Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently issued a document called ``Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention in Late-Night Retail Establishments.'' Although workplace violence is an issue that we are all concerned about, I and many of my colleagues have serious reservations about OSHA's involvement in this issue. In September 1996, more than 100 members of the House of Representatives wrote to then Assistant Secretary for OSHA, Joseph Dear, regarding an earlier set of ``guidelines'' for workplace violence prevention programs for night retail establishments, expressing a number of concerns, including the enforceability of the guidelines and the lack of scientific basis and procedural safeguards in their promulgation. I continue to be concerned that OSHA's involvement in workplace violence has not been supported by objective analysis nor been subject to procedural safeguards. There is little evidence that OSHA is in a better position than state and local authorities to investigate incidents of workplace violence perpetrated by either 3rd parties or co-workers, or that OSHA's involvement in those investigations would help to bring the perpetrators to justice. Nonetheless, I do want to underline a clarification that OSHA made in its recent recommendations for late night retail establishments. It is my understanding from both the actual text of OSHA's final recommendations, as well as from comments made by OSHA officials, that its recommendations are not a new standard or regulation, and do not create any new OSHA duties, and that an employer's decision not to adopt any of the recommendations will not be deemed evidence of a violation of the General Duty Clause in section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. To quote OSHA's recommendations directly, ``These recommendations do not impose, and are not intended to result in, the imposition of any new legal obligations or constraints on employers or the states.'' Mr. Speaker, a great many employers in the late night retail industry have worked hard to develop violence prevention programs that may not conform to all of OSHA's recommendations. It is my understanding that OSHA's recent ``recommendations'' are intended as suggestions to late night retailers of a variety of steps that may be taken as part of such violence prevention programs. The particular recommendations in the April 28 OSHA document are not intended to create any legal obligation, duty or consequence. Mr. Speaker, workplace violence, like violence throughout our society, is a serious problem. Employers in all sectors of the economy are taking steps to prevent violence against their employees, whether it be violence perpetrated by 3rd parties or by disgruntled and disturbed employees. I commend OSHA for clarifying that its recommendations do not impose new legal duties on employers but are intended to provide employers with suggestions and recommendations of steps that employers may consider as part of their own efforts to reduce the likelihood of violence occurring against employees in their workplaces.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it is not very useful or helpful to debate another man's motives. After all, how can one possibly know the true motives in another man's heart? But how else can we explain the President's opposition to perhaps the best single thing this Congress has done for our Nation's children this year in the area of education? Yesterday the President indicated that he plans to veto the Coverdell legislation that would allow parents, guardians, even corporations and unions to set aside up to $2,000 per year in tax-free savings accounts. Think about this: The President is opposed to education savings accounts. This is something that middle-class parents have been calling for for years. What could possibly explain the opposition of most of the Democrat Party to this pro-education bill? Could it be that this party is utterly, totally, inextricably beholden to the teachers' unions, special interests that fight every single reform that might threaten their power? This is special-interest politics at its worst, and our children are the ones who are being short-changed by it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present on June 16 for rollcall votes 232 and 233, I would have voted ``yea.'' As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I was glad that the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of House Resolution 401, putting the House on record against social promotion in America's schools.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like the White House to answer a serious question: Why does the President believe that the Commerce Department, and not the State Department, should have the final say about a matter of national security? Technology transfers to Communist China is a matter of highest national security. Why then did the Clinton administration take the authority for the granting of waivers from the State Department and give it to the Commerce Department? Here we have a case of two interests in conflict. We have an important and legitimate economic interest in selling goods and technology to China, and we have a national security interest in preventing Communist China from acquiring technology that can be used for military purposes. These two interests are at times absolutely in conflict, but it is not difficult to decide that national security must always come first. Why then would this administration put commercial interests above national security interests? Mr. Speaker, it is wrong, wrong, wrong for this administration to have made this policy change. This administration has its priorities utterly backward.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present on June 9 for Rollcall vote 212, Rollcall vote 213, and Rollcall vote 214, I would have voted ``yea''. In addition, I would have cast an ``aye'' on Rollcall vote 215, had I voted.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 208 (the Neumann amendment in the nature of a substitute or the so-called Conservative Action Team ``CATs'' budget) and rollcall vote 210 (the Republican budget resolution or the Kasich budget) last week, I would have voted in favor of these measures. On the Spratt substitute, rollcall vote 209, I would have voted ``no.'' I regret that I was unable to be in Washington, D.C., when the House cast these important budget votes.