On September 26, the House of Representatives approved final bipartisan legislation to strengthen protections and support for America’s runaway and homeless children. The measure, the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (S.2982), builds on legislation authored by Rep. John Yarmuth, which the House overwhelmingly passed on June 9, 2008. It now heads to the President’s desk for his signature.
The bill reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Among other things, it would significantly improve the quality of services available to help disconnected youth and would expand access to those programs – so that fewer runaway and homeless children are turned away from shelters. More than a million children experience homelessness each year; in many cases these children flee because of situations of abuse and neglect. Studies show that runaway and homeless youth are at greater risk of behavioral and mental health problems.
In addition, the bill would also increase transparency at the Department of Health and Human Services and provide funding for local community programs that help homeless and runaway youth. In 2005, these programs served more than 500,000 homeless and runaway children.
“We must protect our nation’s most vulnerable children, especially those who have been pushed out and are living on the streets. This legislation will give them the physical shelter and emotional support they need to start rebuilding their lives. I commend Rep. Yarmuth for his leadership and dedication to providing runaway and homeless children across the country with the attention, stability, and hope they deserve.” -- Chairman George Miller
“This legislation will bring us significantly closer to ensuring that, in America, no child ever has to grow up without a home. For more than a million children each year, this legislation could mean the difference between continuing to live on the streets without hope and finding a path to successful adulthood.” -- Rep. Yarmuth
“I would like to congratulate Rep. Yarmuth on this bill and commend him for his commitment to helping our nation’s runaway and homeless youth. It is crucial that we do everything in our power to help the thousands of vulnerable young people in this country that are without a home. The programs that are reauthorized in this bill will give runaway and homeless children a real chance at getting a new start in life and help them get on track to a better future.” -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
Stronger protections in federal law are needed to ensure that companies deliver on their promise to provide health care to retired workers, witnesses told the full committee today. With insurance premiums skyrocketing and companies looking to cut expenses, an increasing number of companies have been rolling back or eliminating promised retiree health benefits. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the share of large firms offering retiree health coverage fell by half between 1988 and 2005, from 66 percent to 33 percent.
“Through the years, millions of workers have retired believing that they would be provided with the health care benefits that they were promised by their employer, benefits that they earned. What many of those workers found was their former employer eventually made a cost-cutting decision to renege on that promise and cut or reduce those health care benefits,” said Rep. John Tierney.
One of those companies was Raytheon Missile Systems, a defense contractor. Despite guaranteeing lifetime heath coverage to its retirees in the 1990s, in 2004 the company notified retirees that they would be have to pay several hundred dollars a month to continue coverage. “Retirees have been forced to sell a large part of their retirement dreams in order to afford the premiums they now have to pay,” said David Lillie, a Raytheon retiree. “More than a few retirees have had to mortgage their homes that were paid off in order to pay medical expenses that were not covered under a cheaper insurance plan.”
Employees have few protections when trying to prevent employers from shrinking or eliminating health benefits. Employer-sponsored health insurance for both retirees and current employees is voluntary. If an employer chooses to provide these benefits, employers are generally allowed to modify or terminate benefits, as long as they disclose it in the fine print. “The law is hostile to reasonable employee expectations about retiree health benefits – expectations created by the employer and from which the employer benefited in terms of increased employee loyalty and productivity,” said Norman Stein, a University of Alabama law professor and pension expert at the Pension Rights Center. “We know that in a real work environment, rather than the imagined work environment conjured up by the judge, employees tend to believe communications – oral and written – that they receive from their managers.”
The trend of scaling back or canceling promised health benefits accelerated in the 1990s when, as a result of an accounting rule change, companies were forced to disclose future health care obligations as a part of their balance sheet. By rolling back promised benefits, companies could result in a healthier bottom line to shareholders.
Historically, employer-sponsored retirement health benefits have been an essential source of health care coverage for retired workers and were a common benefit among larger institutions. As a part of their compensation package, loyal and dedicated employees were promised health benefits when they retired. “When most of the current retirees were in the workforce, larger American companies universally offered retiree health care to their employees and retirees as an incentive to retain trained employees,” said C. William Jones, chairman of ProtectSeniors.org, an advocacy group founded to protect retiree health care. “The workers accepted the IOU for retirement health care and other benefits in exchange for lower wages, and fewer vacations and holidays.”
