Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fawell, chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, for yielding time to me and would also like to express to him my appreciation and that of my constituents for all of his hard work on pension issues. In my opinion, this issue is fairly simple. The Federal Government should not engage in the business of encouraging a specific type of investment which jeopardizes pensions of Americans. Economically targeted investments, or ETI's are social investments in which the social good or benefit of the investment is considered more important than the financial benefit created for the pension participant. In other words, the Clinton administration wants to risk the retirement funds of workers to promote its own liberal social agenda. H.R. 1594 would void this practice. If one is concerned about the security of America's retirees, this investment principle is unacceptable. As we know, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] is the statute which protects the investment interests of retirees. Under the act, the Department of Labor is to act as the guardian of pensions. ERISA requires that private pension funds be invested for the sole financial benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. The Department, through its promotion of ETI's, strays from the fiduciary standards mandated through ERISA and abdicates its role as the entity charged with private pension guardianship. This debate is not about the worth of social investing; it's about the failure of the Clinton administration to execute its duty and responsibility under the law to protect the retirement funds of millions of Americans. Investments are never a sure thing; however, social investing offers, traditionally, a higher risk with lower returns. It's already a well-known fact that Americans do not save adequately for retirement. This fact has been confirmed by recent articles in several well-respected financial journals. Why, then, should we permit the Clinton administration to compound the problem by undermining the investments of those Americans who have put money away for retirement? There is $3.5 trillion invested in private pension plans in the United States. When Americans set money aside for retirement, the least they should be able to expect is that the pension managers will follow ERISA fiduciary standards and make wise investments with financial performance as the sole criterion. We must ensure that this trust is not misplaced. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1594, legislation aimed at protecting America's private pensions by prohibiting the Department of Labor from promoting economically targeted investments. Join me in rescuing the retirement fund of all Americans from the politically correct, but financially destructive designs of Bill Clinton and Robert Reich. After all, can you claim to stand for the American worker and at the same time advocate a risky investment strategy that undermines his or her retirement funds?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on National Security, the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as I spent August back home with family and neighbors, I had time to reflect upon why I am here. It's easy to get caught up in inside-the-beltway activities and small battles and forget why our constituents sent us here. I will tell Members why my constituents sent me here. They sent me here to balance the budget and scale back big Government. They sent me here to save and strengthen Medicare. They sent me here to change the destructive welfare system. And they sent me here to relieve them of their overly heavy tax burden. These are simple things. We can do this, and we should do this now. This was in our job description when we were sent here, and if we don't fulfill those duties, our employers will find someone who will.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, this fall is about a promise and a choice. The promise is to balance the budget. The choice is whether or not we keep our word. How many Members of this body, from both sides of the aisle, campaigned on a promise of fighting for a balanced budget? How many have stated, ``Of course, I'm for the concept of a balanced budget.'' On January 26th of this year, for the first time ever, this House passed a balanced budget amendment. Three hundred members voted for it. Of the 132 who voted against it, virtually all expressed their strong support for the idea of a balanced budget. Well, in the coming weeks, push will come to shove. Members of this House will have a real choice. Will you keep your word? When given the opportunity, will you vote to balance the budget? I know I will.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this Congress passed a number of regulatory reforms which have benefited America's employee community as much as its employer community. We have said that we cannot protect the safety of the employees without destroying their jobs. We can reduce the risk without reducing employment. This is why we passed risk assessment, cost-benefit, and a regulatory moratorium. OSHA has said that in developing ergonomic standards it wants to do business as usual, no matter what Congress says. Cumulative trauma disorders represent less than 4 percent of the workplace illnesses, but to drive this 4 percent higher, OSHA arbitrarily decided to include back pain, which would increase the figure to 28 percent. But there is a great controversy in the scientific community over whether such back pain can be attributed to workplace causes. In Australia, when an ergonomic standard was adopted in the 1980's, injury rates increased. Workers' compensation costs increased as much as 40 percent in some industries, and a single company lost more than $15 million in 5 years due to increased production costs. As Tom Leamon, vice president and research director for Liberty Mutual Insurance, a company which has worked with OSHA to try to develop a standard, has concluded: I've spent a long time trying to make jobs better and lighter, but there is amazingly little evidence to support a mandatory standard.

Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk about how if we make any cuts in OSHA enforcement we will directly endanger American workers. That kind of statement presumes that only the strong enforcement arm of OSHA stands between workers and serious injury and death. I think we all know that that's nonsense. Employers in this country have a lot more reasons than OSHA for providing safe workplaces. The fact of the matter is that once one cuts through the rhetoric, the evidence of an overall effect of OSHA in reducing injuries and deaths over the past 25 years is at best very limited. It has been claimed that OSHA works because workplace fatality rates have decreased by more than 50 percent since the OSH Act was passed. In fact, workplace fatality rates have declined steadily since the end of World War II, and in fact the fatality rate decreased more during the 24 years prior to OSHA than it did in the 24 years after OSHA was created. OSHA itself cites a 1993 study which, OSHA claims, ``confirmed that in the three years following an OSHA inspection and fine, injuries at the inspected worksite decline by as much as 22%.'' In fact, OSHA is trying to make that study's conclusions far more positive than the authors were. The authors of the study did estimate that in their sample of companies that had been inspected and fined there was a 22- percent decline in injuries over 3 years. The companies in the sample were very large manufacturing facilities; thus the number of injuries suffered was relatively high compared to all worksites in the United States. The authors did try to extrapolate their findings from this sample to all employers, and concluded that OSHA probably reduced overall injuries by about 2 percent. Indeed, nearly all economists' attempts to estimate the overall effect of OSHA on workplace injuries have concluded that the effect is between 0 and 3 percent. Since OSHA began the Federal Government has spent over $4 billion directly in implementing and enforcing the OSH Act and directed that billions more be spent by American employers to comply. Why is there so little evidence that OSHA has had a significant effect on workplace safety and health? If you talk to safety and health directors across this country, what you realize is that OSHA's preoccupation on enforcement is not only not effective, but often counterproductive. Let me just read a few comments from a safety and health director of a major printing company. During the 1980's and my first five years with Donnelley, my department's focus was compliance based. During this time period, our accident rates and workers' compensation costs increased dramatically. During this time frame, we averaged about 10 OSHA inspections per year. None of the citations related to the main reasons our accidents were occurring. To use an analogy, all of our citations were for not putting a band-aid on a cut--none were for what was causing the cut. In the beginning of 1992, we returned to our historical focus of managing safety and not compliance. With the return to our historical focus on accident prevention, we achieved an accident rate reduction of 16%, a lost time accident rate reduction of 15% and a workers' compensation cost per claim reduction of 24% from 1991 through the end of 1994. In my position, I spend approximately 50% of my time on OSHA compliance issues and our plant safety coordinators spend approximately 80% of their time on compliance activities. The majority of our resources are dedicated to paperwork and programs that are not the cause of our problems. OSHA could be a helpful resource in our efforts to prevent accidents, but the agency needs to be refocused. The problem is that OSHA's emphasis has been on compliance with regulations, many of which have only indirect or minor relationship to safety. More reasonable regulations, combined with other strategies which focus on safety and health rather than punishment--expanded consultation services, incentives for good safety records, provision for private sector workplace reviews, more leeway for employee participation and safety committees, and directing that enforcement focus on serious health and safety concerns--will make OSHA more effective, as well as less onerous. Reforms to OSHA are badly needed. We are trying to reform OSHA in my subcommittee. This appropriations bill is a realistic reflection of where OSHA is today. Don't be deceived by the talk about increased worker injuries. The evidence just doesn't support those claims.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], a member of the committee.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Geogia [Mr. Norwood], a member of the committee.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I guess we all know by now that the Clinton administration has made a lot of zigs and zags and 180-degree turns. Now they are doing their famous ``now you see it, now you don't'' on OSHA reform. Two months ago President Clinton made quite a show of going to a small business in northwest Washington and promising that his administration was going to reinvent OSHA. He said that the administration wanted OSHA to be a partner with employers in working toward safety in the workplace. ``Prevention not penalties'' was going to be the new goal for OSHA, according to the President. Last month, Assistant Secretary for OSHA, Joe Dear, made the same promises to the White House Conference on Small Business. Our goal is not to issue penalties, he said, but to work with employers and employees to improve safety. Someone must have forgotten to get the script to Secretary of Labor Reich. Yesterday he criticized every effort Congress is making to have a more reasonable OSHA. The Clinton administration's efforts to appeal to the small business community with promises of a reinvented OSHA are looking more and more like one more PR gimmick by this administration. Small businesses, employers, and employees, deserve better.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, despite all their pious concern over Medicare, Democrats have chosen a path that most definitely will render Medicare bankrupt by the year 2002. Democrats have chosen the path of denial. They deny the existence of this report by three of Bill Clinton's own Cabinet Secretaries. They call for immediate action to save Medicare from bankruptcy. But Democrats deny that Medicare is going bankrupt. In fact, the minority leader himself has called this report a hoax. That's right. The Democrats don't even want to hear the advice and warnings from the people who run Medicare, who are themselves Democrats in the President's Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, denial is a dangerous path to follow. Medicare is going bankrupt, the numbers are not lying, and we need to take action now to preserve Medicare for millions of seniors who depend on it. We simply cannot afford to ignore the warnings of this report.