Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2864 will amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide specific statutory authorization and direction for consultation programs operated by States with the assistance of Federal funding and direction. These programs have in fact been operating for over 20 years. In 1975, OSHA began entering into contracts with the States to provide enforcement consultations for small businesses. The authority which OSHA used for these contracts is the general contracting authority in section 7C(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In recent years the small business community, State consultation programs and the Clinton administration have all supported amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act to add a specific authorization and direction for the on-site consultation programs. So I am pleased to be able to bring this bill to the House, with bipartisan support in our committee. And with the support of the Clinton administration. I want to particularly thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Mr. Owens, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Clay, for their willingness to work with us on this bill as well as the following bill. And also I want to thank Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman and Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Charles Jeffress, for their support of these bills. Mr. Speaker, the consultation program allows employers, particularly small employers, with the opportunity to receive expert advice and compliance with OSHA standards and improving safety and health in their workplaces, without the adversarial temper and approach often associated with OSHA enforcement inspections. I believe this program truly does implement the approach to safety and health which many of us have long supported: an OSHA program that offers assistance, rather than merely the threat of enforcement, to employers. I have often said that it seems wrong to me that employers who want to improve their workplaces are afraid to call OSHA and ask for assistance. The consultation program is one program that allows and encourages employers to call OSHA and to get that assistance. My own company in North Carolina has used the North Carolina OSHA consultation program; and, in fact, it was our experience with that North Carolina program that triggered my introduction of H.R. 2864. Under this program, an employer invites the OSHA consultation service into the workplace, and the consultant works with the employer in identifying any violations of OSHA standards and hazards. If the employer fixes those items within a reasonable time, then there is no enforcement action connected to it. Under H.R. 2864, an employer who meets certain listed criteria may also be exempt from some inspections for 1 year. I believe the program fills a real need. Unfortunately, it has not been well enough known, nor has it received enough funding, to fulfill that need. So I hope that recognizing the program in this statute is the first step in making it more widely known and increasing in its availability. This bill along with the following bill are small but I think significant steps in bringing about change to the way in which OSHA carries out the role of protecting and promoting worker safety and health. Again, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for working out the legislation. Even though we were basically following the current program, there were still a few issues that we had to resolve, and I appreciate his willingness to do so. It is my hope that with the bipartisan effort and support for these bills that the Senate will move quickly and cleanly as well. There are a lot of other issues related to OSHA that we need to plan and deal with, but I hope that these bills do not become entangled in other issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as our country becomes increasingly divided between taxpayers and tax takers, the taxpayers are starting to stand up and tell their Representatives in Washington that America will no longer be the land of opportunity if the current trend continues. Just this month, USA Today had on page 1 a chart showing the rising tax burden on the taxpayers. And the most interesting thing about the chart was that the tax burden has been rising steadily year after year for all families. It is rising for families with one income; it is rising for families with two incomes. Funny how those who claim it is harder and harder for middle-class families to get ahead never seem to mention that one of the biggest reasons might be the rising tax burden. Funny how they never tire in opposing tax cuts on the grounds of fairness, and they never seem to consider the fairness towards the people who pay the taxes that Uncle Sam takes, between one-quarter and one-third of a middle-class family's income. Every year it is the same old thing, tax takers ask for more and more from taxpayers, and every year the taxpayers sacrifice a little more freedom and find a little less opportunity in return.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 1432, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Unfortunately, the rule does not permit a perfecting amendment which would require that apparel receiving duty-free and quota-free treatment be constructed of U.S.- manufactured yarn and fabric, as is the law today on imports from the Caribbean basin, another group of impoverished people. In its current form, H.R. 1432 poses a serious risk to our domestic textile industry and its employees. The bill does not prevent the illegal transshipment of apparel from other countries, particularly China that has avoided quotas in the past. In actuality, the bill could throw thousands of U.S. workers out of their jobs. Over my years in Congress, I have supported many trade agreements that have produced positive results. However, I believe trade agreements should give American workers a fair shake, not hurt them. As it stands, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act will only produce negative results.