On Thursday, September 25, the full committee will hold a hearing to explore options to safeguard promised retiree health benefits. With insurance premiums skyrocketing and companies looking to cut expenses, an increasing number of companies have been rolling back or eliminating promised retiree health benefits.
“Safeguarding Retiree Health Benefits” Thursday, September 25, 2008, 10:00 a.m. ET
The bill requires group health insurance plans that cover mental and addiction health benefits to put those benefits on equal footing with physical ailments. Private health insurers generally provide less coverage for mental illnesses than for other medical conditions. H.R. 6983 prohibits employer group health plans from imposing limitations on coverage for mental illnesses that they do not impose on physical illnesses. For example, the legislation would require that group health plans offer the same terms for deductibles, limits on hospital stays and outpatient visits, and co-payments. The measure will allow employers to offer more comprehensive mental health coverage without significant additional cost, while significantly reducing out-of-pocket costs for plan participants.
Some states already have strong requirements for the coverage and treatment of mental illness. H.R. 6983 would not affect state laws that offer stronger consumer protections.
The bill is named after the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and current Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), both longtime advocate of mental health awareness and parity.
"Today, approximately forty-four million Americans suffer from mental illness, but only one-third receive treatment. One reason is that private health insurers generally provide less coverage for mental illnesses and substance abuse than for other medical conditions. This bill is an important step towards ending the stigma attached to mental illness and providing fair coverage to those in need.” -- Chairman George Miller
The U.S. Department of Labor is failing to effectively enforce the nation’s child labor laws, witnesses told the Workforce Protection Subcommittee today. According to a study by the National Consumers League, the number of child labor investigations decreased dramatically during the Bush administration: The number of child labor investigations conducted by the Labor Department in 2006 was at the lowest in at least a decade. Meanwhile, research by the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, a coalition of migrant and seasonal agricultural nonprofit and public agencies, indicates that approximately 400,000 children under the age of 18 work in the fields to help support their families. While there are numerous restrictions on what dangerous job functions underage workers may perform, there are few protections if those children happen to work in agriculture. Agricultural child labor rules have remained largely unchanged since signed into law in 1938. At that time, a quarter of all American lived on farms and the majority of the agricultural work was performed on the family farm. Unlike counterparts in other industries, minors working in agriculture are still permitted to log in more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay.
“Children at age 12 [are] not allowed to work making copies in an air-conditioned office or cleaning floors at a local store. Yet today in America, children can legally work in harsh conditions out in the farm fields for wages sometimes below minimum wage. Exploitation of children, regardless if it’s done legally or illegally, needs to stop today.” -- Norma Flores, a former migrant farmer who began working when she was 12 years old.
“Unfortunately, all the laws and labor protections in the world won’t help if we do not adequately enforce our child labor laws. It is clear that the Bush administration is not focused on enforcing the laws already on the books.” -- Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
“Much more can and must be done to better protect our young people from hazards and dangers they confront in the workplace. Child labor law is no longer a high priority for the Department of Labor.” -- Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League.
The House is expected to vote today, September 23, on the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. This measure will help ensure better access to treatment for people suffering from mental illness by requiring group health insurance plans that cover mental and addiction health benefits to put those benefits on equal footing with physical ailments. More »
The House of Representatives gave final approval today for legislation to stop discrimination against individuals with disabilities by restoring the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. By a voice vote, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act (S. 3406) to reverse several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since the ADA’s enactment nearly two decades ago, courts have dramatically reduced the numbers of workers who are protected from employment discrimination under the law. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
In a series of rulings beginning in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the definition of who is protected under the ADA. The court held that workers with disabilities who are able to mitigate their impairments, such as by wearing hearing aids or taking medication, should not be considered disabled. In such cases, these workers would have no remedy under the law when they are discriminated against on the basis of disability. In other words, an employer could fire or refuse to hire a fully qualified worker simply on the basis of a physical or mental impairment, while contending in court that the worker is not “disabled enough” to qualify for protection under the law.
The ADA Amendments Act will reverse these court decisions and restore the original Congressional intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act by:
Prohibiting the consideration of measures that reduce or mitigate the impact of impairment – such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology – in determining whether an individual has a disability.
