[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1559-H1581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 396
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3310) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United
States Code, for the purpose of facilitating compliance by
small businesses with certain Federal paperwork requirements,
and to establish a task force to examine the feasibility of
streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small
businesses. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or section
303 or 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
for failure to comply with section 303 or section 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
[[Page H1560]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material).
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial resolution. The
proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate, the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The proposed rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides
that it will be considered as read.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, under House Resolution 396, points of order
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(1)(6) of rule XI, or section 303 or 311 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 are waived. Likewise, points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with
section 303 or section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act are waived.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 also provides that the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. Furthermore, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to
reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a
15-minute vote.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This
rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Small Business Paperwork
Reduction Act Amendments of 1998, is intended to reduce the burden of
Federal paperwork on small businesses by requiring the publication of a
list of all Federal paperwork requirements on small businesses, and
requiring each Federal agency to establish one point of contact to act
as a liaison with small businesses.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a good step forward.
Clearly, the burden of Federal regulations on the American public
continues to grow. In 1997, total regulatory costs were $688 billion.
When these costs are passed on to the consumer, the typical family of
four pays about $6,800 per year in hidden regulatory costs. Therefore,
the publication of all the Federal paperwork requirements on small
business may further enlighten decisionmakers on the hidden costs of
red tape. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter:
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: I understand that the Committee on Rules is
scheduled to meet to consider a rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 3310, the Small Business Paperwork
Reduction Act Amendments of 1998.
As reported by the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, the bill would reduce revenue by $5 million in
fiscal year 1999 and $25 million over five years.
Consequently, the bill violates sections 303(a) and 311(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act by reducing revenue first
effective in a fiscal year for which a budget resolution has
not yet been agreed to (fiscal year 1999) and by reducing
revenue below the five-year revenue floor as established by
H. Con. Res. 84.
However, I would note that last year the House passed H.R.
2675, the Federal Employees' Life Insurance Improvement Act
of 1997, which increased offsetting collections by $6 million
in fiscal year 1998 and $72 million over five years. H.R.
2675 was also reported by the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight.
Sincerely,
John R. Kasich,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
{time} 1045
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule; it allows all
germane amendments to be offered. However, the rule does include
several waivers of House rules that trouble me. The rule waives clause
2(L)(6) of rule XI which provides for a 3-day layover of the committee
report accompanying this bill. This House rule allows Members time to
study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support
amendments. While this requirement is often waived for pressing budget
or appropriations matters, there is nothing in the record as to why the
House must take up H.R. 3310 in such haste.
Of more concern are the waivers in this rule of the Congressional
Budget Act. Some are technical waivers, common for bills considered
before the annual budget resolution is passed. However, this rule also
waives section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 311
prevents measures from being considered which exceed the spending
limits or lower revenues that have been set by the current budget
agreement. The loss of receipts because of this bill are not large,
about $5 million annually, but again nothing in the record indicates
why a small offset could not have been found that would have allowed
the House to consider this bill without violating our Budget Act and
its pay-as-you-go provisions. As we all know, strict adherence to pay-
as-you-go rules has been a key in our ability to lower the deficit and
to balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I also have questions about some provisions of the
underlying bill, H.R. 3310. I support efforts to reduce paperwork
requirements on small business, and I have supported the legislation
that was passed by Congress to reduce the paperwork requirements such
as the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, and the administration has streamlined
regulations through its initiative to reinvent government and the
implementation of the White House Conference on Small Business
Recommendations.
There are aspects of the bill that I support. H.R. 3310 would require
Federal agencies to publish paperwork requirements for small businesses
so that they can know exactly what is required of them. It would
require each Federal agency to establish a liaison for small business
paperwork requirements to help small businesses comply with their legal
obligations, and would establish a task force to consider ways to
streamline paperwork requirements even further.
It is unfortunate, however, that the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight included other provisions in this bill that could be
dangerous to the safety and the health of the American people. This
bill would prohibit the assessment of civil penalties for most first-
time violations of information collection or dissemination requirements
if those violations are corrected within 6 months. The civil penalty
provisions in this bill effectively remove agency discretion from
regulatory enforcement decisions against first-time violators. Although
this provision may sound good on the surface, it could cause serious
problems. It could hamper agency efforts to take actions to protect the
health and safety of the American people.
For example, this bill could make it more difficult to catch drug
dealers by weakening the enforcement of the requirement in the
financial institutions report cash transactions that exceed $10,000, a
requirement that obviously helps law enforcement officials identify
criminal activity.
The bill can make our highways less safe by weakening the enforcement
of reporting requirements on the transportation of hazardous materials.
[[Page H1561]]
The bill could make medicines more dangerous to take by weakening the
enforcement of the requirement that manufacturers report adverse
effects.
This bill could make it more difficult to protect investors and
pensioners by weakening the enforcement of requirements that create
audit trails and prevent fraud.
The bill could make it more difficult to deter illegal immigration by
weakening the enforcement of the requirement that employers document
the eligibility of new employees.
The bill could make our workplaces less safe by weakening the
enforcement of health and safety requirements on the job.
While the bill does contain some exceptions to the suspension of
first-time paperwork fines, the standards are high. They quote actual
serious harm to the public health or safety, unquote, or, quote,
eminent and substantial danger to the public health and safety, end
quote. In fact, this provision provides no relief to honest businesses
doing the best they can to obey the law. It gives an unfair advantage
to the small minority of businesses that try to undercut their
competition by willfully violating or ignoring the law. If this bill
became law in its current form, those businesses disinclined to follow
the law would have no incentive to obey the law until they had actually
been cited for violation.
As has been pointed out often on this floor the past few years, many
agencies do not have sufficient resources to regularly check on the
businesses they regulate. That means that enforcement of public health
and safety protections depends on voluntary compliance. This provision
would reward noncompliance with a law.
For these reasons, this bill is opposed in its current form by the
administration, consumer groups, labor unions, and environmental
groups. However, the rule we are debating will allow the House to solve
many of the problems in this bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) will offer
an amendment that provides for agency discretion in the imposition of
civil penalties against first-time violations. The amendment also
requires agencies to establish policies or waive or reduce civil
penalties for first-time inadvertent violations.
Mr. Speaker, I support an H. Res. 396 provision that any germane
amendment can be offered under the 5-minute rule.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Kucinich-Tierney
amendment allowed by the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and the
resolution and would like to share with my colleagues a brief outline
of what this bill does and how it came forward to this floor.
We have had over 21 hearings, field hearings around the country, in
our subcommittee, listening to Americans about the problems with
regulations, and time and time again we heard from small businesses
that they felt government was coming in and playing ``gotcha.'' They
would try to comply with all the different forms that they have to fill
out. Oftentimes they found that that in itself was an enormous
undertaking that costs them a great deal of money, took away their time
from growing their small businesses.
One person who came and testified in Washington, Teresa Gearhart, who
owns a small trucking company with her husband in Hope, Indiana, she
told us that her company does have enough business to grow and create
five new jobs next year, but they cannot create those new jobs because
they cannot afford to fill out all of the paperwork that would go with
those additional employees.
We also heard from Gary Bartlett and G.W. Bartlett Company in my
district who sent us a ream of paperwork that he has to fill out for
each of his employees.
At one of our field hearings in Minnesota, Bruce Goman who is in
charge of a construction company said that he very consciously keeps
the size of his small business under 50 employees because of all the
Federal paperwork.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our committee looked at this, we passed a bill in
the House of Congress in 1995, and it was signed by President Clinton,
that mandated the Federal agencies to reduce their paperwork by 10
percent. Sadly, they failed to live up to that. In the first year after
that bill was passed, the agencies only reduced their paperwork by 2.6
percent, and it is projected that last year, in 1997, it was only by
1.8 percent.
So our committee considered what can we do to seriously cut back on
unnecessary Federal paperwork. We bring this bill to the floor that
does four key things. First of all, it would put on the Internet a list
of all of the different paperwork that is required by a small business
to fill out in order to do their job. Many of the businesses who spoke
with us told us they want to comply with Federal regulations, they just
do not know all of the different requirements, all the forms they have
to fill out, all the paperwork they have to keep at their job site.
This would put it into one place, make it widely available to small
businesses around the country on the Internet.
Second, it would offer small businesses compliance assistance instead
of fines when they have a first-time violation. This is critical. So
many times, even President Clinton has acknowledged, that agencies tend
to play ``gotcha'' with small businesses where they come in and they
say, well, we do not really see any real problem here, but you do not
have this form filled out right, so that is a $750 fine. Or, you do not
have this material data sheet, that is a $1,000 fine. Now for a small
business, that can be the difference between survival and going out of
business.
So our rule says that if they can correct that without causing any
harm to the public health or safety, without undermining criminal
enforcement, without causing any serious jeopardy to the public, then
that company can go ahead and correct that mistake and not be fined
because they were inadvertently not filling out Federal paperwork
correctly.
The third provision says that we are going to establish a paperwork
czar in each of the agencies, someone that small business will know is
going to give them the answer from EPA or OSHA or the Treasury
Department for every agency about the paperwork that they need to fill
out as a small business and someone who will be an advocate within the
agency to cut back on paperwork so that the agencies can start to meet
their goal.
And fourthly, it will set up a multiagency task force to say how do
we go further, how do we consolidate all of the different forms the
Federal Government has so that we actually reduce the amount of
paperwork that small businesses have?
I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to work with us on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the
resolution and the bill when it comes to the floor.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, before I rise in support of an open rule
for debate on H.R. 3310, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his efforts in not only developing the
rule but also in developing an attempt at a bipartisan relationship on
the underlying substance. Mr. McIntosh has certainly been open to the
many discussions that we have had to try to improve the bill.
During this process today, we are hopeful that we will continue to
see the kind of give and take here that can produce a better bill and
can enable us to move this bill successfully out of the House. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I will be offering an
amendment with that in mind.
In the meantime, as we go through this debate, I think Members of
Congress need to look very carefully at the implication of this bill as
it is currently formulated. It has been introduced under the title of
paperwork reduction, yet it would have an enormous effect on the
ability of Federal agencies to carry out and enforce the laws that have
been passed by Congress. As it stands now, and I again say as it stands
now, H.R. 3310 would grant mandatory waiver of civil fines to
businesses that are first-time violators with a wide range of paperwork
requirements.
[[Page H1562]]
Mr. Speaker, this language has been reviewed carefully by law
enforcement officials in the Department of Justice, and they have
raised a number of troubling issues. It is through information
collection that law enforcement agencies can detect drug trafficking
and money laundering. In turn, the Drug Enforcement Administration
relies on written reports to ensure that controlled substances such as
codeine and amphetamines are not diverted illegally. In order to carry
out drug testing laws, the Department of Transportation requires
reports from employers showing that their safety-sensitive employees
have passed drug tests.
Under the bill's current language, DEA's oversight of dangerous drugs
and the oversight of drug testing by DOT would be seriously undermined,
and one of the reasons why it is important to have a rule where we can
have open debate is to be able to bring into the record such testimony
as was presented by the Federal Government in committee, where they
talked about DOT requiring drug testing of safety-sensitive employees
and various modes of transportation. When some entity involved in the
drug testing process delays or deficiently reports the results of drug
tests, it will delay the removal of employees from performing important
safety functions.
Again, we would impose no fines for first-time violations even if the
violation was intentional or careless and reckless. This was one of the
concerns that was expressed in committee, and it is one of the concerns
that needs to be fully aired in this discussion not only of the rule
but in the underlying debate.
Furthermore, it has been stated that if a repair station fails to
keep the necessary records showing that a required repair has been made
to an aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration generally will have
to ground the aircraft for up to 5 days or longer until it can be shown
that the aircraft was correctly repaired.
