Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has released some survey information on teenage drug activity that is absolutely shocking. The researchers found that by the time a teen reaches the age of 17, 68 percent of them can buy pot within a day; 62 percent have friends who use marijuana; 58 percent have been solicited to buy marijuana; 58 percent know someone who uses acid, cocaine, or heroin; 40 percent have personally witnessed the sale of drugs in their own neighborhood; and less than one in three attend a drug-free school. Mr. Speaker, this country is losing the war on drugs. We are literally losing a generation of children to hopelessness, to shattered dreams, and eventually to a loss of their freedom. Our children deserve better. Every child should have a strong family, a drug-free school, and safe streets. And we must do all we can as leaders to make this a reality for all children, before it's too late. Mr. Speaker, where is our President on this?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, last Friday's Washington Times contained a front-page article which showed me just how far the President will go to win votes. The article claimed that the Clinton administration has pressured the Immigration and Naturalization Service to speed up the standards and background checks on applicants for citizenship and to ignore other requirements in order to naturalize as many immigrants as possible before the November elections. By taking such shortcuts, the President is putting in danger the naturalization of immigrants with criminal records and other immigrants not qualified for citizenship. In the past year 1.3 million people have become naturalized citizens, nearly three times the number of previous years. The reason for this is a Presidential initiative called Citizenship USA, which is supposed to help legal immigrants through the naturalization process. Instead, the program is being used as a campaign tool of the Clinton campaign in hopes of winning votes of these new citizens. Complying with the directives established by this program has some INS officials feeling like the campaign workers of INS. Becoming a U.S. citizen is a great honor, and I suspect the President will indeed receive the reward he has envisioned, but I believe that shameless hustling for votes is making a mockery of our immigration.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, here is a headline from the Greenville News out of South Carolina, 2 weeks ago: ``Twice as Many Teens Using Drugs as in 1992.'' Mr. Speaker, why do we have this headline? Why is it teen drug use has exploded? There are probably many plausible theories, but I think the most important is the attitudes of those in positions of authority. In the 1980's, the Reagan administration told young people to just say no. But in 1993, when Bill Clinton first took over as President, he slashed the budget of the Office of National Drug Policy. Then, his administration hired about 40 staffers who had to be placed in a special drug program because they admitted to using hard drugs such as crack cocaine only a few months before going to the White House. Mr. Speaker, when we have an administration that takes a casual view of adult drug use, its no wonder we have headlines like this.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to wage an effective campaign against drugs and that is to remain forever vigilant. With that said, it is no wonder overall drug use by 12- to 17-year- olds is up 78 percent when we have an administration asleep at the wheel. The Clinton White House dozed off early and often in their new administration when they slashed the Office of National Drug Policy by 80 percent and cut interdiction by 25 percent. They continued to snooze until they were rudely awakened by a Republican Congress which took it upon themselves to restore funding for drug interdiction. And then, the Clinton White House fell back into slumber again only to be roused by a Presidential campaign. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton White House needs to turn off their political alarm system when it comes to drugs and remain forever attentive to the ongoing war.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the American people delivered to this Congress a message of frustration and hope that a new legislature with fresh faces and a fresh commitment to honor the voice of the people that would radically alter the political landscape. Their cry for change and reform did not go unheard. In this Congress, we have changed the way Washington works and given the power back from where it came--the people in the States and cities and towns with real problems and real answers. In this Congress, we passed real welfare reform, giving hope and opportunity to those who were trapped in a system that robs people of their dreams and dignity. In this Congress, we forced this very body to live under the same laws and rules as those who elected us. We are no longer accountable to ourselves, but to the American people. There is still a long road ahead of us to accomplish everything that the American people set before us. But we will remain faithful to their message and continue in the right direction.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the conference agreement on H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act because of my concern that the increase in the minimum wage or starting wage will make it much harder for those with few skills and training or a limited education to get a first job. Minimum wage jobs are often the first rung on the ladder of upward mobility and this increase will likely move that rung beyond reach for many workers. By raising the wage rate, we end up denying job opportunities to thousands of workers. The conference agreement raises the Federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15, in two increments. The first increase becomes effective on October 1, 1996 and will raise the wage rate to $4.75. The second increase would take effect on September 1, 1997, raising the minimum wage rate to $5.15. It is well known by economists and lawmakers that higher minimum wages lead to job losses. Dozens of studies show that raising the minimum wage costs entry-level job opportunities, and does little to help the working poor. Job loss estimates for this increase range from 100,000 to over 600,000 jobs. In my home State of North Carolina, an estimated 19,100 jobs will be lost. A 90-cent