is hard to estimate by backward-looking extrapolations how the 
changes from self-driving cars and vehicles or artificial intelligence 
will affect the real jobs of the future.
  Technological changes in the workforce are not new. The industrial 
revolution and the automation of agriculture transformed the way work 
was performed in our country and significantly improved, on the whole, 
our standard of living over time.

                              {time}  1745

  The results have not been uniform for all communities and all 
populations. Those transformations typically played out over 
generations, so our social and political institutions had ample time to 
respond. But today, development and deployment of technology is far 
more rapid, and Congress, business, and our educational system need the 
best possible data to evaluate policy proposals and to produce the 
workforce training needed for future employees and to develop 
educational curricula to ensure that our economy works for everyone.
  Like in the industrial revolution, technological development presents 
the opportunity for a greatly improved standard of living, but it will 
also bring challenges to our workforce. Businesses, communities, and 
the government must work together.
  Additional considerations in the projections made by the BLS will 
help Congress to anticipate these changes and to weigh proposed 
solutions. Objective projections based on empirical evidence are 
crucial to a debate that will be based on our different views of the 
role of government and its relationship with market forces. Those are 
the differences that should shape our ideas for helping Americans enjoy 
prosperous and full lives in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on my amendment to 
begin to establish a range of scenarios for the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics and the future world that we will inhabit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not object to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment has no net impact 
on the funding of the bill, so I do not oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 141 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 141 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), and I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 734, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support 
my amendment, which simply increases funding for the Behavioral Health 
Workforce and Training program by $5 million. This is a reasonable show 
of support for this important program, which saw its funding cut in 
half in this bill.
  The Behavioral Health Workforce and Training program supports 
education and training for careers in behavioral health at institutions 
of higher education and through professional and paraprofessional 
training programs, with a focus on rural and medically underserved 
communities. This program was created as part of the 21st Century Cures 
Act in response to the significant nationwide shortage of behavioral 
health providers.
  According to SAMHSA, 55 percent of U.S. counties do not have a 
practicing behavioral health provider, and 77 percent of counties 
reported unmet behavioral health needs. These statistics would be 
alarming at any time, but they are particularly concerning in the midst 
of a national opioid epidemic.
  A 2016 Surgeon General's Report found that only 10 percent of people 
with a substance abuse disorder receive any type of specialty 
treatment. Additionally, 60 percent of adults with a mental illness 
didn't receive mental health services in the previous year.
  This lack of access to services has severe consequences for the 
individuals seeking treatment, their families, and

[[Page H7283]]

