Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, last night, during consideration of H.R. 4276, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999, on roll call vote 398, the Hefley amendment, I was recorded as voting ``aye'' but intended to vote ``no.'' On May 28, President Clinton issued Executive Order (13083) intending to provide a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The order amended an Executive Order signed in 1969 by President Richard Nixon which prohibited discrimination in federal employment ``because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin * * *.'' The new order does not create any new enforcement rights for discrimination based on sexual orientation since such enforcement rights must be passed by the Congress. The Hefly amendment would have prohibited any federal funds from being used to implement or enforce Executive Order 13803. I have always strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind. I believe that employment opportunities should be given on the basis of ability and therefore feel that one's sexual orientation should play no part in hiring, promotion or firing decisions. Accordingly, I intended to vote against the Hefley amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Panamanian people are soon to encounter an important vote that may affect the future of their democracy. On August 30, Panama will hold a plebiscite to decide whether to amend the constitution to allow the current president, Ernesto Perez Ballardares, to run for a second term. The Panamanian people seem to have developed a stable democracy and I hope they understand that any change could be the beginning of a retreat from this democracy. I trust the Panamanian people will recognize the importance of this vote. In addition, I hope international election observers will help guarantee an honest vote.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for today, August 6, 1998, and tomorrow, Friday, August 7, 1998, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks''.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee asked questions about a scandal that is even more serious than Filegate, even more outrageous than Travelgate, and even more troubling than Whitewater. This Oversight Committee asked the Justice Department's two top investigators why an independent counsel has not been named to investigate mountains of evidence that the Democrat Party took nearly $3 million in illegal campaign contributions from Communist China. One would think that the penetration of the American electoral system by a foreign power, a communist dictatorship with 13 nuclear missiles aimed at our shores no less, would not be a partisan issue. What are we to conclude from the other side's total lack of interest in getting to the bottom of this shocking scandal? What are we to conclude from the other side's silence, total silence, in the face of FBI Director Louis Freeh and Justice Department investigator Charles LaBella's public pleas for an independent counsel to investigate this matter? I really would hate to even speculate.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger). (Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me acknowledge and commend the two sponsors of H.R. 4037, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I appreciate the work that both of them and their staffs have done in making this a bipartisan bill and in working with everyone involved so that we can bring this bill to the House floor today. OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard is one of OSHA's most important but also most troublesome regulations. A lot of complaints that we hear about, about the paperwork burden and the nit-picky paperwork violations from OSHA are because of the Hazard Communication Standard. The idea of the standard is a good one, to make sure that employers and employees know what chemicals they are working with and how to safely handle them. But the implementation of this standard has long been a source of complaint, and OSHA has not been exactly quick to fix the problems. H.R. 4037 addresses two of the problems that have been the source of these complaints for years. Under the Hazard Communication Standard, each chemical product must have a Material Safety Data Sheet, or better known as an MSDS that is written by the producer or importer of the chemical, and which must contain a variety of information about the chemical involved and the potential hazards it may present. Those Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDS, are then forwarded down through the chain of commerce all the way to the retailer or user of the product. Each employer who uses or sells any products containing chemicals for which there have been any studies showing potential health or safety hazards must maintain these Material Safety Data Sheets in his or her workplace. OSHA estimates that there are over 650,000 chemical products covered by the Hazard Communication Standard. Others have estimated that there are Material Safety Data Sheets in circulation for over a million different products. Your typical small business can easily have a couple of thousand of these MSDS Data Sheets on hand. And an MSDS Data Sheet can easily be 10 or more pages long. It is little wonder that failure to have all of the required MSDS Data Sheets on hand has been one of the most frequently cited of all OSHA's regulations. The first part of H.R. 4037 makes clear that an employer's obligation to have these Safety Data Sheets readily accessible may be met by electronic access to the MSDS Data Sheets. The advantage of using the electronic system to access these sheets are overwhelming, particularly for small employers. For a couple of hundred dollars a year, a small businessman can subscribe to an electronic service that maintains all of the MSDS sheets through which he can instantly call up the desired information. Instead of going through piles of paper and filing cabinets and looseleaf folders, the employee can simply type in the name of the product and access the information. OSHA does not prohibit electronic systems from accessing material, the safety data sheets, but the regulation and OSHA's