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1432. How can we call this bill the African Growth and Opportunity Act when there is a question about growth and opportunity for anyone in this bill, except for Asians. Only 35 percent of a product must be produced in Africa, and the rest can be produced in China or Bangladesh. In its current form, H.R. 1432 poses a serious risk to our domestic textile industry and its employees. Thousands of American workers and many in my district could be without jobs because this bill does not stop the illegal transshipment of apparel from other countries, particularly China. We need to add safeguard provisions that would ensure that U.S. textile workers, not Asian textile workers, manufacturers, get to produce the fabric that the African workers turn into clothes. This would not only help American workers but would provide more jobs to Africans. Without these provisions, we are looking at a lose/lose scenario for Africans and American workers. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules denied the opportunity to vote on an amendment to require that the apparel receiving duty-free and quota-free treatment be constructed of U.S.-manufactured yarn and fabric, so I ask for a vote against the bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 2846, a bill prohibiting any new Federal testing without specific congressional authority. Let me first say that we do not need another achievement test for our Nation's students. Let me name a few of the tests we already have in existence. The Stanford Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as NAEPS, and the Third International Math and Science Study, known as TIMMS. Again, these are just a few of tests currently used to assess student performance. So let us focus now for a moment on TIMMS. It is the largest study of educational achievement undertaken so far. There are 45 countries participating. Five grades are assessed in two school subjects, and approximately one million students tested in 31 languages. Through this study we already know how students in this country are performing in math and science, so why do we need another math test? In July of 1997 the results of the TIMMS 4th grade math and science test were announced and we found out that American students scored about average in both math and science when compared with other countries. However, we found that students in six countries, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Austria and Hong Kong did better than the U.S. students in math in the 4th grade. Also in November of 1996, the TIMMS report showed that United States 8th graders were performing slightly above average in science but slightly below average in math. Madam Speaker, the point is that we already know how American students are stacking up in these subjects and there is no need to spend more money on another test aimed at the same students, as proposed by the President. The money and the effort involved in conducting another test could better be used to improve our educational system and help students achieve academic excellence. Now let me ask that we vote for the previous question and the rule.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 8, I missed rollcall votes 617 (H.R. 2631) and 618 (H.R. 2534). Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to require that future occupational safety and health standards be subject to peer review as part of the rulemaking process. Part of the Clinton Administration's promise to reinvent OSHA was the commitment to commonsense regulations. Whatever else that might mean, surely it must mean that such regulations are based on sound science. The congressionally mandated Presidential-Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management said this about peer review in its recent report: ``Peer review is an important and effective mechanism for evaluating the accuracy or appropriateness of technical data, observations, interpretations, and the scientific and economic aspects of regulatory decisions. Peer review should provide balanced, independent views. When used well, peer review can serve as a system of checks and balances for the technical aspects of the regulatory process'' (Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision- Making, Volume 2, page 103). While other Federal regulatory agencies have adopted politics on peer review of major regulatory actions, OSHA has not adopted such a policy and only rarely has conducted peer review in conjunction with regulations. A draft policy circulated near the end of the Bush administration, was left unfinished and never implemented by the Clinton administration. It will no doubt be alleged by some that requiring peer review is intended to delay or draw out the rulemaking process. In fact, peer review can prevent OSHA from errors that can save years of controversy and litigation. As the Presidential-Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management noted: ``An open process of sharing the findings and conclusions from peer review can increase the credibility of a risk assessment and stakeholders confidence in the conclusions. Peer review might even be useful in the first stage of putting a problem in context, drawing in experienced health officials and researchers'' (Volume 2, page 103). The legislation generally requires that peer review be part of OSHA's rulemaking process. However, where the rule is adopted through negotiated rulemaking, conducted in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act which insures that affected persons are adequately represented in the negotiations, a separate peer review of the scientific and economic basis for the standard is not required. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in adopting this important legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was to encourage ``employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment.'' In its focus on enforcement, OSHA has too often overlooked that purpose. One of the promises of OSHA reinvention, however, was that OSHA would encourage employers to voluntarily implement effective safety and health programs in their workplaces. Contrary to that promise, OSHA has not addressed, in fact has refused to address, a significant obstacle to effective voluntary safety and health programs which it has created through its enforcement policies. OSHA has insisted on full access to voluntary self audits and assessments conducted by employers, in order to use these records during inspections to (1) help OSHA identify potential violations, and (2) to establish a basis for charging that any violations found in the workplace are ``willful.'' In some cases, OSHA has gone so far as to subpoena these records for use in inspections and enforcement. OSHA's policy discourages companies from conducting complete and honest self evaluations, even though OSHA acknowledges that such evaluation is a critical element to an effective safety and health program. The Environmental Protection Agency, facing this same issue in the environmental context has recognized that ``routine Agency requests for voluntary audit reports could inhibit auditing in the long run, decreasing both the quality and quantity of audits conducted'' [1986 Environmental Auditing Policy Statement, 51 Fed. Reg. 25,007]. For that reason, EPA has limited its access to these records. OSHA should be encouraging companies to conduct such safety and health evaluations. Instead, it is discouraging companies from such efforts by threatening to seize them and use them as a weapon against the employer. The result of OSHA's policy is less health and safety, not more. As one commentator put it: ``the `costs' of the Department's position, in terms of the decreased use and effectiveness of a critical component of voluntary safety and health programs, dramatically outweight the `benefits' of the position in terms of access to a possible source of evidence of a violation or of an employer's willful violation.'' The legislation applies only to self audits and assessments that are not required by any law or regulation. Further, it applies only to inspections and enforcement proceedings under the OSHAct. It does not address broader issues that would more logically be addressed as part of a change in the rules of evidence. I invite my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to codify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's [OSHA] consultation program. This is one in a series of bills which are intended to continue the process of changing OSHA. More than 2 years ago, President Clinton, in response to our demands for changes in OSHA, promised to ``reinvent'' OSHA. One of the principal changes in that promised reinvention was ``to give employers a choice between partnership with OSHA or traditional enforcement.'' Unfortunately, OSHA's principal initiative for giving employers a choice, the so-called cooperative compliance programs has evolved into a program of targeted enforcement, as even OSHA now acknowledges. In contrast, there are programs, operated by the States, which do give employers the choice of partnership or traditional enforcement. These relatively small programs have received some Federal funding since the 1970's. However, authorization for such consultation programs has never been made a part of the OSHAct, and, not incidentally, consultation has been one of the most underfunded and frequently ignored aspects of OSHA's program. In some states, an employer who requests consultation assistance must wait more than 1 year, sometimes 2 years, to receive it. The lack of funding and recognition for the consultation and education programs is in contrast to their recognized importance toward meeting the goal of safer workplaces. In fact, in 1996 the $32 million appropriated for consultation programs allowed States to conduct approximately 24,000 consultation visits, while the same number of Federal enforcement inspections--24,000--cost OSHA over $120 million. My own company has participated in the North Carolina consultation program, and we have found that it truly is a way in which employers can work in partnership with OSHA and improve safety and health. My legislation is based on the program in North Carolina, which operates with a combination of Federal and State funds. As is the case with the existing Federal funding, under the bill States would receive grants to provide both on-site consultation and other education and training activities. Employers who requested an on-site consultation or audit would not be subject to fines unless they failed to correct violations. Employers who request an on-site consultation and do correct violations may be exempt from OSHA general schedule inspections for 1 year. The legislation specifies that not less than 90 percent of OSHA's compliance assistance funding should be used for the consultation program. This provision is necessary because in the past 3 years OSHA has significantly increased its Federal compliance assistance budget, but without a corresponding increase in the consultation program. While I support additional funding for compliance assistance, I believe the funding should be directed to State consultation programs. The State grants were created because of the concern that Federal OSHA would not effectively administer a consultation program or maintain separation from enforcement. I believe that those concerns are still very relevant. Mr. Speaker, codification and implementation of an OSHA consultation program was one of the recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business. The Clinton administration has also supported codification of an OSHA consultation program in the past, and I look forward to their support for this legislation, and hope that we will with bipartisan support finally establish consultation as an important function and activity in terms of the Federal Government's support for improved safety and health in the workplace.