our communities. When they don't have access to treatment, individuals 
with behavioral health needs receive a whole different set of services. 
Jails and sometimes emergency rooms become the de facto behavioral 
health system.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to make this important investment in 
the behavioral health workforce, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York, representing 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico, raises a very important point.
  The amendment offered is for an increase to a workforce training 
program. Our committee understands the value of this program, which is 
why we did not accept the administration's budget request which 
actually terminated the program. We were able to fund it, though, below 
last year's level.
  Our committee received an allocation that was lower than fiscal year 
2017, and as I have explained several times before and doubtless will 
again, we had to make some very tough decisions. I do pledge to work 
with the gentlewoman as we work toward the fiscal year 2018 final bill. 
At this time, though, I must oppose the amendment and urge its 
rejection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 142 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 142 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 734, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to increase funding for 
HRSA's Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program by $4 million, 
restoring program funding to the current enacted level.
  I am thankful to the chairman for the funding amount already provided 
for in this bill, but I am hopeful that we can go one step further and 
fully fund this program again in the coming fiscal year.
  The Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program improves healthcare for 
older Americans by providing clinical training opportunities to 
students, medical faculty and providers, direct service workers, 
patients, families, and caregivers that integrate geriatric and primary 
care delivery systems.
  In the 2015-2016 academic year, grantees provided training to 18,451 
students and fellows participating in a variety of geriatrics-focused 
degree programs, field placements, and fellowships. Of these trainees, 
11,824 graduated or completed their training during the most recent 
academic year, and grantees partnered with 365 hospitals, long-term 
care facilities, and academic institutions to provide clinical training 
experiences to trainees.
  America's population is aging, and it is imperative that new 
generations of healthcare professionals and providers have the skills 
needed to care for older Americans. Every person in this Chamber at 
some point in their life will wish their healthcare provider had this 
training. I hope we will all recognize that fact today and do what is 
prudent.
  I hope we will unanimously support this amendment, plan for the 
future healthcare of our Nation, and restore funding to the HRSA 
Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program account.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, there is considerable merit to the 
amendment the gentlewoman is suggesting.
  The amendment offered is for an increase to the workforce training 
program. Our committee understands the value of this program, which is 
why we did not accept the administration's budget request, which 
terminated the program. We were able to fund it, though, below last 
year's level. However, I will certainly commit to my friend that we 
will work with her as we go through the process toward the final bill, 
and hopefully we can find a way to increase this at a later time.
  At this time, however, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, again, this amendment requires that the program 
be fully funded. I do look forward to working with the chairman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 145 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 145 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 735, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $24,800,000)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $24,800,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment that I have 
offered to increase funding for the very successful Healthy Start 
program, adding $24.8 million to match the President's funding request.
  The Healthy Start program helps infants start out life with the 
support they need to grow into successful adults. It provides prenatal 
care, basic health needs, and promotes positive parenting practices for 
thousands of children.
  It is especially important to the people of my hometown, as I 
mentioned before, and many other communities trying to work through 
exposure to high levels of lead, which is a neurotoxin. Of course, we 
know there is no cure, but the way we treat and the support we provide 
these youngsters often gives them a chance to overcome these sorts of 
developmental hurdles. Healthy Start is a critical way to do that by 
helping infants and their families mitigate the effects of that lead 
exposure.
  Flint's ongoing process brought to light the nationwide issues that 
we face in drinking water. People are more aware of these issues and 
the impacts they can have on families. So it is incumbent upon us to do 
everything we can not just to repair the damage, but to actually help 
those who are struggling to get through these sorts of developmental 
challenges.
  Healthy Start is a proven program. It does that. It is one of the 
reasons that I essentially take the same position that President Trump 
is taking: we should have a greater investment in Healthy Start. I 
don't often find myself in that position, but in this case, I am 
willing to assert that on this floor.
  Early childhood education gives kids, regardless of their 
socioeconomic background, a chance. I think it is our duty to give 
every child a fair chance to succeed. That is what this amendment is 
intended to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his amendment. 
I wish I could support it, quite frankly, because I very much support 
Healthy Start and very much appreciate his support for that program.

[[Page H7284]]

  As the gentleman knows, again, our subcommittee received an 
allocation below last year's level. As a result, we did not have the 
ability to increase funding for some programs, this one included.
  The gentleman's amendment offsets the increase with a reduction in 
the resources for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry 
out his responsibilities. A reduction of this size would hinder the 
Secretary's ability to administer the program effectively. For this 
reason, I oppose the amendment.
  I want to assure my friend, as we work our way through this process, 
I am going to try and work with him to see if we can find a way to 
actually increase those funds, but at this point, we simply don't have 
them available.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, again, I would just encourage my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  I do appreciate very much my friend from Oklahoma's sincere support 
for the effort. Let's hope that the amendment passes. If it does not, I 
do look forward to working with him in order to ensure that every child 
who could potentially benefit from this program does, in fact, have 
that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1800


