[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13831-13850]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 13832]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 13833]]


  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.
  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.

[[Page 13834]]

  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 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

[[Page 13835]]

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 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

[[Page 13836]]

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 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

[[Page 13837]]

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 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

[[Page 13838]]

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 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

[[Page 13839]]

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 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.

[[Page 13840]]

  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 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

[[Page 13841]]

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 13842]]

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.

[[Page 13843]]

  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 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

[[Page 13844]]

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).
  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

[[Page 13845]]

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 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

[[Page 13846]]

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.
  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.
  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:

[[Page 13847]]

       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. 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.

[[Page 13848]]


  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 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

[[Page 13849]]

     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,
     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.

[[Page 13850]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________