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, when President Clinton promised to ``reinvent'' OSHA, he promisted ``to make sure that worker safety rules [would be] as simple and sensible and flexible as they can be.'' I think we all appreciate the President's goal. Certainly anyone who has had to deal with OSHA's rules would not describe them as simple, sensible, or flexible. Unfortunately, OSHA has made little progress in addressing this aspect of reinvention. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections recently completed hearings on the progress made in reinventing OSHA. It was apparent that little progress has been made in changing the regulatory progress. Even OSHA's Director of Regulatory Affairs was recently quoted as saying that ``regulatory reinvention is not a subject that has gotten much attention.'' The legislation which I am introducing will go a long way to make OSHA's rules ``simple, sensible, and flexible''--without any diminishing of employee's safety. This legislation simply allows an employer to meet the same level of protection of employees that is mandated by OSHA's rules, but allows employers the flexibility to do so through means, methods, processes, or operations that are different than those which may be mandated by OSHA. It may be argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act already provides flexibility to employers in meeting occupational safety and health standards, by providing that employers may apply for a variance from any standard. In reality, OSHA's variance process is unwieldy, lengthy, and expensive. But the test for granting a variance--that the employer's alternative method of protection will provide protection of employees equal to or greater than that provided by the standard--is the same test as would apply under my legislation. What my legislation in effect does, is make the variance process more useable and useful for employers. In short, this legislation gives employers precisely what the President promised: flexibility in worker safety rules without diminishing worker protection. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this step forward in reinventing OSHA.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, one of President Clinton's promises for reinventing OSHA in 1995 was that OSHA regulations would be made ``as simple and sensible and flexible as they can be.'' That is a good goal. Unfortunately, the administration and OSHA have done little to implement it. One of the ways that OSHA standards become nonsensible is when these standards are enforced and applied to industries--industries had little notice that they were covered by the standard. As a result, the industry must often spend millions of dollars, either in trying to comply with a standard that is not feasible or necessary in their workplaces, or in legal fees, in order to get the courts to overturn OSHA's rule. Recently, for example, the court of appeals ruled against OSHA with regard to inclusion of the roof coatings industry under the asbestos standard. The court found that ``there is no evidence in the record that asbestos fibers can ever escape from roofing sealants and become airborne'' (Asbestos Information Assn/North America v. Secretary of Labor, 7/24/97). Yet, OSHA insisted on covering the industry with the standard until the court ruled otherwise. Fixing the problem caused by an overreaching OSHA cost the industry thousands of dollars in litigation fees. Similarly, the airplane maintenance industry is now faced with coverage under OSHA's Methylene Chloride standard, even though OSHA itself acknowledged in testimony before my subcommittee that it did not thoroughly analyze the impact of the rule on that industry. In contrast, OSHA's recent proposal on tuberculosis does list the specific industries to which the standard would apply. So, the requirements of my bill are not unique or radical. They simply assure that the practice of notifying the specific industries, and analyzing the effect of the standard on them, is consistently followed in OSHA rulemakings. Mr. Speaker, this is one of several changes which would help to fulfill the President's promise to make OSHA's rules ``as simple and sensible and flexible as they can be.'' I invite my colleagues to cosponsor and support this change.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, one of the characteristics of the new OSHA, according to the Clinton administration, is that it will focus not on numbers of citations, but on results. Unfortunately, OSHA's policy with regard to multiemployer worksites shows just the opposite approach. It is clear from the Occupational Safety and Health Act that in general each employer is responsible for the working conditions and health and safety of his or her own employees. However, early administrative and court decisions recognized that under limited circumstances an employer could be cited by OSHA if the employer created the violation even if the employees who were in danger as a result of the violation were employed by another employer. So, for example, an employer could be cited for storing heavy material near the edge of the top floor of a construction site which endangered employees of other employers working on the floor below. In recent years, OSHA has stretched and stretched the limits of that legal test in order to artificially increase its numbers of citations and to achieve, through its enforcement, a policy of creating a site controlling employer responsible for all working conditions on the site. Specifically, OSHA has taken the enforcement position that a general contractor or owner should always be responsible for safety on the entire worksite. As a result, OSHA has begun to routinely cite general contractors even where the contractor's employees are not exposed to the violation and the contractor's employees did not create or have control over the violation. Instead, the basis of the general contractor's liability is simply that the general contractor, or owner, should have overall responsibility of the job site, regardless of what the facts and circumstances actually showed. In that regard, OSHA has adopted a position for enforcement that