Covering workers whose employers discriminate against them based on a perception that the worker is impaired, regardless of whether the worker has a disability.
Making it clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
A similar House bill, H.R. 3195, introduced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), passed the House in June.
“The Americans with Disabilities Act guaranteed that workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits and not on an employer’s prejudices. But, court rulings since the law’s enactment have dramatically limited the ability of people with disabilities to seek justice under the law. Today we make it absolutely clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of a disability.” -- Chairman George Miller
“This victory today will restore the commonsense, meaningful definition of disability and overturn the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of our Congressional intent.” -- Rep. Rob Andrews, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
A last-minute Department of Labor proposal could undermine future health and safety protections for American workers, witnesses told the Workforce Protections Subcommittee today. The Washington Post recently reported that the proposal was developed by political appointees in secret with little consultation with career agency health and safety experts. The proposal only gives 30 days for comment and provides for no public hearings. Critics say that the Department of Labor proposal would add additional layers of red tape to an already slow regulatory process, even for those initiatives being considered. The Bush administration has only issued one health-related standard over the past eight years, which it was forced to complete under a court-ordered deadline.
“I am troubled by the Department of Labor’s attempt to rush through this rule without a full consideration of its effect on the health and safety of American workers. This proposed rule has without explanation leapfrogged ahead of many other worker protection standards that OSHA should have been working on for the last 8 years.” -- Subcommittee Chair Lynn Woolsey
“Our nation’s system for protecting workers from harmful substances that cause injuries, illnesses, and deaths is paralyzed. Thousands of workers are exposed every day to chemical compounds and physical hazards that are known to be harmful, yet these exposures are permitted by outdated or non-existent OSHA and MSHA standards.” -- Dr. Celeste Monforton, a lecturer at the department of environmental and occupational health at The George Washington University
“The proposed risk assessment rule has been developed in secret by political appointees…with little involvement by OSHA and MSHA and with no public notice prior to its publication. The department is trying to rush the proposal through and is depriving the public of an opportunity to meaningfully participate in this rulemaking process.” -- Peg Seminario, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO
On Wednesday, September 17, the Workforce Protections Subcommittee will hold a hearing examining the Department of Labor's last-minute proposal that would dramatically weaken future workplace health standards and further slow their enactment. The department has allowed only 30 days for comment on the proposal and will not hold public hearings.
"Secret Rule: Impact of the Department of Labor’s Worker Health Risk Assessment Proposal" Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 10:00 a.m. EDT
The House overwhelmingly passed the bill, H.R. 6889, by a vote of 368 to 4. Specifically, the legislation would extend provisions that provide the U.S. Secretary of Education with the additional tools needed to safeguard federal student loans by purchasing loans from lenders in the federal student loan programs in the event that those lenders were unable to access the capital needed to finance their lending activity. Like the original legislation, this bill carries no new cost for taxpayers.
H.R. 6889 would extend, for one year:
The temporary authority given to the U.S. Education Secretary to purchase loans from lenders in the federally guaranteed loan program, ensuring that lenders continue to have access to capital to originate new loans, if there was a determination that lenders were unable to meet demand for loans. The Education Department would be authorized to purchase loans only if doing so would not result in a net cost for the federal government; and
The authority to allow guaranty agencies to carry out the functions of lenders of last resort on a school-wide basis. Under existing law, these guaranty agencies are obligated to serve as lenders of last resort to prevent any possible problem in access to student loans.
“At a time when our rough economy is already dealing a huge blow to American families, we can’t allow trouble in the credit markets to further price students out of a college degree. With market turbulence showing no signs of letting up, it’s only prudent to make sure that students have every assurance that the federal student loans they need will be there next year.” -- Chairman George Miller
“Come spring, students and families will be making their plans for the next academic year. It is critical that we extend the authority for the Secretary to purchase student loans to avoid any uncertainty about the access to this critical source of student financial aid. “It would be a tragedy for a student to decide to forgo or postpone college because of a fear of not being able to get a federal student loan.” -- Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness
Chairman George Miller sent a letter Friday to Colombia’s President Álvaro Uribe, asking his government to address concerns that Colombia has failed to adequately address the nearly 2,700 murders of labor union leaders in his country. President Uribe will meet with Miller and other members of Congress this week in Washington.