                Amendment No. 149 Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 149 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 740, line 7, insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 740, line 8, insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 744, line 7, insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 746, line 12, insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 756, line 21, insert ``(decreased by $120,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
redirects $120 million from CMS overhead spending, which is a 3\1/2\ 
percent reduction, towards increasing funding in three specific areas: 
$40 million for pediatric research, $40 million for Alzheimer's 
research, and $40 million to address our country's opioid crisis.
  The approval of this amendment will motivate CMS to modify its 
current punitive bureaucratic culture. Today, hardworking American 
families are demanding that their government find competent solutions 
for a struggling healthcare system, and CMS' failure to properly 
implement the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act of 2012--or the 
TEST Act, as it is more commonly known--is a notable example of 
bureaucratic incompetence.
  American families expect the Federal Government to work with 
healthcare providers, not against them, to ensure the efficient 
delivery of healthcare.
  In 2012, the TEST Act was passed and signed into law due to the 
mandatory and harsh sanctions that CMS was then imposing on hospitals 
and labs that violated the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments 
Act--or CLIA, for short.
  While CLIA regulations are necessary, in some instances, the 
sanctions that CMS imposed against hospitals and laboratories at the 
time that inadvertently violated the statute were found to be draconian 
and at odds with the efficient delivery of healthcare.
  At the time the TEST Act was considered in 2012, Congress determined 
that there were instances where a hospital or laboratory's violations 
were accidental, unintentional, and resulted in no patient harm.
  At the time, CMS lacked the flexibility to align the severity of the 
sanctions for minor and inadvertent actions at the lab, resulting in 
needless punitive penalties, such as revoking lab certificates and 
banning principals from owning or operating certified laboratories.
  The TEST Act was passed in 2012 to provide CMS with needed discretion 
to substitute reasonable alternative sanctions in the event of minor or 
inadvertent violations. In lieu of the previously mandatory sanctions, 
the TEST Act allowed more appropriate remedies like directed plans of 
action, onsite monitoring, and/or modest monetary penalties.
  Yet, despite being given this mandate and this flexibility, CMS has 
written its regulations and interpreted the underlying statute in a way 
that are clearly at odds with Congress' intent in the TEST Act. There 
are serious impacts when CMS fails to use their congressionally 
mandated discretionary authority to issue appropriate sanctions.
  Healthcare providers are forced to divert scarce resources to severe 
penalties, to oppressive settlements, and/or to a costly appeals 
process. These would not be needed if CMS had properly implemented the 
TEST Act. This diverts scarce resources from patient care to dealing 
with an out-of-control CMS, and negatively impacts healthcare in our 
communities.
  I have seen this firsthand in my district where a nonprofit faith-
based community hospital committed an unintentional CLIA violation that 
resulted in no patient harm. The hospital then self-reported that 
violation, as we would expect any healthcare provider to do.
  This hospital is my community's only level II trauma center and 
provides a significant amount of uncompensated care to the lower income 
population, including minority families. Yet, rather than working 
collaboratively with the hospital, CMS ignored the TEST Act and, 
instead, imposed crippling sanctions and forced the hospital to engage 
in a burdensome appeals process.
  This action will cost this important community resource over $100 
million per year. This arbitrary unwarranted action by CMS forces the 
hospital to divert finite resources toward an unnecessary bureaucratic 
process instead of taking care of patients.
  CMS needs to change its implementation of the TEST Act to follow the 
law. In the meantime, my amendment sends a message that this is not how 
we expect our Federal Government to act in a time when we are 
articulating a new vision for building a better American healthcare 
system.
  This amendment does this by reducing CMS spending on bureaucracy by 
$120 million and directing those funds toward true solutions for better 
healthcare by finding cures for pediatric cancer, Alzheimer's, and 
opioid abuse.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have considerable sympathy with my friend's 
concerns. Frankly, I think he has certainly every right to be concerned 
about a hospital in his district. I certainly agree with an effort to 
put additional funding for the opioid epidemic, for pediatric cancer, 
and for Alzheimer's disease. These are all critical issues facing our 
country.
  Nevertheless, I must oppose the amendment. The bill actually includes 
$126 million within the CDC for surveillance and prevention of opioid 
misuse, which continues the large increase provided in fiscal year 
2017. The bill also provides a $1.1 billion increase for the National 
Institutes of Health, which includes a targeted increase of $400 
million for research on Alzheimer's disease, as well as increases for 
each institute center, including the National

[[Page H7285]]

