Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I would really appreciate the support of my colleagues on this, because this is something that we would not want to happen to any other community.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which is designed to facilitate the grant process. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) spoke so well of the concerns which community groups have in making sure that they can participate in the Federal grant-making process, and he explained how they often have to hire experts in order to become involved to make sure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently refused to provide continued funding to a very worthy program for homeless men in Cleveland because of a technical mistake. Now to show my colleagues the impact which this can have, there is a great program run by the Salvation Army in my district which is going to be out of money because of what was called a technical mistake. And I explored it further, and my colleagues will be interested to know that the program is not funded because the applicants had submitted the wrong budget form, and HUD said that they could not consider the proposal and could not tell the applicant that the error had been made. They could not even tell people that they made an error until all the grants had been announced. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment will do is that this amendment will require that the applicant will be notified of a deficiency, and they will be permitted to correct the deficiency, and that if they do correct the deficiency within a 7-day period, the agency shall consider the application. We spend a lot of time here in the Congress trying to meet the needs of our constituents and making sure that the Federal grant process is available to our constituents. We spend a lot of time and show a lot of concern about making sure that people can get the grants which they need, and we certainly want to make sure that no agency feels impeded in its ability to discharge congressional intent by some interpretation which would make it impossible for the grant-making process to be affected in a way that is consistent with congressional intent. So this amendment will enable the technical deficiencies to be cured by the applicant and not put anyone anywhere in this country in a position where just a minor omission of a technical nature would knock them right out of the grant process and, worse than that, they cannot even be told. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Mayor Karl Kubb for his dedication and commitment to the people of Fairview Park, Ohio. Karl Kubb has dedicated his life to helping people. He served as Ward 4 Councilman for four years and Council President for six years. Mayor Kubb has also served on various political and civil committees during his career. He has served as Community Council President and initiated and became the first president of the Chamber of Commerce in Fairview Park. Mayor Kubb was the President and Vice President of the Democratic Club and an Executive Commander of the American Legion. Mayor Karl Kubb is a proven public servant. He has dedicated his life to improving the lives of the citizens of Fairview Park. He is a man of enormous talent and vision. His contributions to the citizens of Fairview Park have been noteworthy. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting a man who has dedicated his life to improving the lives of the people of Fairview Park.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Mayor Norm Musial for his many years of service and countless contributions to the citizens of North Olmsted, Ohio. Norm Musial is a man of enormous talent and vision. His leadership and commitment to his fellow citizens have made a difference in his community. A diplomat and statesman, his contributions to the citizens of North Olmsted have been noteworthy. Norm Musial has been an active member of the North Olmsted community since he and his wife Pat moved there in 1963. Mr. Musial is a past president of the North Olmsted Jaycees and also has served as president of the North Olmsted Republican Club. In 1967, Mayor Musial was selected as one of ``Five Outstanding Young Men of Ohio'', and in 1969 he was selected as ``North Olmsted Citizen of the Year''. Norm Musial's sense of vision for the future, combined with his strategic planning background, sensitivity to residents' needs, and administrative experience has helped him provide uncompromised leadership to the people of North Olmsted. My fellow colleagues, join me in saluting the leadership and dedication of Mayor Musial.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of James Louis Bivins on his induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame. James Louis Bivins has led an admirable life. He overcame extreme hardships and disappointment, to become a role model to many. In his stellar professional boxing career from 1940 to 1955 James Louis Bivins went 85-25-1 with 31 knockouts. During his career he fought and defeated eight future world champions. From June 22, 1942 until February 25, 1946, during Boxing's Golden Age, Jimmy Bivins was undefeated going 28 bouts without a loss. Since his retirement from professional boxing James Louis Bivins has given back to the city of Cleveland. As a world-class hall-of-fame athlete, Mr. Bivins has served as a mentor to hundreds of young boxers in his thirty years as a trainer on the west side of Cleveland. My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Mr. Bivins for his induction into boxing's most hallowed club.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I pointed out earlier that the bill still preempts State law, and State officials have opposed H.R. 391. The Attorney General of the State of New York has said the most objectionable element of the legislation is the preemption of State enforcement efforts.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the National Governors Association wrote a letter to our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and I would like to quote from it. ``We applaud the goal of reducing paperwork burdens for small businesses and would support the Federal Government taking steps to ensure that information collection and paperwork requirements on small businesses are reasonable. However, we must express concern over the preemption of state authority in section,'' and they spell out the section of the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act of 1999. ``As governors, we understand the critical role that small businesses play in our economy. We appreciate the importance of ensuring that Federal reporting requirements on small businesses are sensible and that enforcement of those requirements are reasonable. Clearly the Federal Government can direct its own enforcement policy on this matter. Likewise, states are best able to direct state enforcement policy on this issue, and we believe that Federal preemption of state authority is unjustified. We urge you to take our views into consideration as you move this legislation forward.'' It is signed by Governor Thomas Carper and Governor Michael Leavitt. My amendment addresses these concerns and removes the preemption provision.