pair the mammoth gaps in our training, or salvage our agency's declining reputation.

As General Counsel Hunter pointed out in his recent letter to you, our staff shortage is critical at the present time. The labor laws are not self-enforcing, and Congress cannot expect its policies to be carried out if it will not give us the tools to do the job. We need the basics. We need computers and research tools. We need typists. We need training. We even need pens and paper. Without these and other essentials, delays and backlogs will lengthen even further. Working families will be the ones who will suffer from unremedied labor law violations.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The agency heads may not be able to say openly to you that the funding proposed is not enough, but the union can and does say it. It is not enough. The union believes that the mission of the agency is a vital one. The NLRA is an efficient law, and we have been an efficient agency. But if we are not adequately funded, 130 million working people of this country, businesses, and ultimately the whole economy will be the losers. The NLRB union and the employees we represent urge you to increase the proposed funding for the NLRB, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF JANE VANDEVENTER

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jane Vandeventer. I am on the Executive Committee of the National Labor Relations Board Union (NLRBU) and work as a Field Attorney in the Nashville Resident Office of the NLRB. I am appearing here solely in my capacity as a Union official.

Along with the NLRB Professional Association, our Union represents the non-supervisory employees of the NLRB. We number about 1,800 in cities all over America, and work for the Agency as attorneys, field examiners, clerical and other support personnel. We are the people who are charged with the responsibility of serving the American people directly, assisting them in dealing with labor disputes, and enforcing the National Labor Relations Act on a day-to-day basis. On behalf of these highly dedicated federal workers, I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

Mr. Chairman, the Agency's fiscal year 1992 budget request of $162 million is entirely insufficient; it will allow nothing or nearly nothing for essential ingredients of an effective agency such as training, proper staffing, equipment and supplies, contract benefits, and labor relations. The employees of the NLRB have shown, and will continue to show, incredible dedication and loyalty and have consistently performed amazingly well for several years of near-emergency conditions. But no one can work on and on without sufficient staff, equipment, travel money, training, or contract benefits. Dedication cannot type and loyalty cannot litigate cases. We employees have been neglected, ignored, and taken for granted for too long, and our ability to sustain such extraordinary efforts is not endless. Without more staff and funding, the NLRB will cease to be, and may already have ceased to be, the effective and prestigious Agency it has been considered in the past. The Union believes that this diminution in effectiveness and reputation are the direct result of consistent underfunding by the Administration and Congress for a period of some years.

During much of the 1980's, the NLRB has been under a continuing fiscal crisis which has grown rapidly worse since January of 1990. Last year, the difficult working conditions created by lack of training, lack of equipment and supplies, lack of travel funds, lack of adequate staff and space, lack of contract benefits, and unremitting demands for increased productivity despite these handicaps, were made even more difficult by the stress of repeated Reduction-in-Force notices from August through November of 1990. In August 1990, the crisis became so acute that the Agency came to a near-standstill: unfair labor practice trials were canceled, most travel was canceled, investigation of most unfair labor practices were to be con

ducted only in Regional offices, no offices were to purchase supplies, equipment, or repairs, all monetary contractual benefits were canceled, and all training was canceled. The public was ill-served, justice was unconscionably delayed, and employee morale plummeted to an all-time low.

Fiscal year 1991 brings no reprieve from conditions which the General Counsel has charitably referred to as "spartan." Although the Agency requested a supplemental 1991 appropriation from OMB, there has been no supplemental funding as yet, nor does it seem likely. The budget crisis has resulted during the current fiscal year in a complete denial of all training, maintenance of skills, or career development for all employees, a cessation of hiring and of EEO recruiting efforts, and no funds for any contract benefits such as transfers, health and safety improvements, exchanges, and details. General Counsel Hunter reported to the Board in December 1990 that Regional offices were then understaffed by 47 professionals and 51.5 clericals. He went on to say, "casehandling backlogs presently exist and will continue to grow as a result of our inability to adequately staff offices.

In these past two years of poverty, the first things the Agency has cut are our hard-won contract benefits. We employees are not advancing in skills and ability to serve the public and do our jobs in an outstanding manner; we are not even treading water; we are sliding rapidly backward.