Cancer Institute, to support vital research on disease such as 
pediatric cancer.
  Furthermore, the bill also continues to provide funds authorized in 
the 21st Century Cures Act, including $300 million for the Cancer 
Moonshot, and $500 million for opioid abuse.
  Finally, the reduction of funding at CMS proposed by my friend would 
weaken the agency's ability to properly manage and administer Medicare 
and Medicaid. So for that reason, I must oppose my friend's amendment.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, the bottom line is that hardworking American 
families are tired of having unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats 
ignore congressional intent when implementing legislation such as the 
important TEST Act.
  We must send a message to CMS today. Now is the time to right this 
wrong. In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to 
cut CMS by 3\1/2\ percent, $120 million, and to increase research 
funding for pediatric cancer, for Alzheimer's, and for opioid 
treatment. This amendment is a win-win amendment for American 
healthcare.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment. I strongly support additional funding for the CDC, the 
National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute on Aging. I have 
spent my time in Congress fighting for those agencies.
  In fact, over the past 2 years, Democrats on the Labor-HHS 
Subcommittee have worked closely with Chairman Tom Cole to increase the 
NIH budgets by $2 billion annually, and I hope we are able to do it 
again this year.
  But this amendment is fundamentally flawed because it slashes $120 
million from the CMS Program Management. Keep in mind that the CMS 
Program Management account is already cut by a $524 million in the 
underlying bill. That is a 13 percent cut. This amendment would 
increase that cut to more than 16 percent.
  According to HHS, over 143 million Americans will rely on programs 
administered by CMS, including Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the 
Federal health insurance exchanges.
  Why would my colleagues in the majority support more than $600 
million in cuts to the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs?
  Slashing their administrative budgets by 16 percent is certain to 
harm services that impact Americans on a daily basis. These cuts will 
directly harm America's seniors, the blind, low- and middle-income 
families, children with disabilities, and Americans with chronic 
conditions like end-stage renal disease, as well as pregnant mothers 
and newborns.
  CMS programs face historic growth in the years to come. A cut of $644 
million to its administrative budget would open up the program to 
mismanagement, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 150 Offered by Ms. Tenney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 150 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 741, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $14,000,000)''.
       Page 763, line 3, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 764, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
increase funding to the Community Services Block Grant program. I am 
proud to represent the 22nd District of New York, a once thriving hub 
of innovation and manufacturing. My district has suffered the fate of 
too many Rust Belt communities.
  Against the backdrop of crushing taxes and soaring costs, it is 
harder than ever for my constituents to find good-paying jobs that 
match their skills. A tragic result of this lack of opportunity has 
been increasing poverty, especially among our most vulnerable 
populations.
  In addition to supporting commonsense pro-growth policies in Congress 
to reduce regulations and encourage innovation, programs like the 
Community Services Block Grant play a vitally important role in 
fulfilling the unmet needs of our neighbors.
  CSBG funding directly supports programs aimed at reducing poverty and 
assisting low-income individuals, the homeless, and the elderly. It 
allows States and community action agencies in each of our districts 
the flexibility to improve living conditions, increase self-
sufficiency, and foster strong family support systems.
  In my district, the Mohawk Valley Community Action Agency in Utica 
has received more than $640,000 from the CSBG program, which they have 
used to support Head Start programming that promotes early childhood 
development, and the Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps 
seniors meet ever-rising energy costs in the very cold Northeast.
  All told, the CSBG program accounts for more than $55 million in 
financial assistance to New York State funding, which touches the lives 
of more than 705,000 New Yorkers. This number includes more than 46,000 
individuals with disabilities and more than 317,000 children in my 
district. Cuts to this program will have a disproportionate impact on 
some of the most at-risk and forgotten constituents in our district.
  I am grateful that this committee has recognized the importance of 
this program, and I am especially thankful for Chairman Cole's 
leadership on this issue. The committee has expressed a willingness to 
work with me to ensure that the final appropriations bill worked out in 
conference includes robust funding for this CSBG program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for working 
with us on this, and I want to assure that we will work with her. I 
appreciate her concern for the Community Services Block Grant program. 
As my good friend from New York knows, that program was actually zeroed 
out in the administration's budget. We replaced $600 million of $715 
million, but it clearly is an important program to many Members on both 
sides of the aisle, has a superb reputation, and we are going to do 
everything that we possibly can to build upon that and get back to at 
least the fiscal year 2017 level.
  The gentlewoman's leadership in this is greatly appreciated, and we 
look forward to working with her as we go forward.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, because of Chairman Cole's great 
willingness to work with and help the truly needy people in our 
communities, I am going to be withdrawing my amendment this evening. I 
look forward to working with Chairman Cole as we move forward in this 
process, and I just want to say thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 152 Offered by Mr. Nolan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 152 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 744, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,819,000)''.

