John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Ms. Heidy Perez of Lynn, Massachusetts who has received an award from the Lynn Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Inc. for academic excellence. I hope Heidy appreciates and is proud of her accomplishments. She has continually challenged herself and graduated sixth in her class. By not taking the easy path, she has given herself the tools to advance her hopes for the future. I trust that she understands the value of continuing her education and hope that she will continue her hard work. In choosing nursing as a career path, she is following her desire to provide care to many who need it most, and I have no doubt she will do so with compassion. Her dedication and commitment are to be commended, and I am certain that she will be successful in her future endeavors. Indeed, Ms. Perez has worked hard to achieve her goals. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here to recognize the accomplishments of Heidy Perez, and I hope my colleagues will join with me today in wishing Ms. Perez the very best as she continues her education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Ms. Gisselle Ruiz of Lynn, Massachusetts who has received an award from the Lynn Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Inc. for academic excellence. I hope Gisselle appreciates and is proud of her accomplishments. She is most deserving of the many awards which have been bestowed upon her. Her leadership potential and her willingness to give back to her community are evident by the extracurricular activities she has chosen. She is a role model for her peers and an inspiration to her family, being the first to graduate from high school and go on to college. I trust that she understands the value of continuing her education and hope that she will continue her hard work. Her dedication and commitment are to be commended. I have no doubt that she will be successful in her future endeavors. Indeed, Ms. Ruiz has worked hard to achieve her goals. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here to recognize the accomplishments of Gisselle Ruiz and I hope my colleagues will join me today in wishing Ms. Ruiz the very best as she continues her education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Mr. Brian Stowe of Lynn, Massachusetts who has received an award from the Lynn Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Inc. for academic excellence. I hope Brian appreciates and is proud of his accomplishments. At a young age, he has realized the value of helping those less fortunate than himself by volunteering in his community. A particular passion of Brian's has been his involvement with My Brother's Table, a food pantry which services the needy. A native of Lynn, Brian will leave home for the first time in the fall as he begins his college career at Fairfield University in Connecticut. I trust that he understands the value of continuing his education, and I am certain that he will enjoy many new challenges. His dedication and commitment are to be commended. I have no doubt that he will be successful in his future endeavors. Indeed, Mr. Stowe has worked hard to achieve his goals. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here to recognize the accomplishments of Brian Stowe, and I hope my colleagues will join with me today in wishing Mr. Stowe the very best as he continues his education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Ms. Patricia Francis of Lynn, Massachusetts who has received an award from the Lynn Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Inc. for academic excellence. I hope Patricia appreciates and is proud of her accomplishments. She has challenged herself by transitioning from bilingual classes to English only classes after only one year in the bilingual program. She has also successfully balanced several extracurricular activities with her academic responsibilities. Serving in her role as a mentor for elementary school children, Patricia has undoubtedly made an impression upon them about the importance of making a commitment to education. Her dedication is to be commended. I have no doubt that she will be successful in her future endeavors as she pursues her career goals in journalism starting at Salem State College. Indeed, Ms. Francis has worked hard to achieve her goals. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here to recognize the accomplishments of Patricia Francis, and I hope my colleagues will join with me today in wishing Ms. Francis the very best as she continues her education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform still is a critical issue confronting this House and needs to be addressed. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight had a particular opportunity to address this issue, to hold hearings, and to come up with some solutions and some facts that were a basis as to how we should proceed in that area. So far, however, due to lack of leadership in that committee, we have been unable to embark on that process. We have had instead a very partisan hearing process, a fiscally irresponsible process, one that is motivated by personal vindictiveness not only of persons on the majority but also of their staff. In fact, we have had a tremendous amount of incompetence in those proceedings that have cost the American taxpayers some $6 million. New committee leadership is needed to restore credibility to that committee and dignity and credibility to this House. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of the majority were unable to take the action that would allow us to move in that process. It now is incumbent upon the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as the head of that committee to realize that he can no longer function properly and to move that leadership to another member of that committee.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding me this time. Let me just simply say, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear that this bill provides an opportunity for people who have this tax credit to use that money not only for private school, but for other matters also. But the fact remains, private schools will see the benefit of this money, and families that are already able to send their children to private schools will be able to use it for that. As the gentleman says, the individual benefit is almost minuscule, $7 to $37. The fact is, the aggregate amount is going to be deferred for the use of public schools. As public officials, we have the responsibility to use tax money for the public benefit for the largest amount of people possible. Ninety percent of this Nation's children go to public schools. That is how we ought to use the money. Time and again I hear people take the floor, deploring the conditions in some of our public schools, wishing that they were as good as the very good public schools that we do have out there. If we were to spend some of that money on the condition of those schools, the rehabilitation and the reconstruction of these schools, we would be moving in that direction. Why are we talking about something