We NLRB employees have been praised in many quarters and for many years as paragons of dedication and industriousness. We proudly agree that we are dedicated and that we do work hard, but we are not superhuman; we cannot spin straw into gold. Our working conditions are growing steadily more intolerable. In various of fices, employees have reported to us that documents cannot be typed, paper and pens cannot be ordered, copiers and other essential equipment cannot be repaired, no reader can be hired for a blind employee who had had one for many years, some attorneys have not had formal training in thirteen years, and travel restrictions severely constrain our ability to handle cases. Our already inadequate staff is shrinking due to the departure of employees, whom the Agency cannot afford to replace. The early-retirement authority the Agency was forced to seek has only exacerbated the already critical understaffing. The overall Agency caseload has increased for several years and continues to increase; each employee's already heavy caseload becomes heavier. We have been asked to do more with less for year-after-year; common sense dictates the fallacy of continuing on such a course indefinitely. The Union submits that the limits have been overstepped.

The NLRB's continuing fiscal crisis will be exacerbated, rather than relieved, by. the 1992 budget request. If passed without additional funding, this budget will continue a deterioration in the quality of service to the public as well as in the morale of employees. Given the fact that the proposed budget will barely cover anticipated salary, rent, and caseload increases, it cannot begin to restore our purloined benefits, repair the mammoth gaps in our training, or salvage our Agency's declining reputation. Without sufficient, or in some cases, any training, equipment, staff, or travel funds being accorded to the National Labor Relations Board, the enforcement of the labor laws of this country is going to decline and grind to a standstill. The labor laws are not self-enforcing, and Congress cannot expect its policies to be carried out if it will not give us the tools to do the job. At the present time, the infrastructure of the labor law enforcement mechanism is in a far more deteriorated state than the federal transportation infrastructure, and it will not be repaired by band-aids. We cannot maintain service to the public at any reasonable level of competence without adequate staff, equipment, and training. Delays and backlogs, already far too long as a result of past years of underfunding, will lengthen even further, causing suffering, delays, and denials of remedies to all parties. Working people, working families, will be the ones who will suffer from unremedied labor law violations, and from the resulting anarchy in the the workplace that can be anticipated from a further reduction in our ability to do our jobs.

The Agency heads may not be able to say openly to you that the funding proposed by the Administration and OMB is not enough, but the NLRB Union CAN and does say it. It isn't enough! The proposed budget does not include ANY money for renewed training for employees or for automated office equipment, according to the General Counsel's testimony before this Subcommittee. This is unconscionable. The proposed budget includes inadequate funding for employees' contract benefits, proper staffing, and for equal employment recruiting and promotion objectives. Fiscal year 1992 will see the expiration of the collective bargaining agreements for the two largest units of employees at the NLRB. The proposed budget does not include sufficient funding to enable the Agency to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, and fulfill its obligations under the Civil Service Reform Act.

The Union believes that the mission of the Agency is a vital one. We administer and enforce the primary framework of laws within which employees, both rep

resented and unrepresented, deal with their unions and their employers. It is an efficient law and we have been an efficient Agency. The Union does not believe that the Agency and its employees should be punished for having been so efficient in the past by being denied adequate appropriations now. If we are not adequately funded, we cannot be an effective Agency. If we cannot be an effective Agency, the working people of this country, businesses, and ultimately the whole economy will be the losers. The NLRB Union and the employees we represent urge you to increase the proposed funding for the NLRB. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator HARKIN. Is the $162 million requested in the budget next year sufficient to

Ms. VANDEVENTER. Our position is that that is entirely insufficient, Senator. We believe that at least $15 million should be added to be able to function as an agency. At the present time we cannot function as we have in the past.

STATEMENT OF NATHAN ALBRIGHT

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Nathan Albright here, Senator Harkin. I would just like to add one small comment to your question. I did not hear the end of it, but I think if you see the staffing figures in our written statement for the record and as well in the most recent letter from General Counsel Hunter to you, we are severely understaffed nationwide in the regional offices both professionally and on the clerical level.

The impact on case handling at the regional office level, which is the level that has direct access to the public, is apparent from the figures in his letter, and the backlogs are increasing.

The staffing figures in the fiscal year 1992 budget allow for a full-time equivalent employment of only I believe it was 2,416, and I want to doublecheck that figure. No, 2,216. Excuse me. The staffing figures that General Counsel Hunter has mentioned and that we mentioned in our testimony, new staff is not included in the fiscal year 1992 budget. Replacing those figures, replacing those employees that the general counsel has said were understaffed, which is at a minimum, have not been addressed by the 1992 budget.

Senator HARKIN. I will tell you, what I hear from some people out in Iowa that have had cases pending and they cannot get them resolved at the National Labor Relations Board, once they find out that the funding of the Board is under my jurisdiction they tell me I ought to just quit funding the thing, period, because it is just not doing anything, and they are getting frustrated by it.