{time} 1100
Grounding an aircraft could be extremely expensive for the airline as
well as being disruptive for any passengers who had reservations on the
flight in which the aircraft was to be used. Although the repair
station may suffer contractually, we could not fine it for a first-time
violation. Those remarks were made in committee, respecting the many
difficulties which are inherent with the bill as it is drafted.
Now, Federal agencies believe that H.R. 3310, as it stands now, would
interfere with the war on drugs, would undermine our ability to uncover
criminal activity, would allow small businesses to evade drug testing
statutes, and would harm our efforts to control illegal immigration.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I will be
introducing an amendment that is consistent with the underlying goals
of this legislation to help small businesses with their paperwork
requirements while protecting the health and safety of the public.
The Tierney-Kucinich amendment would ensure that Federal law
enforcement agencies and others continue to have the tools they need to
enforce many important statutes. It would do this by requiring all
agencies to establish specific programs and policies to allow them to
eliminate, delay, or reduce civil fines for first-time paperwork
violations. It would mandate that agencies take a number of factors
into account.
The amendment would ensure that paperwork reduction efforts are truly
relevant to special circumstances. Agencies would be able to tailor
their policies to the unique needs of the laws they are responsible to
enforce, and congressional review of their policies would become a
matter of course.
I urge my colleagues to support this open rule so that all of the
implications of this bill can be fully and carefully examined. An open
rule is important, Mr. Speaker, so that we can discuss the problems of
a bill which currently grants mandatory waiver of civil fines to
businesses that violate the law by failing to file reports, post OSHA
notices in the workplace, or inform their communities about hazardous
chemicals, so that we can talk about a bill which, in my estimation,
currently would provide some protection for drug traffickers.
Law enforcement agencies which detect the drug trafficking and money
laundering by using reports filed by businesses, we are told in the
analysis that the Department of Justice did that.
This particular bill, as it is drafted, would cause problems in
monitoring those important areas as well as encourage financial
institutions to not report cash transactions that are more than
$10,000.
Now, in the debate that will follow, we will go more into some of
these details, but suffice it to say that the open rule is important.
I would like to conclude where I began these remarks on the rule, Mr.
Speaker; and that is that I think that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) has made a good-faith effort to attempt to come up with a
bill that can be workable for all. I commend him on his efforts in that
regard.
I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). Again, I hope, as we go through this process
today, we can find a way to improve this bill so that we can all come
to an agreement.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It is a good bill,
and I urge its support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution
396 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3310.
{time} 1106
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3310) to
[[Page H1563]]
amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, for the purpose of
facilitating compliance by small businesses with certain Federal
paperwork requirements, and to establish a task force to examine the
feasibility of streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small
businesses, with Mr. Calvert in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
require.
Mr. Chairman, today the House takes up a bipartisan bill that I
introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), H.R. 3310, the
Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. This bill would give small
businesses relief from government paperwork and agencies freedom from
the ``gotcha'' techniques to which the President often refers.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the burden of government paperwork is
significant. It accounts for one-third of the total costs of all
Federal regulations or about $225 billion a year. It took 6.7 million
man-hours to complete all of the Federal paperwork in 1996, 6.7 million
man-hours of work to complete government paperwork.
Now, our bill amends the Paperwork Reduction Act, which needs to be
strengthened because the agencies have not met the goals to reducing
paperwork set by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Office of Management and Budget reported to Congress that,
instead of reaching the 10 percent goal in 1996, paperwork was only
reduced across the agencies by 2.6 percent. It is estimated to have
been reduced only by 1.8 percent in 1997, all this in spite of what
President Clinton proclaimed as policy for his administration.
I would like to quote from a speech that the President gave in 1995
in Arlington, Virginia: We will stop playing ``gotcha'' with decent,
honest business people who want to be good citizens. Compliance, not
punishment should be our objective.
I wholeheartedly agree with the President on that objective, and our
bill is a mechanism for furthering that goal.
At our first hearing the subcommittee held 3 weeks ago in which
several small business owners spoke about their concerns and
frustrations with government paperwork. Theresa Gearhart, who owns a
small trucking company in Hope, Indiana, came and told us about how her
company could grow and could create five new jobs next year. But they
can't create those jobs because of all the paperwork that would come
with them.
To demonstrate to my colleagues exactly how onerous that burden is,
Gary Bartlett in my district sent the Federal paperwork that was
required to be completed for one new hire. This stack of paperwork is
all of the paperwork that is needed for one new hire. So if you have a
company with 25 employees, they would have to complete the following
paperwork. This is half of it, Mr. Chairman, and this is the other
half. For 25 employees, that is what a small business has to fill out
every year in government paperwork. I think it is outrageous. I think
it is ridiculous.
Let me read to my colleagues just what some of those forms are. There
is the insurance information for COBRA; the EEO-1 form listing race and
gender of all employees, which then have to be kept hidden because you
cannot use race and gender in making employment decisions; the employee
evaluation, another document for EEOC; the disciplinary notices that
may go out also have to be documented for EEOC; IRS tax payment form
for automatic withdrawal of funds that have to be filled out weekly;
Federal IRS withholding forms that have to be filled out every year;
directory of new hires to comply with the Federal deadbeat dad law;
form for Federal loans for mortgages; FAA loan form; Fannie Mae; COBRA
notification explaining coverage options available when an employee
quits his job; FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act forms; W-2 forms, one to
the employee, and one must be kept on file for 8 years; employment
application to comply with Federal standards for criminal and drug
checks; receipt of safety glasses.
That is very important Federal paperwork that needs to be filled out
for every employee. Form 15 is a form for badge timecards which have to
be tracked to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Then there is
the IRS Form I-9 which has to be kept active for each employee and kept
on file for the employee 3 years after they have been hired; the W-4
form, for new hires to comply, again, with the deadbeat dad law; health
insurance form to keep track of COBRA; OSHA injury and illness report
form; an employee handbook for exempt employees, another EEOC form;
employee handbook for nonexempt employees, another EEOC form;
employee's copy of COBRA, which has to be signed and kept on file.
This is the paperwork that goes along with every job that is created
in America. If we do not do something to cut back on unnecessary
paperwork, reduce the amount of forms that have to be filled out, we
are making it more and more difficult for small businesses in this
country to create new high-paying jobs.
Now, one of small business' greatest fears is that they may not know
about all of these requirements. Mr. Bartlett happened to have kept
them on his site and has an employee who keeps track of all of them.
But when you only have four or five employees, or maybe 25 employees,
you cannot afford to hire another person just to keep track of all
these forms.
This is all in spite of the fact that some agencies have, indeed,
made steps to reduce their paperwork and have, indeed, adopted policy
that would waive fines for unintentional violations.
Gary Roberts, the owner of a small company which installs pipeline in
Sulfur Springs, Indiana, told us that he was fined by OSHA $750 because
of a hazardous communications program that was not on site.
All of his employees had been trained to comply with that hazardous
communications program. A copy of it was in the main office that Mr.
Roberts kept on file. But when the OSHA inspector came and they ran the
copy out to the job site, he said, That is not good enough. Even though
you have corrected the violation, you still have to pay $750. OSHA
would not waive the fine in spite of President Clinton's directive not
to play ``gotcha''.
Now, the consensus among the witnesses is that the small business
owners genuinely want to comply with these regulations, they want to be
good law-abiding citizens. They do not like filling out the form, but
if that is what they are required to do, they will do it to meet their
obligations under the law. But, frankly, they are overwhelmed, and they
cannot do their job and run a business at the same time as they are
filling out all of this paperwork.
The legislation that we bring to the floor today will help correct
that. It does four things, Mr. Chairman. It would require that a list
of all of these regulations and any other regulation that a small
business has to comply with will be put on the Internet so that every
employer has access to that via computer and can know what is expected
of them.
Second, it would offer small businesses compliance assistance rather
than fines. Let me go back again to President Clinton's quote, because
I think our bill does exactly what he wanted to do: We will stop
playing ``gotcha'' with decent, honest, business people who want to be
good citizens.
Compliance, not punishment, should be our objective. So we have
incorporated in section 2 a waiver that says if a small business makes
a mistake somewhere in this stack of forms, they did not fill out the
box correctly, or they did not keep it up to date, but it was a
harmless mistake that did not endanger public safety, did not threaten
law enforcement activities, did not interfere with the Internal Revenue
Service collection of taxes, that harmless mistake can be corrected,
and they will not suffer a fine for doing that in their business.
{time} 1115
I think it is common sense. I think it is what small businesses have
been telling us they want government to do.
[[Page H1564]]
They want to be good citizens, they want our help, but they do not
want to feel that they have to live in fear of a government agency that
will come in and play ``gotcha'' if they happen to make a mistake in
one of these stacks of forms.
Third, it would establish a paperwork czar in each of the agencies,
someone where small business can go and talk to about the paperwork
that they are required to do; someone who is an advocate for small
businesses within the agency. Maybe over at the EEOC they could tell
them, look, we have about 5 different forms here that we ask these
businesses to fill out; why do we not think about consolidating that
and just have one form that people can fill out for their employees?
That is what is needed within the agency, to be an advocate for these
small businesses. Finally, a multi-agency task force to study how we
can further streamline these requirements.
Mr. Chairman, it would be my fondest dream if we could take these
stacks of regulations for 25 employees and say, we do not need half of
this. The government can get rid of half of this stack, and we can get
all the information we need to know from those small businesses.
Now, I am pleased to say that this bill does have bipartisan support.
There is some controversy that has come up around section 2, the
provision that focuses on the suspension of first-time paperwork
violations, and I want to say I appreciate the concerns that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) have raised as we have tried to craft that provision.
They have given us some insight into areas where we can actually do a
better job in crafting that, and in the committee we made changes to
that provision.
We created an exemption for if there were actual harm, an exception
if there was a threat to public health and safety, an exception for any
IRS form, and that, by the way, would include any form that is required
under the Internal Revenue Code. There is also an exemption of the
waiver for fines in cases where the fines would interfere or impede the
detection of criminal activity. This exemption covers any case where
the waiver of a fine would interfere with or impede the detection of an
illegal drug transaction.
This bill now includes many of the factors that the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) brought forward to our committee, and I want to
thank him for his hard work on this bill as well. He deserves a lot of
credit for it, he has given a lot of thought to this bill, and the
factors that he asked us to include are frankly common sense factors
for when the agency might decide that in spite of the fact we are
requiring a waiver, this business does not deserve it, and we have
written that into the bill.
They can say, no, you do not have 6 months to correct it, you only
have 24 hours, because it is so important, it is a threat to public
health and safety, or if it impedes their effort to detect criminal
conduct, they can decide they are not going to waive a particular fine
for a particular business.
One of the things that I think it is important to stress here, by the
way, is that our bill does not exempt any small business from the
requirement to fill out these forms; this provision merely says, if you
make a mistake, you have 6 months to correct it. But the requirement
still remains in place until we have a chance to go through the
agencies form-by-form and reduce that paperwork.
Now, all of these exemptions will ensure that the bill and the waiver
provision do not have any unintended or harmful consequences. As I have
said, this bill is consistent with Vice President Gore's Reinventing
Government Initiative and President Clinton's statement that I read
earlier. In 1995, the President actually ordered the agencies to waive
fines for small businesses so that they could correct their mistakes.
Our bill builds on that initiative of the President, puts it into law,
because frankly, the testimony we took at a lot of our field hearings
and the hearings we had 3 weeks ago showed that the agencies are
ignoring the President's directive and continuing to fine small
businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical that we protect our Nation's
small businesses from these kinds of ``gotcha'' techniques. The bill
retains all of the agency's enforcement powers, except for the civil
fine. So if they find out there is a real threat that a law might be
violated in a criminal action or a real threat or imminent threat to
health and human safety, they can still come in with all of the
criminal law powers that the agency has, they can still come in with
all of the injunction relief that they have.