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was approached by a group of Haitians requesting aid for their ailing nation. The group included Duly Brutus, a member of the opposition party, and also Josette Bouto, the mayor of a small town in northern Haiti. They painted a graphic picture of devastating conditions in Haiti. The mayor had a special request of pencils and paper for the poor school in her town of Limbe. With the help of pencil and paper manufacturers, I secured the contribution of 800,000 sheets of paper and 5,500 pencils that were shipped on July 14 by the AID. The educational materials will be distributed in towns and schools in dire need of them, particularly the small town of Limbe. This week, I learned of the arrest of Mr. Brutus. He is charged with allegedly committing arson, although many believe that because Mr. Brutus was active in opposing President Jean Paul Aristide, he may be a political prisoner. This arrest has added validity to election observers' statements that fraud and abuse in Haiti's political system is widespread. Furthermore, I have learned that the school in Limbe that was to receive the small contributions was burned to the ground. These incidents illustrate how far from democracy Haiti is and how long a journey it must make. Although I fear an increased United States presence there, we must continue to support peace and democracy in Haiti and in our hemisphere.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 541, I was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the campaign of distortions already begun by opponents of OSHA reform. Since we introduced H.R. 1834, which now has over 100 cosponsors, opponents of reforming OSHA have been saying that our legislation will result in more workers being killed and seriously injured. Such rhetoric pretends that all that stands between workers and serious injury or death is the strong arm of OSHA. Simply put, that's a false picture of what OSHA does. Most of us know that OSHA is not the primary reason that most employers are concerned with employee safety. There is overwhelming evidence that--even if we ignore the humanitarian concerns that motivate most people--workers compensation and other medical and human resource costs related to employee injuries are far more compelling reasons for employers to provide safe workplaces. OSHA's role is, at best, a helpful complement and sometimes necessary backup to these factors. But more often OSHA has become simply a revenue collector for the Federal Government, finding nitpicking violations of the thousands of pages of OSHA requirements, without regard to whether any workers are actually being harmed by unnecessary risks. That's why our OSHA reform bill is necessary. The distortions being made are not only of OSHA's role, but of the provisions of H.R. 1834. I hope that the following responses to three of the distortions are helpful to my colleagues in understanding what H.R. 1834 really provides. Myth No. 1: H.R. 1834 means turning our back on the tragedy at Hamlet. Fact: No one from North Carolina, as I am, will ever forget the tragedy at Hamlet. The deaths of 26 workers at a chicken processing plant in Hamlet, NC in September 1991 were caused by the fact that workers could not get out of the plant when a fire broke out because of locked fire doors and unmarked fire exits. Several laws prohibiting such locked doors were broken, and the owner of the plant eventually went to jail. H.R. 1834 does not change the laws or reduce the criminal penalties under which the owner of the plant went to jail. The question of Hamlet, however, was why did no one report the locked doors, especially those Government meat inspectors who regularly visited the plant? Under H.R. 1834, OSHA would be directed to establish programs with other Federal agencies such as USDA and with State and local government inspection agencies, to check facilities specifically for fire code violations, and to report those, if necessary, to OSHA. Had that simple step been in place, the deaths of most if not all of the Imperial Food Products workers would have been avoided. Myth No. 2: H.R. 1834 would prohibit OSHA from enforcing the law for serious safety and health hazards. Fact: H.R. 1834 provides that if an employee is injured, killed, or placed in imminent danger due to a violation of an OSHA requirement, a citation and penalty should be issued immediately by OSHA, just as under current law. In other cases, not involving such serious hazards, the employer would have a period of time, set by OSHA, to correct any alleged violations before a citation and penalty would be assessed. But in no case would the employer have the option not to come into compliance--OSHA would still enforce the law, both for serious and nonserious hazards. Why establish this right to fix nonserious violations? First, it is fairer to employers, most of whom cannot possibly know or consistently follow all of the details of OSHA regulations and interpretations of those regulations. Yet OSHA routinely fines employers thousands of dollars when they are found to be in noncompliance, even when there is no apparent threat to workers' safety. Second, allowing employers the right to fix nonserious violations will help OSHA focus its enforcement resources more effectively. Most often employers will simply make the correction and no citation will be issued. Today, OSHA automatically issues a citation, which the inspector must carefully document in case the citation is challenged. The emphasis, both in inspectors' time and attention, becomes documenting violations, rather than improving safety and health. In fact, the Clinton administration is now claiming that they want to give employers the same right to fix OSHA violations, but their proposal is weighed down with more regulatory conditions and left to inspector discretion. Legislation is necessary because OSHA has too often focused on collecting penalties rather than on safety and health. Myth No. 3: H.R. 1834 strips away every working American's right to secure an OSHA inspection for serious safety and health hazards and exposes workers to serious retaliation if they contacted the agency. Fact: H.R. 1834 provides that employees should first seek to correct health and safety problems with their employers before filing complaints against the employer with the Federal Government. The bill does not take away any employee's right to complain to OSHA. H.R. 1834 also recognizes that employees who do bring items to the employer's attention, and, if necessary, complain to OSHA about the employer, should be protected by law against retaliation for doing so. The bill enhances the antidiscrimination provisions under the Occupational Safety and Health Act in several ways, most importantly by giving employees who believe they have been retaliated against because they filed a safety or health complaint, a private right of action with make whole remedies if in fact retaliation did take place. Finally, let me mention some of the statistics which opponents of OSHA reform are using. First, the claim is made, in support of leaving OSHA the way it is, that since OSHA was created the workplace fatality rate has dropped by more than 50 percent. Thankfully, the workplace fatality rate has dropped since 1970, but it has also decreased steadily since the mid-1940's, and the rate of decrease has not really changed since OSHA's creation. The decrease in the fatality rate, while something we are grateful for, does not really argue for OSHA's continuation. Second, Secretary Reich has begun repeating a figure of ``55,000 work-related deaths per year.'' In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 1993 there were 6,271 work-related fatalities. We spend lots of money on [[Page H 7076]] BLS to collect these numbers--and they are the most accurate numbers available. The Secretary's use of a figure nearly 10 times what his Department reports hardly seems justified. I believe that OSHA can be made both more effective and more fair-- more effective in redefining OSHA's role, and more fair to the employers of this country who provide the jobs on which the economy depends. I urge my colleagues to study the issues, to resist the rhetoric of those who want to keep OSHA as it is, and to help us pass meaningful OSHA reform in H.R. 1834.