increase is meaningless for the individual who no longer has a job. Just recently, the Washington Post featured a story on the Kiddie Junction Learning Center in Zachary, LA. The owner of the day care center indicated that an increase in the minimum wage would be bad for her business, her employees, and her customers--and that it will likely force her to let go one employee and increase prices. This is just one more example of how a minimum wage increase does more harm than good by costing some low-wage workers their jobs and raising costs for others. A copy of the article follows. While I am voting ``no'' on the conference agreement to signal my concern about the effect wage increases have on job creation, I do support the final agreement to bring tax relief for small businesses and their workers and as well as the provisions bringing long overdue reform to our pension system. These changes will do much to help ease the middle class crunch and help many people make more and save more. [From the Washington Post, July 30, 1996] (By Gary Younge) Zachary, LA.--Jeannette Boggs started her working life making $1.25 an hour as a service representative for a utilities company in Baton Rouge in 1965. Since then, she says, she has ``bettered myself in dollars and cents'' to get where she is today--the proud owner of Kiddie Junction Learning Center, a day-care center 12 miles away in Zachary. Zachary is a rural town of about 10,000 where churches outnumber banks by about three to one. Like many in the area, Boggs describes herself as religious and conservative. She believes that in America, if you work hard you will be rewarded, and she says her six employees work very hard indeed. ``It's a tough job. It's wiping noses, cleaning butts and tying shoes all day long,'' she said. None of her staff earns more than $6.50 an hour. Two are paid at or around the current minimum wage of $4.25. Many of the parents who use Kiddie Junction also are minimum-wage, or slightly better, earners. When it comes to increasing the minimum wage, many low-paid people here are understandably eager to see it happen but recognize that, like a boomerang, that very increase may well come back and hit them in the form of higher costs. Many cannot decide whether tit will spark a vicious circle that will fuel inflation or a virtuous one that will help alleviate poverty. But Boggs has definitely made up her mind. She argues that an increase will be bad for her business, her employees and her customers. If, as appears likely to happen as early as this week, Congress passes a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage, pushing it up to $5.15 an hour, Boggs contends it will force her to let go one staff member and increase her prices. ``When people talk about the minimum wage, all they think about are kids working in the fast-food chains. If people work hard, they should get paid well, and that's why we have labor laws to protect them,'' Boggs said. ``But I have lots of hidden costs as well as payroll taxes and workers' compensation. All these things cost money, and if you add them up them the minimum wage is not so minimum any more. It's going to add about 12.75 percent to my cost, and I'm going to have to pass some of that on.'' That would be bad news for Annette Ponthier. She started her working life at minimum wage six years ago as a driver for a medical transportation company. A few years later, she gave birth to her son, Alex, and soon after that, Alex's father left. At first Ponthier's mother looked after Alex, but she has a heart problem so Annette took Alex to Kiddie Junction, where she pays $62 a week. She now makes $5.50 an hour selling swimming pools and pool chemicals. At age 23, she still lives with her parents in Zachary because, she said she cannot afford her own place. A minimum wage increase would be good, she said, although ``you still couldn't live on it.'' But if the price of Kiddie Junction went up even by a few dollars a week, she said, she could not really afford it, and ``with no child care, there's no job.'' There are 4.2 million people earning the $4.25 an hour minimum, and 7 million earning $5.15 or less. With 19.9 percent of its workers earning between $4.25 and $5.15, Louisiana has the highest proportion of working people who will be affected in the country, according to figures compiled in 1994 by the Economic Policy Institute. During the debate that has raged in Washington over increasing the minimum, both supporters and opponents said they were arguing in the name of the poor and low-skilled. Opponents said the raise would break small businesses like Boggs's and would price low-skilled workers out of their jobs. Supporters protested that the minimum wage level had been eroded by inflation and that an increase would help alleviate the kind of poverty that is prevalent in Louisiana. The measure passed by the House on a 288 to 144 vote would raise the minimum wage from $4.25 to $4.75 an hour on July 1 and to $5.25 a year later. The Senate also has passed it, and minor differences in the two bills are being worked out in conference. But Zachary is a long way from Capitol Hill. ``It's just a little town on the go,'' said Norabeth Alexander, who has earned $5.25 an hour as a cook and teacher at Kiddie Junction for the past year and a half. With a large influx of new families eager to take advantage of the local schools, which have a good reputation, Zachary is suffering some growing pains. The community is far less tightknit than it used to be, and urban evils are beginning to arrive from the metropolis. ``Drugs and crime are working their way out from Baton Rouge,'' Alexander said. The days when doors could be left unlocked are gone here, said Boggs, 48. Last year, Kiddie Junction was broken into twice in one month. ``Parents just aren't spending enough time with their children anymore. There's too much divorce and no morals and very little discipline in the family. Kids just won't say ``Yes, ma'am' or ``Yes, sir'' anymore like they used to.'' Kellie Valloton is an exception, Boggs said. Valloton is 17, still in high school, and works at Kiddie Junction as part of a work experience program for $4.50 an hour. ``Kellie is mature,'' Boggs said. She wants to be a teacher, but her only experience working with children before she came to Kiddie Junction was baby-sitting for friends. Valloton says there is no way she could live on her own on her wage. ``Sure, it would be nice to have a raise. But