“Our two ally nations should work together to help Colombia improve its labor laws, decrease the ongoing violence, and finally put an end to the impunity enjoyed by those who have perpetrated thousands of anti-labor killings,” Chairman Miller wrote. “These challenges have taken on heightened significance this year as the violence in Colombia has escalated over 2007 levels.”
According to the Escuela Nacional Sindical, an independent Colombian think-tank, nearly 2,700 Colombian union leaders or union members have been murdered since 1986. The overwhelming majority of these killings remain uninvestigated by the Colombian Attorney General’s Office. In addition, ENS statistics show that so far this year, more union leaders have been assassinated than during all of 2007.
Last year Congress approved $39 million to assist the Colombian government in improving the rule of law and human rights. This funding included $5 million for Colombian prosecutors to address the backlog of murder investigations. However, the Bush administration has delayed the distribution of these funds.
“Many members of Congress are very disappointed that the Bush administration has not transferred the funds that we appropriated last year to the Colombian Attorney General’s Office,” said Chairman Miller. “If the Bush administration had not created these inexplicable delays, the Government of Colombia could have already hired even more investigators and prosecutors, and Colombia might by now be several steps closer to creating an effective and sustainable system of justice to address the grave problem of anti-labor violence.”
Chairman Miller traveled to Bogotá earlier this year to meet with Colombian government officials, judges, prosecutors, human rights advocates and labor union leaders. Since then the committee’s staff have continued to conduct additional fact-finding on Colombia’s efforts to improve its judicial system and the need for further labor law reforms.
“One advantage stemming from our Congress’ decision to postpone the vote regarding the proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement is that it has given my colleagues and me additional time needed to assess whether or not Colombia has in fact created an effective and sustainable system of justice to combat anti-labor violence,” wrote Chairman Miller. “I hope that this ongoing fact-finding work will allow Congress to provide helpful recommendations to the next administration in the United States over how we can further strengthen our nation’s relationship with Colombia in such a way that promotes increased trade and higher labor standards.”
Congress delayed the consideration of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in April.
Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert testifies on September 9, 2008.
The administration should do more to improve academic standards for schoolchildren who attend Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, witnesses told the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education at a hearing on Tuesday. Specifically, they said the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Education must work more closely with tribal organizations to develop accountability systems under the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal government provides elementary and secondary education and educational assistance to Indian children directly through federally-funded schools or through assistance to public schools. Ninety percent of Indian students attend public schools operated by local school districts. However, 10 percent attend BIE schools, which are schools funded by the Department of the Interior. BIE schools are subject to NCLB with limited exceptions.
"Our success in the 21st century economy is directly tied to our ability to produce a high quality labor force. And that ability is, of course, directly tied to our ability to meet the challenge of providing every child – including every Indian child – with a world-class education. We must ensure that Indian tribes – which are sovereign entities who best understand their children’s needs – are full partners in that process." -- Subcommittee Chairman Dale Kildee.
"Recognizing and validating the cultural, social and linguistic needs of American Indians is critical to guaranteeing the continuity of their communities... We believe with good faith collaboration that we can provide our children with an education that honors their Native identities while simultaneously preparing them for successful futures by providing them with opportunities to incorporate into the curriculum their rich cultural heritages, languages, and traditions." -- Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, President of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), who testified that the BIE should expand upon the culturally based instruction currently taking place in Indian schools by promoting stronger integration of Native culture and languages into the curriculum.
"The frustration with this situation is NCLB provides opportunities for tribes to have a significant voice on assessing the quality of education for their children and making changes to their educational programs based on those assessments... The manner in which the BIE has chosen to implement NCLB has left tribes with no voice in educating their own children." -- Ted Hamilton, Executive Director of the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium, who testified about the need to develop strong accountability systems tailored to BIE schools under NCLB.
On Thursday, September 11, 2008, the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee will hold a hearing on "Examining the Role of Museums and Libraries in Strengthening Communities," scheduled at 10:00 a.m. in room 2175 Rayburn H.O.B.
RSS Feed
