Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1114) to authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and compacters that meet appropriate American National Standards Institute design safety standards, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1114 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation is a Government bureaucracy that is out of control, and it must be tamed. The spending cut reflected in this appropriations bill is based on an agreement reached in July of last year between appropriators and House leaders. The proposed $141 million level is the agreed upon second step in this process. Legal Services has long been involved in political advocacy with tax dollars. For example, over the years, Legal Services has committed vast resources to litigation to stop public housing authorities from evicting dangerous drug dealers. This is a perfect example of why critics argue that Legal Services works harder to protect the rights of criminals than it does to protect their victims. After years of abuse, the Corporation has become a place for attorneys to put forth their liberal agenda, not defend poor people. Many Legal Services supporters are not aware that sufficient private alternatives already exist to provide more effective legal assistance to the poor. Lawyers have a long history of providing free legal service to the poor; for example, the American Bar Association's 1993- 94 directory of pro bono legal services listed over 900 programs. This does not include the innumerable lawyers who perform these services on an individual basis. These private-sector programs are much more effective and do not waste the taxpayers' money. The House should continue to abide by the agreed level of appropriations for Legal Services. Reject the Mollohan amendment and support the funding level in the bill.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many other people are in the same situation I am, but when taxes went up in 1993, and of course nobody talks about the tax increase, but a lot of us are with the people that gave you the choice: You can pay up immediately or you can spread it out over 3 years. I just got a notice from the Internal Revenue Service that my third payment on the increase in taxes that were passed in 1993 was due. How many people in this country today are now paying, finally, the ultimate increase in taxes that was passed in 1993? If the American people were to stop and think about the notice that they got in the mail saying ``Pay up, 1993 is now due,'' I think we would have a whole bunch of people recognize that that increase in taxes in 1993 ran over a long period of time and some of us are still paying.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, just as President Wilson once claimed that World War I was going to be ``the war to end all wars,'' President Clinton has promised to ``end welfare as we know it.'' Of course, unlike President Wilson, and despite two previous welfare vetoes, President Clinton still has a chance to renew his vow by supporting and signing the Republican commonsense welfare reform plan. The Republican welfare reform plan is built upon five pillars which ensure that any assistance is temporary and not self-destructive. It imposes a 5-year lifetime limit for collecting AFDC and vouchers. It requires able-bodied recipients to work for their benefits. It denies welfare benefits to noncitizens and felons. It restores power and flexibility to the States. And, it encourages personal responsibility to halt rising illegitimacy rates. Mr. Speaker, redemption is at hand. President Clinton need not defend the status quo of a failed welfare system any longer. He needs only to support and sign the Republican commonsense welfare reform plan.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill under consideration today. Many of us in Congress have been critical of OSHA. We've claimed that the agency has been overreaching and lacking in common sense in its regulations. We've claimed that it is adversarial and punitive in its enforcement, and noted that it has not been cost effective in promoting worker safety and health. The Clinton Administration has agreed with many of our criticisms of OSHA. For example, just one year ago, President Clinton, speaking at a small business in Washington, D.C., called for creation of ``a new OSHA,'' an OSHA that puts emphasis on ``prevention, not punishment'' and uses ``commonsense and market incentives to save lives.'' Vice President Gore was even more direct when he spoke to the White House Conference on Small Business last year. 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. In criticizing OSHA, we've said nothing more than OSHA's record surely shows. Despite spending over $5 billion in taxpayer funds over the past 25 years, there is little evidence that OSHA has made a significant difference in the safety and health of workers. Other examples and studies show that OSHA's focus on finding violations, no matter how minor and insignificant, has made OSHA ineffective in improving safety and health in the workplace. Why? One reason is that when the focus is on issuing penalties rather than fixing problems, there is much less attention paid to fixing problems. One study showed that the time required of OSHA to document citations increased an average inspection by at least 30 hours, thus greatly decreasing the number of workplaces OSHA could inspect. Penalties are sometimes necessary to compel irresponsible employers to address health and safety for their workers. But, as the Clinton Administration has said, inspections and penalties have not produced safety. It is time to find new ways of operating. Just recently the Assistant Secretary of OSHA criticized this bill for cutting OSHA too much. But, in fact, these modest ``reforms'' do not undercut safety and health. This bill attempts to reorient OSHA by targeting more funds toward compliance assistance which helps employers and employees in creating a safe workplace. Putting