[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7291-H7310]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3354.
Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1922
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
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, with Mr. Mitchell (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 156 printed in House Report 155-297, offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 158 Offered by Ms. Bonamici
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 158
printed in House Report 115-297.
Ms. BONAMICI. 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 767, line 24, insert ``(increased by $51,000,000'')
after the dollar amount.
Page 770, line 18, insert ``(reduced by $64,000,000'')
after the 1st dollar amount.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
increase funding for senior nutrition programs under title III of the
Older Americans Act. My amendment funds these programs at levels
authorized by the House just last year.
We are in the middle of an unprecedented demographic shift as this
country ages. The population of older adults is growing faster than at
any point in history. As we grow older, we all want people across the
country to be able to age with dignity, health, and independence in
their own homes and communities for as long as possible.
For more than 50 years, the Older Americans Act has supported
community-based providers that reach more than 11 million seniors and
caregivers annually in each and every one of our districts providing
person-centered assistance to help people age in place. These critical
OAA services include home-delivered and congregate meals to make sure
that older adults are getting the nutrition needed to keep them healthy
and engaged, which reduces the risk of falls, depression, and other
negative outcomes.
Just a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining dedicated
volunteers to deliver Meals on Wheels to seniors in northwest Oregon. I
highly recommend this to my colleagues. You can see firsthand the value
of these programs and how important these meals and visits are to our
constituents who rely on them.
The Older Americans Act also covers transportation to get older
adults to the doctor, the grocery store, or even to a local senior
center to engage with friends and avoid isolation. The OAA funds
critical disaster assistance response efforts for seniors and
communities like those just devastated by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Unfortunately, funding for the Older Americans Act has drastically
lagged behind the growth in the older adult population, the increasing
need for services, and the rising cost of delivering these supports.
This stagnant and, in some areas, eroding Federal investment in OAA
programs costs us more in the long term. When seniors can't stay
healthy at home, they end up in hospitals paid for by Medicare or in
institutional long-term care, often funded by Medicaid. Both are far
more expensive than adequate investments in the Older Americans Act to
keep seniors healthy at home for as long as possible.
Support for the Older American Act is strongly bipartisan. Last year,
Congress voted without opposition to reauthorize the Older Americans
Act, a bill that included modest increases in authorized funding
levels.
Unfortunately, annual appropriations still fall woefully short of
these
[[Page H7292]]
amounts we clearly and firmly approved. This amendment will increase
funding for core OAA programs delivered through title III--which
include critical nutrition, home- and community-based support, and
caregiver services--to the amounts that were just so broadly supported
last year.
These investments in OAA are necessary if we are to provide the
person-centered, cost-effective in-home services and supports needed to
keep our expanding older population healthy and independent in their
homes and communities. This amendment is an essential first step toward
rectifying the recent depletion of these important funds for these
vital programs.
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 appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for
programs that support vulnerable seniors. Frankly, my committee has
provided increases for these programs in prior years because, like her,
we understand how valuable and important they are to keeping seniors
independent in their homes.
As the gentlewoman knows, our subcommittee received an allocation
below last year's level, and we were not in a position to provide
another year of increases to these programs. The amendment reduces the
administration funds available to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. A reduction of this magnitude would significantly hinder the
Secretary's ability to administer the agency.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the Education and
the Workforce Committee, and is someone who understands the importance
of these investments.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms.
Bonamici, the vice ranking member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee, for offering the amendment and for her leadership on issues
affecting older Americans.
The Older Americans Act was first passed 50 years ago as part of
Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. It helps older Americans live with
dignity and stay connected with their communities. I am proud that last
year we were able to pass a 3-year bipartisan reauthorization that
increased funding for the programs. But had our investments in these
programs actually kept up with inflation and growing populations, the
authorization levels would have been even much more. But, thankfully,
the reauthorization moved us in the right direction.
This amendment would bring funding for supportive services, nutrition
programs, and caregiver supports in line with the authorized level.
Even though these are not fully adequate to address the total need, it
is another step in the right direction. So I support the amendment and
our commitment to older Americans. We can maintain that commitment by
adopting this amendment, so I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, may I please inquire as to the remaining
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), who serves on the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for
introducing this amendment. I rise in support of it.
We have to really let our seniors know that we care about them. My
mother passed away a couple of years ago. She was 90 years old. I
recognized personally the importance of comprehensive services to
ensure that our seniors have a quality of life that they so deserve in
their senior years. This also helps taxpayers and families avoid paying
for more expensive healthcare and long-term care services.
So I thank the gentlewoman again on behalf of our constituents. This
will strengthen our communities, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
important amendment that is a good investment to save in the long term
and take care of our seniors.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1930
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 160 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 160
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 770, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides
$2 million in dedicated funding for peer support and paraprofessionals
as part of the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training
program.
Ensuring all Americans have access to affordable and high-quality
mental health services should not be a partisan issue. It is simply the
right thing to do.
The purpose of the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training
program, which this amendment funds, is to add additional training to
serve populations especially in rural and medically underserved areas.
The BHWET program helps close the gap in access to behavioral
healthcare by establishing partnerships with a broad range of
organizations and community partners to ensure a wide recruitment of
students, opportunities for field placements, career development, and
to provide job placement services.
These efforts will increase the number of able behavorial health
providers serving populations across their lifespan, including persons
in rural, medically underserved, and vulnerable communities.
Peer support has improved health outcomes while lowering healthcare
costs. In fact, there is growing evidence that peer support-related
strategies can be used as more engaging and successful solutions than
current hospital and emergency room care-related options. Peer support
programs provide individualized, managed care to those who need it the
most.
Many studies have shown the vast benefits to patients who utilize
peer support. For example, a 3-year pilot project called the Peer
Health Navigation Intervention, or ``The Bridge,'' showed that peer
support, in addition to a variety of other positive outcomes, shifted
the focus of healthcare from urgent care and emergency room visits to
outpatient primary care.
Furthermore, many studies have shown the potential cost savings that
the increased implementation of peer support can deliver. A 2006 study
demonstrated that, for patients using day treatment, the use of
certified peer specialists led to a $5,497 cost reduction per person
per year.
Another successful program based out of Denver, Colorado, showed a
return on investment of $2.28 for every dollar spent. As evidenced by
these and other studies, a small investment in peer support services
will greatly reduce healthcare costs in the long run.
The current system for treating behavioral health issues is not
sufficient to serve those who need help. It is unacceptable that more
than 50 percent of primary care patients with depression go undiagnosed
and two-thirds of primary care providers have no ability to prescribe
outpatient behavioral health for their patients.
Additionally, dedicated funding for peer support paraprofessionals
will be essential in helping address the current lack of access to
behavioral health services in our healthcare system.
[[Page H7293]]
This modest amount of funding for a community-based partnership
program will make an enormous difference for millions of Americans who
deserve access to behavioral health services, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He
raises, I think, a genuinely important issue.
Our committee understands the value of the Behavioral Health
Workforce Education and Training program, which is why we did not
accept the administration's budget request which actually canceled the
program.
Our committee, as my friend knows, received an allocation that was
lower than fiscal year 2017, so we had to make some tough decisions. I
want my friend to know we will work with him going forward and see if
we can arrive at a solution that he finds more satisfactory in the
final bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much
time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Lujan's
amendment, and I want to thank him for this.
I shared earlier that I, by profession, am a psychiatric social
worker. I actually founded a community mental health center. It was
called Change, Incorporated.
As part of this community mental health center, we had a program.
That program was to train individuals in peer support. This was in the
day. I can tell you what Mr. Lujan has said about the goals and the
successes of peer support services. It can't be overstated. This
amendment would close this shortage in services for individuals who
need them.
As chair of the Social Work Caucus, again, psychologists, psychiatric
social workers, and clinical social workers agree that peer support for
individuals who may or may not have earned an advanced degree is
extremely important because they can understand and they know what the
needs of their clients are. Studies have shown that peer support
services help to reduce emergency room visits by individuals suffering
from depression.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I know from personal
experience that it works. It is a cost-saving measure, and it really
helps people suffering from mental illness. We should really recognize
the need out there. It is still great, even as I reflect upon my
community mental health center, Change, Incorporated.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, 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 New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 New Mexico
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 161 Offered by Mrs. Lowey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 161
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), 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 794, line 15, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 794, line 15, after the second dollar amount insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 794, line 19, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 805, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $100,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, nearly 1.7 million children, including more
than 87,000 in my home State of New York, rely on afterschool programs
supported through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers to
provide a safe, enriching environment to learn. Yet this bill would cut
funding for afterschool programs, leaving tens of thousands of students
without educational programs as well as drug and violence prevention
counseling, arts, music, recreation, and more.
We should invest more, not less, in our children. This amendment
would restore funding to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
program so our students can have access to the safe afterschool
enrichment they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my 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 thank the gentlewoman for the amendment and
for working with our good friend who couldn't be here tonight to make
sure that this issue that I know she cares deeply about and I know my
friend cares deeply about is raised.
I tell the gentlewoman that I will continue work with her as we move
forward in the appropriations process this year. I hope we can reach an
agreement, particularly in this area.
I understand the gentlelady's frustration with finding a large enough
offset to accommodate the increase she proposes. However, her amendment
would actually reduce resources for the Department of Education by
nearly a quarter. I think this would jeopardize the Department's
ability to administer the very program she seeks to increase.
So I will reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time. I believe
the offset within the Department of Education administrative account is
just simply too much.
Again, I want to reiterate to my friend that I look forward to
working with her as we go forward and perhaps receiving a different
allocation under a House-Senate agreement in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind and
thoughtful words about afterschool programs.
There are over 18 million children whose parents want to take
advantage of afterschool programs, but they lack access in the area
where they live. That is why we work to fund our national network of
afterschool programs through the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers initiative.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I just want to
say to the distinguished chair that I appreciate his positive comments
about this program. I look forward to a better allocation as the
process moves forward, and I look forward to having him and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in supporting this very
important program.
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 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to point something out. I am glad
I have a chance to speak on this amendment.
When I was growing up, I spent a lot of time before school, a lot of
time after school, and a lot of time in summer school being supervised
by my parents. They did a great job.
I think before we fall all over ourselves to make sure the government
is the one supervising people all the time, we ought to remember it is
good to educate the public that parents are responsible for a little of
this as well, and nobody loves their kids like their parents.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
[[Page H7294]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me.
Again, I look forward to working with him and the other members of our
committee as we expand the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the distinguished gentleman who spoke
before, I grew up in the Bronx, New York. I was fortunate to have my
mother not working at the time. She was able to supervise me. I had
many wonderful play dates.
I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman, in my community
where this program is so essential, many of these people are working
two, three jobs. The mother is working two or three jobs; the father is
working two or three jobs. For some of these families, there is only
one parent.
Perhaps you can come visit my district. I would like you to come to
Port Chester, New York. This was one of the first afterschool programs
I was fortunate to be able to support with this account. I would love
you to come and visit and see what these programs do, which is provide
important support for their parents who want to help and want to be
supportive of their children, but sometimes these jobs do stand in the
way.