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, what do Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, and Robert Rubin have in common? (a) They are all Democrats (b) They are all members of President Clinton's cabinet (c) They all predict that the Medicare Trust Fund will go bankrupt by the year 2002 (d) All of the above If you picked (d), you're right. Republicans aren't making the Medicare crisis up. The Medicare Trustees, which are members of the President's own Cabinet, have said that the Medicare Trust Fund is going broke. So while the Democrats in the House chose to ignore the Administration, the Republicans have listened. We understand the importance of the situation, and we know what will happen if we do nothing but maintain the status quo--Medicare will go bankrupt. Republicans will work hard to preserve, protect and improve Medicare not only for this generation, but also [[Page H 6920]] for future generations. I urge my Democrat colleagues to listen to their own colleagues and join us in saving Medicare, not the status quo.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, July 9--the Cost of Government Day--marks the point at which the average American worker finally begins to earn money he can keep for himself--in order to pay for food, housing, living expenses, and savings. Thanks to direct taxes, deficit spending, and excess regulation, our oversized and overpriced government takes 52 cents for every dollar we earn. Hard to believe but true. It is not difficult to see why it now takes Americans almost 190 days to pay off annual costs to Uncle Sam. For example, Federal regulations cost Americans an estimated $700 billion in 1994 alone. The flow of unfunded mandates issued by the White House has caused substantial increases in State and local taxes. And we continue to feel the effects of the 1993 Clinton tax hike. I do not believe that it was ever the intent of our Founding Fathers for Americans to work more hours for the government than they work for themselves. I urge my colleagues to continue the progress begun in the Contract With America--such as the passage of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act--and fight to bring this outrageous trend under control. By reducing the size of our bloated bureaucracy and judging the effects of new Federal regulations in a more responsible manner, we can ensure that the Cost of Government Day rolls around a little sooner each year.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with over 60 of my colleagues, am introducing the Safety and Health Improvement and Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. The legislation will comprehensively change the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. Few Federal programs are in need of change as much as this one. Ensuring and promoting the basic safety and health protections for workers in this country is a moral as well as an economic imperative. Safe and healthful working conditions for our Nation's workers is not and should not be a partisan matter, nor is it exclusively the interest or responsibility of any one group or special interest. Society, through government, employers, and employees themselves, have responsibilities in helping to make sure that life and limb are not the price for being employed. Mr. Speaker, I am an employer and a businessman myself. I know that for most employers, the phrase ``our employees are our most valuable resource'' is not mere rhetoric, but the way in which we view our businesses. For too long, the Federal Government, particularly in programs like OSHA, has viewed employers as adversaries, to be policed and watched over with all kinds of rules and penalties if those rules should be broken in any detail. I know that there are people in business who try to take shortcuts, and there are some who are just plain crooks. There needs to be enforcement. But heavy enforcement should be the last resort, not the first resort. To be committed to worker safety and health does not mean to be committed to the way in which OSHA has been operating. President Clinton recently stated it quite well: * * * frankly sometimes the rules have simply become too complex, too specific for even the most diligent employer to follow, and that if the government awards inspections for writing citations and levying fines more than ensuring safety, there's a chance you could get more citations, more fines, more hassle, and no more safety. That is the problem we are trying to address with this legislation: Too often OSHA has had too little to do with promoting basic safety and health for workers, and too much to do with promoting Government rules. In my view nothing illustrates how OSHA has gone off on the wrong track more clearly than the fact that today few if any employers would ever call OSHA and ask for assistance or advice on workplace safety or health. That is not because employers don't want assistance, or are not aware of the importance and cost savings from avoiding workplace accidents and injuries. It is because OSHA's mission has become misdirected into a simply finding violations of regulations and issuing penalties. We believe that a more fair and more effective workplace safety and health program would rely primarily on nonenforcement efforts, with enforcement reserved for those situations and employers where the circumstances show that enforcement is necessary and justified. Our bill reserves, after a 3-year phase-in period, one-half of OSHA's funds for nonenforcement efforts. Those funds would be used: To expand the State consultation grants program which provides on- site assistance to small businesses in high hazard industries. In many States, the shortage of resources has meant waiting periods of up to 2 years for employers who seek these services. [[Page E1262]] To expand OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program [VPP], which recognizes and grants exemption from enforcement inspections for employers with exemplary safety records and programs. To support