Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Bonamici, the vice ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for offering the amendment and for her leadership on issues affecting older Americans.
The Older Americans Act was first passed 50 years ago as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. It helps older Americans live with dignity and stay connected with their communities. I am proud that last year we were able to pass a 3-year bipartisan reauthorization that increased funding for the programs. But had our
investments in these programs actually kept up with inflation and growing populations, the authorization levels would have been even much more. But, thankfully, the reauthorization moved us in the right direction.
This amendment would bring funding for supportive services, nutrition programs, and caregiver supports in line with the authorized level. Even though these are not fully adequate to address the total need, it is another step in the right direction. So I support the amendment and our commitment to older Americans. We can maintain that commitment by adopting this amendment, so I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source