follows Democratic-sponsored legislation in the 102d and 103d Congress--legislation which failed to pass. A central tenet of those bills was that either a contractor or the owner would be liable in all cases for any safety and health hazards on the worksite. Despite the defeat of that legislation, OSHA has attempted to implement the same policy through enforcement. Ironically, OSHA's current enforcement policy on multiemployer liability is leading to less safety, not more. General contractors and owners are increasingly reluctant to include any language regarding safety and health responsibilities in contracts with subcontractors, or to take action on subcontractor safety problems that come to the attention of the general contractor or owner. This is done out of concern that any such contract language or action will be used by OSHA as the basis for claiming that the general contractor or owner has assumed responsibility for all safety and health on the worksite, and is therefore liable for any and all violations on the worksite, including those solely created by a subcontractor. My legislation is intended to reestablish the earlier interpretation regarding liability of multiemployer worksites. Under the bill, an employer may only be cited for an OSHA violation if the employer's own employees are exposed to the violation, or the employer, or its employees, has created the violation or assumed responsibility for ensuring compliance by other employers on the worksite. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to implement one of President Clinton's promises to small business: a reduction in OSHA penalties for small businesses. On April 21, 1995, President Clinton issued a directive to Federal agencies, including OSHA, to adopt penalty relief for small businesses. Specifically, the directive instructed agencies to reduce penalties by up to 100 percent if the small business corrected the violation within the specified time, or applied the amount of the penalty against the cost of abatement of the violation. Since then, OSHA has studied and re-studied how such a directive might be implemented. It has even tried to use the President's directive to reduce penalties as an excuse to increase OSHA penalties on some employers. In the end, however, OSHA has never adopted the President's directive and given small businesses the penalty relief promised. My legislation follows the President's directive nearly verbatim. Under the bill, penalties would be waived in whole or in part, if the employer corrects the violation within a reasonable time, or to the extent that the employer applies them to the cost of abatement. The waiver of penalties applies where the employer has shown good faith in attempting to comply with health and safety requirements and the violation is not a significant threat to employees' health or safety. I invite my colleagues to support this penalty reduction for small business.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, while we are playing around with fast track, our neighbors to the north are eating our economic lunch and stealing our job growth. Let me give my colleagues a couple quotes, first from the Washington Post. ``Because of a recent free-trade pact between Canada and Chile that lowered tariffs between the two countries, Caterpillar is beginning to lose sales in Chile to a small Canadian competitor. ``If Caterpillar finds that it is seriously disadvantaged in Latin America by the absence of free-trade agreements, the company would consider shifting production out of the United States and into the region, or to places such as Canada or Mexico that already have duty- free arrangements with much of Latin America.'' Some other U.S. companies are investigating whether their Canadian subsidiaries and plants should now handle their business with Chile in order to profit from tariff breaks. Ford Motor Co. says it is beginning to examine the feasibility of shipping its popular F-series pickup trucks to Chile from Canada. More than 50 Canadian-Chilean joint ventures are already operating, and some of those are already shipping to other Latin American countries. Mr. Speaker, as the AFL-CIO sticks its head in the sand, we are exporting jobs.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections has held numerous hearings on issues surrounding OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. While these hearings have considered a great many issues, time after time we have returned to the fundamental question: What is the purpose of OSHA? Is it to enforce rules that it has issued against supposedly recalcitrant employers? Or is it to promote workplace safety by whatever means that are most effective? Consider these two quotes, from testimony the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections received from two recent directors of OSHA, one in the Bush administration, the second from the director of OSHA in the first Clinton administration. Congress, for years, measured OSHA's effectiveness by the number of inspections completed, the number of serious citations issued, the number of dollar penalties collected, the number of willful violations issued and the number of criminal cases referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. Are these the appropriate measures to determine the effectiveness of this Act? Or should the question be: ``Are hazards in the workplace being abated? Are injury rates being reduced?'' That really is the crux of the issue: what is the most effective approach to achieving hazard abatement and injury reduction. Again, we are talking about changing long standing, systemic problems with the agency. Because the agency's success was measured for years by its punitive activity, it has become organized accordingly. (Testimony of Dorothy Strunk, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, March 8, 1995). Many employers have complained that OSHA inspectors care less about worker safety than they do about meeting perceived ``quotas'' for citations and penalties. While OSHA has never used quotas, it has in the past