Mr. Chairman, many agencies today can actually shut down America's
small business if they feel that a crime is being committed. This bill
continues to give them all of those tools to make sure that a bad actor
is not allowed off the hook. This bill does allow fines where there
actually is harm that has been created.
So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would ask the Members of the House
to pass the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act today so that we can
bring some sanity back into the process to go a long way toward helping
our Nation's small businesses deal with the excessive paperwork, get
back to their real business of creating jobs for American workers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort
to reduce the burden of government paperwork for all of our Nation's
small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
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
[[Page H1565]]
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. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. It has been a pleasure to work with both of my colleagues in
trying to make this a better bill.
This bill that we are considering is the product of intensive
bipartisan effort, and I think that since the beginning of our joint
work on the bill, we have to realize that we have been focused on 2
goals: first, to help small businesses comply with paperwork
requirements so that small business owners can devote more time to
creating jobs for our people; and second, to make sure that the health
and safety of the public and the integrity of environmental laws,
worker protection and consumer protection laws are upheld.
I think we are all in agreement that small business is the backbone
of our country, that small business creates the vast majority of new
jobs, that small business owners work hard to build their communities;
that small business needs to spend their time creating jobs, and it is
the duty of the Federal Government to streamline paperwork requirements
to allow small business to focus on job creation and economic
development. We know that most small businesses obey the law. They are
good Americans, I salute them, and I agree with both sides of the
aisle, I think we are in agreement that we are both for small business.
But since the outset of this bill, we knew that the bill would go
through improvements as we gain more and more information. I made this
very clear in every statement that I made, both public and private,
about the bill. In fact, every time that the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I have consulted with agencies about
the impact of the bill, we have made changes that have improved the
legislation.
{time} 1130
In turn, after hearing from small business owners recently, we have
come up with more improvements in the bill that are consistent with our
goals.
Based on the results of a hearing last Tuesday, we now have the
benefit of the experience of a wide range of executive agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Justice. All of these agencies, to one
extent or the other, have implemented programs to help small businesses
comply with their paperwork requirements.
At the same time, all of them are required to enforce a number of
statutes. Oftentimes the ability of these agencies to protect the
public interest depends, depends on the information that they collect
through paperwork documents.
It has now become clear that one provision of the current draft of
the bill, the mandatory waiver of civil fines, would in fact have the
unintended consequence of making it more difficult to protect the
health and safety of the public, of workers, of consumers, of all of
those who are protected by law enforcement officials.
That, of course, was never my intent as a cosponsor, and when I heard
this testimony from the U.S. Department of Justice, I have to say, Mr.
Chairman, it gave me pause, because what the U.S. Department of Justice
said was, ``The civil penalty waiver would have adverse effects that I
am confident neither you nor any of the bill's other sponsors would
intend. As I will describe, this position would interfere with the war
on drugs, hinder efforts to control illegal immigration, undermine
safety protections, hamper programs to protect children and pregnant
mothers from lead poisoning, and undercut controls on fraud against
consumers and the United States.''
The Department of Justice said that this result would put law-abiding
businesses at an unfair competitive disadvantage, and could endanger
the public. They go on to say, and I think it is critical that this be
introduced into the Record in this debate, that the existing statutes
and policies of the administration, and in particular, the President's
memorandum of April 21, 1995, where he asked all agencies to reduce
small business reporting requirements and to develop policies to modify
or waive penalties for small businesses when a violation is corrected
[[Page H1566]]
within a time period appropriate to the violation in question, and in
addition to that, the Department of Justice's current policies, where
they say that the components with regulatory functions provide for the
waiver of civil penalties in appropriate circumstances, we have
policies right now that respect small business.
We need to go further, but the Department of Justice has said about
this bill, as it is currently constituted, that we have to recognize
that we have statutes and policies appropriate to recognize a good-
faith effort to comply with the law, the impact of civil penalties on
small businesses and other factors that may appropriately be considered
in insisting on civil penalties. This policy compliments ongoing agency
efforts specifically designed to help small businesses understand and
comply with the law.
The Department of Justice says, and I agree, that we must continue
our search for effective ways to streamline and simplify reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that apply to small businesses. But efforts
to streamline reporting need not undermine law enforcement or
regulatory safeguards that protect the public from safety, health, or
environmental hazards.
After hearing this, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
and I drafted an amendment which we think will meet the needs of small
business for relief, and at the same time provide continued protections
for the people of this country with respect to public health, public
safety, and the environment.
I believe that we have provided an opportunity to produce a bill
which can be agreed on, not only on both sides of the aisle, but will
get the approval of the administration. But lacking that, we are
missing an opportunity to be of service to small business.
I want to commend the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh), the chairman, to try to develop a better bill. We are not
there just yet, Mr. Chairman, but we can keep trying. We have another
hour.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for
the leadership he has shown on repeatedly insisting on protecting the
rights of small business, at the same time regarding our obligation for
the safety, the health, and the environment of the people of this
country.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me go through in some detail how this provision
works on the suspension of fines for first-time violations.
Under the current law, what happens is paperwork is not filed or
there is an error in the way the paperwork is filled out, or some other
violation of the form not being in the right place at the right time.
It is discovered by an agency, usually somebody who is coming in and
inspecting a small business. Then there is a civil penalty. They are
either written up on the spot or they receive in the mail a notice that
they owe the government $750, $1,000, $2,000. That is the current law.
Now, what happens under our revision to the law has been greatly
misunderstood by the agencies. When we hear about this ``might impede
criminal violations, it might cause a threat to health and safety,'' I
hear those all the time when we talk about government regulations.
Frankly, the agencies are a lot like traffic cops, where it is a lot
easier to give out a speeding ticket than it is to apprehend a criminal
who has been robbing somebody's house. So they like to give out
speeding tickets, but they are a little bit nervous about going after
the armed criminal who just robbed somebody's house.
But frankly, my preference would be that the agencies go after the
bad guys and spend a little less time harassing innocent small
businesses. So we have written a provision that would take care of
this. First of all, if the paperwork is not filed or filed incorrectly,
or not on site where it should be, it is discovered by the agency, then
they have to go through a series of decisions before they assess a
civil penalty.
First, does the violation cause actual harm? In that case there is a
civil penalty, because if it has actually caused harm in some way, it
is only fair that that business be penalized because of that harm. The
failure to fill out the paperwork was a grave error and they should
have taken care of it.
Second, if it threatens harm. So if there is no actual harm that
occurred, but it might have caused actual harm in an imminent dangerous
situation, then there is a civil penalty.
The third decision is, does it involve the Internal Revenue Act? We
have explicitly exempted all of the paperwork that is required under
the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. So there would be a
civil penalty.
By the way, much has been made in the discussion of this bill about
the $10,000 cash transaction that is often used for laundering drug
money. But frankly, there is no basis for saying that that transaction
would not be covered under the civil penalties.
I happen to have brought with me one of the forms that is required to
be filled out when you have cash payments over $10,000. It is Form
8300. It is issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Every bank has to
fill it out if they get a deposit over $10,000. It has an OMB circular
number. Because of this provision that the Internal Revenue laws are
exempt from our waiver provision, if you fail to fill this out, you are
going to be subject to a civil penalty.
The fourth is if it interferes with the detection of criminal
activity, which, by the way, is the reason they have people fill out
this $10,000 form, because money launderers tend to drop large amounts
of cash into a bank and then withdraw it quickly. On that ground, you
would still pay a civil penalty if you fail to fill out the form.
Finally, if a violation is not corrected within 6 months, or if it is
a serious violation, within 24 hours, then there is a civil penalty.
In every case, all we are saying is we are waiving the fine and
allowing people time to correct the error. But we still have the
injunctive relief, we still have the ability to come in and, if there
is criminal fraud involved, say they are going to be subject to
criminal penalties.
I was, frankly, a little disturbed to hear from the agencies that
they are opposed to this bill. Then I went back and looked at their
records under the paperwork reduction policy.
I noticed the Department of Labor, which opposes this bill, has
failed to meet its 10 percent goal in both years. They only reduced it
by 9\1/2\ percent in 1996 and by 8 percent in 1997.
The Department of Transportation, it has a somewhat mixed record. It
actually exceeded its goal and reached 27 percent reduction in 1996,
but then in 1997 something must have gone haywire, and they have
increased paperwork by 32 percent, for a net increase from that agency.
The Department of Justice initially did a terrible job, and in 1996
only reduced paperwork by 1.4 percent. Last year they did a lot better.
I will give them credit for that. They were at 14.5 percent reduction,
but they still failed to meet the 20 percent goal.
EPA, the final agency listed in the statement of administration
policy, they have actually increased paperwork in both years. It went
up 4.5 percent in 1996 and 6.9 percent in 1997. So these agencies, it
does not surprise me that they are advising the President that this is
not a good bill.
Fortunately, and the President is in Africa, when he gets back he
will have a chance to review the record and realize that what we are
doing is putting into law what he said he wanted to do back in 1995.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that chart that says ``current law'' it
seems to me is quite misleading, because nowhere in that chart does the
gentleman indicate that just 2 years ago the Congress passed, and we
all voted for it and heralded it as a great improvement, the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
That law, which is called SBREFA, was passed with strong bipartisan
support. It calls on the agencies to use discretion not to impose civil
penalties where there are other circumstances that ought to be factored
in. It seems to me that should be reflected in the reality of current
law.
Mr. McINTOSH. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, we did
pass SBREFA 2 years ago. We gave the agencies discretion, as the
gentleman mentioned, discretion to adopt policies that would allow a
waiver of civil penalty. But as case after case has demonstrated, the
agencies are refusing to
[[Page H1567]]
use that discretion. They continue to impose the civil penalties.
The key difference between SBREFA and our law is that we take it the
next step. We say, by right the small agencies can correct the
mistakes, unless it causes harm, threatens to cause harm, violates the
Internal Revenue Service, would impede criminal detection, or is not
corrected in 6 months.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the statement was made that in case after
case the agencies have not gone along with the discretion the Congress
required them to use before they imposed civil penalties. I do not see
how the gentleman can make that statement.
The law specifically requires each agency to file with the Congress
whether they have employed this discretionary authority or not. The
reports are due in the next couple of days. I do not think the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has had any advance notice of it.
He is making statements for which he has no backing, no authority. We
ought to look at the reports from the administration on the exercise of
SBREFA.
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. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3310, the Small
Business Paperwork Reduction Act, as it is currently constituted. This
legislation is not only not needed and is unnecessary, but could in
fact actually make the American workplace more dangerous than it
currently is.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that this
bill does not constitute a viable approach to addressing small business
compliance with needed safety and health regulations. In fact, this
bill would create disincentives for voluntary compliance, compromise
consumer protection laws, and worker and passenger safety.
The AFL-CIO states this bill will weaken the pension safeguards
currently in place to protect the American worker.
{time} 1145
I agree with all of those who say that we must work to ensure that
workers' retirement and health benefits will be there when we need
them.
Information collection requirements are essential to a wide variety
of protections on which we all must rely. A blanket provision waiving
civil penalties for first-time violators could put the health and
safety of our families and our communities at risk.
This bill is the start of a movement where the biggest and most
powerful want more than what is offered. We must work together to
protect the basic rights of our Democratic community.
I am reminded of something that A. Philip Randolph once said when he
said that ``a community is only democratic when the humblest and
weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic and social rights
that the biggest and most powerful possess.''
