John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Democratic Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 2000. The DRUM Act is a pro-union member bill that helps rank-and-file workers achieve greater democracy within their labor organizations. The bill amends the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), also known as the ``Landrum- Griffin'' Act. Landrum-Griffin is the only federal statute which deals directly with the relationship between union members and union leaders. Four decades have passed since the LMRDA became law. There is no doubt this important bill from the 1950s has improved the American workplace. Many of the workforce benefits that Americans take for granted have come from union input representing the views and wishes of hardworking American union members. However, similar to many of our other federal labor laws, there is an antiquated side to Landrum- Griffin that reduces its effectiveness. In many cases, we have seen the law manipulated or ignored by union leaders who have used their power and the financial resources of their labor organizations for personal gain. In the 105th Congress, under the direction of then-Employer- Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Harris Fawell, and continuing during the 106th Congress, the EER Subcommittee has held seven hearings examining in-depth the strengths and failings of Landrum-Griffin. I am happy to report that in the vast majority of American unions, ``union democracy'' as envisioned by the authors of Landrum-Griffin is thriving. Unfortunately, there are some cases in which union leaders have exploited the current system to the detriment of rank-and-file members. Following the subcommittee's first four hearings, Representative Fawell introduced the Democratic Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 1998 to begin the process of updating Landrum-Griffin to enhance the democratic rights of union members. The legislation I introduce today builds on Representative Fawell's bill by adding several new provisions addressing additional problems the subcommittee observed during this Congress. Landrum-Griffin Background Few Members of Congress or rank-and-file union members are even aware of Landrum-Griffin's ``Bill of Rights.'' It is important to understand the foundations of union democracy before one can discuss necessary changes. Today, Landrum-Griffin covers some 13.5 million members, in more than 30,000 unions having more than $15 billion in assets. Congress passed the LMRDA as a response to public outcry resulting from revelations of corruption and racketeering in the labor movement. This corruption came to light in the late 1950s, during three years of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor and Management Field, chaired by Senator John L. McClellan. The authors of the LMRDA believed that promoting democracy within unions would reduce corruption and strengthen the labor movement by providing union members more control over their own union affairs. Clyde Summers, Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who sat on a panel of experts convened by then-Senator John F. Kennedy to draft a union members' Bill of Rights (the basis for Title I of Landrum-Griffin), eloquently summarized the intent of the law in testimony before the EER Subcommittee on March 17, 1999: The whole focus of the Landrum-Griffin Act was to protect the democratic rights of members as an instrument of collective bargaining. There was a guiding principle to limit governmental intervention to the minimum, to limit intervention in terms of union decision-making, to leave unions free to make their own decisions. But this was to be accomplished by guaranteeing the democratic process inside the union on the logic, the philosophy, that if the union members made these decisions on their own, that if these were democratically made, this gave a legitimacy to these decisions. Landrum-Griffin contains six titles. The first title, the foundation upon which the rest of the legislation is constructed, contains a union member Bill of Rights mandating various rights: to information, to free speech, to free association, and to protection from undue discipline. Title II governs reporting and recordkeeping by labor organizations. Title III provides a framework for trusteeships. Title IV lays out requirements for elections of union officers, including specific time frames within which elections must be held. Title V outlines the fiduciary duties of union officers. Title VI provides a variety of additional requirements, and grants general investigatory powers to the Department of Labor. The Amendments The bill I introduce today includes several amendments to Landrum- Griffin. Each of these changes will have a positive impact on the everyday lives of union members. Those unions that treat their members fairly will not be affected at all. The legislation introduced today is not an exhaustive list of reforms. There are other changes that Congress may want to consider in the future, but the DRUM Act represents a very productive starting point. My bill provides: enhanced notification to union members of their rights under the LMRDA; increased authority for the Department of Labor to enforce the notification rights of union members; Enhanced Notification Rights The DRUM Act addresses real problems that have come to the subcommittee's attention during our hearings or through recent court rulings. For example, the legislation requires unions to periodically notify all members of their Title I rights. Some unions, as incredible as it may sound, have argued that a one-time notification of rights under the LMRDA given decades ago satisfies the current law requirement to ``inform its members concerning the provisions of'' the Act (29 USC Sec. 415). This issue was the subject of a recent Fourth Circuit case. (Thomas v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 201 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2000)). In Thomas, union members sued the International Association of Machinists to require the union to distribute to each member a summary of their rights under Landrum-Griffin. The union claimed that they