else when we should be talking about making it possible for every child to go to school in an environment where they can learn? Some of the public schools have been neglected, and people here would not send their children, would not go to work in a building like that. The fact of the matter is, when I go out to the schools in my district, and I visit several every week, the mayors and the school committee people, the councilmen and the selectpeople say, can the Federal Government not do something to help us with the huge construction costs for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of our schools? The answer is yes, we can, if we have the will. Unfortunately, the majority does not have the will to do that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Mr. Len Sherry of Danvers, Massachusetts who is retiring from the town's Housing Authority Board after more than 20 years of devoted service, having served 14 years as its Chairman. During his tenure on the Housing Authority Board, Mr. Sherry was a leader in persuading the community at large of its obligation to provide much needed support for housing programs, and his efforts resulted in the addition of elderly and family units to Danvers' housing stock. Mr. Sherry was also instrumental in the expansion of rental assistance and community-residence programs. Those who worked at and were served by the Danvers Housing Authority were not the only ones to benefit from Mr. Sherry's community spirit. He was also a Town-meeting member, school committeeman, Little League coach and Sunday school teacher. He used his skills as a communicator to promote partnerships within the community that served to better the lives of everyone. Very few, if any, people in Danvers have not been touched in some way by Len Sherry. Indeed, Mr. Sherry has been an inspiration to his friends and family. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here to recognize the accomplishments of Len Sherry; his dedication to the Town of Danvers is to be commended. I hope my colleagues will join with me today in wishing Mr. Sherry the very best as he begins his retirement.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, public funds are entrusted basically for the use of the greatest, broadest public good, not for selected use or discrimination or to put forward for 3 percent of the people. That seems to make a second privileged class, those that are already fortunate enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford a private education, and now 3 percent of other formerly public school children are going to have the privilege of going where others are not. It does not address the issue; it does not address the issue that was just spoken to by our good friend from Arizona, schools that may not be as good as the good public schools that we do have, and we do have good public schools. The answer is to make sure that all of our public schools are as good as they can be, as good as those that are already good; to fix those broken schools to make sure the curriculum works, to make sure that every child that attends public school has good teachers; to make sure that we measure their progress, and to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to move up the economic ladder in this country and have hope and have a good life. Vouchers do not improve schools. They draw away the source of money that could improve schools. They are not fair. They do not provide an opportunity for every student that wants to move to a private school. They target some and give them an opportunity to move, possibly, but there are not enough private schools to deal with having this be a fair program, and there are not enough dollars being put in to let every child go to the private school that he or she may want to go to. There is no way that I could foresee the majority appropriating enough money to give $3,200 to each of the 50 million plus public school children to have this be a fair program. If we want to fix the public schools, and that is what the majority wants to do, why do we not see some evidence of that? Every opportunity that we have to fix the public schools, and there is no Federal role in the public school system in the local communities.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for his previous comments a moment ago, and I applaud his common sense in approaching this. I join him, Mr. Speaker, in the idea that having come here to Congress and knowing before I got here, obviously, there is a great deal of cynicism about our process, speaking to any number of students that come to Washington or going throughout the district and speaking to students, trying to address them and tell them they ought not to be caught up in the cynicism, it is very hard to watch what has been going on here tonight. Although this particular portion of the bill may indeed be well- intended, and what you intend to do with this may, in fact, have some merits that could be supported, the whole process by which you have gone about doing this tonight, the whole idea of not even addressing any of the bills that have been filed for some period of time now, not giving them the period of time for debate and discussion, putting it forward tonight in a late-drafted bill, broken down into four parts, very cynically, looking to get people on record for campaign purposes, but never really dealing with any details of campaign finance reform. We do not talk about getting money out of campaigns, we do not talk about shortening campaigns.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just would note the irony in this particular amendment coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For a group that repeatedly talks about States' rights and the Federal Government telling States what they can and cannot do, this would seem to me to be the ultimate example of that. For those States that like to have some ability to exempt themselves from Federal programs or Federal requirements and impose their own set of priorities, for instance, if a State chooses to focus on reporting requirements instead of on-site inspections, it may well want to assess civil fines when there are intentional violations of those requirements. This, of course, would prohibit the State from having that kind of flexibility; it is ironic, and just a bit amusing on this side of the aisle to see how everyone who supports States' rights or would want to support them and vote for this amendment. We regularly hear about how flexible approaches make more sense and how States know what is best for their constituents. However, a vote for this particular amendment would appear to be a vote against that flexibility and a vote against States' rights; and I, for one, would be very curious to see what support it has and does not have from those who have always professed the opposite.