additional training, education, and outreach programs, designed to promote safe work practices with employers and employees. To establish and oversee a new certification program for private individuals to conduct workplace safety and health reviews. Once underway this program would allow employers the opportunity to be free of OSHA inspections as long as the employer had no reportable accidents--fatalities or multiple injuries--and no employee complaints. The use of private individuals to conduct workplace safety and health reviews in lieu of OSHA inspections was part of Vice President Gore's proposed reinvention of the Federal Government. It died in the hands of an agency that is unwilling to give up the notion that but for OSHA employees have no protection against their employers. That notion is not only false, it is silly. The fact is, as many of my Democratic colleagues frequently point out, OSHA inspects only a small number of worksites and employers every year--around 40,000 in recent years. Many employers avoid inspection for years--in fact, it is this inequity of inspections, in which some employers are inspected nearly every year and their competitors may never be inspected, that along with the arbitrariness of citations and fines, often fuels the rage of employers against OSHA. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review rightly recognized that ``an army of OSHA inspectors'' was neither necessary nor, in light of the Federal budget situation, likely. The use of private individuals to conduct workplace reviews provides a means of extending expertise and attention to workplace safety and health, while allowing us to reduce the role of the Federal Government. Our bill makes one other important change in regards to putting the emphasis of the program back on safety and health, rather than on collecting penalties. OSHA's interpretation of the current statute is and has long been that an inspector who observes a violation of any regulation, unless the violation itself can be classified as de minimis, must issue a citation for that violation. It does not matter whether the violation is not threatening to any employees. Nor does it matter whether the employer knew of the regulation--he or she is presumed to know all of what is printed in the Federal Register and in unending compliance directives from Washington. OSHA has announced that it will soon begin a program to reduce penalties for alleged violations that are corrected immediately, while the inspection is still underway. While this may seem like only common sense, it at least takes OSHA a step in the right direction. But it certainly does not go far enough. Under our bill, the general rule would be that OSHA will work with employers to identify and correct hazards, and that only if the employer fails to do so, or if a violation has caused a serious injury or death, a fine would be issued. OSHA's mission should be abatement of safety and health hazards and safer workplaces, not collecting revenues for the Federal Government. When the employer corrects the problem, and no one has been injured or killed as a result of a violation, the Federal Government's interest in safety and health is satisfied. In addition to refocusing OSHA on what should be its mission--safety and health, this bill implements two pieces of legislation already passed by the House. First, with regard to how regulations will be issued, the bill includes the reforms overwhelmingly passed by the House earlier this year and incorporated into H.R. 9. Second, consistent with the House-passed budget resolution, the bill includes the merger of the Mine Safety and Health Administration with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the elimination of the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH] as a separate agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Although we are merging MSHA and OSHA, I do want to emphasize to my colleagues that the bill specifically directs the newly merged agency to continue to enforce mining regulations in mines, and to maintain its corps of specialized mine inspectors. In fact, the bill requires that the kind of specialized and expert inspectors that have been the strength of the mine safety program also be the model for how OSHA's inspectorate should be improved. Mr. Speaker, following is a section-by-section description of our legislation. I would welcome my colleague's support and cosponsorship and I look forward to working with my colleagues in helping to pass this much needed legislation. Section-by-Section Description of The Safety and Health Improvement and Regulatory Reform Act of 1995--June 14, 1994 Section 1. Short Title, Table of Contents, Reference. Section 2. Standards. Requires that standards issued by OSHA be based on risk assessment, regulatory impact and cost-benefit analysis, similar to proposals already adopted by the House. Requires that the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis be industry-specific. Requires that benefits be ``justified by and be reasonably related'' to be costs of the standard. Requires that standards be ``feasible'' and ``practical.'' Prohibits OSHA from citing an employer under a standard if a request from the employer for a variance on the standard involved has been pending for more than 90 days. Requires that each standard in effect at the time of enactment be reviewed within 7 years for compliance with the new risk assessment and cost-benefit criteria. Creates a petition process whereby affected parties can obtain review of existing standards for compliance with the new criteria. Requires the Secretary to accept or reject the petition regarding a standard within 120 days. Requires independent peer review of the economic and scientific data which forms the basis for the standard, including the relevance of the data to industries and workers affected by the standard. Requires the panel to be broadly representative and balanced. Section 3. Notice of Violation. Requires that OSHA issue a warning to employers and specifies a reasonable time frame to fix the alleged violation. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days (or shorter if it constitutes a direct threat to employees) a citation may be issued. Exceptions to this policy would be allowed if a fatality or serious injury occurred. Eliminates penalties for posting, recordkeeping, reporting, or notification unless there is a direct threat or injury or intent to mislead or deceive employees or OSHA. Section 4. Consultation, Incentives for Voluntary Action, and Technical Assistance. Creates a new program allowing certified individuals to conduct safety and health reviews for employers. Exempts employers who utilize such individuals from random OSHA inspections. Expands the Small Business Consultation program. Codifies the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) which recognizes and provides an exemption for employers with exemplary programs and safety records. Transfer NIOSH training functions to OSHA. Targets at least 50 percent of OSHA funds (after a three year phase-in) for non-enforcement activities (small business consultation, training, education, and compliance assistance programs). Section 5. Removal of Barriers to Voluntary Safety and Health Activities. Provides that an employee participation program which deals in whole or in part with safety and health is not a violation of section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. Provides a legal ``privilege'' for safety and health audits which are done voluntarily by an employer. Section 6. Inspections. Requires that an employee bring a complaint over an alleged violation of a safety or health standards to attention of the employer before filing with OSHA. If the employer fails to correct the violation, the employee may then file a complaint with OSHA. Requires that a copy of the complaint be provided to the employer no later than the time of the inspection. Creates a legal requirement that OSHA inspections be conducted by at least one individual who has technical expertise by training or experience in the industry under inspection. Requires OSHA to enter agreements with other enforcement agencies to check for fire hazards and report them to OSHA if necessary. Exempts small businesses (fifty or fewer employees) that have below average injury rates from random safety inspections. Codifies appropriation exemption for small farms (employing 10 or fewer workers and not maintaining a labor camp) from random safety inspections. Section 7. Employer Defense. Provides a defense against citation for ``employee misconduct.'' Creates a defense for employers who have utilized alternative methods which are equally or more protective of an employee's safety and health in the workplace. Provides a defense against any regulatory action of an employer is in compliance with another federal requirement which overlaps or is in conflict. Section 8. Penalties. Repeals separate penalties for ``willful'' and ``repeat'' violations. Lists seven criteria to be used in assessing penalties. Creates a special assessment which allows higher penalties in cases where violations cause a death or an excessive number of serious injuries. Provides that no penalties may be issued unless a standard or regulation exists. Clarifies that state or local law enforcement agencies may conduct criminal prosecutions for conduct falling under state criminal laws. Section 9. Review by the Commission. Extends the time an employer may contest a citation from 15 to 30 days. Gives deference to interpretations of standards by the Commission (overturns the CF&I case). [[Page E1263]] Increases the number of members of the Commission from 3 to 5 and specifies that one member of the Commission should have experience in mining. Allows parties to waive formal proceedings before the Commission. Section 10. NIOSH Repealed. Repeals the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Section 11. State Workmen's Compensation Commission Repealed. Repeals this Commission which has completed its function. Section 12. State Programs. Encourages state OSHA programs to follow federal standards when applicable to products or labeling. Provides additional flexibility to state OSHA programs by allowing states to adopt alternative methods of enforcement that are at least as effective as the Federal program. Section 13. Discrimination. Extends time for filing complaints to 60 days. Requires that DOL notify the person named in the complaint and investigate within 60 days. Provides that if DOL does not decide to prosecute the case within 60 days, the complainant may take the case directly to the Review Commission for a hearing and a decision. Provides for an appeal of the Commission decision to the Court of Appeals. Encourages the use of mediation in all disputes. Section 14. Coverage of Federal Agencies. Covers all federal agencies under the federal OSHA requirements. Section 15. Federal Agency Safety Programs. Repeals Section 19 of current law which requires federal agencies to maintain their own safety and health programs (repealed because of changes described in Section 14). Section 16. Prevention of Alcohol and Substance Abuse. Provides ``safe harbor'' for employers conducting drug and alcohol testing which follows HHS (drug) and DOT (alcohol) guidelines. Authorizes OSHA to conduct drug and alcohol testing when investigating workplace deaths and serious injuries. Section 17. Mine Safety and Health. Merges the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) with OSHA. Transfers all MSHA standards to OSHA. Requires all underground mines to be inspected at least once per year. Requires all mining inspectors to have 5 years of practical mining experience. Authorizes closure orders in cases of imminent danger and requires that such order be reviewable in court within one day. Authorizes fines against miners who violate the mandatory safety standard related to smoking in the mine. Section 18. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Modifies recordkeeping requirements to insure that recordable injuries and illnesses are work-related, involve medical treatment, and include one or more days of lost work or restricted work. Specifies that any records of injuries and illnesses submitted to the Secretary may not be disclosed in any manner that identifies individual employers or workplaces. Section 19. Definitions. Defines ``serious injury'' and ``industry.'' Section 20. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments. Requires the Secretary to provide recommendations for legislation to avoid unnecessary duplication and coordination between this Act and other federal laws. Requires OSHA to establish a program for certification of equipment and specifies that it be conducted by nongovernmental entities unless such facilities are not available. Although not specifically referenced in this legislative language, it is assumed that NIOSH research activities will be transferred to another governmental agency. Section 21. Effective Date. This Act become effective 120 days after the date of enactment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today, along with 55 of my colleagues, I am introducing the Safety and Health Improvement and Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. The legislation will comprehensively change the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA]. Few Federal programs are in need of change as much as this one. I believe that OSHA has become fundamentally misdirected, and instead of promoting and encouraging workplace safety and health, OSHA has become known for issuing silly regulations and is preoccupied with collecting fines from unsuspecting employers. It