it would be hard for some of the adults with more experience because if I got an increase, I suppose they would want one, too. I'm just here really to learn some responsibility and hopefully have something to show for it,'' she said. Boggs is certain there will be a chain reaction as high- paid workers demand that a differential be maintained between them and their minimum-wage colleagues. Brenda Dugas, co- director of Kiddie Junction, thinks that is unlikely, Dugas says that when she was raising her two children, she earned no more than minimum wage, and sometimes less. Now she makes $6.50 an hour, on which she helps support a son working his way through college. Her daughter makes the minimum at a local Lowe's Lumber store. ``Of course it's hard on the young people, but it teaches them responsibility and survival skills,'' Dugas said. But Dugas is in the apparent minority here in thinking it is possible to live on the minimum wage. ``I think it would be very difficult for the head of the household to live on that,'' Boggs said. ``I do think it is morally wrong for employers to just exploit people.'' She prides herself on the benefits Kiddie Junction gives its workers--a week's vacation and two annual sick days after one year; two weeks' vacation and four sick days after three years. ``I used to work in personnel, I know that the best way to keep staff is to invest in people,'' she said. But, federal and state law imposes tight--and often costly--restrictions on day-care centers. Boggs can have no more than 16 4-year-olds, 14 3-year-olds or 12 2-year-olds for every staff member. There must be 35 square feet inside and 75 square feet outside for each child. She must pay for fingerprinting (to help detect convicted child molesters), a physical and tuberculosis test for each new staff member, and CPR classes and an additional training day for each worker annually. Boggs charges $62 a week for children age 1 to 3, $56 for those 3 or older and $30 for school-age children who are there before or after school. With 39 children on its books and a waiting list of 11, Kiddie Junction has made a profit for the last eight years. Boggs's husband, Louis, who build Kiddie Junction in spare time away from his job as an instrument technician for Georgia Pacific Corp., is proud of its success. Louis Boggs is a fan of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and has few good words to say about President Clinton. ``Every time I turn around, he's got his hand in my pockets and trying to take my money away in taxes,'' he said. It is senseless to talk about poverty in Louisiana, Louis Boggs said, let alone to try to fix it with federal help. ``For people at the low end of the wage scale in a state like this, a minimum wage increase is just a vicious circle. People keep talking about poverty. What's poverty? There's no such thing as poverty. There's just workers without skills.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, good news for all Americans today. Not only has President Clinton agreed to sign the bipartisan welfare reform bill, he has said he will also sign the bipartisan health care reform bill. With the enactment of the health care bill, this commonsense Congress is giving Americans genuine health care reform without a government takeover. The bill establishes medical savings accounts, fights fraud and abuse, provides a long-term care insurance deduction, allows the self-employed to deduct 80 percent of health care costs, and allows people the freedom to change jobs without losing their health care coverage. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad President Clinton has finally come around. True health care reform is what the American people want.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats love to portray themselves as the great champions of America's children. The President has even threatened to veto welfare reform for the third time unless, and I quote, it ``protects children.'' For the last year, Bill Clinton has stood in the way of genuine welfare reform. He seems incapable of showing any determined leadership on any of the pressing social or economic issues facing this Nation. When he does act, he always hides behind children or some other alleged victim. If Bill Clinton were truly concerned about children and those in need, he would have kept the promises he made in his campaign. He would have kept his promise to end welfare as we know it. He would have kept his promise to balance the budget in 5 years. The list of broken promises goes on and on. The children of America don't need pandering they need a President who is willing to stand by his word, do the right thing, and sign commonsense welfare reform.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that ever since I introduced H.R. 2391, I have tried to address the concerns that others have had with the legislation. I have tried to accommodate, as much as possible, suggestions to improve the bill since it was introduced in September 1995. There have been changes made to the bill at each step of the legislative process. The substitute amendment which I offered at subcommittee markup was accepted by voice vote. It included six changes which clarified and improved the protections for employees. Many of the changes were taken directly from recommendations made by the Democrats' witness who testified at a hearing on the bill. And yet, while the Democrats on the subcommittee voiced their opposition to various parts of the bill, there were no Democratic amendments offered. At full committee markup, I offered a substitute amendment which further strengthened the employee protections and directly addressed a number of the Democrats' concerns with the legislation. While the vote on final passage of the bill was along party lines, the substitute amendment was approved by voice vote. Again, no Democratic amendments were offered to the bill. And, now on the House floor, I have sponsored an amendment with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] which includes a number of clarifications and additional protections to ensure the voluntary use of comp time and to give employees greater control over their accrued comp time. Yet, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to say that they have substantive problems with this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is commonsense legislation. We support it. Most of all, employees want it. Their counterparts in the public sector, many of whom are unionized, have used comp time for years and strongly support the use of it there. As of recently, President Clinton supports it. Although in May, when this legislation was to be tied to the minimum-wage increase, his chief of staff called it a poison pill. While I am baffled by labor and this administration's objection to the legislation, the opposition appears to be nothing more than election year politics. American workers want and deserve flexibility in the workplace to better deal with the challenges of balancing work and family obligations. The Working Families Flexibility Act removes obstacles in Federal law which prevent employees and employers from mutually agreeing to use alternative arrangements regarding compensation and scheduling. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will allow American men and women to make the choice for themselves between extra money or paid time off.

Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies and adds a number of employee-protections which will ensure that the choice of comp time is truly the employee's choice and to give employees control over when comp time is used or cashed in. First, the amendment requires a private sector employer to give an employee 30 days notice prior to cashing out the employee's accrued comp time. However, employers may only cash out accrued comp time in excess of 80 hours, unless the cash out is in response to an employee request. There has been some concern expressed about the fact that would an employer could cash out comp time. But, an employer is not required to offer comp time--so to offer it and then, in effect retract it, in the absence of a very compelling reason to do so, would not be a very sensible policy for an employer. The amendment addresses this concern by assuring that the employer could not cash out the first 80 hours of accrued comp time, unless the employee requests it. Second, the amendment clarifies that an employee may withdraw from a comp time agreement with an employer at any time. Nothing in the bill currently prohibits an employee from doing so, but I have added language which explicitly gives the employee that right. Third, the amendment would require employers to provide employees with 30 days notice prior to withdrawing a policy of offering comp time. There may be instances where an employer decides for whatever reason that providing comp time is not a workable option for that particular business. This would accommodate that type of situation by allowing the employer to discontinue the program, so long as the employees are provided with 30 days notice. Fourth, the amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to revise the posting requirements under the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act to reflect the comp time provisions of the bill. This will help to ensure that employees are informed of the circumstances under which comp time may be provided and their rights regarding the use of comp time. Fifth, the amendment would eliminate language which limited a private sector employee's remedies against an employer to willful violations of the anti-coercion provision. I know that this particular issue was of concern to my colleague on the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, Congressman Andrews. By removing the willful requirement, the remedies in the bill would be available to an employee who is directly or indirectly coerced by an employer into selecting or using comp time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes; the gentleman is correct. The provision in paragraph 3 is not intended to authorize any public agency to intimidate, threaten or coerce any public employee. This bill is specifically designed to deal with compensatory time in the private and not the public sector.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, section 15(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to any person who is covered by the act. H.R. 2391 does not change or affect coverage of section 15(a) in any way.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as the percentage of employees who must balance work and family or personal interests grows rapidly, employers face obstacles in Federal law which prohibit them from providing flexible scheduling arrangements to their employees. The Working Families Flexibility Act gives employers the ability to offer their employees the option of receiving paid compensatory time off in lieu of overtime wages. Since 1985, the public sector has had the ability under the Fair Labor Standards Act to use so-called comp time in lieu of overtime pay. H.R. 2391 extends this option to the private sector, with some adjustments, taking into account the inherent differences between the public and private sectors. Comp time could only be provided at the request of an employee. An employee could, under an agreement with the employer, voluntarily choose to have time-and-one-half comp time over cash wages. If that same employee later decides that cash wages would be preferable to time off, then the employee could simply request to be compensated in wages. Nothing in the bill precludes employees from changing their minds. An employee could also request, at any time, to be paid cash wages for any accrued comp time. It is time that the private sector is given the same flexibility which the public sector had had for some time. Support the Working Families Flexibility Act--to provide employees with options and greater control in balancing work and family responsibilities.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote a claim by the AFL-CIO where it says the penalties for coercion are too weak. The response for that, the penalties in the bill for coercing are the same as those for unpaid overtime; that is, the amount of pay owed us, plus an equal amount of liquidated damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. If the employee has already used and been paid for comp time, then the amount is deducted from the award since they have already received the overtime pay, but he or she may still receive the liquidated damages. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the other remedies such as civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act may apply. Either the Department of Labor or the employee can file suit, and I wish somebody on the other side would read the actual bill itself so they can understand what they are really talking about.