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill, which would instill substantive negative effects, hamper law
enforcement, jeopardize human safety and health and environmental
protection for working families.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct us as to how much time
each respective side has remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has
13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh)
has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the query of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) about do we see a problem, I would just mention
to the gentleman the testimony we heard in subcommittee from Gary
Roberts, the owner of a small company that installs pipelines in Sulfur
Springs, Indiana. He was fined last May $750. This is after SBREFA had
been passed and after OSHA was supposed to have adopted a policy in
these areas. He had a hazardous communications program in his home
office. His employees had been trained on that. When the inspector
showed up at the job site, they brought the communications program to
show the inspector right there as he was inspecting the job site, and
yet Mr. Roberts was fined $750.
Now, I think there clearly is a problem. By the way, I do not think
filling out this much paperwork for 12 employees has anything to do
with democratic process. I am a big supporter of the democratic
process, but it does not require this much paperwork for us to engage
in the democratic process in this country.
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. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we have before us today is a solution in
search of a problem. If we listen to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh), he is raising concerns that we have a paperwork problem for
small business. We all are concerned about the paperwork burden on
small businesses, and that is why the Congress responded just 2 years
ago by adopting the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
or what is called SBREFA. This was passed with strong bipartisan
support. We all heralded it as a way to reduce that paperwork burden.
It called on the agencies to use discretion and not to impose a fine if
there was some inadvertence in filing the necessary paperwork that was
required by law.
We have seen other reforms by both Democratic and Republican
Congresses, and we have seen this administration attempt to reinvent
government so that it would be more efficient and fairer.
But what we have in this bill before us today is not a reduction in
the amount of paperwork that would be imposed on small businesses but
an excuse for small businesses not to file the paperwork required of
them.
The administration witnesses from the Department of Justice and the
Environmental Protection Agency and other areas of the Federal
Government came in and said that what this would do would encourage
some small businesses to intentionally refuse to file the paperwork
required of them, and that could interfere with the war on drugs,
hinder efforts to control illegal immigration, undermine food safety
protections, hamper programs to protect children and pregnant mothers
from lead poisoning, and undercut the controls on fraud against
consumers and the United States. That seems to me a risk not worth
taking if that will be the result of this legislation.
The legislation says not that we use discretion to not impose a civil
penalty. The legislation that the gentleman from Indiana is proposing
says that under no circumstances will we ever impose a fine for failure
to file the paperwork on the first offense. And that just says no
matter what, we are not going to have a fine.
Well, if one is laundering money and there is a requirement to report
$10,000
[[Page H1568]]
transactions and an institution is involved in some skullduggery, they
will decide that it will be in their interest not to file that
information. They know they have a safe harbor, they can never be fined
or anyone take offense at their failure to abide by that law.
Now, there are times when health and safety can be affected, but we
are not going to know whether health and safety will be affected unless
the paperwork has been filed that might indicate that there is a drug
for which there are side effects or there is lead in a house that is
being sold. But the seller, small business seller, does not disclose
that fact, as is required by the law, because they do not want to
discourage the purchaser from going ahead and buying the property. They
know that they can get away without making these disclosures because of
this legislation.
We are going to have before us an amendment by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
that I think is a far more reasonable approach. It will say, in effect,
that we should not go and impose a fine on small businesses if their
inadvertence to file the paperwork was technical or inadvertent. If it
involved willful or criminal conduct, we are not going to excuse that
paperwork requirement. Or if they threaten to cause harm to health and
safety of the public, consumers, investors, workers, or pension
programs or the environment, we are not going to waive it. But if there
were not that kind of matter, but in fact a good-faith effort to comply
and rectify the violations, then there is no reason to have a civil
penalty imposed.
There is going to be another amendment that we will have later today,
and that is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh), and it is going to say that we will prohibit the States from
enforcing their own regulatory requirements. Now, all the Members of
Congress who have come to this floor and extolled State's rights
certainly ought to be opposing that amendment which will tell the
States we are going to take away their ability to enforce their own
laws and Federal laws and make all States abide by a one-size-fits-all
approach that we in Washington will impose upon them.
Mr. Chairman, when we get into the amendment process, I would urge
Members to support the Kucinich-Tierney amendment to make this bill
worthwhile. If that amendment fails, then I want to point out that the
administration is threatening a veto. In addition to that, the bill is
opposed by the labor movement because they are worried about what it is
going to do to workers, by environmentalists, by consumer advocates, by
a wide range of groups that fear that this bill that sounds like it is
doing something for small business is going to in fact do a great deal
of harm to the American people.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) the chairman of the Committee on
Small Business, let me point out, and I understand how in debate we
sometimes exaggerate things around here, but as I showed all of our
colleagues, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said was
simply not true: that automatically we would waive all fines under my
bill.
Mr. Chairman, if there is a serious threat of harm to public health,
if there is actual harm. And all of these provisions have been written
into the bill, and in spite of the fact that they are there in black
and white in plain English, the gentleman from California continues to
say the same lines that he knows are not true, over and over again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) chairman of the Committee on Small Business.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Small Business had concurrent
jurisdiction over this bill, and I was happy to waive it in part
because we have had so many hearings on this and these kinds of issues
that I thought it really was not worth additional hearings or
deliberations on the part of the committee, because to me, this just
seems to me a very simple thing. Do we want to stand with and for the
small businesspeople of this country against one of the things that
irks them and demoralizes them and costs them the most, which is
useless kind of government paperwork and arbitrary kinds of fines? Or
do we want to stand with the government, with big government, with the
regulatory state that believes that unless these people are minutely
watched in all they do, they are going to go out and do all of these
terrible things? It is a question of where we put our faith.
Mr. Chairman, all the bill says is we do not want agencies to fine
small businesspeople for paperwork violations that do not matter to
anything, that do not matter to the interest of the agency or public
health and safety. They can check the paperwork violation, they can
inspect them and tell them to do it over again and tell them to do it
over in the future, but they cannot fine them.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want the agencies spending their enforcement
time and effort tracking down people like Mr. Pat Caden of Caden's
Restaurant in Tacoma, Washington, who was fined $1,000 because he had
one missing material safety data sheet on handsoap, which he offered to
provide by fax in 2 minutes. I want OSHA worrying about safety. I do
not want them worrying about material safety data sheets that do not
have anything to do with safety and that nobody even reads outside the
context of an inspection.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want small businesspeople to feel like in
order to do business in this country they have to pay protection to
agencies, because that is what it amounts to. They come into the
workplace and hit businesspeople with paperwork violations because that
is easy for them to find. They pay the agencies $1,000 or $2,000.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to stop when I am in the middle of
``catharting.'' Mr. Chairman, businesses pay them fines of $1,000 or
$2,000 and they go away for a while, just for a while. It is like the
mob. They will leave people alone if they pay them protection. That is
what this bill is about.
The argument on the other side seems to be that there are drug
dealers out there, people smuggling in thousands and thousands of
illegal immigrants who this bill will unleash, I suppose on the
assumption that the possibility that the government might hit them with
a fine for a paperwork violation is currently deterring them from
selling millions and millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs on the
black market or bringing in thousands and thousands of immigrants;
that, Mr. Chairman, these people who are not deterred by the huge
felony penalty for doing these things might be deterred by the prospect
that INS might come on their workplace and fine them for a meaningless
paperwork violation.
Again, we talk about the bill being a ``solution in search of a
problem.'' The arguments against it are rationalization. It is just a
question of where one stands. I would say that these kinds of bills do
highlight the deep philosophical divisions in the House.
My faith is with the small businesspeople in this country, the
private sector in the country, 99 percent of whom are trying to do good
things in their communities for good reasons. All we are saying is,
look, do not fine them for meaningless things. Agencies should
concentrate their energies on health and safety or social justice in
the workplace or environmental quality, and let businesses concentrate
their efforts on building jobs and building the economic infrastructure
in their communities and everybody will be better off.
{time} 1200
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.
[[Page H1569]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just shocked by the comments of the
last speaker, because he said that we want to extol the virtues of
small business, and we all agree to that, but then described Federal
agencies, government employees that are trying to enforce the laws as
equivalent to the mob. He said they are out for protection money. Is
that the way we view government? It just seems to me an opening, a
window to the mentality that would present this kind of legislation to
us.
There are willful, intentional, reckless violations of the law that
will not be in any way prosecuted under this legislation, because if it
is a first-time offense, even if it were reckless and willful, then it
would not be enforced.
How does my colleague justify doing that sort of thing, even if it is
a reckless, willful violation of filing the report that indicates there
is a hazard that workers may be exposed to? How can he justify that?
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we do not justify it because the
bill does not allow that. It still requires people to fill out the
paperwork. What it says is, if they can correct it and it causes no
harm, they will not be zapped with a civil fine.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that is not what the bill says. The bill
says there will be a safe harbor, that there may not be, under any
circumstance, the imposition of a money penalty for a first-time
violation even if it were willful.
I yield to the gentleman to explain why he would do that.
Mr. McINTOSH. Well, because in addition to a civil penalty, the
agencies have the ability to enjoin the business from further
conducting its affairs. That is not affected by our bill. They have
criminal provisions if there is fraud or willful violation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Let me say, that is not adequate. The reason it is not
adequate is because they are going to impose a worse scenario for small
businesses if they expect the agency to come and get injunctions, if it
is a drug company to shut them down. What is involved in getting this
paperwork is to know if there are problems, and then try to clear them
up, not give a safe harbor for those who willfully violate the law.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Let me say very clearly, there is a huge difference here, because I
think it may have been the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who pointed out what all of
us recognize, that probably 99 percent of America's small businesses
are good actors; they are trying to comply, they are not willfully not
following the rules and filling out the paper work.
In the case of the 1 percent who are bad actors, who are trying to
commit a crime, trying to ignore the law, I think the agency should
come in and hit them with whatever it takes to get them to comply with
the law.
The real difference here is the view of small businesses, because the
coalition that has been for the special interests here in Washington to
oppose this bill thinks that what we do is give them a get-out-of-jail-
free card.
I quote from an e-mail that they circulated this morning,
They think small businesses are criminals, and that is, why
they are opposing this bill is they think that the Nation's
small businesses are criminals. We don't believe that.
And that is what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) was saying
so emphatically. We think the vast majority of small businesses in this
country are good, decent people who are trying to get a job done,
trying to hire people and create jobs in their economy, and they do not
deserve to be zapped by Federal agencies when they make an innocent
mistake. That is what the essence of this bill is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on my side. I
would like to reserve the balance of our time for closing if the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has any on his side.
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.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman
here, trying to change this bill. I was an original cosponsor. I
believe in paperwork reduction. But what this bill would do, it would
put in danger small businesses.
[[Page H1570]]
In my district, 90 people, including the president of the company,
just lost their pension. Now, that happened even with the controls we
have today. There is only one document really that gets filed on
401(k)s, which was the only pension these folks had, and that is Form
5500 from the Labor Department to find out if your 401(k) is really
getting the money that it is supposed to be getting.
Under this bill, if you keep the original text, those workers are
completely exposed. The biggest loser in this loss of the 401(k)? The
president of the company, the head guy of the small business, because
he had the biggest investment there.
This is not pro small business. This would support people who want to
skirt and avoid the law and, frankly, would leave working families and
small businessmen vulnerable in so many cases, so many cases where they
buy products, where they have responsibilities to carry out for
consumers.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I understand that when there are no other
speakers, I have the right to close. Is that correct? Which I am
willing to do now if the gentleman is finished.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional speaker. But my
colleague still has time left, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana may reserve for
closing. Is that the intent of the gentleman?
Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to close now if
the gentleman is ready to proceed with amendments.
Mr. TIERNEY. We have one more speaker, if we might, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for
1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who believes other
than that most small businesses are law abiding. And the earlier
reference that those who are standing up for environmental protections,
workplace protections, fighting money laundering, and promoting drug
testing somehow believe that small businesses represent a criminal
class is fairly ridiculous, and it is unfortunate to have that kind of
reference in what has been otherwise an important debate.