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, you have to look at Missilegate and ask yourself one question: Why? Why would the Chinese Communists give millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the Democrat party and not the Republican Party? What is it that the Chinese Communists want? What is it the Chinese Communist Government, what is their top priority, the one thing they desperately want that the Republicans do not want to let them have? Could it be high technology? The response from the other side is highly revealing. They say, ``Well, Reagan and Bush did it, too,'' but did the Reagan and Bush administration give waiver authority to the Commerce Department? No. Did the Reagan and Bush administrations have monitoring systems in place to ensure that no technology was used for military purposes? Of course they did. Did the Reagan and Bush administrations take campaign money from the Chinese Communists? Of course not. And one thing to consider, the Chinese Communists never, never, never give money for nothing.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my Democrat colleagues will exhibit the same zeal and passion to get to the truth about the allegations of missile technology to Communist China as they are about finding answers to the question of who hired Craig Livingstone, or about how the White House ended up with 900 FBI files on Republicans, or about 92 witnesses that have either fled the country or taken the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying, and about why Mrs. Hubbell is afraid, very afraid, of losing her job if Webster Hubbell cooperates with Judge Starr. If the past is any guide, I am sure the Democrats will leave no stone unturned in seeking the truth about these stunning revelations about illegal campaign contributions in return for missile technology to Communist China. That said, I urge my colleagues to investigate this matter with their minds focused on one thing and one thing only: National security. National security is not a partisan issue. It is about protecting our values and our way of life from those whose entire political system is hostile to our belief in freedom, the rule of law, individual rights, and the right to worship God as we see fit.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor and thank the residents of Bakersville, NC for their participation in a rescue that saved the life of a neighbor and defined a true community. On Wednesday, January 7, 1998, Joe Snyder, a resident of the 10th district of North Carolina, suffered a severe heart attack in his home. Meanwhile, the small town of Bakersville was experiencing severe flooding caused by torrential rains, which closed roads and stranded residents. Despite the harsh weather, once neighbors and friends heard of Mr. Snyder's condition, they worked together and successfully transported him to a medical clinic to get the attention he so desperately needed. Not just one neighbor or two friends, but many members of the community united to offer CPR, transportation, and other support. To the people who were present that day, who volunteered their support and aid, and who helped to turn a tragedy into triumph, I salute your determination and selflessness. As flood waters rose, conditions became extremely perilous, and a friend was in need of a miracle, the community of Bakersville, NC, came together as neighbors to save a life.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, a White House official was quoted in the New York Times last month referring to our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr. Now let us do it again. ``Our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr.'' I sincerely appreciate my fair-minded friends on the other side of the aisle if they would defend the White House, which openly acknowledges their strategy to destroy Judge Starr, the special counsel named by a 3-judge panel and the Attorney General to investigate allegations of serious wrongdoing by the President. Am I to conclude that the Democrat party thinks it is okay to smear the independent counsel? Am I to conclude that the Democrat party does not care that the White House was in possession of 900 FBI files of Republicans, in gross violation of the law and the civil rights of American citizens? Am I to conclude that the Democrat party does not care if the integrity of our judicial system is violated and that obstruction of justice and lying under oath is okay if it is done by a Democrat? Am I to conclude that the President is in fact above the law because the Dow Jones is doing great?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, since the early 1990s, Americans have witnessed staggering increases in illegal drug use, especially among our nation's youth. Marijuana experimentation is beginning at an earlier age, and as a result, our children are turning to deadly drugs like LSD, heroin, crack and cocaine at progressively earlier ages. Drug abuse also expands our crime problem and is related to about half of all street crime. And what is being done to solve this horrendous problem? Unfortunately, nothing by the Clinton Administration. In fact, one of President Clinton's first acts in office was to cut the Drug Czar's office by 83 percent. Since 1993, funding for drug interdiction programs has been reduced by roughly $1 billion and federal drug prosecutions and arrests have plummeted. In comparison, the Republican Congress has provided effective leadership in the war on drugs by providing resources for law enforcement and increased funding for DEA anti-drug initiatives such as combating Caribbean and Southwest border drug trafficking. In addition, we have provided ample funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools program to establish comprehensive, integrated approaches to drug and violence prevention at our nation's schools. Eliminating America's drug problem, especially the curse of drug use among our nation's youth, should be one of the federal government's top priorities. I applaud the House's passage yesterday of legislation prohibiting federal funding for needle exchange programs and I hope the Congress will continue to work to eradicate the scourge of drug abuse that continues to eat away at our homes, schools and neighborhoods.