had fulfilled the notification requirements in 1959 when they distributed the text of the recently-passed law. Incredibly, the district court had agreed with the union leadership despite the fact that most, if not all, of the members were not members in 1959. Fortunately, the Fourth Circuit overruled the district court, and determined that the one-time notification was not sufficient, but stopped short, however, of enumerating what ``sufficient notification'' entails. My bill clarifies the notification obligation, by requiring the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations that provide enhanced guidance to union organizations on how best to inform their members of their LMRDA rights. After all, if union members are not aware that they have rights, they will be unable to exercise them. ``Reasonable Qualifications'' in Union Elections An additional line of court cases prompts another provision in DRUM. There is conflicting appeals court precedent on the issue of what constitutes a ``reasonable qualification'' (29 USC Sec. 481 (e)) in order to be eligible to run for elected union office. Earlier this year, the First Circuit ruled against the Department of Labor, after the Department sued a local union over an election rule which barred 96 percent of the local's members from running for office (Herman v. Springfield Mass. Area, Local 497, American Postal Workers Union, 201 F.3d (1st Cir. 2000)). The court held as reasonable a requirement that union members attend three of the previous nine union meetings in order to run for office. This court decision contradicts a ruling from the D.C. Circuit in 1987, in which a union's election rule was considered unreasonable primarily because it disqualified a large percentage of union members (Doyle v. Brock, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). In Herman, the Majority all but requested that the Department of Labor adopt a regulation using a specific percentage standard. I believe it is the responsibility of the Congress to enact such a requirement, rather than to require the administration to take on the nearly impossible task of interpreting Congressional intent and balancing that intent with contradictory court opinions. As such, the legislation introduced today lays out a clear standard by which election rules will be judged as reasonable or unreasonable. The legislation simply says that any rule excluding more than half of a union's members from running for office is not reasonable. This bright line will benefit union members, candidates for union office, and incumbent union leaders equally, because by removing ambiguity, we will enhance union democracy and reduce potential internal strife. Conclusion The workplace of the 21st Century is vastly different from that existing 40 years ago. Workers and employers are working together toward a common goal, rather than continuing the adversarial relationship which characterized the last century. This evolution in the workplace has reduced industrial strife, and has increased productivity, profits, and, most importantly, the satisfaction and pay of workers. This same collective strategy is key to the effective operation of internal union affairs. The days of well-heeled union bosses, using their members to enrich themselves at the expense of worker advancement are quickly ending. Unions, which provide workers with camaraderie, personal support--both inside and outside the workplace--and a means to improve their lives, are enriched as members achieve true democracy within their labor organizations. Enhancing the ability of rank-and- file members to take a greater responsibility for how their union operates solidifies the positive impact unions have on the workplace and the lives of working men and women.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and congratulate both him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their tireless work over the last 3 years of bringing this bill to the floor. Clearly, improving retirement security is a top priority this year, as Congress works to secure America's future. But improving retirement security is just not about fixing Social Security. It is also about expanding access to private pensions and making innovations that will maximize every American's opportunity for a safe and secure retirement. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for his work in crafting this bill along with the two authors and for all of his efforts in this and past Congresses relating to retirement security and improving our Nation's Tax Code to the benefit of all Americans. Rarely has an ambitious legislation such as this earned such broad support from the AFSCME and Teamsters and other labor unions, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business and other folks in the private sector. As I said earlier, I think it is a real tribute to the two authors, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the work that they have done. The reforms in this bill will directly improve the retirement security of millions of workers by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and cutting red tape, that have hamstrung employers who want to establish pension plans for their employees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1102 was reported out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on July 14, 1999 with a bipartisan vote. Our committee made amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, as we know it, that complement the Tax Code provisions that are on the floor today. And while the ERISA provisions were removed by the Committee on Rules for procedural reasons, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has pledged to seek the restoration in conference, and I thank the gentleman for this commitment and I look forward to working with him to ensure enactment of H.R. 1102. Mr. Speaker, we have a new world that we are living in today. As people retire, they are living much longer than anyone had ever anticipated; and if we want to make sure that people have safe and secure retirements, they are going to need more assets than our parents did when they retired. As a result, we all know about