is time to add some common sense to OSHA's regulations and focus on promoting safety in the workplace. Legislation that I am introducing today targets 50 percent of OSHA's funding toward consultation, training, education, and compliance assistance programs. Other important changes include adopting the regulatory reform measures already approved by the House, and giving employers the opportunity to fix alleged safety and health violations prior to the issuance of a citation. Finally, to save taxpayer dollars, this bill proposes the merger of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with the Mine Safety and Health Administration--without compromising workplace safety. I welcome your cosponsorship of this much needed legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first praise the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] on his fine leadership in producing a bill that reduces our foreign aid spending in a responsible manner. The collapse of the Soviet empire has eradicated the threat of Communist aggression worldwide leaving only one superpower, the United States. With this end to the cold war, in turn, came radical changes in the political and social landscape of the world and therefore, strategies to keep stability in the world need drastic reforms. We can no longer depend on the ``for us or against us'' formula of foreign aid. With the rise of new regional conflicts posing new threats to world peace and leaving us with new challenges for our foreign policy, we must develop new strategies to meet the demands of the new world order. Unfortunately, many of the antiquated foreign aid programs that existed during the cold war are still in use, and paid for by American taxpayers. While I understand that foreign aid cannot and should not be cut out completely, it must be reformed and reduced to meet the demands of the post-cold-war world. H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act of 1995, does just that. The House is currently considering H.R. 1561, which will further reduce Federal spending, and take yet another step toward balancing the budget by streamlining overall spending on foreign aid programs and redefining U.S. foreign aid policy for the future. Specifically it would consolidate three agencies in the State Department and reduce their budgets, forcing them to streamline and become more efficient. The agencies to be consolidated are the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency. The bill authorizes $32.3 billion over the next 2 years, saving the taxpayers $2 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $1 billion in 1997. The overall savings to the American taxpayer by the year 2002 is projected to be nearly $21 billion. I rise in support of the American Overseas Interests Act passed by the International Relations Committee, not only because of the reductions, eliminations and consolidations of bureaucracy, but because of the reasonable funding for valuable programs that are in our best interests. As I have always stated in the past, foreign aid programs are an integral part of the President's efforts to protect and advance U.S. interests at home and abroad. But, I strongly support foreign aid reform. The U.S. aid program must be constantly evaluated and held accountable to high standards of performance and results. Clearly measurable and achievable goals should be established. Tough standards should be applied to our aid program, as well as to those international organizations and financial institutions to which we contribute funding. Where our aid has no lasting impact, it should be terminated. Redundancy must be eliminated, and this will require major program changes. I would like to comment on two programs, in particular, that I believe are worthy aid recipients: FUSADES and FUNDESA. Almost everyone knows of my interests in Central America. As a member of the International Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and an active participant in the affairs of Central America, I am quite concerned with the political, economic, and social climate in this region. Over the years, I have had the unique opportunity to meet and forge great relationships with leaders throughout Central America. Today, we are witnessing all across Latin America that those countries who emerged from the disasters of civil war with a commitment to improve human rights have been able to foster a stronger foundation for social and economic development. The movement to democracy in Latin America is no longer the great dream of this century. Victories in the Western Hemisphere, from Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua to El Salvador, are just a few examples of democracy in action. These organizations have helped people realize this dream and have received U.S. funding indirectly. FUSADES in El Salvador and FUNDESA in Guatemala have successfully helped the people of these developing countries progress economically and democratically. FUSADES and FUDNESA were created to promote economic and social development improving the precarious situation of many of our neighbors to the South. They promote equitable, responsive development by awarding grants to small entrepreneurs throughout the region. More importantly, these organizations provide small loans to local individuals who start small businesses and later repay their debts, at repayment rates of approximately 95 percent. For example, only a $100 loan for the purchase of a sewing machine can be the driving force to help an individual start his or her own business. These small entrepreneurs create jobs, assist the emerging middle-class, and in turn help stabilize the region's economy. A small amount of U.S. aid goes a very long way. While recognizing the need to rein in federal spending, we have also witnessed the positive side of foreign aid. With this in mind, I urge Members to support H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561--the American Overseas Interests Act--is the first major step toward reshaping and reorganizing our foreign policy operations since the cold war. It begins by recognizing that--with the end of the long, twilight struggle--we no longer need the specialized agencies that were created to help in the fight against world communism. Nor can we afford them, in a period when we are facing deficits in the range of $200 billion a year. H.R. 1561 begins the necessary task of reordering, by eliminating the Agency for International Development, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--and transferring their responsibilities to the State Department. Together with cuts in spending of $3 billion over 2 years--that is cuts below current spending--we are on the way toward modernizing and streamlining the way we project American power and influence around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on final passage of the American Overseas Interests Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, last month I went back to my district and returned to a place far different from Washington. In my district, there are families who work hard and play by the rules. And, they are careful not to spend more than they take in. If they do not, they run afoul of the law. In Washington, however, things are different. In Washington, it's OK to waste other people's money. In Washington, it's OK to spend lavishly on ineffective programs. In Washington, it's OK to disrespect the values that ordinary Americans live by every day. When I returned home over the recess, I listened to my constituents. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, they want Washington to change. They want a government that will respect simple virtues, not one that creates deficits and debts to be passed on to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, in the first 100 days, we Republicans proved that promises can be made and kept. In the next, we will show that Washington truly can be changed.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1215. Today is a good day to be in the House of Representatives. Republicans made a promise to the American people embodied in the Contract With America and today's vote on the Tax Relief and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 is the culmination of fulfilling that promise. We have the opportunity to vote on tax cuts totaling $189 billion over 5 years-- simply put, we can give back money to the very people who earned it in the first place. Cutting taxes will result in an expanded economy and increased job opportunities. But don't take my word for it. Here are concrete examples from four State Governors who have cut taxes in their states. Gov. William Weld, in a letter to the Speaker, states that Massachusetts has ``cut taxes nine times over the past four years'' resulting in tax revenues growing by over $2.2 billion during that period of time. Gov. John Engler of Michigan says that ``fifteen tax cuts in four years have turbocharged the state's economy to the best performance in a generation. While taxpayers are saving more than $1 billion annually, state revenues have continued to rise.'' Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson cites tax cuts of more than ``1.5 billion over the past eight years'' resulting in an economy that created ``new jobs at nearly double the national rate and more new manufacturing jobs than any other state. The lesson from Wisconsin is clear: tax cuts help create jobs and opportunity for families and individuals.'' Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey is working on a 30 percent cut in State income taxes over three years and is well ahead of schedule. I ask you, what is wrong with letting taxpayers keep more of their money to spend as they see fit, perhaps provide for their children's or grandchildren's college education, pay for a family vacation, invest in an Individual Retirement Account, or just pursuing their own version of the American Dream? Let us do for America what these Governors have done for their states.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of this week the Department of Labor will be hosting a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of passage of the Mine Safety and Health Act. Although I will not be able to attend that ceremony, I do want to call it to my colleagues' attention, and commend those in government, industry, the mining work force, and others, who have helped, over that period of time, to make our country's mining industry the safest in the world. Anniversaries are a time not only to look back but to look forward. Clearly one of the major challenges over the coming years, in all Government programs, is to determine how can we assure the best use of the taxpayer's dollar. We know now what maybe Congress did not appreciate 25 years ago, that we cannot afford to do everything, and so we have to make sure that when Government spends money, it is getting the most value for the taxpayer's dollar. In that regard, I would note for my colleagues that the Mine Safety and Health Administration spends over $550 per year per covered employee, while its sister agency, OSHA spends about $2.84 per covered employee. We should determine whether it is good use of taxpayer dollars to continue to duplicate many of the functions performed by these two agencies. Just as is true with OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration spends too much time inspecting safe work sites and enforcing trivial requirements. Over the coming weeks and months, I hope to examine those issues and see whether the answers given 25 years ago remain the right answers today for allowing our country's mining industry to be competitive in a tough world marketplace, while continuing the improvements that have been made in worker safety in this very important part of our Nation's economy.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the concept of term limits, while at least as old as our Government itself, has been repeatedly rejected by complacent Members of Congress whose tenures have lasted as long as 53 years. Unfortunately for these career politicians, Congress can no longer ignore the Americans voter's profound and growing desire for a true citizen-legislature that is intended to serve the people in a better, more responsive manner. Since 1990, 22 States have imposed their own term limits, 21 through voter initiatives, and polls consistently show public support at as high as 80 percent. Though it is clear why career politicians do not wish to place limitations on themselves, it is time to obey the will of the American public. With much of the Contract With America completed, this is one more opportunity to show our commitment to those who elected us and to respond to the change they demanded on November 8. By passing term limits and putting the interests of our constituents before our own, we can institute the concept of the citizen-legislature that our Founding Fathers envisioned over 200 years ago.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it, the fate of term limits rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats in Congress. More than 80 percent of Republican Members support and will vote for term limits. That's more than a majority. That is more than a supermajority. Why that might even be more than a superduper majority. All we need is the support of just one-half of the Democrats. Not even a majority, just 50 percent. No one can say that Republicans have not listened to the American people who overwhelmingly support term limits. Mr. Speaker, I ask just half my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen to the American people. To them I would say, stop the arrogance of Washington. Vote ``yes'' on term limits.