Mr. BALLENGER. They can go to court on their own or they could go to the Secretary of Labor, who is not a friend of business, and he will do it for them to enforce that law.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, while our Olympic athletes may start their day with a bowl of Wheaties, our Democrat colleagues started the day by trying to serve up a bowl full of balderdash sprinkled with horse feathers. That is what we are trying to spoon out during their speeches on comp time: Distortions, prevarications, and untruths. This is really a simple bill designed to give hourly employees the opportunity to have more flexibility in their work schedule so that, for example, they can better meet the needs of their working family. The bill allows an employee, when the employer agrees, they have to agree together, to take overtime pay in the form of comp time rather than cash wages. The bill does not, I repeat, does not affect the change in the 40- hour workweek. Some of the unions are sending letters, phone calls, saying that it does affect the work week. Under this bill, a worker would still earn overtime in the very same way he or she does by now, by working 40 hours in a 7-day week. In that, this bill would simply allow workers to choose, by agreement with the employer, to receive time-and-a-half comp time instead of wages. Workers in the public sector, State, local, Federal employees, have had the option of taking comp time for many years, and many union members do, too. The bill extends this option to private sector, un-unionized private sector as well. Surveys have shown that there is strong support among hourly employees for having this option. Obviously not every employer will use it, but it will fill in a need for many workers. By allowing the employees to take comp time, they can bank extra hours at the time- and-a-half rate and use that time for extra vacation time, personal leave or whatever they want. As I mentioned, the public sector and many unions have the option of using comp time now. We would extend that to the rest of the private sector. I started out with simply using the same language that is in the law for the public sector and applying it to the private sector. Then Democrats started raising issues that frankly have not been problems in the public sector, and I doubt it would be in the private sector. But in order to help sell the bill, we made several changes that give private sector employees more protections against coercion and taking comp time or taking advantage of it if they do take comp time. We specified that the employee must choose comp time voluntarily, and it indicates so in writing. We have said that the employee that takes comp time but then changes his or her mind for whatever reason and wants cash, the employer has to cash out the employee's accrued comp time within 30 days of the request. We put in protections against coercion and special, specific penalties for employers who coerce employees into taking comp time. We specify that the employee may take comp time whenever he or she wishes as long as he or she gives reasonable notice to the employer and takes the leave that does not disrupt the employer's operation. We have said to the employer that he has to cash out all the unused comp time at the end of the year and show it. I think we have accommodated every reasonable concern and some that were not so reasonable.