the three legs of the retirement security stool: Social Security, private pensions, and personal savings. The bill we have before us today makes important strides in making sure that people have safe and secure private pension plans and expands access to them, especially by small business owners. The incentives in this bill to expand the amount of money that can be set aside for private savings is also very important. Clearly, shoring up Social Security for the long term is something that we know is going to have to be done in the next Congress. Just today, Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, moved out a bill that would expand investment advice provided by employers to their employees. It is another piece to this puzzle to help employees give them all of the advice and effort that they need to maximize their private pensions. So I encourage my colleagues today to support the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we all know this is a very difficult bill. I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for doing the best they could with a difficult situation. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. We have problems in our health care system, and I think all of us know it. There are ways to address these problems, such as the Patients' Bill of Rights that we are working on in conference today. There are other things that we can do. But this, I would argue, will destroy our health care system. What protection are we giving our Nation's patients when we take away their health insurance because of increasing costs? What other group of Americans have we ever exempted from our antitrust laws that were created over 100 years ago to stop the big steel trusts, to stop the big oil trusts? We put those antitrust laws in place to prevent consumers from being harmed. What we are doing here is we are exempting one group of Americans in our health care system, one group of Americans to go out and to negotiate on whose behalf? Come on, they will be negotiating on their own behalf. That is why the Congressional Budget Office and others have talked about the tremendous increase in cost that will result if this bill is passed. So, Mr. Speaker, let us quit kidding ourselves. This is a bad solution to a problem that does exist. There are better solutions. Let us defeat the rule, send this bill back to committee and go home and visit with our constituents over the next week.

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think we all know that we are going through major changes in the delivery of health care in America. Those issues have been fought out on this floor over the 10 years that I have been a Member and all of the changes are disconcerting to all involved. First, the patients, doctors, hospitals, employers who pay the costs, insurance companies, everyone is in turmoil trying to find the right balance making sure the patients get what they need and trying to hold costs under control. Every year that I have been here, we have debated Medicare and the tremendous increases in the costs of Medicare. We have been through all types of changes trying to what? Give the patients what they need while controlling the costs. And so as we look at the situation in managed care today, we have a number of those groups in the middle with their lobbyists coming to Washington wanting us to level the playing field. Now, leveling the playing field is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, they all want it level as long as it is slightly tilted toward them. Mr. Chairman, this bill is no exception, except one small little exception. This is a big tilt, A big tilt to one group at the expense of all others that are locked into this system. Why would we provide an antitrust exemption to one group in the medical profession with no oversight, no regulatory body overseeing their actions? Every time we have provided an antitrust exemption in the law, there has been some Federal regulatory body that has the responsibility to provide oversight. The National Labor Relations Act allows for collective bargaining. That is why we have the National Labor Relations Board to oversee these activities between labor and management. To allow any group of Americans to go out and to form a cartel to prey on America's consumers is not good for our country. We know what happened with the OPEC cartel; we have higher prices at the gas pump today. What we are doing here is we are creating another cartel. It is a bad bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1309, to clarify the status of church-sponsored health plans. Church plans are treated similarly to the health plans for the employees of State and local governments. These health plans are defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or, as we know it, ERISA, and then excluded from its provisions. This exclusion is important because of the need to protect unnecessary Government entanglement in the internal affairs of churches. Ironically, our Federal effort to prevent Government intrusion has left the status of these church programs under State laws uncertain. State laws have developed without regard to the special characteristics of church benefit programs. Accordingly, these church programs are potentially subject to regulation by individual States, which was never intended when church plans were designed. The impetus for the present legislation is twofold. First, from time to time, State insurance commissioners raise questions as to the need for church plans to obtain a license as an insurance company; and, secondly, due to their exclusion from ERISA, many insurance companies and health care providers are ambivalent about their capacity to contract with church plans for coverage or services. The bill, S. 1309, attempts to solve both these problems by prohibiting a State from acquiring any church plan to obtain a license as an insurance company in that State and clarifies that a church plan should be treated as a single employer plan. We have worked with Senator Sessions; the Church Alliance, the Church Pension Boards of 32 Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic denominations; the