[[Page H7286]]

       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,819,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Lung 
Cancer Caucus, I want to first express my appreciation for allowing my 
amendment to be made here in order and for the work of the committee.
  Make no mistake, these extra funds that are in my measure, the $3.8 
million for cancer research at the National Cancer Institute, are 
urging that it be spent on lung cancer, in particular. Those extra 
funds will make an enormous difference in battling lung cancer, which 
is, as you all know, the most deadly of all the cancers.

                              {time}  1815

  As many of you know, my daughter, Katherine, was diagnosed with stage 
IV nonsmoking small cell lung cancer almost 2 years ago. Thanks to 
medical research and the daily prayers of so many of my colleagues here 
in the House, Katherine is still with us.
  But like so many thousands of others, she is still courageously and 
desperately fighting for her future. We can provide those people with 
some real hope and support for their determination through additional 
research dollars that are so desperately needed.
  As you know--or may not know--we have made little or no progress in 
the last 20 years in combating lung cancer. There is still a survival 
rate of something less than 1 or 2 percent.
  But make no mistake, the money that this committee and this Congress 
and this House has provided for research not just in cancer, but many 
of the other fields, has played a critically important role in 
increasing our life expectancies--played the lead role in increasing 
our life expectancies in this country. In my grandfather's time it was 
47, and now it is almost 80.
  But one of the areas where we just haven't been able to make any 
progress at all is in lung cancer research. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to support this modest request for a modest amount of money 
to be added to helping us make some progress in lung cancer research in 
the way that we have done for so many other forms of the disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise my friend we certainly 
intend to accept his amendment, and I look forward to working with him 
as we go forward on the bill. I think there are some other areas where 
we can increase funding, as well, that would fit with my friend's 
objective.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I express my thanks and gratitude, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 154 Offered by Ms. Clark of Massachusetts

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 154 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I offer amendment No. 154.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 751, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $231,330,000)''.
       Page 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $219,620,000)''.
       Page 805, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $11,710,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
restore funding for the mental health programs cut in this bill. 
Specifically, it would reverse the $142 million in cuts to SAMHSA's 
mental health block grant and restore funding for Project AWARE State 
grants and Healthy Transitions, which were both eliminated in the 
underlying bill.
  For so long, mental health issues were relegated to the shadows, 
approached with the shame and misunderstanding that only exacerbates 
pain for people and their families; but today, we know how widespread 
these issues are, and we need to approach them without stigma and treat 
them the same way we would treat other illnesses.
  According to Mental Health America, one in five adults has a mental 
health condition, yet more than half of Americans with a mental illness 
receive no treatment. Many families without health coverage or whose 
coverage will not cover mental health or recovery programs rely on 
services funded by SAMHSA's mental health block grant. This amendment 
would restore those funds.
  This amendment also restores funding for Project AWARE and the 
Healthy Transitions grant program, which were created in the aftermath 
of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which took the lives of 6 adults and 
20 beautiful children. In response to this tragedy, the administration 
and Congress came together to support several new programs to help 
communities identify and treat behavioral disorders.
  The Project AWARE program, often referred to as a mental health first 
aid, seeks to increase awareness of mental health issues among our 
children, train teachers and other school staff to identify and respond 
to mental health issues, and connect children to the appropriate 
behavioral health services.
  The Healthy Transitions program improves access to treatment and 
support services for young adults with serious mental health 
conditions.
  Together, we can make our communities more welcoming, compassionate, 
and safe for everyone, and restoring this funding is an essential part 
of that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern. She 
is a very valuable member of the subcommittee. This is an area in which 
she not only has considerable passion, but considerable expertise. 
However, as the gentlewoman also knows, we have an allocation well 
below last year's level, and we had to make, again, a difficult 
decision.
  Reduction of this magnitude of the Health and Human Services' 
administrative functions would eliminate the core funding for the 
Secretary's office completely, and for that reason I would oppose the 
amendment.
  However, I want the gentlewoman and, certainly, our good mutual 
friend from Connecticut whom she is representing tonight to know that, 
as we work with our colleagues in the Senate on a bill to reach the 
President's desk, I intend to work on these issues with her and with my 
friends on both sides of the aisle to address the concerns that she 
raised in her remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page H7287]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Olson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Acting 
Chair 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. 3354) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2018, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________