used citations and penalties as performance measures. I have put a stop to this practice. (Testimony of Joe Dear, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, March 8, 1995). My legislation would simply make the Clinton administration's commitment part of the law. It makes clear that OSHA's purpose is to improve safety and health for employers and employees--not just enforcement. Why is this legislation necessary if the Clinton administration has already stated it agrees with the policy? First, as the above statement indicates, OSHA's focus on enforcement numbers is long standing and systemic. Saying that the agency will change its personnel policies does not necessarily effectuate real change. Second, despite the Clinton administration's promise to change, the leadership of the agency continues to focus on enforcement measures as the purpose of the agency. Earlier this year, the acting assistant secretary for OSHA told all OSHA offices to increase the number of inspections in 1997, and to increase the number of large penalty cases. Third, putting this provision in the statute will help to assure employers and employees that OSHA's mission is not to collect money for the Federal Government, but to promote safety and health. I view this change as a small step, but in conjunction with other steps I am proposing, helpful to redirecting OSHA away from its focus on enforcement, rather than on safety and health.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, just when we thought it could not get any worse, we find out about another outrage at the IRS. The deeper we dig, the more we find out that the IRS is a rogue agency that abuses its power. Congress asks, who is responsible? And what kind of response do we get from this administration's Treasury Department and from this White House? The same responses we got from this administration whenever they get caught in other wrongdoing: Denials and attempts to change the subject or their favorite expression that ``mistakes were made'' whenever they wish to avoid holding anyone accountable. The same administration that somehow ended up with 900 FBI files of Republicans and cannot seem to recall just how that happened is the same administration that has done absolutely nothing in 4\1/2\ years to rein in an agency that is out of control. Politically motivated tax audits, replacing justice with revenue quotas, intimidating settlements on ordinary citizens who cannot afford lawyers, irresponsible bureaucrats who abuse their power. The list goes on and on. It is time to clean the house at the IRS.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. In addition, I wish to praise Chairman Bill Archer and our colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for bringing to light endless injustices against the American taxpayers. H.R. 2676 implements the recommendations of the year-long National Commission on Restructuring the IRS and provides taxpayers new protections and rights to address many of the abuses spotlighted in congressional hearings. Our colleagues Rob Portman and Ben Cardin also deserve recognition for their sponsorship of this commission and their tireless advocacy of its recommendations. I believe it is important to remind our constituents that it was the Republican-led Congress which made possible this major reform initiative and the implementing legislation we have before us today. H.R. 2676 proposes the first major reform of the IRS since 1952. For three years, Republican committee heads with responsibility for the budget and oversight of this federal agency have worked to advance this reform agenda. After weeks of congressional hearings and outrage expressed by the American people, the media finally began reporting on the dark side of this Federal agency. And, after weeks of resistance to the major recommendations of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, and following the endorsement of reform efforts by the leader of the House Democrats, President Clinton--and the defenders of the status quo in his administration--decided they had to join this bandwagon for reform. The good news in this debate is that a presidential veto of these important reforms appears less likely. Let me repeat, this legislative priority never would have been identified or pursued had it not been for the landslide 1994 congressional elections which swept Republicans into control of the legislative branch of our Federal Government. I am proud that we have made protection of the American taxpayers and tax relief the hallmarks of our leadership. As I have stated before, congressional Republicans need time to review the legislative mistakes of the past 40 years of Democrat control of the Congress. We have been working quietly to build the case for major reforms of the Federal Government, and today we are seeing the fruit of our efforts. The recent congressional oversight hearings on IRS management problems gave the victims of IRS harassment human faces and gained the national spotlight for this important issue. These hearings also generated a great deal of interest among my constituents in the 10th Congressional District of North Carolina. In addition to a stream of calls and letters urging my support in general for a package of IRS management reforms, the owner of a small business came by one of my district offices with a letter she wanted me to pass along to Chairman Archer. With painstaking detail, my constituent outlined what she and her family--and employees--earlier faced at the hands of overzealous IRS agents. The agents harassed her 77-year-old parents who are in poor health and, on one occasion, delayed her mother's departure for a doctor's appointment. The agents even followed her mother to a store once and prevented her from exiting her car while they hurled questions at her. The taxpayer's daughter suffered problems at school, resulting in medical problems for both of them. After her employees were contacted by phone and in person by agents at their homes, many were scared and considered looking for other work. I agree with my