greater focus on compliance assistance is precisely what the Assistant Secretary has asked for. The bill does make modest cuts in the agency's budget, but, simply adding resources without real reform is not going to make the agency more effective--and adding more resources is not likely to happen without reform. In addition, the bill retains language prohibiting the agency from issuing a mandatory standard related to ergonomics. Last year, OSHA issued a draft proposal on ergonomics that was too broad, too vague, and failed to recognize that the science of ergonomics is a complex field of study, still in its infancy. In the scientific community, there is little consensus on ergonomics or how best to treat and prevent these problems. Yet, OSHA came up with a one-size-fits-all standard that fails to acknowledge the difference between businesses. A chicken plant operates differently from the textile industry. Each has unique distinctions that make a one-size-fits-all government mandate impossible to ``fit'' these different situations. As a small businessman myself, I can tell you that I believe ergonomics and understanding its impact on the workplace should be an important part of any business' occupational safety and health approach. It is important for each ergonomics program to address the individual needs of the workplace. We need a responsible proposal, based on sound scientific evidence and cost-benefit analysis. OSHA's one-size-fits-all ergonomics policy doesn't address these concerns. Last year, and it still applies, it was noted that the draft ergonomics standard could bankrupt small businesses with little corresponding improvement in worker safety and health. For instance, in order with OSHA's proposal many small firms would need to hire an ergonomics expert--an expense that small companies could not absorb, especially on top of the new wage increase that will likely become law soon. Consider also, that in Australia, when an ergonomic standard was adopted in the 1980's, injury rates increased. Workers' compensation costs increased as much as 40 percent in some industries, and a single company lost more than $15 million in 5 years due to increased production costs. The prohibition on OSHA's one-size-fits-all policy ergonomics policy should continue until we have a better understanding of the specific factors that cause the injuries and assurances that it will be based on sound scientific analysis. In my view, OSHA would be more effective by working with employers rather than creating a confrontational sitting. OSHA's emphasis on issuing penalties, even for relatively minor problems and violations, not only a matter of great annoyance and sometimes financial burden to business, but tremendously inefficient from the standpoint of using OSHA's limited resources to effectively promote safety. Each year, OSHA spends about \1/2\ million additional man hours citing and documenting penalties on paperwork violations, even where the employer makes the changes. In other words, this is time spent just for the purpose of issuing penalties for violations in which there is no direct threat to an employee's safety or health. A couple of journalists reported recently that another 100,000 hours are spent by OSHA each year responding to unfounded complaints. No private employer in our country could waste resources on unproductive activities the way OSHA has and stay in business. Second, OSHA should be viewed as more of a catalyst for improving and promoting safety and health, rather than simply an enforcer of government rules. Thus, employers with good safety records, or those who have retained the services of someone who is knowledgeable about safety and health in their workplace, should be encouraged to do so. Changes are long overdue to make OSHA less adversarial, more cooperative, and more focused on real health and safety. It is not a matter of reducing our commitment to workplace safety and health. It is an opportunity to work more effectively to encourage productive, competitive, and safer workplaces. I will continue to push for these types of changes, and the appropriation bill before us today takes a few modest steps toward that goal.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Clinton administration has stolen yet another Republican idea and called it their own. After originally opposing legislation that would let hardworking Americans spend more time with their families, the President has chosen to co-opt this popular idea. This is a desperate action by a desperate man in a political year. When a Republican bill containing comp time, the Working Families Flexibility Act, was first mentioned as the minimum-wage legislative vehicle, the President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, called it a poison pill and President Clinton waved his veto pen at it. But now after the Republicans have built support for this legislation, the President ran down to Nashville this past weekend to announce his own version of a comp time bill. The President does not show leadership by showboating, or stealing ideas from Republicans. If the President were truly committed to this issue, he would have pledged his support for the Working Families Flexibility Act, and he would work with Congress, instead of trying to upstage it. I ask the President to stop playing election-year politics and support H.R. 2391, the Working Families Flexibility Act, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, anyone watching the news this week would have been impressed with the President's sudden commitment to promoting workplace flexibility, but my question is this: Where was the President last year when I introduced the Working Families Flexibility Act; a bill that would allow an employee to choose between cash wages or paid time off for overtime work--a valuable opportunity to spend more time with family. Not only did the President oppose this bill--at the request of the Washington union bosses who are spending $35 million to run false and misleading campaign ads against Republicans--but his Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, calls it a poison pill. Why the sudden change of heart? Madam Speaker, my guess is the President's army of political hacks and spin gurus suddenly discovered in their polling that American women overwhelmingly support the Republican Working Families Flexibility Act, and they had better do some good ole stump proposals just to cover their electoral bases. While Washington pundits might praise the President's ability to hijack important issues for political gain, this kind of gamesmanship only hurts the American people and their ability to balance the conflicting pressures of work and family--especially working women. This is hardly a formula for election year success.