enforcement policy suggests that employers should maintain copies of MSDS sheets, whether or not they are also in the electronic system. As a result, many employers simply maintain paper copies, despite the fact that the electronic system would be more useful and effective. H.R. 4037 makes it clear that electronic access systems, whether maintained in-house or by third parties, are permitted, so long as four conditions are met: First, the electronic system is reasonably and readily available to employees and upon request to union representatives of the employees; second, the electronic system can produce paper copies of the MSDS, if requested, without unreasonable delay; third, employees are adequately trained in the use of the electronic system; and, fourth, the electronic system provides a means of retrieving information contained in the MSDS in case of temporary power or equipment failure. Thus, for example, an employer whose electronic system used as an Internet connection could receive information contained in the MSDS via telephone in the event of computer or power failure until the Internet connection is restored. A second complaint about the hazard communications standard has been the fact that the MSDS sheets are not easily used by most employees or employers, both because of the amount of information they include and because they are often written in technical language. Suppliers of these MSDS point out that the sheets are used for a variety of purposes, including emergency response personnel and health care providers, so more detailed and technical information in the Material Safety Data Sheet is important. H.R. 4037 attempts to strike a balance between these two concerns. It does not require change in either the format of the MSDS or in the type of information provided by this MSDS. Instead, it requires that summary emergency information with the information most useful to the employee be attached to the front of the MSDS. That information is the same as is often provided in the product label. So the bill provides that either the label or the text of the label should be attached to the front of the Material Safety Data Sheet. But the label or the text of the label must include certain basic information about chemicals, including emergency contacts. Finally, concerns were raised about the effect of H.R. 4037 on efforts under way to reach an international agreement on a standardized form for presenting information on chemicals. Now, I appreciate that concern, and as we continue the move into the global marketplace, it makes sense to standardize as much as possible the presentation of hazard information. On the other hand, we do not know at this point when the international effort will conclude or what it might provide. So H.R. 4037 requires that the Secretary of Labor, if an international agreement is reached, recommend to this committee and to the Senate Labor Committee any changes in the law necessary to make it consistent with international agreement. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4037 is a simple but important step towards improving this OSHA regulation. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for their efforts to move this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4037) to require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to recognize that electronic forms of providing Material Safety Data Sheets provide the same level of access to information as paper copies and to improve the presentation of safety and emergency information on such Data Sheets, as amended.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the most amazing thing about the so- called ``vast right-wing conspiracy'' is that it is led by Democrats. In fact, what is even more surprising is that it is led by Democrats who volunteer their time to help the Clinton-Gore White House. Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky were White House volunteers and loyal Democrats, about the last people we would expect to organize a vast right-wing conspiracy. But just think about the other Democrats in this vast network of people who are out to get the President: Attorney General Reno; former Carter speech writer and aide to Tip O'Neil Chris Matthews; and former aide to Senator Moynihan Tim Russert. Am I forgetting anyone? Oh, yes, let us recall that Louis Freeh, appointed by President Clinton, has called for the appointment of an independent counsel to look into illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic party, as has Charles LaBella, handpicked by Janet Reno to investigate those allegations. This is one interesting conspiracy.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4037.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for Roll Call votes 373, 374, 375, and 376 last week, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I support the Patient Protection Act. While the bill is not perfect, it is an important step in ensuring access to health care insurance for many people who are currently without it. As a small business officer of a company which self-insures its 200 employees, the unlimited liability of the Dingell bill is frightening. We insure all of our employees currently, but if big government Dingell bill were to become law, we would be forced to give our employees the money and let them buy their own insurance at, obviously, a higher cost. Many businesses would have to do the same. The Dingell bill encourages patients to sue after a denial of coverage occurs rather than bringing a quick appeals process that would help the patient get coverage for care in a timely fashion. Also, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Dingell bill will increase the cost of health care and not make it more affordable. On behalf of the American people who need affordable care, oppose this substitute. In the United States today, there are more than 42 million Americans without health insurance--many of whom are employed, or have a family member employed, by a small business that cannot afford to offer health care coverage for its employees. The Patient Protection Act addresses the lack of coverage of these individuals in several ways, including the creation