The problem with the bill is that, and this is a central part that
has to be remembered, is the process of agency determination only kicks
in if a violation has been discovered, because a business which has
failed to file paperwork, that violation may never be discovered.
This is a matter of what we do not know may very well hurt us. It is
not useless paperwork to require filings that have to do with drug
testing, food safety, to avoid stock fraud, to stop money laundering,
to promote workplace safety, to promote air passenger safety, to
promote a safe environment. I mean, this is part of the responsibility
of the government. This is our government, the government of the
people; and one of the things we have to do is to promote for the
general welfare of the people. That is why we are here.
And so the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I will be
offering an amendment which seeks to install in this legislation that
essential imperative of our responsibility as government officials.
The violations that are discussed here, once they are uncovered, the
onus is still on the agency to prove that one of five conditions has
been met in order for the business to be fined. This bill would tie the
hands of law enforcement in this country, and I urge its rejection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized
for closing for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me return to the tone
that we had at the beginning of this debate because I agree with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that is a helpful one.
I do want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman
from Ohio for their input in this bill at the subcommittee and
committee levels. We will not be able to have an exact meeting of the
minds today on the amendment that they are offering, but some of the
points that they raised have been very helpful in crafting this bill.
For example, Mr. Gejdenson's concern that perhaps 401(k) programs
would be exposed because of this bill, I would reassure him that
looking at section B(iii) that says, ``the violation is a violation of
an Internal Revenue law or a law concerning the assessment of
collection of any tax debt revenue or receipt.'' Well, section 401(k)
is section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code; and so that paperwork
would continue to be fully covered even under the civil fine
provisions.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that many of the Nation's small
business leaders have spoken out in favor of this bill. The National
Federation of Independent Businesses, NFIB; the National Small Business
United; the National Association of Women Business Owners; Small
Business Survival Committee, American Farm Bureau; National Beer
Wholesalers Association; National Association of Metal Finishers;
National Automobile Dealers Association, and the printing industries of
America have all endorsed our bill, H.R. 3110.
I think it is a very good bill. It moves forward under the Paperwork
Reduction Act where the agencies have failed to act. And in particular,
the provision that is a waiver of the first-time fines for failure to
fill out the paperwork, I think is a good provision. What it says to
our Nation's small businesses is, we know we are giving you too much
paperwork. If you happen to make a mistake somewhere along the line and
it does not cause any harm, is not a threat to harm, does not impede
criminal investigations, does not have to do with your obligation to
pay taxes or to protect your pension fund, then you are going to be
given a second chance.
I think that is all that we can do. When our Nation's small business
and one that employees 25 people has to fill out this much paperwork,
Mr. Chairman, I think the least we can do is say, we are going to be on
your side and be forgiving if you commit a harmless error somewhere in
those thousands of pages.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, join the NFIB
and other small businesses and the Farm Bureau and other groups in
finally bringing this legislation to pass.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to H.R.
3319, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998,
introduced by my colleague, Representative David McIntosh.
Small businesses are the engine of our national economy. Numbering
twenty two million today, small businesses generate approximately half
of all U.S. jobs and sales. Compared to larger businesses, they hire a
greater proportion of individuals who might otherwise be unemployed--
part-time employees, employees with limited educational background,
young and elderly individuals, and individuals on public assistance.
Yet the smallest firms carry out the heaviest regulatory burden. They
bear sixty-three percent of the total regulatory burden, amounting to
$247 billion/year. Firms with under fifty employees spend on average
nineteen cents out of every revenue dollar on regulatory costs. Small
businesses desperately need relief from the burden of government
paperwork.
One of small businesses' greatest fears is that they will be fined
for an innocent mistake or oversight. The time and money required to
keep up with government paperwork prevents small businesses from
growing and creating new jobs. Paperwork counts for one third of total
regulatory costs or $225 billion. In 1996, it required 6.7 billion man
hours to complete government paperwork.
H.R. 3310 will give small businesses the relief they need from the
burden of paperwork. It will put on the Internet a comprehensive list
of all the federal paperwork requirements for small businesses
organized by industry as well as establish a point of contact in each
agency for small businesses on paperwork requirements. This legislation
encourages cooperation and proper compliance by offering small
businesses compliance assistance instead of fines on first-time
paperwork violations which do not present a threat to public health and
safety. Lastly, it will establish a task force including
representatives from the major regulatory agencies to study how to
streamline reporting requirements for small businesses. This
legislation goes a long way in addressing the demands for reform of
many of my small businessmen and women in the Baltimore area and the
2nd District of Maryland.
[[Page H1571]]
Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act will bring
common sense into the process and go a long way toward relieving small
businesses of excessive paperwork and fines. Please join me in strongly
supporting this common-sense paperwork reduction bill for small
business.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3310, the
Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998. The intent
of H.R. 3310 is worthy. For years, the small business community has
voiced its concerns about the scope and burden of regulatory costs.
These concerns were addressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and by
the Administration in their current efforts to streamline paperwork
requirements.
Small business is responsible for 80% of the jobs that are created in
our country. We are innovative and prosperous when our capital markets
are efficient and the demands by the federal government reasonable. I
was self-employed not too long ago and remember well the challenges
that any small business faces. Some of these challenges are addressed
by H.R. 3310: requiring the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs to publish a list annually on the Internet and in the Federal
Register of all the federal paperwork requirements for small business;
requiring each agency to establish one point of contact to act as a
liaison with small businesses; and establishing a task force to study
the feasibility of streamlining reporting requirements for small
businesses.
The central problem with H.R. 3310 is its provision suspending civil
fines for first-time violations by small businesses when they fail to
comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements. I believe that
this well-intentioned provision may reduce compliance and hamper the
government's role to protect the public. When pension administrators,
banks, financial advisors, food and drug manufacturers, and employers
violate the law, these violations would not be addressed, even if
willful, until a second violation.
Under H.R. 3310, a pattern of noncompliance would be difficult to
detect by the agency with jurisdiction. For instance, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission's efforts to monitor product safety would be
hampered. Compliance with the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, which requires disclosure of lead-based paint
hazards to prospective renters or buyers, would be reduced. The same
applies to OSHA and ERISA requirements.
The case is clear that the burden of paperwork requirements does not
outweigh public health, safety, and financial security considerations.
While the title of H.R. 3310 is appealing, I believe its enactment
would have serious, negative consequences on our nation. That is why I
voted against H.R. 3310.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 3310
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Paperwork
Reduction Act Amendments of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FACILITATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL PAPERWORK
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Requirements Applicable to the Director of OMB.--
Section 3504(c) of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''), is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) publish in the Federal Register on an annual basis a
list of the requirements applicable to small-business
concerns (within the meaning of section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) with respect to
collection of information by agencies, organized by North
American Industrial Classification System code and
industrial/sector description (as published by the Office of
Management and Budget), with the first such publication
occurring not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act
Amendments of 1998; and
``(7) make available on the Internet, not later than one
year after the date of the enactment of such Act, the list of
requirements described in paragraph (6).''.
(b) Establishment of Agency Point of Contact; Suspension of
Fines for First-Time Paperwork Violations.--Section 3506 of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i)(1) In addition to the requirements described in
subsection (c), each agency shall, with respect to the
collection of information and the control of paperwork--
``(A) establish one point of contact in the agency to act
as a liaison between the agency and small-business concerns
(within the meaning of section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)); and
``(B) in any case of a first-time violation by a small-
business concern of a requirement regarding collection of
information by the agency, provide that no civil fine shall
be imposed on the small-business concern unless, based on the
particular facts and circumstances regarding the
violation--
``(i) the head of the agency determines that the violation
has caused actual serious harm to the public;
``(ii) the head of the agency determines that failure to
impose a civil fine would impede or interfere with the
detection of criminal activity;
``(iii) the violation is a violation of an internal revenue
law or a law concerning the assessment or collection of any
tax, debt, revenue, or receipt;
``(iv) the violation is not corrected on or before the date
that is six months after the date of receipt by the small-
business concern of notification of the violation in writing
from the agency; or
``(v) except as provided in paragraph (2), the head of the
agency determines that the violation presents an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or safety.
``(2)(A) In any case in which the head of an agency
determines that a first-time violation by a small-business
concern of a requirement regarding the collection of
information presents an imminent and substantial danger to
the public health or safety, the head of the agency may,
notwithstanding paragraph (1)(B)(v), determine that a civil
fine should not be imposed on the small-business concern if
the violation is corrected within 24 hours of receipt of
notice in writing by the small-business concern of the
violation.
``(B) In determining whether to provide a small-business
concern with 24 hours to correct a violation under
subparagraph (A), the head of the agency shall take into
account all of the facts and circumstances regarding the
violation, including--
``(i) the nature and seriousness of the violation,
including whether the violation is technical or inadvertent
or involves willful or criminal conduct;
``(ii) whether the small-business concern has made a good
faith effort to comply with applicable laws, and to remedy
the violation within the shortest practicable period of time;
``(iii) the previous compliance history of the small-
business concern, including whether the small-business
concern, its owner or owners, or its principal officers have
been subject to past enforcement actions; and
``(iv) whether the small-business concern has obtained a
significant economic benefit from the violation.
``(3) In any case in which the head of the agency imposes a
civil fine on a small-business concern for a first-time
violation of a requirement regarding collection of
information which the agency head has determined presents an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
safety, and does not provide the small-business concern with
24 hours to correct the violation, the head of the agency
shall notify Congress regarding such determination not later
than 60 days after the date that the civil fine is imposed by
the agency.''.
(c) Additional Reduction of Paperwork for Certain Small
Businesses.--Section 3506(c) of title 44, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (3)(J), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) in addition to the requirements of this Act regarding
the reduction of paperwork for small-business concerns
(within the meaning of section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)), make efforts to further reduce the
paperwork burden for small-business concerns with fewer than
25 employees.''.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY STREAMLINING OF
PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL-BUSINESS
CONCERNS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 3521. Establishment of task force on feasibility of
streamlining information collection requirements
``(a) There is hereby established a task force to study the
feasibility of streamlining requirements with respect to
small-business concerns regarding collection of information
(in this section referred to as the `task force').
``(b) The members of the task force shall be appointed by
the Director, and shall include the following:
``(1) At least two representatives of the Department of
Labor, including one representative of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and one representative of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.
``(2) At least one representative of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``(3) At least one representative of the Department of
Transportation.
``(4) At least one representative of the Office of Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
``(5) At least one representative of each of two agencies
other than the Department of Labor, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the
Small Business Administration.
[[Page H1572]]
``(c) The task force shall examine the feasibility of
requiring each agency to consolidate requirements regarding
collections of information with respect to small-business
concerns, in order that each small-business concern may
submit all information required by the agency--
``(1) to one point of contact in the agency;
``(2) in a single format, or using a single electronic
reporting system, with respect to the agency; and
``(3) on the same date.
``(d) Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act
Amendments of 1998, the task force shall submit a report of
its findings under subsection (c) to the chairmen and ranking
minority members of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs
and the Committee on Small Business of the Senate.
``(e) As used in this section, the term `small-business
concern' has the meaning given that term under section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``3521. Establishment of task force on feasibility of streamlining
information collection requirements.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to this bill?
{time} 1215
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 4, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 6,
line 25, and insert the following:
``(B) establish a policy or program for eliminating,
delaying, and reducing civil fines in appropriate
circumstances for first-time violations by small entities (as
defined in section 601 of title 5, United States Code) of
requirements regarding collection of information. Such policy
or program shall take into account--
``(i) the nature and seriousness of the violation,
including whether the violation was technical or inadvertent,
involved willful or criminal conduct, or has caused or
threatens to cause harm to--
``(I) the health and safety of the public;
``(II) consumer, investor, worker, or pension protections;
or
``(III) the environment;
``(ii) whether there has been a demonstration of good faith
effort by the small entity to comply with applicable laws,
and to remedy the violation within the shortest practicable
period of time;
``(iii) the previous compliance history of the small
entity, including whether the entity, its owner or owners, or
its principal officers have been subject to past enforcement
actions;
``(iv) whether the small entity has obtained a significant
economic benefit from the violation; and
``(v) any other factors considered relevant by the head of
the agency;
``(C) not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act
Amendments of 1998, revise the policies of the agency to
implement subparagraph (B); and
``(D) not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of such Act, submit to the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that
describes the policy or program implemented under
subparagraph (B).
``(2) For purposes of paragraphs (1)(B) through (1)(D), the
term `agency' does not include the Internal Revenue
Service.''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to again commend the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for the efforts that we have made
throughout many long and arduous hearings over this important bill. I
regret that we have not been able to come to an agreement, but I still
can say that I admire his dedication and his willingness to attempt to
craft a mutual agreement, and I look forward to an opportunity to work
with him again on another occasion, hopefully something that could
reach a mutual conclusion.
The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and
I are offering today is consistent with the goals that we have set out
for this legislation, to help small business while protecting the
health and safety of the public. I want to tell the gentleman from
Massachusetts how much I have appreciated his assistance in trying to
bring this bill back to a point where it is going to benefit small
business and the public.
This amendment is also consistent with past action by the Congress on
small business issues, issues such as SBREFA which the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) so ably spoke to a moment ago. This amendment
would require, and I emphasize the word ``require,'' all agencies to
establish specific policies and programs to allow them to eliminate,
delay or reduce civil fines for first-time violators of paperwork
requirements. In putting together those policies, agencies would be
required to take into account a number of factors. Those factors would
include, first of all, the seriousness of the violation and whether it
involved willful or criminal conduct. Agency policies must include
whether the small business is making a good faith effort to comply with
applicable laws and correct the violation as quickly as possible. It
would also mandate that the agency look at the previous compliance
history of the business and whether the small business gained an
economic advantage or competitive advantage by its action.
Furthermore, the amendment includes a strict time frame for agencies
to take these actions. Within 6 months agencies would have to implement
these policies and report back to the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight. This amendment would ensure that paperwork reduction
efforts are truly relevant to the special circumstances of all
industries. Agencies would be able to tailor their policies to the
unique needs of the statutes that they are responsible to enforce and
congressional review of these policies would become a matter of course.
Mr. Chairman, in passing this amendment, Congress would be responsive
to the concerns raised by the Department of Justice and other Federal
agencies. During committee consideration of this bill, we heard
testimony from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of
Transportation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and OSHA. All of
these agencies raised serious questions about the impact of H.R. 3310
on drug enforcement, employee protections, drug testing statutes and
our ability to ensure that investors have the information they need to
make wise decisions. The Department of Justice said that the current
language in H.R. 3310, and I quote, could interfere with the war on
drugs, hinder efforts to control illegal immigration, undermine food
safety protections, hamper programs to protect children and pregnant
mothers from lead poisoning and undercut controls on fraud against
consumers and the United States.
Some examples. Without this amendment, the bill would protect drug
traffickers. Law enforcement agencies detect drug trafficking and money
laundering using reports filed by businesses. H.R. 3310 would encourage
financial institutions to not report cash transactions that are more
than $10,000. Without this amendment, this bill would undermine our
ability to uncover illegal activity. The Drug Enforcement
Administration relies on written reports to ensure that controlled
substances are not diverted illegally. H.R. 3310 would encourage
pharmacies to not report their distribution of controlled substances.
Finally, without our amendment, it would undercut drug testing
statutes and public safety. The Department of Transportation requires
reports from employers showing that drivers and other safety sensitive
employees have passed drug tests. The current language would give an
incentive to businesses to avoid reporting. With this amendment, with
the Kucinich-Tierney amendment law enforcement officials would continue
to have the tools they need to combat illegal drugs, guard the
environment and protect the health and safety of our citizens. We will
then have legislation that I believe will attract additional bipartisan
support and the support of the administration.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H1573]]
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I again just reiterate the long road that
this bill has taken and the fine work of the gentleman from Ohio in
trying to make sure that it in fact does what everybody expresses is
their intention, and that is aid small businesses.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of debate is going on right here about whether or
not this bill is in the interest of the Nation's small business. Let me
quote for my colleagues from a letter from the NFIB, the voice of small
business, the Nation's largest small business organization. In their
letter they point out that
this bill will build on past efforts to reduce the flow of
government red tape by taking steps to reduce the paperwork
burden for small business. Importantly, the bill requires
Federal agencies to waive civil fines for first-time
paperwork violations so that small businesses can correct the
violation. This provision provides small business owners with
a one-time warning that they should comply with paperwork
requirements, not a blank check to disregard government rules
and endanger the welfare of their employees. Small businesses
must still correct the violation under this legislation.
The text of the letter is as follows:
National Federation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
Hon. David McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources and Regulatory Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the
National Federation of Independent Business, I am writing to
express our strong support for the ``Small Business Paperwork
Reduction Act Amendments of 1998.'' We appreciate your
leadership in moving forward with this legislation to address
one of the perennial concerns of small business owners.
The burden of federal government paperwork continues to
rank high among the top concerns of NFIB members. In our 1996
edition of Small Business Problems and Priorities, federal
paperwork ranked as the seventh highest concern of our
members. Because of their size, government paperwork hits
small business particularly hard.
This bill will build on past efforts to reduce the flow of
government red-tape by taking steps to reduce the paperwork
burden for small business. Importantly, the bill requires
federal agencies to waive civil fines for first time
paperwork violations so that small businesses can correct the
violation. This provision provides small business owners with
a one-time warning that they should comply with paperwork
requirements--not a blank check to disregard government rules
and endanger the welfare of their employees. Small businesses
must still correct the violation under this legislation.
We believe this legislation includes incentives for small
business owners to comply with paperwork requirements by
providing them with an agency point of contact, a one-time
suspension of fines, and encourages further government action
to streamline paperwork. We hope it receives the full support
of your subcommittee and the full committee.
Sincerely,
Dan Danner,
Vice President.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as well intended as it is, frankly
would gut that provision in the bill, because it does nothing more than
reenact the requirement in SBREFA that the agencies adopt a policy in
appropriate circumstances, with discretion. What we have seen since
SBREFA has been enacted is that the agencies have failed to meet the
requirement on reducing paperwork and when they do have policies,
continue to impose fines for innocent paperwork violations. I would
like to point out the severity of the failure of the agencies to
actually live up to SBREFA and submit for the Record a list of the
performance standards as reported from OMB agency by agency. Several of
them have actually increased their paperwork requirements since that
law was passed. The Commerce Department went up by 8.8 percent last
year, interior by 16.3 percent, Transportation by 32.7 percent, EPA by
6.9 percent, FEMA by 7.7 percent, NSF by 4.9 percent, and the Office of
Personnel Management by 4.4 percent. That is in spite of the mandate
from Congress to reduce their paperwork by 10 percent each year. So the
agencies are not paying attention to SBREFA. To merely reenact the
requirement there that they adopt the policy in this area will fail to
protect our Nation's small businesses.
I am with NFIB, that we need to keep the bill as written and we need
to actually do what is good for our Nation's small businesses and sadly
reject the effort of our colleagues to try to bring back SBREFA. We
need to move forward in this area and keep the bill as it is written.
The document referred to is as follows:
TABLE 3.--TOTAL INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN BY AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est.
Percent percent
Estimated fiscal change from change from
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 year 1997 total fiscal year fiscal year
total hour burden total hour burden hour burden 1995 to 1996 to
fiscal year fiscal year
1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Totals........................................... 6,900,931,627 6,722,553,928 6,599,717,955 -2.6 -1.8
=====================================================================================
Totals, excluding Treasury.................................. 1,569,633,594 1,369,708,498 1,305,372,478 -12.7 -4.7
=====================================================================================
Departments:
Agriculture................................................... 131,001,022 107,248,206 96,361,525 -18.1 -10.2
Commerce...................................................... 8,239,828 7,960,779 8,663,555 -3.4 +8.8
Defense....................................................... 205,847,538 152,490,315 127,479,302 -25.9 -16.4
Education..................................................... 57,554,905 49,111,300 44,000,000 -14.7 -10.4
Energy........................................................ 9,187,531 \1\ 4,656,053 \1\ 4,167,682 -49.3 -10.5
HHS........................................................... 152,615,502 137,540,947 123,004,913 -9.9 -10.6
HUD........................................................... 33,769,554 37,245,148 35,742,755 10.3 -4.0
Interior...................................................... 4,165,429 4,357,370 5,069,683 4.6 +16.3
Justice....................................................... 36,670,323 36,162,128 30,910,453 -1.4 -14.5
Labor......................................................... 266,447,906 241,077,975 221,847,999 -9.5 -8.0
State......................................................... 8,678,480 \2\ 596,789 598,475 -93.1 +0.3
Transportation................................................ 91,022,665 66,167,487 87,832,271 -27.3 +32.7
Treasury...................................................... 5,331,298,033 5,352,845,430 5,294,345,477 0.4 -1.1
Veterans Affairs.............................................. 11,133,887 9,434,552 6,974,355 -15.3 -26.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 6,347,632,603 6,206,894,479 6,086,998,445 -2.2 -1.9
=====================================================================================
Agencies:
EPA........................................................... 103,066,374 107,655,255 115,056,000 4.5 +6.9
FAR........................................................... 22,146,676 23,445,460 23,348,937 5.9 -4.1
FCC........................................................... 22,644,046 23,879,914 22,002,682 5.5 -7.9
FDIC.......................................................... 8,502,121 8,633,570 7,974,929 1.5 -7.6
FEMA.......................................................... 5,175,501 4,802,083 5,172,159 -7.2 +7.7
FERC \1\...................................................... .................. 5,157,268 5,157,268 ........... 0
FTC........................................................... 146,149,460 146,148,091 146,139,841 0.0 -0.0
NASA.......................................................... 9,561,494 9,228,714 8,813,813 -3.5 -4.5
NSF........................................................... 5,691,560 5,760,203 6,043,963 1.2 +4.9
NRC........................................................... 8,726,244 9,942,882 9,493,835 13.9 -4.5
OPM........................................................... 1,038,719 933,086 974,490 -10.2 +4.4
SEC........................................................... 191,527,284 142,105,083 135,774,892 -25.8 -4.5
SBA........................................................... 2,355,150 2,288,365 2,160,000 -2.8 -5.6
SSA........................................................... 25,307,594 25,679,475 24,606,701 1.5 -4.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... \3\ 553,299,024 515,659,449 512,719,510 -6.8 -0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The paperwork burden for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was contained in the DOE burden inventory in FY 95 but counted separately in later
years.
\2\ State's FY 96 reduction is attributable to the expiration of OMB number 1405-0018 (8 million hours).
\3\ Subtotal includes a total of 1,406,801 hours of burden from AID, GSA, NARA, and USIA.
[[Page H1574]]
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin my remarks by commending the bill's
sponsor as well as the amendment's sponsor for the thoughtful
discussions that has unfolded on the House floor. I think that the tone
and the depth of the debate has been extremely interesting. I want to
also commend the bill's sponsor and the amendment's sponsor for
advancing a very important public purpose of providing meaningful
paperwork reduction to the small employers across the country.