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, medical savings accounts have become a focal point for this whole debate over the health care reform. MSA's are a new approach, but they do have a proven track record. A recent study by researchers at Cleveland State University prove the effectiveness of MSA's. They studied 27 Ohio firms of less than 200 employees. The average employee had lower out-of-pocket costs--as much as $1,355 per family. The firms themselves saved an average of 12 percent a year without passing on the savings to their employees. Mr. Speaker, as of last year, 17 States have passed MSA laws, another 11 are considering them, and another 11 have called on Congress to enact MSA's. Even the United Mine Workers offers MSA's to its members. Let us join the trend toward serious, workable health care reform; let us follow the lead of the States and enact the kind of reforms that have a proven track record.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, 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 he or she disagrees? It is 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? I certainly don't think so, and I would hope and expect that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would feel the same way. Mr. Speaker, the Worker Rights to Know Act will help instill some basic fairness to the process by which unions spend the hard earned money of their members. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, small business continues to get the cold shoulder from the Clinton administration. Recently, I introduced the Small Business OSHA Relief Act. Seventy- five of my colleagues have cosponsored the bill. The bill is entirely made up of provisions that the Clinton administration at one point or another claimed to support. And it would give some needed relief to small business from an agency which is too often unnecessarily adversarial and lacking in common sense. I wrote the Secretary of Labor on April 15 asking for his comments on the bill. I hoped that he would support it, since it is entirely taken from his and the President's statements of relief they claimed to support for small business. Well, here we are on June 5 and we still have not even received a response from the Secretary of Labor. I realize that relief for small business from OSHA's excesses does not rank very high on the priority list of the Secretary of Labor. In fact, I don't think that small business concerns are on his priority list at all. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Secretary of Labor shows no interest and support for legislation to help small business. After all, this administration talks a good line, but does not back up its words with action.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, no one doubts the importance of a balanced budget to America's families. But what we are doubting is President Clinton's commitment. Well, the Senate vote this week on a balanced budget amendment is his chance to actually prove his commitment to a balanced budget. All he has to do is use his widely acclaimed oratorical skills, and lead the Somersault Six down the path to a balanced budget. These Somersault Six are six Senators of his own party who had previously voted in favor of the amendment, but then switched their vote last year in order to defeat the amendment. They are the sole obstacle to delivering a balanced budget to the American people. We call on the President to show leadership and do the right thing for our children and grandchildren. If the President really believes that big Government and wasteful Washington spending are a thing of the past, he shouldn't be afraid to legally require a balanced Washington budget.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, during the 1992 presidential campaign, candidate Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it. Not only has he not ended welfare as we know it, but he has acted as the protector and champion of welfare as we know it. This Republican-led Congress has sent the President a welfare bill based on commonsense reforms, and he vetoed it not once but twice. So much for ending welfare as we know it. Timed to undercut a speech by Senator Robert Dole, the President announced his support for Republican welfare reform planned by Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. However, he failed to promise his signature on a waiver allowing the Governor's plan to go forward. Such a waiver, implementing these types of reform, would not be necessary if the President had signed the welfare reform legislation sent to him by the Republican-controlled Congress. Again, a great display of this President's skill at saying one thing and doing another.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], our majority leader.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who is vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, for the gentlewoman's benefit, I want to note that North Carolina will lose about 19,100 jobs, probably from the eastern part of the State.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the record that California will face a loss of 63,100 jobs if the minimum wage is increased. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)