I just wonder if this might not be somewhat of the thinking behind this, you see. Cut you people down, you cannot service the cases, people get despondent, and they say what the heck, we might as well do away with the whole darn thing.

Ms. VANDEVENTER. There has been some sentiment in some corners that that is what has been going on for 10 years, Senator. If our effectiveness is reduced, obviously people get very unhappy with us. We have been an efficient agency, and we can be again with sufficient funding.

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I think the millions in dollars in back pay, I am not sure where those figures are kept, but that is a tribute to the very good things that we do if we are properly funded.

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY DRUITT

Ms. DRUITT. I just wanted to add that even though there are sentiments that people then do not want to file charges, we have had an increase in caseload. So that is not necessarily what is really happening. People are frustrated that they cannot get their cases processed, but they are still filing charges, and cases are becoming more and more complex. The issues are much more complex.

So we just need the staffing and the tools to work with in order for the agency to function because everyone is frustrated, particularly the employees.

Mr. ALBRIGHT. We are the only one out there for them.

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Ms. VANDEVENTER. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF DR. MAX LISTGARTEN, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVA NIA, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR DENTAL RESEARCH

Senator HARKIN. I am going to call up three as a panel. Each will speak, of course, but they will come up as a panel. Prof. Max Listgarten, University of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the American Association of Dental Research; Dr. Raymond Fonseca, Dean, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the American Association of Dental Schools; and JoAnn R. Gurenlian, American Dental Hygienists Association.

I am sorry I messed up that last name, but if you would all come up. I appreciate you all being here.

Would you mind? I am going to recess for just about 2 minutes to make a quick phone call to let someone know that I am late here. Just one second. I will be right back.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator HARKIN. The subcommittee will resume its sitting.

I welcome you all, and we will start with Prof. Max Listgarten, representing the American Association for Dental Research.

Dr. LISTGARTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am appearing as president of the American Association for Dental Research, which represents 5,000 researchers in the United States. Dental research addresses all the diseases and disorders that affect dental, oral, and facial structures. In 1989 alone, Americans spent approximately $36 billion on dental care. This includes a $5 billion saving directly attributable to research. This 1-year saving represents a greater sum than all the research funds provided to the National Institute for Dental Research over its 40-year history. Someone was speaking about good returns. This is about as good a return as one can get.

A long-range plan for research developed jointly by the National Institute for Dental Research in conjunction with researchers throughout the Nation has resulted in a booklet which outlines our research plans for the 1990's, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave a copy of this for your committee.

Senator HARKIN. I would like to have a copy of it. Thank you. Dr. LISTGARTEN. The following are but a few of the promising research areas outlined in this brochure. Dental caries and periodontal diseases have seen a tremendous improvement thanks to re

search, although they still account for the two main causes of tooth loss in the country.

Diseases of the oral soft tissues are also an important area that requires research; 30,000 Americans develop oral cancer every year; and 10,000 of them die of the disease. Actually, oral cancer incidence is higher than the incidence of leukemia in this country. So it does represent an important problem that many of us are trying to address.

Cranial facial birth defects, most notably cleft palate and cleft lips, require a great deal of research, and with the advances in genetics we are on the threshold of being able to find preventive ways to cut down on these drastic malformations.

There has been an explosion in dental materials research with a good possibility of replacing gold and silver with materials that are much more effective, much more cosmetic, and which cost much less.

Dental implants have seen a tremendous revolution in dentistry, and this is an area which requires much further research, since right now much of it is done without a good research basis for some of the procedures.

We are fully aware of the difficult budgetary pressures facing Congress. However, we believe that adequate funding of the Nation's biomedical research enterprise will pay dividends to the citizens of this country through reduced mortality, improved quality of life, and improved productivity.

The American Association for Dental Research supports the ad hoc group for medical research funding's recommendation for $9.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health as a whole for fiscal year 1992. As part of this budget, we are requesting $247 million for the National Institutes for Dental Research. This is the funding level needed for a balanced research program to support our individual regular research grants, research centers, training, and intramural research.

There are just two additional items that I wish to comment on, Mr. Chairman. The President's budget proposes to eliminate funding for the BRSG program. This program is designed to meet emerging opportunities in research and to develop young scientific talent. We urge the committee to restore $96 million to this program.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We agree with the level of support recommended by the President for the Agency for Health Policy and Research whose task it is to determine the most efficient and effective way to spend our health care dollars.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. [The statement follows:]

STATEMENT Of Max ListGARTEN

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Max Listgarten, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Periodontics, University of Pennsylvania. I am appearing on behalf of the American Association for Dental Research which represents 5,000 researchers in the United States who are involved in oral health research.