of association health plans which will be governed by uniform standards. These plans would allow small businesses, trade associations, labor unions and professional associations to pool together to obtain the same economies of scale, purchasing clout and administrative efficiencies, that employees of large employers benefit from. Association health plans will have the freedom and flexibility to design more affordable benefit options. This will allow small businesses to offer their workers access to the same benefit choices regardless of where they live. At the same time, these plans must meet strict new solvency standards to protect patients' interests and ensure that their benefits are paid. I want to mention just very briefly that I appreciate that authors of this bill attempt to deal with the issue of confidentiality of medical information. It's a complicated issue, and one that has to be dealt with carefully. I do have some concerns with what is in the bill, in terms of its potential risk to employers and the lack of clarity, particularly with regard to two areas in my committee's jurisdiction, workers compensation and occupational safety and health. I hope that these are issues that we can address during the conference to ensure that the medical confidentiality provisions work well, and do not inadvertently create problems in these areas. Accessible, affordable, quality health care is very important to all Americans. I have been contacted by many constituents who are demanding that we act in their interest. So, with their letters and concerns in mind, I support this important piece of legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, once again, legislation to overturn our current trade relations with the People's Republic of China has reached the House floor. This annual exercise divides our nation over our relationship with the most populous nation in the world. The only thing which has changed is the terminology. We now refer to Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status as simply Normal Trade Relations (NTR), a more accurate description of this annual trade vote. I will reluctantly vote against the resolution, Disapproving the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment to the Products of the People's Republic of China (H.J. Res. 121), before us toady. I do recognize China's deplorable record on human rights and our moral obligation to speak out for the weak and voiceless in China. However, in reaching my decision, I again asked myself these questions, ``In the long run, will revoking China's trade status be good or harmful to the Chinese and the American people, and will it improve human rights in China?'' I must conclude that revoking China's trade status would be counterproductive to these objectives. As I have stated previously, the U.S. can do more to advance the cause of human rights and foster religious, economic and political freedom if we continue to engage the Chinese in economic cooperation. Social freedom--like freedom of religion--are a direct result of economic liberalization. If we remove all of China's trade privileges, we are not only isolating that country, but we are losing any opportunity to improve the human condition there. Terminating normal trade relations with China will hurt the American worker and consumer as well. From 1991 to 1997, U.S. exports to China rose 71% from $7.5 billion to $12.8 billion. In addition, exports of U.S. goods and services to China and Hong Kong support an estimated 450,000 American jobs. From an agricultural perspective, the American Farm Bureau has called China ``the most important growth market for U.S. agriculture in the twenty-first century.'' The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that China could account for one- third of future growth in u.S. farm exports in the years ahead. Despite my position on NTR with China, I remain concerned about allegations that the Clinton White House violated existing campaign finance laws by accepting illegal foreign contributions from China. In return, the Clinton administration sacrificed American national security by allowing the Loral Space and Communications Ltd. and another U.S. company to provide China's space industry with specific technological expertise, strengthening its nuclear and missile capabilities. I believe the Congress has an obligation to look into these critical charges, and I support all efforts to continue House and Senate investigations. In conclusion, if we choose to cut off our ties with China, we end up harming those who need our help the most--the Chinese people. Just as important, we hurt American workers, farmers and businesses which would export to china, now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote down H.J. Res. 121.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, should we count or should we take a poll? The census debate boils down to that difficult question. The Democrats say, why should the Constitution stand in the way of rigging the numbers the way we want? After all, the Democrats are either unaware of Article I, section 2 of the Constitution that states in clear language that Congress shall direct that a census be conducted using an actual enumeration, or they simply wish to ignore it. Either way, it is troubling that one party is willing to go so far to trample on the Constitution just for political purposes. Most Americans do not have a Ph.D. in English or in American constitutional history. But most Americans do believe that sampling, guessing, or taking a poll does not qualify as actual enumeration, also believe the Constitution actually means what it says. They are pretty tired of liberal Democrats inventing out of whole cloth things that are in the Constitution, no matter how many liberal experts in Washington tell us otherwise.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on obscene and offensive art. Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the agency and that we should level-fund it. In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial play. I think we should support, level fund this endowment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal budget will be in surplus for the foreseeable future. Leaving aside the fact that this is not entirely accurate given that the Social Security surplus is masking the true size of the budget deficit, the question before us is what to do with the surplus. The Democrats, naturally, want to spend it. The Republicans, not surprisingly, want to see it used to begin paying down the national debt or they want to use it for a tax cut. I will leave it to the other side to explain to the American people why they want to spend more money on failed, wasteful social programs and I will only consider the real choice for Congress, paying down the debt or tax relief. My instinct is to go 50-50, half towards tax cuts and half towards a down payment on our $5.4 trillion national debt. But then I think about the likelihood that liberal spending politicians in Washington will keep their hands off the budget surplus and I start to lean more strongly towards tax relief. The bottom line is this: Do not spend the surplus.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3152) to provide that certain volunteers at private non-profit food banks are not employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standands Act of 1938, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3152 is intended to address a very narrow issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act but a very important issue for many of our Nation's food banks. H.R. 3152 clarifies that persons who help at food banks on a volunteer basis and receive groceries from the food bank are not employees of the food bank. The legislation is necessary because of the inconsistent and conflicting interpretations given in the past by the Department of Labor. In 1992 in response to questions from the Congressional Homelessness Task Force, Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin wrote, ``It does not appear that volunteers at nonprofit food distribution centers would be considered employees of the centers.'' Five years later, in May of 1997, in response to a request by food bank centers for a formal advisory letter on the status of such volunteers, the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor said it appears that distributing organizations would be compensating needy individuals in the form of benefits, that is, food or other products, for services that the individuals performed for organizations and that the individuals, if they meet the indigence requirements, would expect to receive the products in return for their services. Under this scenario we would consider these individuals employees of the distributing organizations. Four months later, however, the Solicitor of Labor reversed course again, and he wrote, ``Individuals who volunteer their services for humanitarian purposes and without contemplation of compensation to religious, charitable and similar not-for-profit organizations are not considered to be employed by such organizations for the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Therefore, such individuals would not be covered by the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.'' While the Department of Labor's current position is that individuals who volunteer for food banks and who receive groceries and food items from the food banks are not employees, the history of the Department of Labor's conflicting and inconsistent statements and letters indicates a need to clarify this point in the statute. Food banks which use such volunteers and encourage such volunteerism among those who receive food assistance should be able to do so without concern that they are triggering an employment relationship including wage and other employment liabilities. H.R. 3152 provides clarification that food banks may give groceries and food items to individuals who volunteer their services to the food bank solely for humanitarian purposes without deeming those individuals as employees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3152 is a very narrow bill intended to clarify a specific situation on which the Department of Labor has provided conflicting and contradictory rulings. There are, of course, many other situations in which individuals receive various types of benefits in conjunction with performing community services. The fact that we are clarifying the FLSA to say explicitly that individuals who volunteer at food banks and receive groceries are not employees should not be in any way construed to mean that by doing so Congress is showing an intent that any other individual who performs community services and receives benefits is an employee. And I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) the sponsor of 3152 for pursuing this clarification, and I urge support of the bill.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3152.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. BALLENGER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, but I would like to do so for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to offer an explanation of his request.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there are a few issues which separate liberals and conservatives in dramatic fashion. Taxes, of course, is one, and crime is another. But defense and national security issues also illustrate two sharply different visions, different world views, which distinguish conservatives from liberals. Liberals just love arms control agreements. They put almost boundless faith in a piece of paper between America and countries which are hostile to everything we hold dear, and they take great comfort in the ability of these agreements to keep America safe. Conservatives, on the other hand, look at all human history and are skeptical of such agreements, instead placing greater faith in a strong and secure defense. Given these two world views, it is time to reexamine our current vulnerability to ballistic missile attack. There is a piece of paper that exists to assure us that America is safe from ballistic attack. But this deliberate policy of vulnerability to ballistic missile attack is foolish, and dangerous. It is time that conservatives act with prudence and demand that Americans be protected by building a national missile defense system.