Mr. BALLENGER. That is the reason the Department of Labor is involved; to give them the authority does not cost anything. The gentleman's labor leader Mr. Reich, I am sure, would be happy to do it.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the gentleman from New Jersey has left because he raised the question of willful being one of the proving points for the employee. We recognize that problem and we changed it. We removed the word ``willful'' in our bill. For those people that are not sure what changes we have made in the description of the bill here on the report, we have in there the changes that we made at the request of the Democrats on the committee. Also, again I would like to say as far as bankruptcies are concerned, the first claim that will be applied against any assets of any bankrupt company are wages and these are classified; that is, in the same manner as wages and will have first choice on any money that is left in that bankrupt company.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting questions surrounding the Filegate matter was ``Who hired Craig Livingstone?'' In testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Bernard Nussbaum said he did not know who hired Mr. Livingstone. That was the story last month, on June 26. Yesterday, a very different picture emerged. Chairman Bill Clinger has now reported that based on his committee's investigation, Bernie Nussbaum was indeed very knowledgeable about Mr. Livingstone's employment at the White House. The FBI has supplied evidence that completely contradicts his testimony. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people deserve to hear the truth about Filegate. Instead of all the excuses and coverups; instead of all this bobbing and weaving; would it not be easier for the White House to come clean? Think about it, Mr. Speaker, if they are truly innocent of any wrong doing, why do they not just tell the truth?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1114 amends regulations which the Department of Labor has issued and which prohibit employers from allowing teenage employees from loading, operating, or unloading paper balers and paper compactors, such as are normally used by grocery stores and other facilities that receive a lot of items in boxes and similar paper based containers. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1114 on October 24 of last year. The Senate has returned the bill with an amendment that essentially makes two changes to bill which we in the House passed last year. The first change addresses a concern which some had with the constitutionality of one aspect of the House-passed bill. Under the House bill, teenagers would be allowed to load paper balers and compactors which meet the most current safety standard issued by the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, so long as certain other protections were also provided. While it is clear that Congress may, by reference, incorporate the current ANSI standard, there was concern about incorporating by reference future standards by a nongovernmental entity. Under the Senate amendment, future ANSI standards would apply only if the Secretary of Labor certifies that the standard is at least as protective of the safety of minors as the current ANSI standards are. Second, the Senate amendment adds a reporting requirement to the legislation. During the 2 years following enactment, employers will be required to report any injuries and fatalities to employees under age 18 to the Department of Labor, if those injuries or fatalities result from contact with a paper baler or compactor during the loading, operating, or unloading of the machine. The purpose of this reporting requirement is to provide the Department of Labor and Congress with information on the impact, if any, on teenage injuries, of this legislation and of allowing teenagers to load materials into certain paper balers and compactors. I might add here a note that under the bill, a violation of the reporting requirement is considered a child labor violation and therefore subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per violation. Given the way in which the Department of Labor has sometimes enforced paperwork and recordkeeping requirements in other contexts, I want to add to something that Senator Harkin said in presenting this amendment in the Senate: The purpose of the reporting requirement is to get information on injuries, if any, to teenagers from paperbalers over the next 2 years. Employers should not be fined for relatively minor or inadvertent errors in following the reporting requirements. The purpose of this requirement is to collect information not to have another reason to fine employers. Mr. Speaker, I support the Senate amendment and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, American working men and women need the Working Families Flexibility Act. Federal labor laws mandate that overtime compensation must be in the form of cash wages, even if the employee would prefer to have paid off or comp time. The time has come to update these antiquated laws to reflect the evolving needs of today's working families. For some employees, in today's hectic pace, time off is more valuable than money. For working moms, dads, and single parents, time off allows them to better balance the often competing demands of work and family. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is an attempt to weaken overtime protections in the law for employees. This is simply not true. The truth is that the Working Families Flexibility Act will give private sector employees the same options and flexibility which public sector employees have had for years. Let's change the law to accommodate the needs of today's workers who want more options and greater control over their working schedules. Support the Working Families Flexibility Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the ultimate in special interest money and soft money. Much has been written in the press about the partisan politics surrounding the issue of mandatory union dues. And to be sure, there is a political aspect to this issue as there is to virtually every issue we deal with here in Congress. But, as the House considers the Worker Right to Know Act, which is included in this campaign finance reform bill, I believe it is important our colleagues understand that this issue involves a good deal more than partisan politics. It is not just about Democrats versus Republicans or labor versus management. And, it is not about union- bashing. When we get right down to it, this is an issue about basic fairness. For instance, is it fair that any union member should automatically have money deducted from his or her paycheck to pay for political candidates or causes with which they do not agree? Is it fair that a union member should have to battle his or her union in order to object to the union's spending of dues for political purposes? And, if he or she does object, is it fair that a union member be subjected to harassment from the union, or worse, the threat of losing his or her job? And, finally, is it fair that a union member should have to resign from his or her union and give up all rights to participate in important workplace matters, simply because he or she does not agree with union politics? I certainly do not think so, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope and expect that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would feel the same way. The fact is that many unions are spending their members' dues on social and political causes that are not supported by the rank and file. Moreover, a number of hurdles are placed in front of employees who want to object to such expenditures. The Worker Right to Know Act would simply require unions ask their members for permission before spending their dues on those social or political causes. Is this too much to ask? So, as we debate this issue, Mr. Chairman, we must take care that it does not get totally lost in the rancor of partisan politics. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is an issue affecting the wages of working men and women, and that more than anything else, it is an issue of basic fairness. The Worker Right to Know Act would accord American workers with this basic right and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.