constituent that these agents appeared to be on a mission to destroy her. Although the issue was business taxes, these Federal employees seemed willing to destroy her personal reputation in order to collect the taxes. Regrettably, she could identify with the financial and emotional stresses which the witnesses had shared earlier with the congressional panel and the viewing public. I am certain my colleagues all can attest to similar battles which consumed their constituents' lives and resources, and in some cases threatened their health. While some IRS districts have been charged with especially egregious collection actions, it seems that the taxman has spread the pain fairly evenly to constituents in every congressional district. The situation of another constituent illustrates what I believe to be the single biggest problem with agency procedures used to settle outstanding tax liability. Taxpayers who owe back taxes to the IRS, have reached a payment agreement and comply with the terms of the agreement, are still subjected to ongoing penalties. Penalties in this instance have more than doubled the original outstanding tax burden. This is ridiculous! When an agreement is negotiated with the IRS and signed, further penalties should be eliminated. By ending these penalties, I also believe taxpayers would have greater incentive to enter into payment agreements. I agree with my constituents that the IRS should first and foremost provide ``customer service,'' be guided by common sense regulations, and treat all taxpayers with simple human decency. I believe the solution to the problems with our tax system begins with the enactment of H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act would: First, create an 11-member IRS Oversight Board, with 8 members who are not Federal officers or employees. This board will have real authority to oversee the IRS and will bring private sector expertise to the agency. Second, encourage the use of electronic (or paperless) filing which should dramatically reduce the high error rate of IRS employees who input incorrect numbers from paper 1040 forms. Third, create a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 3, which will provide 28 new protections for taxpayers that will enhance their rights when they become involved in disputes with the IRS. These protections: Shift the burden of proof from taxpayers to the IRS in court proceedings when a taxpayer has fully cooperated during administrative proceedings; allow recovery of up to $100,000 for negligent IRS collection actions; allow taxpayers to recover attorneys' fees when they prevail against the IRS; give taxpayers easier access to the tax court's equivalent of a ``small claims court;'' expand the ability of ``innocent spouses''--often divorced women--to be relieved from liability for additional taxes which the IRS determines are owed on a joint return filed during the couple's marriage; and require that taxpayers are given a reason for any audit. Fourth, expand the oversight role by Congress of the agency. As a taxpayer myself, I feel these changes in IRS management and procedures are long overdue. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this issue on behalf of my constituents. I urge my colleagues to join with me today in voting for the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if some of my liberal friends on the other side of the aisle can help me with a question that is puzzling me. Why is it that it is selfish when we wish to keep what belongs to us, whereas it is compassion when we wish to take what belongs to another? I suppose by your own logic, it is selfish to lock your doors at night when you want to keep what you have earned. I guess all of the hard work and sacrifice that goes into earning what belongs to you, that is forgotten, because the liberals are busy today talking about how compassionate they are spending other people's money. Now we have the President of the United States on record showing what side he is on. Yesterday he called those of us that want tax cuts selfish. The President thinks that ordinary Americans ought to be condemned for thinking that the Government could get by on a little less, that families ought to have a little bit more. It is kind of puzzling, is it not?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S. Caribbean Trade Partnership Act. This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], extends duty-free access for 14 months to certain products such as apparel, handbags, and so forth. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I have always supported trade with our neighbors in this hemisphere. We have consistently worked to reduce tariffs and to ease trade barriers between our country and Latin America. The United States Caribbean Trade Partnership Act will restore trade benefits to our Caribbean neighbors which were lost as a result of NAFTA. Ultimately, increased trade will create jobs here and help countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala become more stable. After years of war and removing dictators, these countries are now fragile democracies and need our help. However, I do have some reservations about the rule-of-origin requirements of this bill. However, my belief is that with this guarantee, this bill will create more domestic jobs and opportunities for Americans. Reducing tariffs will result in lower consumer prices for imported products which benefit all consumers. Americans will benefit from these changes, and they will go to purchase clothes and other items. Join me in supporting the United States Caribbean Trade Partnership Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on National Security, in a brief colloquy on employee stock ownership plans in Section 844 of the conference report. With respect to the ESOP provision, Section 844 which reflects a Senate amendment to the original House provision, I ask for assurance that the conference outcome is consistent with existing law as set forth in Public Law 94-455, establishing that Congress wants to encourage ESOPs, not choke them to death with unreasonable rules and regulations.