These programs are so very important, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in providing more
funding.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, having yielded to people on both sides of the
debate, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. 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.
{time} 1945
Amendment No. 164 Offered by Mr. Courtney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 164
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, 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 796, line 5, insert after the dollar amount ``
``(reduced by $1,184,000) (increased by $1,184,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, this, I think, is a very modest amendment,
which just simply seeks to restore a cut to the existing 2017 level of
support for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, which is a program
which has been around for quite a while. It actually was reauthorized
in the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which was a great bipartisan
success for K-12 education.
And again, this program provides support for magnet schools all
across the country. There are 4,340 magnet schools in the U.S. 3.5
million students benefit from magnet programs, which again, are
administered by local school districts and utilize a variety of
academic themes such as STEM, Language Immersion, Career and Technical
Education, Visual and Performing Arts, just to name a few.
Again, it is a strategy which also provides a regional structure to
the student population and promotes diversity. It has done great things
in terms of Connecticut in terms of ending racial isolation. Again,
unfortunately, the magnet schools have sort of seen a steady sort of
decline from 10 years ago in terms of Federal support for it, and this
amendment really is just basically saying enough. I mean, we should,
again, restore an amount, which I indicated is very modest, of $1.1
million to this account, and offset and paid for.
And again, I think it just will allow a lot of school districts and
communities to continue the great work that they are doing with magnet
programs.
I want to conclude my initial remarks by, again, thanking the
chairman and also Congresswoman Lee for their kind remarks about my
colleague and neighbor from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, who lost her
mother, Luisa DeLauro, a 103-year-old amazing woman.
We all marvel at Rosa's energy and passion, but if you have ever met
Luisa, you would understand where it came from because she was an
amazing woman, just a great inspiration for her daughter who, I think,
made her so proud in terms of the great work that she has done in the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, 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 the gentleman, quite
sincerely, for his amendment. And again, as I will oft repeat tonight,
as the gentleman knows, we had to cut $5 billion from this bill, and we
had to make some genuinely tough choices.
In this case, we accepted the President's recommended funding level
for magnet schools, and we were also able to increase charter schools,
though not by as much as the President requested. Charter schools have
demonstrated effectiveness in providing a real choice in quality
education for millions of students around the country.
If we have a change in our allocation in conference, I will gladly
take another look at the magnet school program to evaluate additional
funding there. I think my friend makes a very good case on their
behalf; however, at this time, simply because of reasons of allocation,
I will oppose the amendment because the offset reduces charter school
grants, which I strongly support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering
this amendment, and I rise in strong support of it. It restores funding
to the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
Now, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the data shows that
many schools and communities continue to suffer from the vestiges of
segregation and that many of our Nation's largest school districts
remain starkly segregated along racial and economic lines.
Now, I just have to say, when I started elementary school, schools
were segregated in El Paso, Texas. Sixty years later, now, it is really
something. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. This
amendment, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program--the amendment helps
assist school districts in promoting desegregation long overdue.
I am glad that we increased this program in fiscal 2017 omnibus by $1
million. That additional funding was intended to allow the program to
increase the total number of grantees. I was disappointed to see that
the majority took a step back from the progress that we had made and
imposed a cut to this program in the underlying bill.
Why in the world would the majority not want to see school
segregation ended? This amendment certainly leads us in that direction,
and I strongly support it, and I hope you would reconsider your
opposition because many of us remember those days.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my friend about charter schools.
Actually, charter schools have provided enormous opportunity for
children of every race, every ethnic background. They have been
particularly effective, I think, in minority areas, so I reject any
suggestion that the decisions we made had anything to do with race or
racism or that the charter school movement is involved in that. I just
don't think that is the case.
But I do agree in the importance of magnet schools, and if we get a
different allocation, we are going to sit down and work with our
friends to see
[[Page H7295]]
if we can also make some progress in that area. But at this time, I am
going to continue to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have left.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania). The gentleman from
Connecticut has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, again, briefly, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments. I would just note, though, if you go back 10 years ago, the
disparity between charter school funding at the Federal level versus
magnet schools was two to one in favor of charters.
We are at a point today where, with this budget, it will be four to
one in terms of disparity between the two. I would acknowledge the
gentleman's comments that there are some areas where charter schools
have provided great benefits, but there is no question that, in terms
of breaking down racial isolation, magnet schools have a much better
batting average, and that has been studied and reported over the years.
My daughter attended a magnet school in the Hartford area, and again,
with a totally diverse population, and again, it is probably the most
highly rated high school, secondary school, in the State of
Connecticut, according to U.S. News and World Report.
So again, the quality of magnet schools, I think, are high in the
record in terms of their goal, which is to break down racial isolation.
I think it surpasses charter schools.
This amendment would leave a 7.7 percent increase in funding for
charter schools. It is not an attack on charter school funding. It just
simply restores last year's level of spending for magnet schools, a
very modest measure.
And again, I look forward, hopefully, to working with the gentleman,
but I really believe strongly that this is not asking too much to
protect magnet school funding, and that is why I would ask the Chamber
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my friend I certainly don't take the
amendment as an attack on charter schools any more than I accept the
idea that, by funding charter schools, we are involved in promoting
racial segregation. That is not what we are trying to do here. We have
a genuine debate over the best vehicles to go forward.
I happen to think both these vehicles are good vehicles. I have seen
what the charter school movement, frankly, has meant in New Orleans,
what it has meant in this city, the opportunities that it has opened to
thousands and thousands of students of all racial backgrounds.
And the administration, as my friend knows, has put a particular
emphasis here. And while we increase funding, we are not anywhere close
to what the administration wanted to do. So I want to reiterate to my
friend from Connecticut that we intend to work with him if we have an
allocation change where we can find some additional resources, because
I think he makes a very good point, and I very much value the
contributions that magnet schools also have made to try to improve
educational outcomes across the spectrum for our students.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COURTNEY. 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 Connecticut
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 165 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 167 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 167
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. 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 801, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $70,246,000)''.
Page 802, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $70,246,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is facing a skills
gap, a student completion crisis at both the high school and college
levels, and record levels of student debt. The status quo is
unacceptable. We must do better for our students by truly supporting
career and technical education as a pathway to success.
CTE has been shown to dramatically increase high school graduation
rates, increase postsecondary access, and, most importantly, get
students to a degree and a well paying career. More than 75 percent of
CTE concentrators pursued postsecondary education shortly after high
school, and four out of five students earned a credential or were
enrolled 2 years later.
Dual enrollment allows high school CTE students to earn college
credit and significantly increase their likelihood of pursuing and
completing college, all the while saving their families money.
The key is that CTE students often don't need an extensive 4-year
education, as many attend a great 2-year technical college and then
head right into the workplace with little debt and skills to excel.
We must fight this narrative--one some of my colleagues are still
pushing--that a 2-year technical degree is a lesser educational option.
This way of thinking is simply harmful to our Nation's students and our
Nation.
My amendment increases funding for CTE State grants by $70 million,
transferring the funding from an increase to TRIO and GEAR UP. It does
not cut funding to TRIO and GEAR UP but continues funding these
programs at fiscal year 2017 levels, the highest funding levels in
program history.
The TRIO and GEAR UP programs received significant funding increases
over the past decade, including a $50 million increase in 2017, leaving
the programs with proposed funding $230 million above their 2007 level.
Instead of an increase for TRIO and GEAR UP this next fiscal year, my
amendment makes an overdue investment in career and technical education
and in our Nation's students.
Mr. Chairman, 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 from
Minnesota for the amendment. I am a big fan of career and technical
education, and, frankly, along with the State of Ohio, Oklahoma
probably has the most robust and strongest career technical education
program of any State in the country. It is actually something we fund
ourselves, for the most part. I would recommend other people do the
same.
I am also, you know, frankly, as my friend knows, dealing with a cut
of $5 billion from the bill. In this case, the gentleman seeks to cut
TRIO funding to pay for his amendment. In my opinion, it is totally
misguided.
Since the TRIO program began, it has produced over 5 million college
graduates, and those college graduates were almost exclusively from
families where no one had ever had the opportunity to go.
This is a proven successful program. It has helped literally millions
of first generations of college students, so I strongly support TRIO
and will not support cuts in this program; so I, therefore, oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
increase funding for current technical education programs. For some
people, pursuing their desired career means securing a college degree.
In my 30-year career in workforce education, I have seen firsthand
this
[[Page H7296]]
isn't the right path for everyone. Unfortunately, too often, success
has been defined by the 4-year-or-bust model, leaving students who
would be better served by current technical education behind, out in
the cold, and leaving job creators unable to find qualified workers for
in-demand jobs.
{time} 2000
Democrats and Republicans agree that the skills gap is a serious
problem challenging our workforce. More importantly, my constituents,
schools, and employers throughout my district recognize this is a
crisis that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for yielding me time.
While this amendment increases career and technical education
funding, a worthy goal that I support, it comes at the expense of
funding for critical higher education programs that support low-income
and minority students.
Career and technical education funds help ensure students are well
prepared for further education employment in high-skilled, high-demand
jobs in the 21st century economy.
In days before the election, President Trump, in reference to CTE,
said: ``We're going to start it up big league.''
Secretary DeVos, a few months ago, said: `` . . . this administration
is committed to supporting and highlighting career and technical
education.''
Despite these promises, the Trump-DeVos budget cuts CTE by $168
million, or 15 percent.
I am glad to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
proposing to increase our investment in this critical area, but I am
deeply concerned that the amendment proposes to slash $70 million in
funding.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have 30 seconds, so I will give any
listeners a suggestion.
I suggest you spend some time at your local tech school or your local
trade school and ask the people who teach there how many of their
students are former 4-year students who cannot find a job in the field
in which they thought.
These people can have a family-supporting job 8 or 9 years earlier if
they are directed to a technical education or a trade school. They will
be supporting their families and be able to do that when they are 21 or
22 rather than 31 or 32.
You will learn a lot if you talk to your local tech school or trade
school.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take money from important college
access programs, GEAR UP and TRIO, and use it to increase important
funding for career and technical education. Because of the way the
amendment is drafted, it would also jeopardize funding for minority-
serving institutions to be used to increase that funding. This
amendment reduces funding for programs meant to improve college access
for low-income students.
First of all, whether it is CTE or TRIO, all of these programs don't
have enough money. One should not be stripped for the sake of another.
By lifting one program that leads to one opportunity over neglecting
another that leads to another opportunity, you limit the choice of
future life outcomes at a time when members of the next generation
should be able to choose the best opportunity for them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment
and try to fund both more robustly.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mitchell). The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, as the co-chair of the bipartisan
Congressional TRIO Caucus, I find this amendment, which would cut $60
million in funding from TRIO educational services that assist veterans
and low-income and first-generation college students, deeply disturbing
and misaligned with our national economic interests.
It sends the misguided message that only university education is
unnecessary for low-income students. You know, just get a little job
training and go straight to work.