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment replaces the controversial provisions that would prevent the assessment of civil penalties and preempt State law with language that requires agencies to implement policies for reducing or waiving penalties against first time violators in appropriate circumstances. Again, it replaces the provisions that prevent the assessment of civil penalties and preempt State law with language that requires agencies, we are going to require agencies to implement the policies for reducing or waiving penalties against first time violators in appropriate circumstances. The agencies would be required to implement these policies within six months and report to Congress on those policies six months later. So there is a strong attempt here to make sure that businesses who operate in good faith are rewarded. This amendment dovetails a provision in the Contract with America. Section 223 of the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Act which enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress when it was signed into law three years ago, that provision required agencies to implement policies for waiving or reducing penalties under appropriate circumstances. However, SBREFA, as it is called, did not target relief to first-time violators. Some of the SBREFA policies specifically provide relief for first- and second-time violators. However, many agencies did not specifically address the subset of violations. My amendment would require that every agency draft policies providing relief for first-time violations. This amendment has numerous benefits. It would provide penalty relief to first time violators without giving a ``get-out-of-jail-free'' card to those who intentionally violate the law. It would provide relief without encouraging businesses to ignore their paperwork objections. It would protect the integrity of our system of regulation, which depends on self reporting instead of relying on surprise inspections. It would protect the integrity of the laws that protect our seniors, workers and the environment. It would protect our drinking water, nursing homes, pensions, and more. Mr. Chairman, the political reality is that without my amendment, this bill will doubtfully become law. Many environmental, labor, consumer and health groups, as well as several States Attorney General, have voiced their opposition to the bill. Moreover, the administration strongly opposes it and four agency heads have threatened a veto. A similar bill did not pass the House with a veto-proof margin this year. It will doubtfully become law if my amendment is not adopted. On the other hand, if my amendment is adopted, the bill, likely, will be non-controversial and likely will gain overwhelming support. We should seize this opportunity to provide real relief to small businesses who are waiting for Congress to provide them with relief. I urge the support of my amendment.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is a step forward, but the bill would still preempt State law. It still does not exempt intentional violations. It still provides no environmental protections. It still has inadequate exceptions for the public health because it requires a high burden of proof, and exemption therefore has a potential to cause serious harm. And there is still a Catch 22: We cannot discover violations that threaten the public safety without the paperwork. So this bill does, even with the amendment, still jeopardize public health, but I would say the amendment is a step forward, and I accept the amendment.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the parts of this debate that I think is perhaps confusing to people is the assertion that paperwork is not important. We certainly want to relieve American small businesses of any paperwork which is unnecessary. But I think most reasonable Americans would agree that there are certain types of paperwork which can become very necessary. For example, let us suppose that a jet plane which was a cargo plane had a particular type of cargo which had to be labeled ``cargo only'' and flown from one destination to another to arrive safely, and the cargo they had in some cases were oxygen cannisters; but let us suppose that cargo which happened to be oxygen cannisters was not labeled ``cargo only'' and ended up on a passenger plane. It is paperwork. Well, actually this happened, that some oxygen cannisters ended up on a passenger plane instead of a cargo plane because they were not labeled ``cargo only.'' Paperwork. There was an explosion and 110 people were killed on a ValuJet, which I think everyone remembers the crash in the Florida Everglades. The FAA pointed out that the company knowingly failed to package, mark, label, identify, or certify a shipment of 125 unexpended oxygen generators and 10 empty generators aboard the ValuJet. So we cannot say paperwork is not important. I think that we have to keep having incentives to comply. And the only way we have an incentive to comply is to make sure we do not waive the penalties, because otherwise we end up with the condition where lives are jeopardized. That is what so many people are saying, paperwork can save lives, that there is a reason to have paperwork. That is why the International Association of Fire Chiefs pointed out that removing or relaxing penalties for failure to comply with regulations that require disclosure of the presence of hazardous materials will almost certainly result in lack of compliance and raise serious safety issues for fire fighters. So there is a reason to have paperwork. More than that, we need to have compliance; and the only way we have compliance is we do not waive the penalties. This legislation is about waiver of penalties for violators. The AFL-CIO said that H.R. 391 would make the American workplace more dangerous than it currently is and needlessly remove safeguards currently in place to protect American workers. Many environmental organizations are opposed to this legislation. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resource Defense Council said, ``Numerous crucial health and environmental programs, including those for tracking hazardous materials, assuring food safety, reporting on hazardous emissions, reporting on drinking water contamination, and giving notice of chemical accidents, rely on crucial reporting requirements that would be undercut by this legislation.'' And there are dozens and dozens of groups who have similar concerns. We are for small business. We support those small businesses who are trying to do the right thing. We want to lessen their burden. But no one in America wants to remove all paperwork, which would create a circumstance where America's health, safety and environment would be jeopardized.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some comment was made about some smiling on this side of the aisle. I am totally unaware of what the gentleman was referring to, but I will submit if this bill passes as written, there will be a lot of people smiling who are deliberately and willfully and intentionally failing to fill out paperwork which relates to the public safety, the public health and the environment of the country. That is where the smiles might be coming from. But they are sure not coming from this side. There is a lot of discussion about the reduction of paperwork we have heard here. Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I want to make it very clear that the controversial positions that the administration and I are opposing have nothing to do with reducing paperwork. The administration strongly opposes H.R. 391 in the statement of administration policy, which says, in part, and I quote, the waiver provision, the waiver provision for first time violators. The bad actors, not the people who want to keep the law, not the good Americans out there who are faithfully doing the right thing, who are filling out the forms, who are running those businesses who we salute, but the bad actors would get off. This waiver position would seriously hamper an agency's ability to ensure safety, protect the environment, detect criminal activity, criminal activity, not talking about the small businesses of America who are good Americans who do not violate the law. This waiver provision would seriously hamper the detection of criminal activity and the government's ability to carry out a number of other statutory responsibilities. If H.R. 391 were presented to the President in its current form, the Attorney General, Secretary of Labor, Department of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would recommend that the President veto it. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have my remarks prepared, but there is something that I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) say relating to the case involving Mr. Roberts, the owner of a small company which installs pipelines in Indiana. We have been doing some research on this matter, and I would just like to report the results of our research and see if it is out of variance with the information which the gentleman from Indiana has. The inspections which he mentioned took place in 1987 and 1989, during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. According to OSHA records, Mr. Roberts' company was not assessed any fine for any of the 3 paperwork violations uncovered during the inspection. Those violations included ``no written hazard communication program,'' ``no hazard warning labels on hazardous chemicals being worked with,'' and ``no material safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals.'' Instead, Mr. Roberts was fined after OSHA inspectors found substantive violations during 3 separate inspections, including violations determined to be serious. The first inspection on December 2, 1987 found 10 violations involving, among other things, flammable and combustible liquids and electrical hazards. On May 10, 1989, OSHA found 7 more violations, including actual safety violations. The third inspection on November 9, 1989 found 4 serious violations. It was only then, after the third inspection, that the company was fined. This included a $400 fine for failing to provide sufficient protection for employees from traffic, a $160 fine for operating equipment without appropriate wheel guards, and a $400 fine because the construction site did not have, this is a construction site, did not have the required hand rails, guardrails, or get this, manhole covers. No penalties were assessed for 12 other violations uncovered during that inspection, including the paperwork violation referred to by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). So much of this debate involves mythologies that need to be challenged. For instance, what is a small business? Well, the image I have of a small business is a mom and pop delicatessen; that is part of my memory growing up in America, but we know there are not many of those left anymore. Let us look at what a small business, for purposes of this bill, would be identified as. How about a petroleum refining company of up to 1,500 employees. Or, a fire and casualty insurance company with 1,500 employees. Or, a pharmaceutical company with 750 employees. Or, an explosive manufacturer, an explosive manufacturer with 750 employees. That is a small business. They would be exempt from fines, even if they have willfully and intentionally violated the law with respect to reporting requirements. An explosive manufacturer. Car dealers with $21 million in annual receipts, gas stations with $6.5 million in annual receipts, dry cleaners, banks with $100 million in assets. A small business. Now, H.R. 391 waives penalties for most first-time violations by ``small business concerns.'' And the bill states that a small business is what is defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act. Just understand when we are speaking of small businesses what we mean and where the impact is on this bill. The general rule is that a small business has less than 500 employees, but we have to remember that in this case, in this bill and in a number of cases, small business may be even larger. Now, we all know that small businesses are the backbone of America. They are where the new jobs are being created. However, many small and family-owned businesses spend a great deal of their time and resources learning about and complying with applicable laws. It is good that we are looking at ways to simplify and streamline the resulting paperwork, but we are not looking for ways I hope to give someone a free pass on a willful violation, a get-out-of-jail-free card on a willful violation. Madam Chairman, I oppose H.R. 391, and I am definitely not alone. The administration strongly opposes it. Four department heads would recommend a veto. A growing number of State attorneys general and labor, environmental, consumer, senior citizens, health and firefighter groups oppose it. The list of opposing groups is daunting, including names like the National Council of Senior Citizens, the AFL-CIO, and the New York State Attorney General's Office. H.R. 391 contains a number of noncontroversial provisions that will reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses. That is good. However, the provisions that prevent agencies from assessing civil penalties for most first-time violations would create a number of unintended, but serious, negative consequences. These provisions could endanger seniors' pensions, threaten the quality of nursing home care, interfere with the war on drugs, undermine food safety protections. Think about that in an era where pfiesteria has confronted American consumers. Think about that, in an era where food contamination has become a greater concern. This legislation would also undercut controls on fraud against consumers and investors, and this legislation would threaten the environment and provide a safe harbor for violators, even when the violation is longstanding, intentional, and committed in bad faith. Of interest to those who are devotees of the Tenth Amendment, this bill would preempt State law. The National Governors Association wrote, and I quote, ``States are best able to direct State enforcement policy on the issue, and we believe that Federal preemption of State authority is unjustified.'' So I rise not simply as a Member of Congress representing people in the northeast area of the State of Ohio, but I rise on behalf of the State of Ohio in stating that, and of other States who are concerned that a Federal preemption will occur. Madam Chairman, let me give some examples of the possible pitfalls created by these provisions. Food safety. In 1996, the FDA implemented the hazardous analysis critical control point, pronounced HACCP, system of seafood inspection. This is a serious inspection program that would prevent the centuries- old what was known as the poke-and-sniff test as the primary method of preventing the sale of seafood contaminated with dangerous pathogens. HACCP, the law, requires seafood companies to identify local food safety hazards, such as toxins, parasites, bacteria, and they have to develop procedures to monitor on-site preventive control measures. Shellfish producers are also required to keep records of the origin of shellfish, in case a recall is necessary. The entire system depends on processing plants to report their own compliance with food safety requirements. It is kind of an honor system. Under H.R. 391, however, FDA officials will be unable to enforce seafood safety laws because the violations of recordkeeping requirements will be unenforceable. FDA's only alternative, and get this, America, the only alternative that the FDA would have would be to take enforcement action after the consumers have been poisoned. Opponents of the amendment which I will offer argue that the exception for violations that pose a ``serious and imminent danger to the public health or safety'' adequately protect the public. This is simply not true. And notwithstanding any other amendment that may be offered, if a business fails to report where it received its oysters, there is no imminent danger. The imminence of the danger only becomes apparent after someone has gotten food poisoning and the agency is attempting a recall of the poisoned foods. Worker safety. In fact, the exception for imminent and substantial danger offers little protection under any set of facts. For example, if an employer fails to provide a worker with instructions on how to safely operate machinery, this is a paperwork violation. Again, there is no obvious imminent danger until after the worker has been injured. Madam Chairman, there are so many things wrong with this bill that even an attempt to amend it, to clean it up, is going to be lacking in sufficient import to be able to protect the health, the safety, the environment, of the people of the United States of America. I believe the gentleman from Indiana may now have the opportunity to respond to the concerns that I expressed about food safety or any other matter that he certainly has information about. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and I have tried to work together to craft a bill which we could have agreement on. H.R. 391 is not that bill, but it would be nice if it was. I am glad that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has just indicated in this discussion, where we both favor an open rule, that he will come forward with an amendment to try to make the bill a little bit better. I would humbly and respectfully suggest to my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), that I have had the chance to look at that amendment, and, while we will be talking about it later, I thought I would mention at this moment, while we have the opportunity, to say that the gentleman is coming along in the right direction, but it is not far enough to protect some of the health and safety and environmental concerns which we are very concerned about. I would just like the gentleman to think about this, because in the next two hours, maybe this Congress can come to the whole direction and get support for the amendment which I will be offering under the open rule. As I have understood the amendment which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) will be bringing forward under this open rule, agencies would still be prevented from assessing fines for intentional and malicious violations. As I understand the amendment which will be offered under this open rule, which I support, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) would not provide any protections for the environment, and that the amendment, as I read it, would make it still almost impossible to prove that a violation, not an intervening action, would pose a serious harm. So while I support the open rule, I thought I would comment that while the amendment that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) will be offering is starting to come in the right direction, we still have some major problems here, so we just do not leap over and defeat the purpose of the open rule, which is to give us the opportunity to bring out our amendments and debate our possibilities, because I am sure Madam Speaker and many in the Congress have read the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, and what is being offered to the Congress is a Catch-22, in which you can fine someone if there is a potential to cause harm, but, Madam Speaker, and this is what this is all going to be about in the next few hours, we do not know if there is a potential harm if there is no paperwork being filed. So I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), I am sure the next few hours will be interesting as we are able to explore some of these contradictions under this open rule.