administration; and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to revise H.R. 2183, a bill originally introduced by myself and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a companion bill introduced by Senator Sessions in the other body. The product of this process is S. 1309, as amended. This legislation clarifies the status of church welfare plans under certain specified State insurance law requirements, particularly the need to be licensed as an insurance company. With this clarification and the deeming of church plans to be single employer plans, churches will have greater bargaining power with health insurance companies and health network providers when purchasing coverage for their employees. Additionally, the bill keeps intact certain regulatory responsibilities that State insurance departments presently have to protect consumers, such as regulations that prevent fraud and misrepresentations as to coverage. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1309.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1309) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide for the preemption of State law in certain cases relating to certain church plans.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations has held a series of bipartisan hearings examining the changes in the financial world since the 1974 passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and looking for ways for American workers and retirees to take advantage of the economic opportunities created since then. To most people in 1974, personal savings meant a bank account. Now it means 401(k)s, IRAs, annuities, mutual funds, and a whole range of investment products that go well beyond what was available to the average American 25 years ago. Economists predict that this year, for the first time, nearly 50 percent of all Americans will have invested in some form of equity. Moreover, in the past 25 years, the number of workers covered by a defined contribution plan has increased 35 percent, from 12 to 42 million. The explosive growth of defined contribution plans has left employees with the responsibility for investment decisions that many are ill equipped to make. ERISA creates barriers that currently prevent employers and investment intermediaries from giving individualized investment advice to plan participants. The drafters of ERISA were preoccupied with the problems of defined benefit plans, where the participant has no responsibility for investment decisions. Only a small fraction of plan assets in 1974 were in defined contribution world. Today the picture is very different-- almost all new plan formation is taking the form of defined contributions plans, especially 401(k) plans. A typical 401(k) plan offers a range of stock and bond portfolios from one or more of mutual fund companies, banks, and insurance companies. The plan participant makes his or her own investment selections. Part of what many employees find attractive about defined contributions plans is that the employee pockets the investment gain on the assets in his or her account. Employers and investment intermediaries would like to assist employees to make the most of their retirement saving opportunities. But an employer who arranges for financial professionals to deliver the tailored investment advice that those employees need risks a lawsuit by being deemed an ERISA fiduciary. Moreover, the arcane and highly complex ERISA prohibited transaction rules severely limited the ability of service providers (such as mutual funds, banks or insurers) to provide investment advice to workers in the plans they service. These rules are inconsistent with federal securities laws, which permit the provision of such advisory services when certain disclosures are made. The result is that ERISA has been read to insist that individual workers by the millions become investment experts. It has not happened and it is causing workers to be less well invested than if employers or investment intermediaries were allowed to guide the individual employee on the asset allocation appropriate to his or her place in the life cycle, family circumstances, and other assets. To address this problem, I am introducing the ``Retirement Security Advice Act,'' which permits investment service firms to provide investment advice about all investment products, including their own, as long as material information is disclosed. Use of disclosure as a means of dealing with potential conflicts is well accepted in the securities laws and has been used in a number of ERISA exemptions granted by the Department of Labor. The ``Retirement Security Advice Act'' would provide a statutory exemption from the ERISA prohibited transactions rules for: (1) the provision of investment advice to a plan, its participants and beneficiaries, (2) the purchase or sale of assets pursuant to such investment advice, and (3) the direct or indirect receipt of fees or other compensation in connection with providing the advice. The advice provider, by virtue of providing the advice, would assume fiduciary status as a ``fiduciary adviser.'' Only specified qualified and regulated entities would be permitted to deliver advice: registered investment advisers, banks, insurance companies, registered broker-dealers, and the affiliates, employees, agents, or registered representatives of those entities. Any investment advice provided to participants or beneficiaries would be implemented (through a purchase or sale of assets) only at their discretion. The terms of the transaction must be at least as favorable to the plan as an arms' length transaction would be, and the compensation received by the fiduciary adviser (and its affiliates) in connection with any transaction must be reasonable. The fiduciary adviser, at or before the initial delivery of investment advice and annually thereafter, would have to provide a written or electronic disclosure of: (1) the fees or other compensation that the fiduciary adviser and its affiliates receive relating to the provision of investment advice or a resulting sale or acquisition of assets (including from third parties), (2) any interest of the fiduciary adviser or its affiliates