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, after many years of being a father figure to a couple hundred teenagers, Sandy Ainslie is retiring as the Headmaster at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia. Much credit should and will be given to Sandy Ainslie for his many years of service, but I am here to honor his hard-working, always smiling, wife Sharon. Sharon has worked alongside Sandy through many years of trials and tribulations. She has raised money for the school and helped upgrade the school's facilities and made it a reality that all students attending Episcopal have their own computer. She has helped to instill in these young minds integrity, honesty, and values that will help enable them to prosper in today's ever-changing world. While always keeping a loving and warm personality, Sharon has supported her husband and the many students of Episcopal High School for many years. So today it is Sharon we honor for her many years of dedication for our youth of tomorrow. Both Sharon and Sandy will be missed by the students, faculty, and alumni all.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, what can we say about the Enabler in Chief, who has just announced a policy that will actually put the Federal Government in the business of handing out needles to illegal drug users? The government often does stupid things. The American people know that, and they despair at many of the dumb things the government tries to do. But the government should not be doing dangerous things, especially when people are at their most vulnerable, and they are the ones who will suffer the consequences. But here we have a government that is at its most misguided, most irresponsible, and most dangerous. The administration is using bad science done by left-wing radicals with an agenda, and basing national policy on a pack of lies. Adults with alcohol addiction do not need enablers who indulge their weakness for alcohol. Kids who take up smoking do not need enablers to provide them with low-tar cigarettes on the theory, well, they are going to smoke anyway. Drug addicts do not need needle enablers who help them continue their illegal drug use by giving them free needles. Mr. Speaker, this policy is nuts.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 27, I missed rollcall vote 80, final passage of H.R. 2515. Had I been present , I would have voted yea.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question: Why would any small business man who is sane hire someone to unionize his business? It does not make sense. Yet, the present law today demands that he must. Some unions have concocted the ideal trap for employers, an unscrupulous workplace Catch-22 called salting. Dozens of union activists will show up at a nonunion company and apply for work. If they are not hired, they file an unfair labor practice charge. If they are hired, they disrupt the workplace, destroy property, and do whatever it takes to get themselves fired. Then they file an unfair labor practice charge, alleging wrongful discharge. Do Members know how long it takes today for the NLRB to settle this? It takes an unlawful discharge union activist case, treated like any other labor dispute. Right now the median time for the NLRB to process an unfair labor practice case is 546 days. Imagine a small business man having to face this legal charge. The uncertainty for all sides can be maddening. The answer is to clarify the rules so an employer is not forced to hire nor keep on the job any person with ulterior motives. The proposed measure takes pains not to infringe upon employees' existing protections, such as the right to organize. Mr. Chairman, this bill, that is the only part of this bill that has any reason for the unions to fight. In reality, for years they have been taking the small business man for granted. I think we need to pass this bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act will be considered by the House today. Title I of this bill makes it clear that an employer does not have to hire someone who is not a bona fide applicant. In other words, a job applicant's primary purpose in seeking the job must be to work for the employer, not for someone else. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246 was drafted after careful examination of the best way to protect employers, while not upsetting the principles of the National Labor Relations Act. It addresses the worst examples of salting in which people who have no intention of really working for an employer are simply filling jobs and filing charges to disrupt the employer's operation, resulting in lost productivity and thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend weak allegations. This bill addresses the problems which occur when someone applies for a job in a nonunion workplace for the primary purpose of disrupting the workplace and furthering the union agenda. I hope my colleagues will vote for H.R. 3246.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 981.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I often hear from liberals that the labels ``liberal'' and ``conservative'' do not mean much anymore. I think that is total nonsense. One way to distinguish between liberals and conservatives is to look at how a liberal views taxes versus how a conservative does. A liberal will do everything in his power to make it difficult for others to become rich. A conservative will do everything in his power to help others become rich. A liberal will vilify the rich. A conservative recognizes the benefits to society that the rich provide and the benefits of having a society where people strive to become rich. A liberal believes, apparently, that the rich acquire their wealth at the expense of the poor. A conservative knows that Bill Gates and Michael Jordan achieve riches because they produce things that other people value. Our choice is to put obstacles in the way of those striving to become rich, or take away people's incentive to pursue that same course. For this American holder of public office who is proud to call himself a conservative, it is not a difficult choice.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2864) to require the Secretary of Labor to establish a program under which employers may consult with State officials respecting compliance with occupational safety and health requirements, as amended.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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. 2864 and on H.R. 2877.