I might make the observation that I don't see anybody over there who
has less than a bachelor's degree, and I know my good friend has a law
degree.
While career and technical education is very, very important, low-
income students and our country's economic viability deserve the option
of educating some of our students at a 4-year-degree level.
For us to maintain hegemony in the world, we need people like Steve
Jobs, who was not a trust fund baby, who was not a legacy kid, but
someone who had the talent and ability. We need to provide opportunity
to the larger pool of talent in our country in order to be able to
create the next iPhone.
I will give you a really good example, Mr. Chairman. There is a
student who happens to live in southeastern Minnesota. As a matter of
fact, he lives in the Second Congressional District. He was once a
homeless student living in poverty, but he participated in a TRIO
program at a university in Minnesota's Second District. Now, as a
graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, he is the founder of a
biomedical startup company with the mission of launching technology to
innovate a disease diagnostic tool that has been found to be cost
effective and will be utilized worldwide.
Hunter Lin could not have benefited from just a 2-year degree. TRIO
has given him the chance to get not only out of homelessness, but the
ability to really create economic prosperity in our country.
In Minnesota's Second Congressional District, there are 1,521 TRIO
students being served at four institutions, including two community
colleges.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from the Education and
the Workforce Committee, Mr. Lewis, for offering this amendment.
At a time when U.S. job openings are at a record 6.2 million, America
faces a skills shortage. Employers all over the country tell us they
need more employees who are skilled.
I have said this before, and I will say it again for so long as I am
here: All education is career education.
I am a former TRIO director. I am not opposed to TRIO.
This is not an effort to diminish access to baccalaureate degrees,
but to give priority to programs that are helping Americans learn the
skills they need for good, high-paying jobs.
Research has shown that graduates with a technical or applied
sciences associate's degree outearn baccalaureate degree holders by
between $2,000 and $11,000.
Earlier this year, the House passed the Strengthening Career and
Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. That bill and this
amendment are important steps to make sure all Americans have access to
an education that helps them develop the skills they need to have a
successful life.
I am proud to support this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate to see some
of my colleagues claim that career and technical education is somehow
the separate or lesser pathway to a 4-year college degree. These claims
are neither factual nor are they very genuine. CTE promotes college
access, with 91 percent of high school graduates who earn a 2- to 3-
year CTE credit going on to enroll in college.
When partisan politics gets injected into workforce development
policy, it is students across the Nation who lose. I can tell you that,
throughout the Second District, I have employers and students dying for
these opportunities from all backgrounds.
The current bill leaves CTE State grants with funding $60 million
below
[[Page H7297]]
what they received 10 years ago, while TRIO receives funding $110
million above both its authorized level and what the program received
just 2 years ago.
My amendment supports all of our students and their diverse ambitions
and affirms career and technical education as a viable pathway to
success.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our
students are waiting for it, our employers are waiting for it, and our
country is waiting for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been a good and robust debate, but I don't think it has been a
particularly partisan debate. As a matter of fact, I see people on both
sides of the aisle that actually have both solutions. My friend, Mr.
Scott, may have the best solution of all: let's plus-up both of these
programs because they both do a lot of good.
But, in this case, I don't think you make one the enemy of the other.
I have seen TRIO programs work, and I have seen how many jobs they
produce. We are not serving anywhere close to the population eligible
for TRIO. Somewhere less than 10 percent of the eligible students
actually take advantage of the program.
Again, my State invests very heavily, probably more heavily than most
other States that I would suggest do the same thing Ohio and Oklahoma
have done. And these programs which my friend rightly champions, I have
seen people actually raise their own taxes so they could have a career
or technical institute.
So I think there is merit to both of these approaches. But I do also
think 5 million college graduates from people who did not have the
chance to go is something this country ought to think about. The
statistics tell us each of those graduates in a lifetime earn $1
million more than they would have. I promise you, the Federal
Government will get its share of that million dollars.
This is a program that has paid for itself over and over again.
Perhaps as we go forward, we can find other ways to help both of these
programs capitalize on their potential.
So while I agree with the objective my friend is trying to achieve, I
don't agree in achieving it at the expense of TRIO or GEAR UP.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, 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. Lewis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 168 Offered by Mr. Grothman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 168
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GROTHMAN. 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 802, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $33,954,220)''.
Page 805, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $8,620,000)''.
Page 806, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $1,185,120)''.
Page 856, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $43,759,340)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of an amendment to reduce funding by 2 percent for
the Department of Education's Office of Program Administration,
Inspector General, and Student Aid Administration.
I say this because, even a month ago, it was apparent that when we
wind up doing the appropriations bill or an omnibus bill or wherever we
are, we are probably going to be borrowing about 14 percent of that
budget. Then in the last month, we have had two hurricanes hit America,
and we have already set aside another $15 billion.
I want to remind people here that we are approaching $20 trillion in
debt--$60,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. If you
have a family of four, they are $240,000 in debt.
I think given those numbers, every Congressman, when they look at
this appropriation document, ought to make as their primary goal
spending less money. And again, we are borrowing like 14 percent.
When I was a State legislator, I dealt several times with people from
the Department of Education; and, honestly, the few times I dealt with
them, I never felt that their positions or what they were doing helped
anybody at all. It looked like they almost had too many people there.
So I think a small reduction of 2 percent is something that we should
all be supportive of, make a little bit of a dent on that deficit and a
little bit of a dent on that huge sea of money we voted for--including
myself--working its way towards Florida and Texas.
Mr. Chairman, 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, the gentleman from Wisconsin is a good
friend. We serve on the Budget Committee together, and, frankly, I know
how sincere his concern about the issues that he lays out is. I know
how hard he fought on that committee, and oftentimes we were unlikely
allies in a number of places.
{time} 2015
So I know this is a passion and a sincere commitment. I remind my
friend, he knows I know he would have preferred more, but this bill is
$5 billion less than it was last year. He certainly had some success,
and success that I agree with, but in this particular case, if I
understand the gentleman's amendment correctly, it would basically cut
education administration by $43 million, a roughly 10 percent cut
across the board in the administrative areas.
Or is it just a 2 percent cut in everything?
Mr. GROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. No. It is a 2 percent cut in administration, inspector
general, and student aid.
Mr. COLE. Okay. But substantial reductions, and in programs that have
already been cut. So for that reason, I would oppose my friend's
additional cuts, but I would hope to work with him going forward in
something that I know he knows is a far greater driver of our debt, and
that is entitlement reform. That is where the money is.
We end up fighting every year over discretionary accounts that are
relatively minor compared to the behemoths of Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, and the other so-called mandatory programs. They
are only mandatory because Congress doesn't have the courage to pick up
the law and actually deal with them. So I am going to work with my
friend in that area because I know he is sincere.
In this case, I feel compelled to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I think we have had enough debate, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, one of the agencies affected by this amendment is the
Department of Education's Office of Inspector General that is
responsible for conducting independent and objective audits and
investigations. It is through this agency that we can review offices
like the Federal Student Aid office, and Congress can learn about
policies and practices that need to be improved. It was just last March
that the OIG investigated that department and found that Congress needs
to do more to
[[Page H7298]]
monitor colleges with unstable finances in order to protect students
and taxpayers from abrupt school closures.
Any cuts to this agency will reduce the chances that such findings
will be made, and reduce consumer protections. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would
decimate the ability of the Department of Education to meet the needs
of Americans by indiscriminately transferring $44 million to the
spending reduction account. This does nothing to improve the bill,
which is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut
to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level. Further cuts are
completely unnecessary.
That is not all. This $5 billion is also below the nondefense levels
allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available,
but the majority refuses to allocate them to essential programs funded
through this bill. The Department will simply have to do less with
less. That is not good for the American people, and it is not good for
our constituents.
A Department with fewer resources to oversee the Student Aid
portfolio, and as Mr. Scott pointed out, the Office of Inspector
General's ability to promote efficiencies within the Department and
investigate fraud, will be hampered.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GROTHMAN. 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 169 printed in House
Report 115-297.
Amendment No. 170 Offered by Mr. Grothman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 170
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, 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 817, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $99,000,000)''.
Page 856, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $99,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which will reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board by $99
million in fiscal year 2018. Since its inception, the NLRB has served
as a partisan board that flips in ideology from one administration to
the next, often cutting businesses off at the knees and stifling
economic growth.
In just the last 8 years of the Obama administration, the NLRB
managed to overturn a total of 4,105 collective years of precedent in
90 cases. In cases such as the ambush election rule and the joint
employer rule, the board significantly overstepped their bounds and
dipped their hands into the day-to-day business operations of
hardworking Americans.
Now, let me be clear: I am not here to attack the unions. I wish more
people would join unions under the amendment that we just dealt with. I
believe that employees should have the right to join a union if they
think that joining a union is best for them and their family. But the
fact remains, since 1990, the NLRB has received 65 percent fewer
election petitions and 40 percent fewer unfair labor practice charges.
Meanwhile, while private sector labor representation has decreased in
the last 25 years, the NLRB's budget has increased in inflation-
adjusted dollars by close to $50 million.
My amendment would implement a necessary reduction to the NLRB, which
will bring their funding in line with their expected workload for the
upcoming fiscal year. Specifically, my amendment saves taxpayers close
to $100 million in the upcoming fiscal year and provides private
industry with relief that the NLRB will have to focus on the most
pressing cases that arise rather than engaging in partisan witch hunts.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment, which would cut the NLRB's budget by nearly $100
million below the House bill, which is already $25 million below the
fiscal year 2017 level.
Under this amendment, the NLRB would be required to furlough 1,500
employees for at least 140 days. That means 1,500 employees across 26
States would be unpaid for nearly 5 months. As a result, the NLRB would
develop a backlog of 10,000 to 12,000 cases, which would indefinitely
delay the resolution of pending cases of unfair labor practices.
Perhaps my colleagues don't realize that most of the NLRB's work is
not controversial. At the regional level, about 21,000 charges are
filed every year, and 95 percent of those charges are dismissed or
resolved within 60 to 70 days after an investigation of facts. In other
words, 19 out of 20 charges filed are resolved without litigation.
For charges at the regional level, 90 percent of the cases with
probable merit are settled, which means they are resolved without
needing to be heard before the NLRB's five-member board.
For cases taken to the board, about 70 percent of the decisions are
unanimous, meaning they are bipartisan. That is how the process is
supposed to work.
Why would we cripple an agency that is tasked with enforcing Federal
labor laws? Does the majority believe that labor laws should not be
enforced? Should a worker who is unlawfully fired for exercising their
rights be met with a sign on the door that says, ``Closed. Will reopen
in 5 months''?
Closing the NLRB for 5 months would exacerbate disputes between
employers and employees, and create a harmful disruption to our
economy.
Mr. Chair, I urge that we reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, as my colleagues have made clear, this amendment would
impose a 45 percent cut on the NLRB budget. The NLRB would expect that
these cuts could lead to the closure of regional offices in 17 States,
but it is really the American workforce and our economy that would
suffer.
We benefit from a worker's right to exercise freedom of association.
These cuts will delay NLRB-conducted representation or decertification
elections and delay democracy for workers who deserve a timely vote.
In the past 3 years, the NLRB has reinstated 7,000 workers who were
unlawfully fired by their employers, and the NLRB has awarded over $191
million to workers in backpay or fees.
Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. Delayed justice is
what this amendment would inflict.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, my only other comment is assuming that
figure of employees is right, and this is not the total number of
employees, just the employees that she envisions being cut, 1,500. I
always kind of look at my State, which is about typical in size. That
would be 30 employees on a board that I wouldn't think our forefathers
would have thought of. So people have to consider for themselves, I
guess, whether the average State would even need 30 employees. Here we
are just
[[Page H7299]]
cutting 30. We are still leaving the bulk of the agency in existence.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an insult
to the millions of American workers who deserve to be treated fairly
and in a timely manner under the law.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GROTHMAN. 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 171 printed in House
Report 115-297.
Amendment No. 172 Offered by Mr. Meadows
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 172
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. The Coal Mine Safety and Health program area of
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, comprising 964
employees, with annual salaries aggregating $78,970,000, is
hereby reduced by 10 percent (comprising 96 employees, with
annual salaries aggregating $7,897,000).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out this evening by
recognizing the fine work of Chairman Cole. I can tell you that there
are many times in this Chamber that they want to pit members of my
conference against appropriators. This is not one of those times. I
just want to rise and acknowledge the great work of Chairman Cole and
Chairman Frelinghuysen, and, truly, of the entire Appropriations
Committee.
Regardless of whether my amendment passes or not, I plan to vote for
the underlying bill. Yet, with this commonsense amendment that we put
forth, Mr. Chairman, we are really looking to try to make sure that we
rightsize a group that has been under attack, and this is all about the
coal industry.
What we have found is that under the previous administration, there
was an unbelievable attack on all fossil fuels, but specifically the
coal industry.
{time} 2030
This actually goes about rightsizing MSHA, which is the mine safety
and health group that will inspect the mines. What we found is we have
fewer mines to actually inspect. My amendment is real straightforward.
It is saying: let's rightsize that particular group. Let's cut the
number of employees that we have there by 10 percent. They have less
mines to inspect. I can tell you, coming from a State that has mining
in every one of the counties that I have the privilege of serving, what
we need to understand is that it is not about safety of mine workers,
because I am for the safety of mine workers; we really need to look at
being responsible with the hardworking American taxpayer dollars. That
is what this amendment is about.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Knowing, Mr. Chairman, of the gentleman's commitment to
families, and I know that the gentleman's family is committed to their
children, I am totally shocked that this amendment will be addressed
tonight on the floor of the House.
This amendment, my friend, would cut personnel. Mothers and fathers
will be directly affected by this. This amendment will cut the
personnel whose responsibility it is to ensure the safety and health of
our Nation's coal miners.
The proposed amendment, my friend, would cut the Mine Safety Health
Administration coal enforcement personnel by 10 percent, would result
in the Mine Safety Health Administration being forced to violate
Federal law because it would be unable to fulfill its statutorily
mandated duty to inspect underground coal mines every 3 months. We have
seen what happens, my friends, when mandatory inspections are cut back
and the number of experienced mine inspectors are reduced to coal
miners that cut corners on safety.
Following the massive explosion in 2010, at Upper Big Branch, which
killed 29 coal miners in the worst coal mine disaster in the country in
four decades, investigators found that mine management had consistently
violated basic safety standards such as ventilation and rock dusting
intended to prevent coal dust explosions. The number of violations at
this mine were among the highest in the Nation.
The ultimate responsibility, my friends, for that disaster lays
squarely at the feet of mine management, including its CEO Don
Blankenship, who was criminally convicted of a misdemeanor and served
the maximum of 1 year for conspiring to violate mine safety standards.
It is also clear from the internal review that due to budget cuts
during the Bush administration, MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, became severely short staffed. There were too few
inspectors to meet the requirement for mandatory inspections. You
cannot underfund mine safety and health and expect to adequately
protect the lives of miners. We know what happens when safety takes a
back seat to profits. People die.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment irresponsibly
cuts funding for coal mine safety and health by 10 percent, cuts 96
positions in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA. The
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 established MSHA and
requires MSHA to conduct four wall-to-wall inspections every year on
underground mines and two wall-to-wall inspections for every surface
mine. These are mandatory and required for safety in the mines.
MSHA is required to conduct spot inspections every 5 days at those
coal mines that release large amounts of combustible methane since
those mines have the highest risk of fires and explosions.
In addition to the mandatory and spot inspections, MSHA responds to
hazard complaints from miners, investigates discrimination complaints,
and provides compliance assistance with standards such as the new rule
to prevent the scourge of black lung disease.
If this amendment is enacted, 96 positions will be cut and MSHA will
have to choose between the mandatory inspections or meeting its
obligation to implement these other essential functions. It can't do
both, yet all of these functions are necessary to protect the health
and safety of miners.
Mr. Chairman, the preamble of the Mine Act of 1977 states: ``The
first . . . concern of all in the coal''--or other--``mining industry
must be the health and safety of its most precious resource--the
miner.'' This amendment abandons Congress' commitment to America's
miners and should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from Cecil E. Roberts,
the International President of the United Mine Workers of America, in
opposition to this amendment.
United Mine Workers of America,
Triangle, VA, September 7, 2017.
Members of the House of Representatives,
U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the United Mine Workers
of America, I strongly urge you to reject the Amendment
offered by Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina that
would reduce the Coal Mine Safety and Health program and
workforce at the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
At a time when mining fatalities are on the rise, we should
be looking for ways to increase enforcement and oversight of
mining
[[Page H7300]]
operations, not make it harder to ensure that our miners are
safe.
America's miners put their lives and limbs on the line
every single day for us. Our government has a responsibility
to do all it can do to ensure they come home to their loved
ones at the end of their shift. This amendment is a step
backward in safety, putting miners at greater risk. I
strongly urge that it be rejected.
Sincerely,
Cecil E. Roberts,.
Mrs. LOWEY. In closing, this amendment would irresponsibly cut
staffing by 10 percent at an agency responsible for the safety and
health of our Nation's coal miners. Mr. Chairman, lives are at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues
to reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to acknowledge my dear friend from
New York and her impassioned plea, but we have made news here tonight.
All of a sudden, the people on the aisle opposite are all about the
coal miners. Where has that debate been for the last 8 years?
We start talking about kids and family. What about the coal miners'
kids and families? We have got 35 percent less coal mines that are
being actually operated right now, 35 percent. We have 43 percent less
coal miners. We are talking about kids and all the things that we need
to be doing, and we have cut back on the coal mining. Why don't we cut
back on the inspectors who, according to our numbers, have 35 percent
less mines to actually inspect?
It is time that we rightsize the government. I strongly encourage my
colleagues to support it. I thank the work of the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a closing remark to
my good friend from North Carolina, and I know that my good friend and
I have worked together, Mr. Chairman, on many important issues.
I would just like to say again that whether there are 1,000 miners or
50 miners, and I understand the gentleman's concern about the closing
of mines, but we have a responsibility to those who are still working
in those mines to make sure that they are safe.
I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment because it
is absolutely vital that we protect those outstanding workers who are
supporting their families and make sure they are safe.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. 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 North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 173 Offered by Mr. Walberg
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 173
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule
on ``Representation--Case Procedures'' published in the
Federal Register by the National Labor Relations Board on
December 15, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 74308 et seq.) or any rule of
the same substance.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank Chairman Cole for
the good effort on this piece of legislation.
I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3354 that would block the NLRB
from enforcing the extreme and partisan ambush election rule. Under the
ambush election rule, workers are being rushed into union elections
before they have the opportunity to consider all the consequences.
According to one report, since the ambush election rule took effect,
union elections have been organized 38 percent faster. Before this rule
took effect, the union election process typically took 38 days. Now,
workers may have as few as 11 days to consider whether joining a union
is the best decision for themselves. Eleven days is simply not enough
time for workers to make an important decision that impacts their job
and their paycheck.
In addition to speeding up the process, the NLRB's rule greatly
limits an employer's ability to communicate with its employees through
the pre-election hearing process.
To make matters worse, employers have as little as 7 days to find
legal counsel and appear before an NLRB election officer--7 days. This
is a taxing time constraint, especially on small businesses with
limited resources and a lawyer team that is nonexistent.
But workers are the ones who are really hurt the most. As a former
union worker myself, I respect the right of workers to join a union,
but they deserve a real choice in the matter and the opportunity to
hear from both sides of the debate. At the very least, they deserve
privacy as they come to their decision, but this rule forces employers
to hand over their employees' personal information, including phone
numbers, work schedules, home addresses, e-mail addresses, and work
locations.
The NLRB should ensure fair and transparent elections. Instead, the
board implemented a rule chilling employer free speech and restricting
the rights of workers.
By adopting this amendment to block the ambush election rule, we can
restore the rights of workers and employers in union elections.
I would note that there is still more to be done beyond blocking
funding of this extreme rule. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,
which I introduced earlier this year, would amend Federal law to ensure
union elections are fair and prevent similar NLRB overreach in the
future.
This commonsense bill was approved by the Education and the Workforce
Committee, and it is my hope that it will come up for a vote in the
House, but today we have an opportunity to take a first step toward
putting an end to this radical scheme once and for all.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, as well as
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment which would block the NLRB's election rule, an
attempt to undermine collective bargaining rights. The NLRB enacted
this rule to modernize and streamline the process for voting on union
representation.
To be clear, the NLRB undertook a very deliberative rulemaking
process. It was transparent, and it included input from stakeholders
and the public.
{time} 2045
The majority's claim that this rule enables ambush elections is
false. These are commonsense adjustments that eliminate unnecessary
delays that have hindered the union election process for decades.
The election rule provides for the timely exchange of information so
that issues can be resolved quickly. It improves workers' ability to
hear from all sides prior to making a decision, and it reduces
frivolous litigation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member
of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by Mr. Walberg that
[[Page H7301]]
would block the National Labor Relations Board election streamlining
rule because this amendment would result in reverting to a previous
rule that would result in needless delays in the process for conducting
union representation elections.
The election streamlining rule was adopted in 2015, and it has
increased transparency, reduced frivolous litigation, and decreased the
opportunity for bad actors to improperly delay union elections.
The preelection process previously had been open to manipulation,
delay, and drawn-out preelection maneuvering. I point out that the so-
called 11-day election that has been referred to can only occur if both
sides agree to a consent election.
Another part of the rule requires the employer to provide more modern
forms of employee contact information to the union prior to the
elections, such as email addresses and phone numbers, as opposed to the
previous requirement that the employer only provide home addresses.
Under the new rule, employers must provide this electronically within 2
days of ordering an election.
By ensuring that there is a timely transfer of more complete voter
contact information, the rule removed another obstacle that had denied
workers the opportunity to be more fully informed prior to voting on
whether or not to form a union. The employer, of course, already has
unfettered and unlimited access to communicate with employees, even on
work time.
I also want to point out that the NLRB's election procedures are now
settled law. Every court where this rule has been challenged has upheld
the rule. The fifth circuit, for example, said that the Board ``acted
rationally and in furtherance of its congressional mandate in adopting
the rule.''
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that ``the
Board engaged in comprehensive analysis of a multitude of issues
relating to the need for and the propriety of the final rule.''
Mr. Chairman, history has shown when workers' rights are respected,
the economy benefits. Protecting workers' rights to make their voices
heard helped build a strong middle class. Research shows that the
erosion of union density has weakened the middle class and exacerbated
wage stagnation by breaking the essential link between increasing
worker productivity and rising wages.
This amendment undermines workers in their ability to exercise their
right to collectively bargain. Plain and simple, the workers have a
right to join a union, and if they ask for an election, they should get
an election--not a delay, not interference, and not retaliation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues
from the Education and the Workforce Committee. We have debated that
very clearly. We have discussed the fact that individuals ought to be
able to make a decision and have a full understanding of what is
available for them.
But when we talk about a streamlining rule, it only works for the
union organizer. It doesn't work for the employee, and certainly not
for the small-business person who isn't blessed with having a large
lawyer team, attorney team, who can go into all of the background
information to find out how, indeed, they even represent themselves and
communicate with their employees in relationship to a union that is
well-versed in what they will do with their challenge in the lawyered-
up situation that they have.
It discourages any comprehensive study by the employee--let me state
that again--by the employee of what they are looking at with union
representation or without.
Seven days for a businessperson to get their act together is not a
streamlining that works for them. It works for the union organizer
alone, not the employee or the employer.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to state that, if we truly want our
employees to make informed decisions with all of the information that
can be available to them and the assistance needed so that both sides
are served when they look for a final decision, we must do away with
this rule.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman.
This is about giving both sides--the workers seeking to organize and
the employer--the opportunity to make their case to workers fairly and
expeditiously.
Prior to this case, in every case, employers would have access with
ways to pester and bug employees at home, through their personal email,
through their phone numbers. There was simply no way that there was any
equality given to the case for union organizers to make. In fact, union
organizers often had to try to find ways that they could reach to
simply make the case to workers so that they can make a fair choice.
In addition, I find it ridiculous that this is called, by those on
the other side, an ambush when, in fact, the only ambush is when they
ambush the right of workers to organize by drawing out the election
process to months and years, often beyond when many of the employees
involved are even at the same employer because of the adverse working
conditions that could have led them to organize in the first place.
This rule was done through a multistakeholder process. There was a
lot input from all sides, and it was a very thoughtful rule that gave a
level playing field to ensure that workers, should they desire to
organize, had a reasonable calendar for doing so and a reasonable way
of reaching other workers to tell them the benefits of organizing, just
as the company was telling them the downside.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment which
throws out a very thoughtful rule that levels the playing field in
labor relations.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Arrington). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. 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. 174 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 174
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. Each amount made available by this Act (other
than an amount required to be made available by a provision
of law) is hereby reduced by 1 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I
want to begin by commending Chairman Cole, his staff, and the
Appropriations Committee for the fine work that they have done.
As we are looking at the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations
bill, we are looking at $156 billion for fiscal year 2018. My amendment
would cut an additional 1 percent out of that number.
I think it is important to commend the work that they have done over
the past couple of years. If you go back and look at the appropriations
numbers in 2016, they were at $163.65 billion; 2017, down to $162.985
billion; and this year, at $156 billion.
I think that that work is to be commended. The leadership in this
House, the chairman, Chairman Cole, and the work that they are doing is
getting us on the right path. It is important that as we as Members of
Congress do our job, it is important that we engage the
[[Page H7302]]
rank-and-file employees that are there in these various agencies--over
at the Department of Education and at Labor and HHS--and make certain
that they are saving that one penny out of a dollar, because we hit a
pretty dubious marker this week.
Our national debt now is at $20 trillion, and because of this,
because of the responsibility that we have to our children, to our
grandchildren, to future generations, because we realize, as Admiral
Mullen said on July 6, 2010, the greatest threat to our Nation's
security is our Nation's debt, we need to do a little bit more. And, of
course, there are always good programs that we can stand here and talk
about, and talk about what will not be funded if we do a penny on a
dollar.
But the important thing to realize is future generations, my
grandchildren that are now 8 and 9 years old, are paying for programs
that we are refusing to address the growth in these programs. We are
committing money they have not earned, taxes they have not paid,
because we are $20 trillion in debt.
It is time to make these changes, 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. Chair, I want to begin by thanking my friend. We are
classmates, we are friends, and we have served on the Budget Committee
together. So I know the commitment to fiscal responsibility is serious
and continuing and real. I particularly want to thank her for her kind
words about the work of the committee in recent years because we
genuinely have tried to continuously lower the amounts of money.
My friend makes a very good point about the dangers we face in terms
of a skyrocketing national debt, but as my friend suggests, we have
already cut this more than 1 percent. I am not suggesting there aren't
areas that can be cut additionally. There probably are. But as an
appropriator, we prefer to look at things individually, one at a time,
because there are always areas that could be plussed-up as well.
I don't think anybody here really wants to cut money, even 1 percent,
from cancer funding or Alzheimer's research or Pell grants or programs
that we think actually help folks have an educational choice, like
charter schools, and yet that is always the impact of an across-the-
board cut. You cut things that need to be cut, for sure, but you also
cut some things that probably shouldn't be.
So we would prefer to continue the approach that my friend has
singled out and said that seems to work well, and we will do that, and
I know she will be helpful in that.
I also know my friend knows that the real drivers of our debt,
frankly, are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all entitlement
programs, our mandatory spending programs. And that is where folks on
both sides of the aisle, I think, need to get very, very serious, and
the administration. Because we are never going to get to a balanced
budget that I know my friend wants to achieve and I want to achieve
until we put 70 percent of all spending, which is the entitlement
spending, on the table for serious examination to be dealt with.
I don't oppose the goals of my friend. I just have a different method
of trying to achieve them. So far, in the last 3 years, we have been
able to do that. We are going to continue to try and do that going
forward.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, we do always hear, well, you would take
from this or that if you were doing across-the-board cuts. But just to
my colleagues who are in the Chamber tonight and those who are
watching, across-the-board cuts work at the local level and the State
level because you look at that number that you need to hit and you get
inside some programs more than others, and you find that penny on the
dollar, and you find a way to yield a savings, and you examine what the
priorities of a budget ought to be.
That is the heavy lift. And while we are doing it with the work we do
here in this Chamber and that the appropriators do, it is important
that, just as Governors in our States--both Democratic and Republican
Governors, by the way--just as mayors in towns and cities across this
country do on a regular basis, and many are doing right now because
fiscal years are beginning October 1, just as they do that work, we
need to do it.
{time} 2100
Do we need to look at entitlements?
Yes, absolutely. I am for putting those issues on the table. I
encourage our colleagues and our administration to do that. It is
imperative because we are staring $20 trillion in debt. We are staring
that in the face.
How do you look at your children and grandchildren and say, ``That is
okay. That is okay. Paying for $20 trillion worth of debt is easy''?
The answer is you don't, because it is not.
What it takes to address it is will. It takes resolve. It takes
cutting back more than you have cut back before and examining programs
that are essential. It is time to get serious about this. I encourage
support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is my good friend.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
underlying bill is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5
billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level.
This cut is as unnecessary as it is indiscriminate because it
indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill without thought to the
relative merit. For instance, this amendment would result in fewer
infants and toddlers receiving Head Start's services, fewer students
receiving financial aid to help afford college, fewer biomedical
research grants, and cuts to public health emergency response. The list
goes on and on.
Investment is what we need to help build and strengthen our middle
class, and this amendment threatens that.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this 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
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
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 Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 175 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 175
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. For ``Health Resources and Services
Administration--Maternal and Child Health'' for establishing
and carrying out grants to eligible entities to develop,
maintain, or enhance infant and early childhood mental health
promotion, intervention, and treatment programs for children
up to 12 years of age, as authorized by section 399Z-2 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-6) there is hereby
appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--Program
Management'' is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is for
infant and early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and
treatment. It provides $5 million in grants to develop, maintain, or
enhance infant and early childhood mental health promotion,
intervention, and treatment
[[Page H7303]]
programs, including programs for infants and children at significant
risk of developing or showing early signs of or having been diagnosed
with mental illness, including serious emotional disturbance. This was
passed and authorized in the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis
Act last year in Congress in which it was passed 422-2--near unanimous.
The importance of this is that, across the United States, up to one
in five children suffers from a mental disorder in a given year,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This
equates to more than 17 million young people who meet criteria for
disorders that affect their ability to learn, behave, and express
emotions. This small $5 million amount is about 29 cents per child,
hardly enough to do much when distributed over that many, but it can do
a great deal when distributed for a few.
If you follow the course of children with mental illness, untreated
mental illness, of course, leads to very troubled adults and other
problems. I might add that this is National Suicide Prevention Week,
and among children, suicide rates are climbing. In fact, over the last
20 years, suicide rates have climbed overall in this country. But,
tragically and alarmingly, they have grown a great deal among children.
How do we tell families of children who have completed a suicide or
attempted a suicide that we couldn't come up with the money for this,
and, instead, we thought other programs were more important?
This money comes from the existing programming budget. It does not
take away from vital programs. But I want you to know that there has
been a 54 percent increase of suicides among children under age 12.
Thirty-seven percent of those child suicides are Black children. The
rate among African-American children ages 5 to 11 has doubled over the
last decade.
This provides critically important services for children. It appears
that schools are the most important place where treatment can take
place. Only 23 percent of prekindergarten programs have onsite or
scheduled visits from psychiatrists and psychologists, according to the
Child Mind Institute.
The current workforce consists of approximately 7,500 child and
adolescent psychiatrists. We need 32,000. Eighty-five percent of all
psychotropic medications for children are written by primary care
practitioners, not psychiatrists, so we end up with serious problems
here as suicides grow and as mental health problems grow. This small
amount of money is taken from existing funds, not from any other
programs, to make sure we are providing services for these children.
Mr. Chairman, 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, again, thank my good friend for,
as he always does, raising important issues, and I appreciate his
bringing attention to the mental health of children.
The amendment offered--and this is an important point I think many
Members in this body don't think about--is actually for a newly
authorized program that has not received funding in the past, and our
committee actually has a smaller allocation than it had last year. I
think most of the public doesn't realize it, and it is sort of helpful,
frankly, for my friend to advance this amendment. Just because
something moves through an authorizing committee doesn't mean any money
comes with it.
Now, in some cases--my friend worked on the Cures bill--they sent
money with portions of that on the opioid initiatives, some additional
money at NIH, and, of course, every penny of that has moved in. They
found a way to fund it. But we can end up in a situation where you just
simply pile on authorizations and send us less money and think we will
somehow work it out. Sometimes we do. That is why we have been able to
steadily increase funding at NIH, steadily increase funding for
programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, and steadily increase money for charter
schools. There are some areas we have been able to do that, but we
can't do it everyplace.
I want to tell my friend that, while I oppose the amendment, I am
certainly going to work with him. Actually, I asked him not too long
ago to give me the one thing that is the most important thing, and he
mentioned the lack of trained and qualified personnel, that we could
have a lot of programs, but until we had a bigger pool of people
capable of rendering the services, then we simply are going to be
moving from program to program. I think that was a very good point, and
it is why I accepted my friend's amendment for $10 million to begin to
do that. That is another area. I think we have to pick a few pressure
points here.
I agree with what my friend is offering here in terms of the need for
emphasis. We just simply have to work harder either getting the funds
or finding other places to take the funds from.
So while I oppose the amendment, I want to be very clear that I
intend to work with my friend going forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me add to this. Yes,
there was money in the Cures bill for opioid abuse for 59,000 people
who had died from drug overdoses, but 350,000 people will die this year
related to mental health problems.
I want to make sure that Congress is not, once again, in a situation
where we are having another moment of silence for some suicide, for
some child or young adult that got violent and shot someone or ran
their car into a crowd, or something else. We have got to start putting
money into these programs. Five million dollars barely scratches the
surface, but it is like that old adage of the man who came across a
child throwing a starfish back in the ocean. The person said: ``You can
never take care of all of them.'' But the child said: ``It will make a
difference for this one.''
This will make a difference to a few children.
How do we explain this to a parent whose child is suffering, who
can't get services, that what we have is we couldn't transfer money
within an existing account, it doesn't add any more, and it doesn't
eradicate any programs, but it is something there especially at a time
when this is so life threatening?
You can't explain that to a mom or a dad.
During all the time in the course of working this bill, we heard from
thousands of people telling their horrific and sad stories. I spent the
last 42 years of my life working as a psychologist. I have seen the
faces of those who have gone to the funerals and seen those wasting
away in prisons. I do ask that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is my good friend.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support my
colleague's effort to improve access to early childhood mental health
promotion, intervention, and treatment. But I think it is important
that we come back to why we are here tonight and why this $5 million
for mental health programs is not included in this Labor-HHS bill under
consideration.
The reason is because this bill is being cut by $5 billion from FY17
levels. This is the end result that we get when the majority's efforts
to slash nondefense spending come to fruition. We are forced to choose
between lifesaving programs, such as mental health and substance abuse
programs, and programs that invest in our future, like early childhood
education or job training.
We ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the
sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs. Then we
could begin working on a bipartisan base that will allow us to
adequately fund mental health and substance abuse prevention.
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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
[[Page H7304]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 176 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 176
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. For ``Health Resources and Services
Administration--Maternal and Child Health'' for carrying out
the Pediatric Mental Health Care Access grant program, as
authorized by section 330M of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 254c-19), there is hereby appropriated, and the
amount otherwise provided by this Act for ``Health Resources
and Services Administration--Program Management'' is hereby
reduced by, $9,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases
access to pediatric mental healthcare by providing $9 million in grants
to improve access to behavioral integration and pediatric primary care.
I thank the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for his agreement to our
other amendment to boost the workforce. We have a massive workforce
shortage in the field of mental health.
What good is it to have good wishes among Members of Congress for
treatment, yet people can't get it?
There is a shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists for the 17
million children with a mental health condition. We have 9,000. We need
over 30,000. There is a shortage of psychologists, and 36 States have a
shortage of psychiatric nurses. As a matter of fact, half of the
counties in America have no psychiatrists, no psychologists, and no
clinical social worker. So for children with primary mental health
problems, it is a desert for treatment.
{time} 2115
They sit on long waiting lists. Their symptoms worsen.
A study called the RAISE Program--Recovery After an Initial
Schizophrenia Episode--found that if we provided treatment initially
for those who show their initial psychotic episode, it improves their
prognosis over their lifetime. But delaying treatment actually causes
them harm.
When you have no care, you have that harm. For those few
psychiatrists and psychologists out there, what are they told to do in
rural areas?
Travel from one office to another to try and give them access, with
valuable hours of time taken up. They can't provide that care.
This $9 million helps provide mechanisms by which pediatricians and
family practices can have telemental health. We know that when a warm
handoff occurs in the office--and that is when the family or the child
at that point meets a psychiatrist or that psychologist--the actual
follow-up rate is over 99 percent. A large number--over 80 percent--
continue follow-up right through treatment.
However, when they are given a referral, that actual follow-up is
around 50 percent, and only 11 percent of people complete treatment.
That is why you need to have some level of face to face.
This issue of at least providing telemental health gives people that
face-to-face approach.
Since 50 percent of serious mental illness cases emerge by age 14,
and 75 percent by age 24, this is the critical period in the life of
someone who is developing serious mental illness to have care. We can
no longer just say that we are going to let pediatricians be the
primary providers for mental illness treatment when that is something
that they do not have the specialty and training.
The number of psychiatrists there to treat children is declining
relative to the needs. The problems among children, as I mentioned
previously, continue to go up.
I might also add here that this does not reduce any spending among
the critical funded and authorized programs within SAMHSA.
But let me say where some of the money goes in these SAMHSA programs.
The GAO did a study and found that 80 percent of the grants are not
using it for evidence-based care. SAMHSA, instead, spends their money
on ridiculous, embarrassing programs: making fruit smoothies if you are
stressed, $400,000 on a website for toddler sing-along songs, getting
in touch with your inner animal workshops, making masks, making
collages, a website and crisis hotline for people in the Boston area
who had snow anxiety during a snowstorm, teaching people interpretative
dancing, $25,000 for a painting of people sitting on a rock at SAMHSA
headquarters, an alternative conference funded by SAMHSA at the
luxurious Boston Park Plaza Hotel.
And we can't fund something that will save children's lives?
It makes no sense to me.
Mr. Chairman, 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, once again, I agree with my friend on the
basic point, but this, too, is a program that was authorized with no
funding.
The things we got funding for in the 21st Century Cures Act, we
funded to the penny. Frankly, things we didn't get funding for, we
still authorized.
This is one of those cases where, again, the cause is worthy, and we
are willing to work with the gentleman--and we will certainly continue
to do that--but a lot of these things that my friend just mentioned are
from programs that were authorized by non-appropriations committees. We
don't create the programs.
That is where my friends, frankly, on the Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee need to spend some time.
They need to spend some time deauthorizing certain programs that
continue.
Again, I will work with my friend if our allocation changes or we can
find additional savings. But I can't willy-nilly, particularly when we
have already cut these administrative programs, partly in the en bloc
amendment, to fund some of the very things, including my friend's
amendment, that we felt were very worthy. We will look at this.
The other thing that I would hope we could do is work with our
friends on the other side of the aisle. I will just tell you, from a
conference standpoint, when you go to a conference with a program that
has been authorized but not funded, it is extremely difficult to get
the other body to join in with you. That is just the reality.
Every decision involves taking something away. It is always easy to
call something administration or nonvital. That is what it looks like
in the phrase. That may or may not be what it is in the program. So it
is just a more difficult exercise than I think most folks understand.
My friend's point is still the right one. One of the reasons I look
very carefully at this one is because I see it as a multiplier, in
terms of the professional shortage of people that we have that my
friend has pointed to.
Mr. Chairman, again, I reluctantly oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise not in
opposition to this amendment, but I support this effort by my colleague
as well.
Let's increase behavioral health integration into pediatric primary
care, for I, too, have seen the shortages of mental health providers in
my home State
[[Page H7305]]
and the very real and devastating impact that that has on families.
This is a false crisis. There is $5 billion that we have cut from the
FY17 levels, but this false crisis has very real impacts on the lives
of children and their families.
Let's get to the work of negotiating a bipartisan budget to lift
sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense, and draft a
reasonable Labor-HHS bill that adequately funds mental health and
substance abuse prevention programs. We have the opportunity and we
need to seize it.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I have got
to tell you that this is distressing to me. I know what my colleague
meant by false crisis, but this is a crisis for children.
The children in America with mental health problems cannot get care.
Members of Congress have an opportunity to put a small amount of money
to make a big difference for children who cannot get that care.
What we can do and what my colleague from Oklahoma said is we need to
cut some things. One of them is stop the ridiculous wasteful spending
at SAMHSA. If they can fund $400,000 websites and going to luxurious
hotels, they can certainly do something that actually puts providers
there so children can change the trajectory of their lives.
I have just known too many families who suffer through this. I hope
that as Members vote on this, they remember those families in their
districts and decide this is a way to send a signal that we can make a
big difference in the lives of many.
Mr. Chairman, 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 178 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 178
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. For ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration--Mental Health'' for establishing and
operating the National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy
Laboratory, as authorized by section 501A of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa-0), there is hereby
appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration--Health Surveillance and Program Support'' is
hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to restate the
problems that exist at SAMHSA.
The General Accounting Office, during the multiyear investigation of
the subcommittee which I chair, the Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, came back and said that 80 percent of
the grants for SAMHSA are not evidence-based. There is a serious
problem in that agency.
Instead, they funded absurd programs, such as making fruit smoothies;
and a $400,000 website for toddlers to sing-along songs, which they
told us was about prevention.
We asked: What are you preventing?
They said: We will get back to you on that.
They also had workshops on getting in touch with your inner animal,
making masks and collages; interpretive dancing; a website and crisis
line for people in the New England area when they had heavy a snowfall
so they could call in.
They have workshops on how to tell people to get off their
medications. They had a $25,000 oil painting for their office, which
graces their hall, of people sitting on a rock, which gives them mental
health awareness. I might add, the only thing I am aware of is a total
waste of money. And, of course, an alternative conference, which
continues this year as well, spending, I think, $150,000 or so to hold
their conference at the luxurious Boston Park Plaza Hotel.
I don't want to hear from that agency that they don't have money.
This particular program redirects them so they get reset in terms of
evidence-based care. It forms a panel of people with expertise in
medical psychiatric areas, including consumers.
It is there to provide direction and guidance for an agency that has
been without direction and guidance. It is there to make sure that we
redirect the way SAMHSA is going so that it gets in the area of really
treating mental illness.
Let me say this--let me use the words of Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz,
the current Assistant Secretary of Mental Health and, therefore, the de
facto head of SAMHSA.
She said: ``. . . SAMHSA does not address the treatment needs of the
most vulnerable in our society. Rather, the unit within SAMHSA charged
with addressing these disorders, the Center for Mental Health Services,
chooses to focus on its own definition of `recovery,' which generally
ignores the treatment of mental disorders, and, as a major initiative
under `recovery' services, focuses on the development of a `peer
workforce.'
``There is a perceptible hostility toward psychiatric medicine: a
resistance to addressing the treatment needs of those with serious
mental illness and a questioning by some at SAMHSA as to whether mental
disorders even exist.''
For example, they state that psychosis is just a different way of
thinking for some experiencing stress. They also focus on activities
that don't directly assist those who have serious mental illness.
She adds that: ``Significant dollars are spent on hotlines for
callers who may be experiencing suicidal thinking. . . . ''
But I might add that during this whole time, while death rates
decline for heart disease, lung disease, AIDS, and accidental deaths,
et cetera, they went way up for suicide. They increased steadily for
substance abuse.
It is a failed agency, along those lines.
She says that there are pressing needs, but nowhere in SAMHSA's
strategic initiatives do they even address psychiatric treatment of
mental illness as a priority.
I know we have to change this. I would like to ask of my dear friend,
the chairman of the subcommittee, is there a way we can talk more about
this and address this in the future to see that this is addressed
adequately?
Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 12, 2017, on page H7305, the following appeared: Mr.
MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield to the Oklahoma.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. MURPHY of
Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding and for his
excellent work in this area.
Yes, we would look forward to that. Frankly, we have pretty regular
exchanges with a lot of the committees under our jurisdiction where
they have done the hard work of authorizing an investigation. That can
be used to guide appropriations.
So I look forward to working with my friend to make sure we can
eliminate the type of abuses that he is talking about and redirect
funds where they need to go for the care of patients.
I thank my friend for his work and his kind words, and I certainly
pledge that I will work with him going forward, as I have in the past.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, knowing that when my
friend says something, I consider that a bond.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 179 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 179
printed in House Report 115-297.
[[Page H7306]]
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. For ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration--Mental Health'' for carrying out the
Strengthening Community Crisis Response Systems grant
program, as authorized by section 520F of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-37), there is hereby
appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration--Health Surveillance and Program Support'' is
hereby reduced by, $10,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is the last of my
amendments on this. Although this House overwhelmingly passed the
authorization for these, as did the Senate, money was not allocated
towards it.
While I understand there is a priority to treat substance abuse, but
even with that, many times there is nowhere for someone to go.
Back in the 1950s, we had over half a million psychiatric hospital
beds in this country. I think at the time the population of the United
State was 150 million. Now, with a population close to 317 million to
318 million, we have about 40,000 hospital beds and a shortage of
100,000. The only State that actually has an adequate number of beds is
Mississippi. All the rest are at a critical shortage.
So what happens when a person has a drug overdose and needs to get
into treatment? What happens when a person has a psychiatric breakdown?
Well, generally what happens is the police arrive, not the
paramedics. They arrest the person. Many States actually say: Let's put
these people in a jail cell, because there is no bed.
Or, if they take them to the hospital, the hospital says: Let's just
give them some medication to stabilize them and let them back out
because we can't hold them. We have no place for them to go.
{time} 2130
What happens, many times these people are boarded, that is, they
remain in an emergency room bed, which is no place for someone with a
psychiatric crisis. Sometimes they will be tied to their gurney;
sometimes they are in the hallways; sometimes they are, for days or
weeks or several weeks, waiting for a psychiatric bed and nothing opens
up.
I thought when Dorothea Dix said let's close down the jail concept,
that was prevalent in our country back then, let's have nice hospitals
for them. Historically, they said that was a good move, but what
happened is these psych beds closed down starting widely in the 1980s
and continuing until now. There simply is no place for them to go.
Let's remember that President Kennedy's last bill he signed before
his assassination was to begin this process of closing the beds but
having community-based treatment, but America and Congress have not
kept that promise.
There is a story of a Senator from Virginia by the name of Creigh
Deeds. Some may remember in the news when his son Gus had a crisis and
Senator Deeds took his son to a hospital. There they waited hour after
hour after hour while the hospital tried to find a hospital bed
available for him. Finally, he said they couldn't find any beds: Take
young Gus home, and let's see what happens in the future.
When Senator Deeds took his son home, his son stabbed Senator Deeds,
trying to kill him; and when Senator Deeds ran to get help, he
survived, but his son did not because he shot himself with a bullet--
because there were no beds.
Now, this particular amendment doesn't create beds, but what happens
is sometimes there are beds available in other communities; but short
of a hospital calling hospital after hospital after hospital to find a
bed for someone, which may be an hour or two drive away, there is no
place for them.
Surely, we understand the idea: Do we continue to put these folks in
hospitals and jail cells? Do we dump them back in the street and let
them be the forgotten homeless whom we walk over? Do we send them back
home and risk further harm to them? Do we have them tied to a gurney
and given a chemical sedation, a chemical straightjacket to wait until
something opens up?
What this amendment does is it is $10 million in grants to develop
and maintain or enhance the database of inpatient psychiatric
facilities and crisis stabilization units so we can begin to address
this bed shortage. Rather than lead people away from care, this is a
way of helping hospitals get that care and instill States to put
together programs to speed this up.
We still have to work with CMS to create more beds and stop some of
the ridiculous rules that they have in there, but what do we continue
to tell the mentally ill? ``We will get around to it''? ``We couldn't
do it this time''? ``Good luck''? ``I am sorry your son died''?
When does this end? Will we hear more excuses that we can't do
anything about it because we had a $5 billion cut? What do we do with
Americans who are dying from this over and over?
Thomas Jefferson once said: ``I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.'' We have a
chance to make a difference in the justice for the mentally ill, or
will we once again turn a blind eye and say we can do nothing?
Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members vote for this amendment to try and
save some lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in the order to consider amendment No.
180 printed in House Report 115-297.
Amendment No. 182 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 182
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. For ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration-Substance Abuse Treatment'' for the Controlled
Substance Monitoring Program, as authorized by section 399O
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-3), there is
hereby appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by
this Act for ``Office of the Secretary--General Departmental
Management'' is hereby reduced by, $10,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, tonight I am proud to introduce an amendment
that will fully fund the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic
Reporting program, colloquially known as NASPER. NASPER has long
provided us with an opportunity to help prevent the spread of opioids
across the country; however, until now, we have not funded it.
NASPER funding supports the development and maintenance of a State-
run prescription drug monitoring program. These prescription drug
monitoring programs allow for doctors and pharmacists to electronically
interconnect with one when prescribing opioids, allowing for the
providers to confer and ensure that the patient is not receiving a
duplicate opioid prescription that the patient may then divert or sell.
Prescription drug monitoring programs work because they engage
providers and they successfully prevent individuals from exploiting
weaknesses in the healthcare system.
During any epidemic, it is important to first help those in need and
provide support to individuals and first responders who were impacted
by the epidemic. Last year, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Subcommittee on Health did exactly this.
[[Page H7307]]
We worked to put forth the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to
provide support for those impacted by the opioid epidemic by increasing
access to those in need.
No epidemic response, however, is complete without preventative
measures, and that is why NASPER is so important to this fight. We must
prioritize programs like NASPER that are preventative and can ensure
that errant prescribers and bad actors do not fall through the cracks.
If we want to end this epidemic, we must commit resources to programs
that will promote prevention and encourage safer prescribing of
prescription drugs.
As the subcommittee chairman for the authorizing committee that has
been tasked with the public health response to a crisis that claimed
more than 60,000 American lives last year, I am committed to further
working to oversee the implementation of our initial response efforts
and to develop any supplemental responses that may be needed to prevent
future unnecessary deaths.
I encourage my colleagues to take this opportunity to support the
work of the Subcommittee on Health on the Energy and Commerce Committee
in authorizing this and allow Congress to approve funding for NASPER.
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. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 183
printed in House report 115-297.
Amendment No. 184 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 184
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. No funds made available by this Act may be used
to undertake any activities to prepare for or facilitate the
transfer of responsibilities or functions from the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of
Labor to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the
use of funds in this act to prepare for or facilitate the transfer of
the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs into the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The amendment would ensure that these two important agencies charged
with distinct missions to enforce workplace discrimination laws are not
unduly burdened by the administration's plan to transfer
responsibilities of Contract Compliance into the EEOC.
Although both agencies enforce discrimination laws, they differ in
their authorities, their scope, and their responsibilities. For
example, Contract Compliance only addresses discrimination by Federal
contractors, unlike the EEOC, which enforces the laws as they relate to
virtually all employees.
Contract Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the Federal
contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to ensure that
all individuals have equal opportunity for employment. EEOC was created
by title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and its support for affirmative
action is voluntary.
Contract Compliance, the focus is on contract compliance, and the
ultimate sanction is disbarment of a Federal contractor. It gets its
authority through an executive order and accomplishes much of its
enforcement through the administrative process. By contrast, EEOC is
established by statute and makes and enforces Federal statutes through
lawsuits in Federal courts. Other distinctions:
The ultimate client for Contract Compliance is the Federal
Government, while EEOC's clients are private employees;
EEOC is complaint driven, unlike the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance;
Contract Compliance can audit contractors, EEOC cannot;
EEOC has subpoena power, Contract Compliance does not;
Contract Compliance does not have the authority to file lawsuits and
get punitive damages, EEOC can seek punitive damages and lawsuits;
Contract Compliance enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment
Act, the EEOC does not;
EEOC protects employees from genetic discrimination, Contract
Compliance does not.
The proposal to transfer the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
into the EEOC came about by some ideological groups that want to shrink
the Federal Government, but it is unwise because it is opposed by civil
rights groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
To underscore the collective voice and opposition to this transfer,
the Senate Committee on Appropriations adopted language last Thursday
that says that the committee rejects the budget's proposal to begin
plans to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs with
the EEOC.
Mr. Chair, the realignment of responsibilities would ask the EEOC to
do considerably more with a lot less in terms of expertise, personnel,
and funding. Further, this combination would derail the EEOC's efforts
to reduce its backlog of charges while simultaneously trying to collect
vital data relevant to the enforcement of civil rights laws.
The enforcement of civil rights laws would be best served if we in
Congress would fully fund both the EEOC and the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance so that they both can do the vital work of securing
the right to work in a place free of harassment, retaliation, and other
forms of discrimination.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 186 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 186
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. ELLISON. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any person whose
disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act'' and such
disposition is listed as ``willful'' or ``repeated''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 2145
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. If you have a
contract doing business with the Federal Government, if in your
disclosures you have been found designated to have violations of the
Federal Labor Relations Act, and those violations are considered to be
willful, intentional, and repeated, then you will not be able to take
advantage of this particular appropriation.
This kind of amendment is designed to say that the Federal Government
believes that a penny earned and a penny worked should be received by
the worker. It is as simple as that.
People who do not support this amendment are saying that Federal
contractors can engage in wage theft and it is okay with us. And we are
simply saying that the hardworking people in the United States expect
that the Federal penny that workers earn will be given to them, and
that is not too much to ask.
Hardworking people living in America should never worry that an
employer will steal their wages, especially if that employer is paid by
a government contract. Right now, Federal contractors who repeatedly
and intentionally pay subminimum wage, force
[[Page H7308]]
their workers to work off the clock, refuse to pay overtime, or make
illegal deductions on their employees' pay are still allowed to apply
for Federal contracts. They should not be. We should reward workers who
treat their workers fairly and not allow firms who willfully and
repeatedly profiteer off of their employees by letting them keep their
government contracts.
If passed, my amendment will ensure that a business that willfully
and repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act cannot apply for a
Federal Government contract until they clean up their act. To be clear,
my amendment would not punish a single accidental violation.