in any asset recommended, purchased or sole, (3) any limitation placed on the fiduciary's ability to provide advice, (4) the advisory services offered, and (5) any information required to be disclosed under applicable securities laws. A plan sponsor or other fiduciary that arranges for a fiduciary adviser to provide investment advice to participants and beneficiaries would not be liable under ERISA for the specific investment advice provided to individual participants or beneficiaries, but would not be exempted from any other ERISA fiduciary obligations. No employer would be required to contract with an investment adviser and no employee would have to accept or follow any advice. The entire process is completely voluntary. The ``Retirement Security Advice Act'' will empower workers with the information they need to make the most of the retirement savings and investment opportunities afforded them by today's 401(k)-type plans.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my two colleagues from Hawaii. We have been involved in this fight for some 6 years. The fact is that the largest charitable trust in the United States is the Bishop Estate. Their only mission in the trust document is to provide for the education of the native Hawaiian children. The fact is that, last year, they bring from $460 million, and they only spent $100 million for the benefit of those children. As a matter of fact, the IRS has gone in to investigate them, almost took away their tax exempt status because of the corruption in the estate. The fact is that why should taxpayers in Washington, D.C., provide an additional $20 billion to one State that other States do not get when, in fact, they have got a $10 billion trust that has no other mission, there is no other use for this money than to help these children that they seek to help. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we end this, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today and offer an amendment to protect the interests of taxpayers, as well as thousands of native students in the State of Hawaii. Like all States, Hawaii currently receives funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for struggling schools and students, but unlike other States Hawaii also receives an additional $20 million each year in addition to its allocation for the native Hawaiian education programs. The name is misleading, I think, to say the least. The recipients of these funds are not Hawaii's native students but much of this money goes to an entity known as the Bishop Estate Trust. It was created over a century ago to carry out the legacy of a beloved Hawaiian princess who died in 1884 and left her fortune for the education of Hawaii's native children. That was a noble mission. Unfortunately, the princess would not recognize the Bishop Trust if she were alive to see it today. The Bishop Estate is now the richest charitable trust in the United States and the largest landowner in Hawaii. The Bishop Estate's holdings include a pair of Hawaiian resort hotels, the Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center, several assets in Las Vegas, two of the largest shopping centers in Wisconsin, large expanses of timberland in Michigan and, until last year, owned 5 percent of Goldman Sachs. In 1999, its annual revenues were $460 million, with assets that totaled an estimated $10 billion. Incredibly, this vast empire spends only a tiny share of its resources on its purpose, its only mission as given by the princess, to educate native Hawaiian children. Last year, it spent just $100 million for that purpose. As the program 60 Minutes reported this spring, and I will quote, ``What was supposed to be a tax-exempt charitable trust devoted to education was behaving very much like an international conglomerate. While it was raking in hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the Bishop Estate was spending less than half of that on the school and serving just 6 percent of eligible children in Hawaii,'' end quote. Until recently, the estate's trustees received compensation of nearly $1 million per year. In recent years, the estate has been rocked by everything from an IRS investigation of its tax exempt status to reported accusations of theft, kickbacks, and other crimes. Yet the Federal Government is subsidizing this empire to the tune of more than $20 million per year. Let me remind my colleagues their only mission with this $10 billion trust is to educate Hawaii's native children. Mr. Chairman, one does not have to be from Hawaii to wonder why a $10 billion private trust needs another $20 million subsidy from American taxpayers. One does not have to be from Hawaii to wonder why the Bishop Estate is spending only a fraction of its resources on the education of Hawaii's native students. As long as the taxpayers continue to provide this $20 billion subsidy, the estate will never reform itself. The longer Washington continues to provide the subsidy, the longer Hawaiian students, Native Hawaiians students, will have to wait for the Bishop Trust to stop skimping on their future. In 1995, President Clinton proposed in his budget to eliminate these programs. Vice-President Gore called for the elimination of these programs as part of his reinventing-government initiative. Last October, the House repealed the authorization for this expenditure overwhelmingly. My amendment will allow us to keep this bipartisan commitment. Instead of pouring another $20 million into the account of this $10 billion private trust, the $20 million could be used to help all of America's children. The longer we wait to take the step, the longer the Bishop Estate will continue to shortchange the native children of Hawaii. For the sake of taxpayers and Hawaii's children, I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. The Chair will entertain 15 one-minute requests on each side this morning.