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) have done an admirable job of working through this bill. There is much in this bill as it stands that can be supported. I think that everybody understands that small business has to have some relief from time to time over what might be overzealous application of the law. The idea of publishing in the Federal Register on an annual basis a list of the requirements applicable to small business concerns makes sense. That is fully supported by everybody that was involved in the drafting of this bill. Establishing an agency point of contact where each agency must have a point of contact, a liaison for small businesses to work with, so that there can be ready compliance. And understanding what is entailed by compliance is something that everybody can support, as is the fact of establishing a tax force on the feasibility of streamlining information collection requirements. That is why we need an open rule, so that we can talk not just about the things that we might disagree with, but those things that we find in this bill that are, in fact, good as it stands. There are, however, the problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) noted, with one provision in that bill. I congratulate, again, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) on his continual work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and with me and the committee to try to resolve those differences. Everybody here wants to make sure that business, particularly small businesses, has understanding and gets a break when it is deserved. We just want to make sure it is not a disincentive to filing some very serious documentation that protects the safety and the health and the welfare of the American people. I believe we can work toward that goal together through a good and open debate and through this rule.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that much of what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) says is absolutely accurate, and I want to acknowledge his fine efforts and those of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in trying to work at the committee level and the subcommittee level to make this a bill that would, in fact, be beneficial to the small businesses of this country. Much has been done in that regard and in that direction. When the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), the chairman of the subcommittee, says that the President wanted to end ``gotcha'' politics or ``gotcha'' efforts in administration, he is absolutely right. But unfortunately, this bill has some major flaws that still exist that do not do anything with regard to moving that process along. Let me initially say that there is nothing, and I think Mr. McIntosh acknowledges this, there is nothing that reduces paperwork in the current bill. There will be no particular small business, as a result of this legislation, should it pass, that will have to file one less piece of paper than it had to the day before it passed. What happens here is we have 3 out of 4 provisions of this bill that are, in fact, very good and very agreeable. It makes sense that it has to be published in the Federal Register on an annual basis a list of the requirements applicable to small business concerns. No small business should have to wonder what its obligations are, what paperwork has to be filed; they should be able to readily go to the register and see exactly what the obligations are. There should be one point of contact within every agency a small business can go to to find out what must be done to be in compliance with regard to the requirements of that particular agency, and that is a part of this bill that we can all get behind without any disagreement. The idea of establishing a task force on feasibility of streamlining information and collection requirements is something that the entire committee, and in fact, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) worked very hard with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and others on that provision, so that we have a lot of this bill that makes absolute and perfect sense. However, there are corrections that have to be made. The administration does not want a ``gotcha'' type of atmosphere out there, particularly with small business. It perfectly well understands the contribution that is made to our economy by small business, as does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), as do I, as do other members of the committee and subcommittee, but it should be noted in its present form, Mr. Chairman, in its present form, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 3310, because it believes it would waive fines for first-time violators of Federal information collection requirements and that that waiver provision could seriously hamper the agency's ability to ensure safety, protect the environment, detect criminal activity, and carry out a number of other statutory responsibilities. In fact, the statement of the administration policy issued, Mr. Chairman, says that if H.R. 3310 were presented to the President in its current form, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would all recommend that the President veto this bill. Current law already requires agencies to help first-time small business violators who make a good faith effort to comply. The primary beneficiaries of this law as it is currently written, Mr. Chairman, would appear to be those who do not act in good faith and those who intentionally and willfully violate the applicable regulations. That is not what I believe this committee has in mind, and it is not what people in small business would want. They want fair competition. They want to know that when they are obligated to file some piece of paper or a document for safety reasons, for health reasons, for environmental reasons, that, in fact, their competitor also has to meet that requirement. This particular law, as it is currently written, is an absolute disincentive to people complying with their obligations to provide information, whether it is about the environment, whether it is about safety, whether it is about pensions, and this is what we have an objection to, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I will present an amendment to this bill at a later point this morning. Mr. Chairman, if one reads carefully the bill language, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) referred to an attempt by the majority here to correct some of the provisions of the bill, it still says that failure to impose a fine would have to be filed in order for there to not be a waiver. Well, many times the detection of a criminal activity does not require, under the fine or the failure to impose a fine, but in fact whether or not the paperwork was filed, so it should be the failure of filing the required documentation that is a consideration, not whether or not failing to impose a fine would in any way impede the detection of a criminal activity. They also talk about the problem of having an imminent or substantial danger to the public, a violation present that would be a factor in that, but the fact of the matter is, proving what is imminent or proving what is substantial is a cloudy area that leads everyone to the belief that they can get away with not filing any of this documentation for however long it takes somebody to find them, to discover the situation, and then to point out the violation, and then only the second time would they stand any risk. So that disincentive impacts badly on all small business as well as the public in general, and the people that are working within these companies. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3310 as currently constructed prohibits agencies from assessing civil fines for the first-time, information-related violations. It removes agency discretion. It actually creates a safe haven for willful, substantial and long-standing violations. It would have a wide-ranging and substantive negative effect, because it does not merely address technical violations and reporting requirements, it applies to the failure to distribute important information to the public, such as warning consumers of the dangers of a product or prescription drugs, educating employees on how to handle hazardous materials, and adequately disclosing a broker's disciplinary history to an investor. It would weaken the incentive to comply with the law because small businesses would be sure that they would not be fined even if they were caught, and it would put complying businesses at a competitive disadvantage. The exemptions that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) states that he did put in the law are still inadequate to protect the public. They would prohibit fines for most first-time violations unless the agency met some very extensive burdens of proof that the violation actually caused serious harm, that the failure to fine impeded the detection of criminal activity. These are standards that simply raise the bar so high that nobody will be encouraged to meet their requirement to file and they will know that they can get away in the first instance.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it should be noted again, having looked at all this paperwork and posters that were put up, that there is no paperwork reduction even contemplated in H.R. 3310 as it is currently constructed. The only people that will now have to file less paperwork under this bill are people that said they want to be violating the law. Law-abiding businesses are still going to have to file every piece of paper they ever filed, so that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there will be a disincentive to file, and whether or not some businesses, law-abiding businesses, will be put at a disadvantage. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct us as to how much time each respective side has remaining?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in fact we were all present at the subcommittee hearings when the witnesses came in, and could distinctly hear representatives from OSHA saying that they have in fact now in place a policy under SBREFA and they are, in fact, down to zero occasions when they fine somebody a civil penalty for failing to post or put paperwork in where it is appropriate. So I think we should have all the information when we move forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just say that this idea, that this one side is in favor of small business and the other side is against small business, is ludicrous when we think of the time and the energy that went in, with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) working diligently to try to find some common ground so that small business could in fact get the benefit of this law. I will speak at greater length about the particulars of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Let me just say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) that this debate was going on rather high ground for a while as we were talking about some matters of disagreement. We had a speaker come down and throw in some bombast, and I think it has sort of taken us in a different direction. Personally, I represented small businesses for 20 years. I was a small business. I was president of the local Chamber of Commerce. There is no belief in my heart or soul that small businesses, on the whole, that people try to comply with the law, but I try to recognize fully, Mr. Chairman, that there are those who do not. My colleague's bill does nothing for that law-abiding small business person who continues to comply with paperwork filing requirements because they, first of all, do not reduce the amount of paperwork to be filed. And if we want to do that, then why do we not get our committee to start sitting down and sifting through those blocks of paper and weeding out those that should not be filed any longer and those that should be consolidated? That would be a worthwhile effort. But to have an absolute disincentive for those who do not want to be a law-abiding business and to put the law-abiding businesses at a disadvantage is not the way to proceed. What we ought to do is make sure the agencies exercise their discretion, that those who are not willful violators, those who do not impose a serious harm to the public good or to the environment, let them deal with it in that way and let them use their discretion. Which is exactly what SBREFA does, which is what our proposed amendment demands that they do is set in place a policy to make sure that those businesses that deserve a break get a break, but reserving the ability to fine those that need to be fined in order to have compliance so that good law-abiding businesses will not be put at a disadvantage. The language of 3310, as it is currently constructed, simply does not do that. It says that before they can have a fine, they have to show that the failure to impose the fine would impede detection of a criminal activity. Well, it would not be the failure to impose a fine that would in fact impede detection of criminal activity; it would be the failure to file the requisite paperwork. So now they have given them a disincentive on that basis. They talk about occasions where there is actual harm that they would then not be able to give a waiver. But what about the case where there is a propensity for actual harm, where the failure to file work leads us to believe there will be resulting harm, but it may not have happened yet, but we want to make sure it does not happen? My colleagues talk about threatening imminent and substantial, dangerous harm, but those are hard burdens for an agency to prove before it can go in there and ask somebody who is integrally involved and knowledgeable about business, Mr. Chairman. And let me tell my colleagues, given the choice of having to make my case that my mistake on paperwork was inadvertent and failure to do that might be a civil penalty, I will take that any day, besides them coming down with very expensive legal proceedings on an injunction or a criminal action. That is when it gets onerous. That is when agencies go well beyond their bounds, and that is where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I have an amendment that tries to address that so that small businesses and law-abiding business can move in the proper direction.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have some speakers. Would the Chair please instruct us as to how much time is left on this side.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).