If my colleagues across the aisle won't make corporations pay their
fair share of their taxes, I hope that they will at least join me in
going after employers who refuse to pay taxpayer money to line their
pockets by cheating employees repeatedly, and on purpose. This is not a
small thing. This is real money out of real people's pockets.
The Economic Policy Institute found that low-wage workers in just the
ten most popular States--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and
others--lose $8 billion in wages due to wage theft each year.
For example, the corporation General Dynamics Information Technology
owns a number of call centers that serve Federal contracts. In the last
10 years, they have agreed to pay $412,000 in back wages to 921
employees for Fair Labor Standards Act violations. Immigrants and
residents of low-income communities are often at the greatest risk for
abuse at the hands of employers who do wage theft.
The government should be doing everything it can to protect workers
from intimidation and stolen wages. If this amendment passes, companies
like General Dynamics Information Technology won't be able to continue
to do what they have been doing. They will have to be fair to people,
at least after they clean up their act.
We have to demand higher standards, Mr. Chairman. Respecting a fair
day's pay for a fair day's work is an American value.
Mr. Chairman, 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 appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I
know the sincerity of his view on the issue.
This amendment, in my view, mirrors, to some degree, the last
administration's regulation on so-called Fair Play and Safe Workplaces,
also known as a blacklisting rule, which has recently been withdrawn.
There are existing requirements for reporting and addressing
violations of labor laws by Federal contractors. Indeed, hundreds of
companies every year are barred from doing business with the Federal
Government.
While bad actors certainly should face consequences, I believe
blanket prohibitions circumvent proper administrative review under the
existing procedures. Agencies already have many requirements related to
the award of Federal contracts, and imposing a new across-the-board
requirement, in my view, is not the right approach to address this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I urge its rejection.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we know that there are a lot of
contractors who have significant wage violations. It should be a
privilege to contract with the Federal Government. Taxpayers should not
be asked to subsidize companies that engage in willful and repeated
wage theft.
This amendment only applies to contractors with repeated willful
violations, not technical violations that could result from good faith
difference in interpretation of rules and regulations--willful and
repeated.
Awarding contracts to those kind of contractors is not only unfair to
workers, it is unfair to law-abiding contractors who play by the rules
but are forced to compete on an unlevel playing field with those who
cut corners.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American
Civil Liberties Union.
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, September 7, 2017.
Vote YES on Amendments No. 113, No. 184, and No. 186 to H.R. 3354, the
Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union and our more than two million members and
supporters, we urge you to support the following amendments
that may be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 3354,
the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act,
2018:
1. Amendment No. 113 (preserving funding for the EEOC/EEO-1 equal pay
data collection)
In July, the House Appropriations Committee adopted the
Harris Amendment to defund implementation of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) revised Employer
Information Report (EEO-1). Amendment No. 113, offered by
Representatives DeLauro, Frankel, and Scott to the FY18 CJS
appropriations bill, would preserve funding for that critical
equal pay initiative.
The data collection at issue, through the EEO-1 that
employers already must use to document the demographics of
their workforces, is a critical tool to lift the cloak of
secrecy that shrouds pay decisions in this country. Without
such transparency, the pernicious gender and race wage gaps,
and the discrimination that causes them, will continue to
flourish. The new EEO-1 revision was adopted after extensive
public comment and would have deterred intentional pay
disparities, facilitated employers' good faith efforts to
comply with equal pay laws, and identified appropriate
targets for federal enforcement of nondiscrimination law.
Instead of supporting this measured approach to eliminate
the pay gap, the EEO-1 has been undermined by members of
Congress and the Trump Administration's Office of Management
and Budget, which recently halted implementation of the EEO-1
equal pay data collection. Because OMB has ordered a review
and requested that the EEOC undertake a new effort, the
Harris amendment could unnecessarily tie the agency's hands.
Members should vote in favor of the DeLauro-Frankel-Scott
amendment in order to preserve the ability of the EEOC to
continue to make meaningful progress on equal pay. A vote
against this amendment is a vote against equal pay.
2. Amendment No. 184 (no funding to eliminate OFCCP and transfer duties
to EEOC)
The Trump administration's FY2018 budget submission to
Congress recommended the elimination of the Department of
Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP) and the transfer of its functions to the EEOC. This
amendment, offered by Representatives Conyers and Scott to
the FY18 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, would
withhold federal funding in order to prevent implementation
of this ill-advised proposal.
These vital and distinct agencies have different missions
and different areas of expertise. The EEOC seeks to remedy
complaints of discrimination in employment. The OFCCP more
broadly oversees the employment practices of federal
contractors who are required to proactively monitor workplace
diversity and pay equity, make meaningful efforts to recruit
qualified applicants from under-represented groups, and
eliminate barriers to equal opportunity for various
disadvantaged groups, including veterans and individuals with
disabilities. The administration's proposal would jeopardize
the uniquely important missions of each agency and weakens
our government's ability to effectively enforce our nation's
civil rights laws. It would also place an extraordinary
burden on the EEOC which already has an excessive workload
and a well-known backlog. Finally, numerous organizations
that work with these agencies--from civil rights, women's
rights, and workers' rights groups along with business groups
such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--oppose the
administration's proposal.
For these reasons, we urge members of the House to support
Amendment No. 184 that would prevent the elimination of
OFCCP.
3. Amendment No. 186 (no funding to federal contractors who repeatedly
and willfully violate FLSA)
This amendment, offered by Representatives Ellison,
Grijalva and Pocan to the FY18 Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill, would ensure that no federal contracts
are entered into with entities that willfully and repeatedly
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Employers that have the privilege of doing business with
the federal government also have a responsibility to comply
with our laws. This amendment would provide a strong
protection against our government doing business with
employers that commit labor violations.
Should you have any questions, please contact Vania
Leveille.
Sincerely,
[[Page H7309]]
Faiz Shakir,
Director, Washington Legislative Office.
Vania Leveille,
Senior Legislative Counsel.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I
urge its adoption.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 187 Offered by Mr. Gibbs
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 187
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GIBBS. 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:
At the end of division F (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final
regulations on ``Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses'' published by the Department of Labor in the
Federal Register on May 12, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 29624 et
seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the Department of
Labor and OSHA from implementing a burdensome rule dealing with
reporting workplace injuries and illness.
The OSHA rule requires all businesses with more than 250 employees to
file all illness and injury reports in a publicly available database.
It would also be a requirement for any business with more than 20
employees in certain industries such as manufacturing or agriculture.
This online filing requirement raises serious privacy concerns. While
employers were previously required to collect this information, it was
never open and available to the public.
The rule risks the confidentiality of personally identifiable
information for those injured on the job.
Additionally, a provision in the final rule declaring automatic
postaccident drug testing is now considered an unreasonable procedure,
a provision that conflicts with multiple States' workers' compensation
laws.
While the Trump administration has wisely delayed the implementation
of the regulation, it is important to prevent any future development of
this rule.
I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment, which rolls back
another one-size-fits-all regulation from Washington, D.C., that
potentially interferes with the privacy of employers and employees for
the entirety of fiscal year 2018.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment, which would remove protections for workers who
report workplace injuries and prevent OSHA from collecting data
necessary to identify and target the most hazardous workplaces and
serious safety and health problems.
Let's look at 2015. There were nearly 5,000 workers killed on the job
by traumatic injuries and an estimated 50,000 deaths from occupational
diseases. Each day, 150 workers in this country died because of
exposure to workplace hazards.
In 2015, there were 3.7 million workplace injuries reported, with
more than half of them serious, but these numbers don't show the whole
problem. Studies have shown that up to half of all workplace injuries
are not reported on the OSHA injury log. One of the reasons is that
some workers fear that they will be retaliated against or fired if they
report an injury.
The new OSHA rule strengthens protections for workers who report
injuries, which will allow workers to report them more freely and
result in more complete reporting.
OSHA's injury tracking rule is an important worker protection measure
that does three things. First, it prohibits employers from retaliating
against workers who report workplace injuries. Second, it continues
longstanding requirements that certain employers in high-risk
industries submit summary injury and illness data to OSHA, which now
must be done electronically. And, third, it requires large employers in
high-risk injuries to submit more detailed injury and illness data to
OSHA.
These are critical protections for workers. They should not be
overturned.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, employers will still be required to keep
this information on record. Any OSHA inspector can come in and inspect
those records. So the idea that there is no documentation of any
workplace injuries or illnesses is still there.
The problem here is that it is put on a website, that could have
issues with FOIA requests, also publicly available. Businesses will be
forced to sensitive information and confidential information that will
be public information that risks the identity of many employees out
there.
OSHA has historically recognized the sensitive nature of this data
and sought to protect this information being released on, as I said,
the Freedom of Information Act request.
Furthermore, OSHA has failed to demonstrate any evidence that this
rule will effectively reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. I think
the point to remember here is that employers are required to keep the
records of that, and OSHA inspectors can see that. So when OSHA comes
in and inspects a business entity, they can look at those records and
see what the workplace injuries are and red flag them, and they have
that ability. But personal information should not be at risk to the
public and risk people's identities and their personal health issues
for illness and work injuries.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my friend, the distinguished
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which blocks
OSHA's ability to improve tracking of injuries and illnesses in
workplaces across the country.
One of the problems we have is that Federal OSHA and State OSHA plans
have less than 2,000 inspectors to cover 8 million workplaces
nationally. If you do the arithmetic, each Federal OSHA inspector can
inspect a workplace about once every 159 years. State OSHA might be
able to do it once a century. So the fact that you have something on
site that is there for them to see if they ever get there, the problem
is they never get there.
We need to make sure they have the information to know which ones to
go to, which ones are the dangerous sites. The scarce resources that
OSHA needs to precisely target those resources is a result of these
reports. For large employers, and each illness with summary information
from smaller employers, that is how they figure out where to visit.
This rule also protects workers against discrimination if they report
injuries. GAO has found that workers fear reporting injuries,
especially where employers impose sanctions or reduce bonuses for work-
related injuries.
This amendment would upend this important rule which allows OSHA to
target their resources to inspect those that really need inspecting.
This amendment would upend the rule and compromise its transparency and
worker protections.
The information is not individually identifiable. People are
protected. But
[[Page H7310]]
the courts have said that this information is not confidential.
This amendment would rig the system against worker safety by
depriving OSHA of the information they need to target the workplaces,
so I request a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment to make sure
that we protect the private health records of our employees at the work
site and any illnesses that they might have. I don't think we should
risk that.
As I said earlier, I think OSHA inspectors have the ability to come
in and inspect those records on the workplace site. Putting it out on
the internet doesn't make a lot of sense.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
{time} 2200
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, Congress should support
OSHA's efforts to protect workers and use their data to target safety
and health efforts to the most dangerous workplaces.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this rider and to move
forward with the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 188 printed in House
Report 115-297.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 189 printed in House
Report 115-297.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gibbs) having assumed the chair, Mr. Arrington, 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.
____________________