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the Internet economy is that there is almost no limit to what one can accomplish if one has access to it. E-commerce offers every citizen the chance to be an entrepreneur and to pursue the American dream. It puts David on a level playing field with Goliath, giving the smallest mom and pop business the opportunity to reach the same customers as the industry giants. Our responsibility as elected leaders is to knock down any barrier that unfairly denies Americans the chance to participate in this new economy, whether it is access charges or double taxation of on-line purchases or the ancient sales and use tax laws that some want to resurrect for Internet sales. The measure before us would provide a 5-year extension of the moratorium on new taxation of the Internet. This moratorium is America's first line of defense against unnecessary government intrusion in the new economy. It is essential to preserving the evolution of the Internet and making it accessible to every citizen. Mr. Chairman, no one can say with certainty where the Internet will lead us or which opportunities it will yield. But we do know the Internet is working for America, and we know it is that freedom that is what is making the Internet work. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, team-building is replacing bureaucracy throughout our country. That is really what we define today as the New Economy. New Economy companies are not just high-tech firms. They are companies that understand the value of their workforce as a team and organize themselves around team dynamics. That goes for companies that make sofas in southwestern Virginia, as well as companies that make Internet servers in Silicon Valley. A critical part of team-building is getting everyone on the same page, making sure everyone is motivated by common interests. By making the employee a shareholder, stock options also make them valued team members who see their interests and those of the rest of their team as one and the same. Our subcommittee held a hearing in March on another stock options- related measure, one that I introduced last winter. One of the witnesses at our hearing was Timothy Byland, a sales employee with a San Diego-based Internet firm. Tim told our committee, and I quote, ``Stock options are a way of sharing the gains of the business with those responsible for those gains. With stock options, I am part of that shared success. I am rewarded for the contributions I make and I am motivated to make them.'' Stock options are part of almost any employee compensation package in the high-tech sector today, but increasing numbers of more established companies today are recognizing the value of helping employees become shareholders, giving them an unprecedented chance to share in their company's performance and profits. These companies range from 3M to Pepsi to Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and CBS. In short, Mr. Speaker, stock options just are not for the executive anymore. This is a new economy with new opportunities for workers at every step along the pay scale. The Labor Department's current policy on stock options for overtime employees illustrates how out of step Washington's rules are with the opportunities of the new economy. It is a throwback to the old days when stock options were available to almost no one except top executives. If fully implemented, this policy would be a dramatic step backward. It would needlessly discourage employers from granting stock options to hourly employees. It would limit opportunities for millions of workers to build greater wealth and, most importantly, retirement security. Swift passage of this measure today will remove a major Federal obstacle to the vision of a shareholder society shared by many members on both sides of the political aisle. It will also help to ensure continued movement toward a regulatory system that reflects the opportunities of the 21st century, and it will pave the way for us to address some other problems that current law poses for rank and file workers with stock options such as the IRS Tax Code dual taxation of nonqualified stock options. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and all of the Members who have worked on this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, ``Service is the price you pay for the space you occupy on this Earth.'' This is the noble principle that has served to guide Jackie Balfour through her 22 years of dedicated service to her community in Celina and Mercer County, Ohio. For those past 22 years, Jackie went from volunteering with the Celina Chamber of Commerce in 1969 to recent years as the Chamber President. Noteworthy chamber events under Jackie's leadership include the establishing of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau in Auglaize County (OH), innovations as the Small Business Development Center and Industrial Awareness Days, the growth of the St. Mary's Lake Festival, and the creation of the Auglaize and Mercer County Industrial Association. In 1967, Jackie earned her radio broadcasting license from the Federal Communication Commission and broke ground in the field as a woman broadcaster. She was one of the first women to earn this license. Jackie and her husband Keith owned Radio Station WKKI for a number of years during this time. She was one of only 35 individuals in eight states selected to participate in the Neil Armstrong Homecoming after his historic flight to the moon. In addition, Jackie has interviewed numerous elected officials and celebrities, including Joan Crawford, President Richard Nixon, Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes, Ed McMahon, Bob Hope and Nick Clooney. But her participation and leadership did not end there. For 11 years Jackie worked on the Congressional Award program for young people and with the D.A.R.E. Boosters program. She had also previously served on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce Executives of Ohio, and served with the Community Improvement Association, the Celina Retail Merchants, and the Celina Business and Professional Association. She was a charter member of the Grand Lake Toastmasters, an organization dedicated to the improvement of oral communication and leadership skills. She is also an active member of her church, Grace Missionary Church in Celina, In 1997, the St. Mary's Business and Professional Women's Organization chose Jackie as their Woman of the Year. Jackie Balfour is a true leader whose hard work and dedication should serve as an example for us all. Every American should aspire to this kind of enthusiastic commitment to service. I am proud to know and represent a person like Jackie Balfour in Congress. She is a truly gracious individual who strives to promote the ideals that will ensure our country remains a great place to live with hope and opportunity for all.