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Thursday, October 9 was a very sad day for basketball and sports fans alike. After 36 seasons as head coach of the North Carolina Tarheels, Dean Smith, the ultimate competitor, left his post and passed the reins to his longtime assistant. With this announcement, Dean Smith ended an era in college basketball. His record of 879 total victories, 11 trips to the Final Four, 13 ACC Championships, and 2 National Championships will never be matched. These stats and scores point out what every basketball fan already knows. Dean Smith is the winningest coach in college basketball history. His impact on the sports history books is only rivaled by his impact on the lives, hearts, and minds of his players. To quote a lesser known Tarheel, Michael Jordan, he says, ``He's like a father figure to us all.'' Today I honor a man who represents the best that college sports has to offer, a man of true integrity and class who makes North Carolinians proud that he calls Chapel Hill home. Thank you, Coach Smith, for your many years of commitment. We surely will miss you.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which will continue our efforts to make the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] applicable to today's work force. Presently, the FLSA requires that certain payments to a nonexempt employee--such as commissions, gain sharing, incentive, and performance contingent bonuses--must be included in the employee's regular hourly rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime pay. Oftentimes, this discourages employers from monetarily rewarding their employees for good performance. This legislation will remove the barriers within the FLSA which, in effect, prevent employers from providing bonuses to hourly paid employees. It is becoming more common for companies to link pay to performance as they look for innovative ways to encourage employee performance and allow employees to share in the company's success. More employers are awarding one-time payments to individual employees or to groups of employees in addition to regular wage increases. Employers have found that rewarding employees for high-quality work improves their performance and the ability of the company to compete. Unfortunately, many employers who choose to operate such pay systems can be burdened with unpredictable and complex overtime liabilities. Under current law, an employer who wants to give an employee a bonus based on production, performance, or other factors, must divide the payment by the number of hours worked by the employee during the pay period that the bonus is meant to cover and add this amount to the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. This adjusted hourly rate must then be used to calculate time-and-a-half overtime pay for the pay period. On the other hand, employers can easily provide additional compensation to executive, administrative, or professional employees who are exempt under the FLSA without having to recalculate rates of pay. Many employers who provide discretionary bonuses do not realize that these payments should be incorporated into overtime pay. One company ran afoul of the FLSA when they gave their employees bonuses based on each employee's contribution to the company's success. The bonus program distributed over $300,000 to 400 employees. The amount of each employee's bonus was based on his or her attendance record, the amount of overtime worked, and the quality and quantity of work produced. When the company was targeted for an audit, the Department of Labor cited it for not including the bonuses in the employees' regular rate for the purpose of calculating each employee's overtime pay rate. Consequently, the company was required to pay over $12,000 in back overtime pay to their employees. The company thought it was being a good employer by enabling its employees to reap the profits of the company and by paying wages that were far above the minimum. Instead it was penalized by the Department of Labor for letting its employees share in its success. Meanwhile, President Clinton was exhorting businesses to work in partnership with employees, by sharing the benefits when times are good. This legislation will eliminate the confusion regarding the definition of regular rate and remove disincentives in the FLSA to rewarding employee productivity. The definition of regular rate should have the meaning that employers and employees expect it to mean--the hourly rate or salary that is agreed upon between the employer and the employee. Thus, employers will know that they can provide additional rewards and incentives to their nonexempt employees without having to fear being penalized by the Department of Labor regulators for being too generous.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, last Congress I proposed legislation to merge two Federal workplace safety and health agencies, OSHA and MSHA, into a single agency. In my view, merging these two agencies would more effectively promote workplace safety. It would also help reduce Washington bureaucracy. The Clinton administration strongly opposed my proposed merger. But after he criticized my plan to merge the agencies, the Clinton administration made the head of MSHA a part-time job. And 2\1/2\ years later, the Clinton administration still considers MSHA so important that the Acting Solicitor of Labor is running the agency in a couple of hours a week. Madam Speaker, I am all for saving taxpayer money and combining Federal Government jobs where possible, but I am curious whether this sharing of top-level jobs might be part of a larger strategy. I know the Department of Labor has criticized companies in the past for filling too many lower level positions with part-time workers. Is the Clinton administration trying to turn the tables by putting part-timers in top positions? Madam Speaker, how far will the administration carry this? Will the Attorney General be officially splitting time as a White House Press Secretary?