I have spent probably the last 2 or 3 years in this Chamber focusing
on how we expand employer-based retirement savings opportunities for
the Nation's workforce. I have concluded that providing paperwork
reduction is an important part of expanding the opportunity for
employers to offer work-based retirement savings. We have simply made
it too complex, too confusing, too cumbersome and we have actually
discouraged employers from doing just what we want to encourage them to
do, provide a retirement benefit for their workers.
I have joined this effort at paperwork reduction. We have passed some
on defined contribution plans, we have got some that is proposed and
under consideration for defined benefit plans. One of the things that I
have learned as we have worked in this area of paperwork reduction for
retirement benefits is that it is vitally important to get it right.
Therefore, the amendment before us deserves very careful consideration.
I would urge its adoption. I think that the bill overreaches relative
to retirement benefits. Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples
of where it would.
One of the requirements, one of the regulatory requirements of an
employer offering retirement benefits to their employees is that they
provide a summary plan description to the employee alerting the
employee as to the benefit they are receiving. This can be very
important. In a defined contribution plan, for example, it is quite
often structured so the employer will match the employee's contribution
into the retirement savings account. The employee, for example, for
every dollar up to 3 percent of salary for example, the employer will
match dollar for dollar. Imagine the situation, if you will, where the
employer forgets to notify the employee that that program is available,
that that match is available into the retirement account. The employee
does not know of this retirement benefit, the employee does not
exercise their opportunity to gain retirement savings, and there is
nothing, virtually nothing the Department of Labor can do under the
bill to respond to that situation.
We need to have our workforce have retirement benefits at work and we
need to have them alerted to what those benefits are. I think the
amendment would be much more appropriate than the bill itself relative
to that issue.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments but
I want to ask the gentleman, is he aware that there is a specific
exemption which covers all IRS regulations and all IRS paperwork
requirements and that as a result of that exemption, ERISA, the act
that he has just been discussing, is exempted; that is, the paperwork
violation about which he is concerned which comes under ERISA is not
covered; that is, is exempted from this provision?
Mr. POMEROY. I would be happy to respond. The regulatory requirement
to which I was speaking is originally based in the ERISA legislation,
but based in the Department of Labor. And so it is certainly my
impression that the legislation before us does not waive that one, that
it would be applicable as a Department of Labor requirement on small
business.
Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield further, it is my
understanding and perhaps we can get a clarification from staff, that
the exemption of ERISA from the provisions; that is, of all the IRS
code and therefore of ERISA, takes care of the specific issue that he
is raising.
Mr. POMEROY. I have another issue that I will raise in that respect,
but I would love the clarification, that ERISA in total is not subject
to the act. That is not my understanding.
Mr. SHADEGG. That is my understanding.
Mr. POMEROY. Can the gentleman clarify that?
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. The fact of the matter is that ERISA only partially
deals with the collection of money issues. There are many other
provisions of ERISA that deal with the collection of information for
other pertinent and very valuable reasons that would not be involved
with this particular exclusion concerning the internal revenue law.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, that is precisely my point. This is
not an IRS ``you owe the money'' deal. This is a requirement on the
employer that they notify the employee of what their retirement
benefits are. It is my belief that that would be dealt with under the
act, that part of ERISA is not exempted.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment and in
support of the legislation as introduced. Let me make it clear why I
feel that is appropriate. Under existing law, SBREFA as we have passed
it, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which was
passed in 1996, the language in this proposed amendment, is already
present law. That is to say, in the amendment now being offered, any
agency which regulates small business would be required to establish a
policy or program in appropriate circumstances for first-time
violations of a paperwork requirement. The existing law, a copy of
which I am holding here in section 223(a), already says that all
agencies are required, and I quote, to establish a policy or program
under appropriate circumstances for the waiver of civil penalties.
{time} 1230
The requirement that is embodied in this amendment is already in
existing law.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is just for purposes of clarifying
our earlier exchange.
I would point to page 4 of the bill, lines 22 through 25, as
addressing the violation or violations of Internal Revenue law or laws
asserting the assessment or collection of any tax debt, revenue or
receipt, and the provision of ERISA to which I was referring was the
requirement that an employer alert the employee of the retirement
benefits in the plan. That is something that I believe we want to
encourage, and I am afraid a blanket exemption as contained in the
bill, unlike the proportional language dealt with in the amendment,
would be an overreach, would be too much of a correction in that
respect.
Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it appears we have
different interpretations, as occasionally happens. My understanding
from the staff on our side is that because we get an IRS deduction for
the establishment of a benefit plan which complies with ERISA, that
everything that is required to comply with that and that is in order to
get the benefit, one is required to do these certain things. That is,
in fact, a provision of the IRS Code brought into this under ERISA and
that it would apply.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly.
To return to my point, Mr. Chairman, I think first of all, it is
important for Members to understand that the language of the amendment
is already the language of existing law. We have already told agencies
to establish a policy or program under appropriate circumstances for
the waiver of civil fines.
That language, I think if now reenacted, would make this bill almost
meaningless, and I think it is important for Members to understand that
this bill, as written and as introduced and brought here by the
committee, covers first-time paperwork violations.
[[Page H1575]]
And it seems to me quite clear that when you understand that we are
leaving in place the ability to punish the underlying substantive
offense, the underlying violation of the law, and when we are only
talking therefore about the paperwork violation, that is, the failure
to file the paperwork from which one might discover the underlying
violation, I have a difficult time seeing the problem and a difficult
time accepting an amendment which would gut that.
But beyond that, it is very important to understand that what this
legislation does is it applies to first-time violations only. When we
think of the businesses across America, no business can start business
and exist and be profitable with the heavy paperwork burdens they have,
and have to file literally dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of
these forms, and there was plenty of testimony before the committee
about the paperwork burden.
But the point here is that for any kind of a violation that might
reveal a pattern of conduct that might result in harm, a one-time
violation is not going to cause a serious problem. The form is going to
have to be filed over and over and over again. This simply says that
for the first violation there should not be a penalty, and it only says
that in certain circumstances. If health and safety is still
implicated, then there can be a penalty.
I will remind the Members of the discussion earlier about the
gentleman who was visited at his restaurant. He was missing one form.
The form was a data sheet about the safety of something in his
restaurant. It was a soap in his restaurant, not a harmful product. He
was fined $1,000 by OSHA. During the OSHA visit, his store manager
called the company and had the data sheet, material safety data sheet,
faxed to the office. It was there within that period of time, there
within a matter of minutes, and OSHA still imposed the $1,000 fine.
Mr. Chairman, I think that makes no sense, and I think this is a
reasonable piece of legislation on which we have tried to work with the
other side in a bipartisan fashion, and they have proffered language
which has improved it. I urge the rejection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Shadegg was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SHADEGG. I urge the rejection of the amendment as being an
amendment that would set this legislation so far back as to make it
nearly meaningless, and I urge the adoption of the bill as proffered by
the committee.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I really appreciate the statement that the gentleman from
Arizona makes, Mr. Chairman, and I too rise in support of this
legislation and, frankly, in opposition to this gutting amendment. And
I appreciate the gentleman standing against this amendment.
I am just amazed at the liberal opposition to this legislation.
It must represent a really a low point.
It must really represent a low point in their anti-small business
efforts; now we understand the real motives of the far left. The
liberals are in favor of more paperwork, they want more work for
government.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the liberals are in favor of more
paperwork, they want more work for government bureaucrats, they want
more profits to be wasted on redundant forms and silly Federal
regulations and requirements. I got to tell my colleagues, Karl Marx
must be turning over in his grave. Is this the once proud left wing, is
this all they have to fight over?
I too oppose this gutting amendment, Mr. Chairman, and support this
commonsense legislation. I just think we ought to give small businesses
a break today.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members on the other side for the
title of this bill, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. That is
a terrific title, and it is hard to imagine that any one of us could
oppose a bill like that, except for the content of the bill. But that
is a great title.
But the fact is that we have got two proposals in front of us. One is
the Kucinich-Tierney amendment, and I believe that is the right sort of
amendment because it gives our agencies the kind of flexibility that we
need.
The other side has gone on about how the bill, as drafted and as
reported out by the committee, only deals with paperwork violations.
But there are paperwork violations and others. The fact is that for
many of our agencies there has to be a regular period of reporting.
I want to mention a couple of things. The principal deputy, an
associate general for the Department of Justice, has testified that
automatic probation for first-time offenders would give bad actors
little reason to comply until caught, and that would work to the
economic detriment of those hardworking small business owners who work
hard to comply with the law. And that is my fear about this particular
legislation.
If we approve this legislation, we are creating a set of incentives,
and among those incentives are an interest of some people in taking the
reporting requirements less seriously; and, in my opinion, that hurts
the legitimate small business owner who is out there trying to comply
with the law, and helps those who are trying to get away with one thing
or other.
As my colleagues know, the Department of Justice has also said that
this bill could interfere with the war on drugs, hinder efforts to
control illegal immigration, undermine food safety protections, hamper
programs to protect children and pregnant mothers from lead poisoning,
and undercut controls and fraud against consumers and the United
States.
I am very concerned about this bill in a number of different
respects, and I want to turn to one of them in particular. We have a
set of protections that are designed to protect our safe drinking
water, and self-monitoring and reporting are the foundations of the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. These reporting
requirements are designed to give State and Federal environmental
protection officials knowledge of environmental compliance before any
harm occurs.
Under H.R. 3310, the agency would have to prove the failure to report
the pollutant, and not just the existence of the pollutant, posed a
substantial and imminent threat before it could assess fines. And I do
not think that relying on EPA inspections is a viable alternative. The
EPA only has enough staff to inspect our 200,000 public water systems
once every 40 years.
What we need is an effective system of reporting, and if my
colleagues look at the Tierney-Kucinich amendment, what it is doing is
saying that rather than a blanket exemption for all first time
offenders, what they are doing is directing every agency to develop
policies to deal with first time so-called paperwork violations.
That is a far more sensible approach. It is a kind of approach that I
think makes sense. It is a kind of approach that will give our small
businesses the relief they need, and yet not let people off the hook
when they do not create any incentives for people not to keep the kinds
of records that help keep our public safe in a wide variety of
different areas.
As Franklin Raines has said, and I will yield in one second, the
primary beneficiaries of section 2(B) would appear to be those who do
not act in good faith and those who intentionally or willfully violate
the applicable regulations.
That is what we are concerned about on this side of the aisle, and I
urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-Tierney amendment.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure the gentleman
is aware of section 2 that says in the case of imminent and substantial
danger to public health or safety, the agency can continue to impose a
civil fine.
Second, let me state for the record I do appreciate the work of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) on this amendment. We disagree about it. I do believe
that it would ultimately gut this key provision in our bill. But he has
worked in
[[Page H1576]]
good faith in the committee in trying to develop this legislation, and
I want to say in particular that many of the provisions in our bill
that make sure that in cases of an imminent danger to public health and
safety are there with the good work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich). We did not go as far as he wanted to in the language, and so
we are debating his amendment, but I appreciate his good work on this.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let us try to understand what is at issue. If small
business did not do something that was technically required in terms of
filing some paperwork, or if their failure to comply adequately was
inadvertent, they acted in good faith, no one thinks that they ought to
have a penalty imposed upon them.
But on the other hand, if a small businessman or woman willfully and
recklessly were involved in criminal conduct and in pursuance of that
criminal conduct did not file the reports that would disclose that
conduct, that small business person should not be let off the hook.
And, no, I will not yield at this moment, but I hope the gentleman
will listen to me because I think this bill is flawed, because the bill
before us would allow such a small businessperson who willfully,
recklessly and intentionally tried to take advantage of this law that
said that they did not have to get penalized if they filed such a
report.
I do want to yield to the gentleman from Indiana because I find that
hard to justify.
Mr. SUNUNU. I am the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is the author of this. I find
it hard to justify.