Mr. BALLENGER

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. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2877 amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act to prohibit the use of enforcement measures, such as numbers of citations and penalties, for evaluating OSHA compliance officers. Mr. Speaker, few other Federal agencies have had the negative reputation among employers, hardly ever anybody with the reputation of OSHA. There are certainly those who would say that this attitude simply reflects the employer's lack of concern for the health and safety of their employees. As a businessman, I do not believe that myself. Instead, I think the problem has been with OSHA. I would note my agreement with the statement made by Vice President Gore that he made to hundreds of small business owners and representatives in 1995 at the White House Conference on Small Business, where he said, I know that OSHA has been the subject of more small business complaints than any other agency. And I know that it is not because you don't care about keeping your workers safe. It is because the rules are too rigid and the inspections are often adversarial. I would add one more reason to those stated by the Vice President: OSHA's longtime practice of evaluating its overall performance and the performance of its compliance personnel, the only people from OSHA that most employers and employees ever actually deal with, primarily on the basis of their enforcement numbers. Employers are justifiably outraged and resentful of an agency when its inspectors are primarily interested in finding violations so that they look good to their superiors. A couple of years ago the deputy administrator of OSHA who had spent his career with the agency made the observation that OSHA for the past 25 years has basically done business the same way. Congress gave us the money and we gave them the inspections. We finally realized that the number of inspections doesn't change the behavior of anyone and listened to employers who complained that the violations OSHA cited didn't relate to illness and injuries. I might add that that realization by OSHA came about the same time that we in Congress began trying to refocus OSHA away from enforcement as its primary purpose and goal. Today we take a small step toward correcting history and the practice of OSHA. H.R. 2877 amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act to prohibit the use of enforcement measures, such as number of citations or amount of penalties, to evaluate OSHA personnel. It also prohibits the use of such enforcement measures as goals or quotas. More broadly, this bill is intended to direct OSHA's focus towards promoting safety rather than viewing its goal and purpose as penalizing employers. I want to express again my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the full committee, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, for their support of this bill, and also to the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, who have also expressed support for this bill. As I noted earlier, the problem of evaluating OSHA personnel by the number of citations issued has not been confined to either Republican or Democrat administrations. It did, however, become particularly obvious when the Clinton administration in its first 2 years set agencywide goals of increased citations and penalties. Inspectors openly spoke to employees about having to issue citations in order to meet their quotas. I think few actions have undercut the agency's credibility as a safety and health agency more than that. To its credit the Clinton administration has taken steps to reverse this course. The previous and current administrators of OSHA have taken steps to remove the most blatant uses of citations and penalties to evaluate employees. Officially citations and penalties are no longer used as a performance measure. This was one of the steps taken as part of OSHA's reinvention by the Clinton administration. I certainly think it is a step in the right direction and one that I strongly supported. Nonetheless, we continue to hear complaints both from employers and from compliance personnel. Just recently, for example, compliance officers in one region were given benchmarks by which their performance was judged. Those benchmarks included such things as numbers of citations per inspection and percentage of serious versus nonserious violations. This legislation is needed for several reasons: first, to make sure that the current official policy of the agency is continued; second, to make clear to everyone throughout OSHA that the use of enforcement measures to evaluate compliance personnel is not permitted; third, to assure not only OSHA personnel but also employers and employees that OSHA's primary purpose is not citing and fining employers but in promoting safer jobs. 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. 2877) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended.