Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time.
While this amendment increases career and technical education funding, a worthy goal that I support, it comes at the expense of funding for critical higher education programs that support low-income and minority students.
Career and technical education funds help ensure students are well prepared for further education employment in high-skilled, high-demand jobs in the 21st century economy.
In days before the election, President Trump, in reference to CTE, said: ``We're going to start it up big league.''
Secretary DeVos, a few months ago, said: `` . . . this administration is committed to supporting and highlighting career and technical education.''
Despite these promises, the Trump-DeVos budget cuts CTE by $168 million, or 15 percent.
I am glad to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proposing to increase our investment in this critical area, but I am deeply concerned that the amendment proposes to slash $70 million in funding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decimate the ability of the Department of Education to meet the needs of Americans by indiscriminately transferring $44 million to the spending reduction account. This does nothing to improve the bill, which is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level. Further cuts are completely unnecessary.
That is not all. This $5 billion is also below the nondefense levels allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available, but the majority refuses to allocate them to essential programs funded through this bill. The Department will simply have to do less with less. That is not good for the American people, and it is not good for our constituents.
A Department with fewer resources to oversee the Student Aid portfolio, and as Mr. Scott pointed out, the Office of Inspector General's ability to promote efficiencies within the Department and investigate fraud, will be hampered.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support my colleague's effort to improve access to early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment. But I think it is important that we come back to why we are here tonight and why this $5 million for mental health programs is not included in this Labor-HHS bill under consideration.
The reason is because this bill is being cut by $5 billion from FY17 levels. This is the end result that we get when the majority's efforts to slash nondefense spending come to fruition. We are forced to choose between lifesaving programs, such as mental health and substance abuse programs, and programs that invest in our future, like early childhood education or job training.
We ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs. Then we could begin working on a bipartisan base that will allow us to adequately fund mental health and substance abuse prevention.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source