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, as we move into the 21st century it is crucial for us to re-examine our work place laws to enhance cooperation between Federal and State regulators and employers and employees. For our economy to remain strong in the global marketplace we must encourage this participation between Federal regulators and employers and employees to ensure compliance and understanding of safety and health standards. I want to commend the foresight of the region 5, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Ohio Valley Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors to form a partnership that recognizes the importance of safe and healthful work environments for the construction industry. Their cooperation is a model for promoting the shared strategies and objectives. Accordingly, I submit the Partnering Charter to be placed in the Congressional Record. Partnering Charter Between the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Region 5, Cincinnati Area Office and the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Ohio Valley Chapter The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Ohio Valley Chapter (ABC) mutually recognize the importance of providing a safe and healthful work environment for the Nation's construction workforce. To advance our mutual goal, we strongly agree on the need to develop a working relationship that fosters mutual trust and respect for each organization's respective role in the construction safety process. We recognize and embrace the responsibilities inherent in those roles. We are committed to work as partners to achieve construction workplace safety through the following shared strategies and objectives: 1. Implement continuing and open communication policy between OSHA and ABC at all area, regional, chapter and national levels, in a manner that encourages respect and understanding. 2. Share knowledge of the best industry technology, innovations and work practices that improve jobsite safety and health performance. 3. Cooperate in the development and continuous improvement of safety training programs for the construction industry and OSHA personnel. 4. Promote recognition for construction safety excellence throughout the industry at every opportunity. 5. Ensure that enforcement policies and practices are effective, consistent and fair. 6. Promote principles of good faith and fair dealings as the foundation of our relationships. 7. Recognize and honor the Safety Partnership STEP Platinum Incentive Program for a period of three years. 8. Recognize that either party to the partnership may withdraw from the agreement at any time after submitting written notification of intent to the other partner. Agreed this day, February 11, 2000: Michael G. Connors, Regional Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, Region V, Chicago; William M. Murphy, Area Director, U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, Cincinnati Area Office; Kathleen L. Somers, CAE, Executive Director, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., Ohio Valley Chapter; Dennis Nutley, President, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., Ohio Valley Chapter.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000. This legislation provides a new and creative way to bring safe drinking water in a cost-effective manner to those rural Americans who will struggle to meet this most basic need. Under the bill, the government, working in partnership with nonprofit entities, would assist low to moderate-income individuals secure financing for the installation or refurbishing of individual household water well systems. The legislation authorizes a public/private partnership that allows homeowners of modest means to bring old household water well systems up to current standards, replace systems that have met their expected life, or provide homeowners without a drinking water source with a new individual household water well system. The Affordable Drinking Water Act is a targeted approach. Only low to moderate income Americans who request assistance with their drinking water needs are eligible. The traditional federally subsidized long- pipe water systems run water lines across the countryside in front of homes that are experiencing drinking water problems, but also homes that are not. The current system serves customers without adequate financial means but also many that do not need financial help. This lack of targeting federal dollars is often a waste of scarce resources. This legislation creates a financing option to install individual wells where they make the most economic sense. This bill also provides assistance to the drinking water delivery option many rural Americans prefer. In a recent national survey, more than 80% of well owners prefer their individual household water well systems to other drinking water delivery options. Only 8.3% said they would rather have their drinking water from a water utility company. This legislation gives consumers the ability to pay for new or refurbished individual household water well systems with convenient monthly payments, like other utility bills. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that organizations like the National Ground Water Association, a group that has a long and distinguished record preserving and protecting America's precious ground water resources, strongly endorses this legislation. It is my hope that other organizations and communities that support common sense, innovative approaches to providing affordable, safe water to rural Americans will also endorse the Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that provides a cost-effective alternative to meeting the drinking water needs of rural America.