Now, the exception that he wrote into his bill is if there is an
imminent and substantial threat to harm or safety; but that does not
answer the problem because the agency would have to prove this eminent
and substantial threat.
It seems to me to make more sense, if we are trying to remove the
threat on a small businessperson who acted in good faith and they are
going to be fined, that we do not let the others off the hook who are
acting recklessly and willfully.
Could the gentleman explain why he would allow that to happen?
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to explain once again
that our bill does exactly what the gentleman wants do, which is target
the efforts on those who are willfully violating the law.
In addition, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that the
agencies still have civil prosecutions in court? Is it not true that
the agencies still have criminal prosecution available to them? Is it
not true that the agencies still have injunctive relief to make sure
that where there are willful bad actors, they will be dealt with with
the full force of the United States Government?
{time} 1245
Mr. WAXMAN. That is a very good question. But the problem is that the
agency might not know about someone's 401(k) fraud unless they see what
disclosures were in the paperwork. They have to find out about
something for which they are not being informed.
The reason that certain forms are required to be filed is to give the
agency the information to know whether that small business is complying
with the law. If they do not file the form, they may not know that a
small pharmaceutical company found out that there was a side effect
that could do harm, or that a seller of property knew about a lead
threat or did not disclose it, or that the employer knew that their
employees may be harmed by some hazardous substance and did not
disclose it to them or to the agency involved. The agency just would
not know. That is the first reason.
The second answer to your question is, not only would the agency not
know, but let us say the agency did know. To require the agency to come
in and then have to get injunctive relief and criminal actions and all
of that just seems to me to put the agency in a position where they are
going after the small business with a sledgehammer. The reason for
these reports is not to just collect money. The reason is to know
whether there is a problem.
The Kucinich-Tierney amendment spells out very clearly that if there
is a technical or inadvertent reason why that report was not filed, if
it was in good faith, there were efforts to comply or rectify the
violations and there was no previous lack of compliance history, that
they would not be fined.
But, on the other hand, if there was a willful or criminal
involvement that in fact there was a threat to harm and safety to
consumers, investors and others, and that there was not this good-faith
effort on their behalf, and in fact they had a very murky record in
terms of complying, in fact they had not complied in the past with
other requirements or they got an economic benefit for the violation,
those factors would be taken into consideration, and they ought to be
taken into consideration.
Unless this amendment is adopted, it could not even be looked at.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by repeating a point that was made here in
response to the remarks that were made that did not receive any
response, and that was simply that, under this underlying legislation,
there is no restriction whatsoever on an agency's ability to pursue
civil penalties. There is no restriction whatsoever on their ability to
pursue criminal prosecution. There is no restriction whatsoever on an
agency's ability to seek injunctive relief. The provisions are retained
to pursue bad actors to the fullest extent of the law.
The only attempt to provide relief here is for those small businesses
that are first-time paperwork violators. Even so, there are exemptions
in the legislation that provide to make sure that if there is a threat
to public safety, if we are dealing with fraudulent issues related to
the IRS or tax matters, or if we are reducing an ability to pursue
criminal activity, there is full exemption from those restrictions.
The goal here is to ensure that agencies can go after the bad actors,
can go after those that are negligent, can go after those that pursue
criminal activity. But for the small business that has a first-time
paperwork violation, there is some relief.
Also, the legislation ensures that those small businesses are at
least made aware of what the small business regulations are, the
paperwork regulations are, through the Internet. I think that that is
an important step in the right direction. I think it provides the kind
of relief that small businesses certainly deserve.
A comment was made about the amendment, the Kucinich amendment, which
I certainly oppose that somehow this amendment gives agencies the
flexibility they need. The fact is this amendment gives agencies the
flexibility they already have, because it essentially restates the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act that is already on
the books.
The amendment, the Kucinich amendment, is nothing more than a status
quo amendment. It reflects no change. SBREFA, Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, may be a good business regulation, but it
does not bring us forward; it does not provide for additional relief.
The fact is, if you support the status quo, that may be fine, but
there are small businesses out there in New Hampshire, all across the
country that are concerned about the burden of paperwork, that are
concerned about the cost of regulation; and this provides them with
some relief for that small business that is a first-time paperwork
violator.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, first, let me express appreciation for
the gentleman from New Hampshire, vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. He
has done a wonderful job on our committee in helping to craft this
legislation and also overseeing the functions of the subcommittee.
I am amazed by the complex argument of my colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman). But it
[[Page H1577]]
seems to come down to, on the one hand, they are afraid that the
agencies will not do enough because they do not have the civil fines.
On the other hand, they are afraid they might do too much because they
have civil penalties in the courts and criminal penalties and
injunction.
I will, once again, share with my colleagues the analogy that I think
fits the description here. The agencies are like traffic cops. They
would rather give out tickets for speeding violations than apprehend
who has broken into your house and is stealing your TV, because it is a
lot easier to give out traffic tickets than to go after the real bad
guys.
What this bill says is that we are going to give you a pass if you
make an innocent mistake the first time; but if you are a bad actor, we
are going to come after you with all the full force of the Federal
Government.
In closing, I am sad to say, but a vote for the Kucinich-Tierney
amendment is a vote against our Nation's small businesses because it
would not move the dime forward on this key issue.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana very
much for his remarks. In closing, I want to reemphasize the point that
seems to have been missed by those who were opposed to this legislation
and supportive of this gutting amendment; and that is that this
legislation does nothing to limit the agency's ability to seek criminal
penalties, to seek civil penalties and civil prosecution, to put an
injunction in place and to pursue the bad actors or anyone that ought
to be convicted of willful or negligent activity. We can prosecute them
to the fullest extent of the law.
This is some relief for small businesses, relief only for first-time
paperwork violations and provides full exemption when there is an
imminent threat to public safety. The drinking water issues that were
raised, lead poisoning, I think few would doubt that these are issues
of public safety, a threat to public health; and that would certainly,
in appropriate circumstances, be dealt with with the exemption of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich
amendment and support paperwork relief for small businesses.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me just start by saying again most of the way along
the path here, this has been an effort to cooperate with the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), chairman of the Subcommittee on National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), myself, and others on the committee
to do something good for small businesses.
It was unfortunate to hear the gentleman from Indiana wrap up with
some statement about this vote on the amendment being a vote against
small business. That is clearly not so. I cannot believe that the
gentleman from Indiana, after the long, cooperative effort that he has
had with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), in particular, and
myself and others on the committee really believes that is the case.
What we have is a vote about what each respective side believes is
the appropriate way to both help small business and to also make sure
that we put in place the requirements that would protect the public
safety and the public health and the environment that we are all
required to do. We can have an honest disagreement about how that might
proceed, but we ought not to take this to the rhetorical level that
somebody is for or against anything completely.
People on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, are firmly for small
business. We clearly understand that our amendment, the Tierney-
Kucinich amendment, states that this will tighten up SBREFA, this will
make small business violations, for the first-time instances, be
addressed by an agency mandatorily with a waiver in those occasions
where that is appropriate. That brings SBREFA further along with regard
to that particular than it is today.
There is no place for bombasting in this debate, and there is no
place for labels going on. This is simply, how do we best protect the
public interest and protect small businesses as they go about their
venture?
There are parts in this bill that are very good. Should we give
notices to small businesses, provide a list so we know about the
requirements that have to be met? Absolutely. We can all agree upon
that. Might we have one point of contact so a small business goes to an
agency to deal with one individual to get their issues resolved?
Absolutely. Should we have a task force for streamlining the amount of
paperwork that small business has done? That would really result in
paperwork reduction. That is an excellent part of the bill that we
support.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield for a couple of seconds to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) to ask him to point out any part of H.R.
3310 that actually in itself reduces paperwork. There is nothing in
that bill that does anything to reduce paperwork.
The closest thing that is arrived at is this provision to have a task
force to streamline. We are firmly behind that. We would urge the
committee to do just that, to get that report and then to take that
stack that is on the table next to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) and reduce it significantly.
All through my business career and the people that I represented, we
complained about that amount of paperwork being there, thought that we
might be able to reduce it, while at the same time, protecting the
public interest. That is what the Kucinich-Tierney amendment portends
to do. It portends to make sure that nobody is given an incentive not
to comply.
Although we may disagree, Mr. Chairman, with the wording that is in
that bill, I can tell you clearly that a practical reading of it would
be an incentive to those businesses that are inclined to not comply to
do just that.
For all the businesses that go out there day-to-day that are
concerned about what they do and its effect on the environment, are
concerned for the safety of their employees, are concerned for law
enforcement, are concerned that everybody, including themselves, have
their pensions protected. They simply want to be relieved from as much
paperwork as they can be, and they want the ability for an agency to
come in and apply a policy that would allow a waiver in a first-time
violation where it is appropriate.
They are not looking for ways to have their competitors who might be
unscrupulous avoid the obligation at a disadvantage to the law-abiding
business person.
To say that the proper remedy here is injunctive relief, to say,
well, you can still prosecute them criminally, to say that you can have
more inspections, as a business person, let me tell the gentleman from
Indiana, no, thank you. If it comes down to having an agency exercise
its discretion and treat me fairly and, at most, give me a civil
penalty. I am for that.
If you think the $750 fine that you keep repeatedly bringing up, and
those on your side, is a big number, wait until you see what the cost
for injunctive relief is when you have to go out and hire a lawyer to
protect yourself against that. Wait until you see what the cost is for
criminal prosecution. Wait until you see what those inspections, how
onerous those can be when they are not there.
Let us do the appropriate thing and make sure that in a first-time
violation, the agency has the discretion it should have.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield just very briefly to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in that example, Mr. Gary Roberts is fined $750. He
actually brought the hazardous communication program right to the work
site.
Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I will address that.
Mr. McINTOSH. There would be no need for an injunction, no need for a
court case.
Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, that example is a situation, and
OSHA came in and testified before the committee and told you that has
been addressed, that OSHA has a zero tolerance now for those
situations. They do not fine people for failing to have something
posted in a first-time violation and had put in fact a policy; we had
agency after agency come in before
[[Page H1578]]
us and tell us that they are moving in that direction.
The fact of the matter is, we are waiting on the reports on the
SBREFA to see what the policies are and what the effect is. The
majority on the committee got anxious and went forward with this bill
before they even found out what the information was. That is not
appropriate here. Your own party has raised some very important issues
here.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment. It
does, in fact, help small businesses. We can all be on the same page
here, and we ought it be
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 1300
Amendment Offered By Mr. McIntosh.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh:
Page 6, strike line 25 and insert the following:
imposed by the agency.
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State
may impose a civil penalty on a small-business concern, in
the case of a first-time violation by the small-business
concern of a requirement regarding collection of information
under Federal law, in a manner inconsistent with the
provisions of this subsection.''.
Mr. McINTOSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment came out of testimony that
we did hear from OSHA and many of the States; where they do have
enforcement of their regulations, the States actually are the entities
that enforce it, and they said even if our bill passed, they would not
be able to control what those State enforcement agencies did in terms
of civil penalties for first-time violations.
So what this amendment does, it is a very narrow amendment that says,
where there is a Federal law that is being enforced by State agencies,
those agencies also will have to comply with the sections of this bill
that allow small businesses to have an exemption for a first-time
violation that does not pose imminent threat to health and safety, does
not impede criminal investigation, does not involve an Internal Revenue
Code provision.
So it is an amendment we probably should have put into the full
committee draft when we had a substitute. We did not. But in reflecting
upon the testimony given to us by the agency on a problem where their
hands are tied in certain cases, where they do not really get to
control enforcement activities, this would mean that all of the
enforcement, whether it is done at the State or the Federal level, are
on an equal basis so that one does not have small businesses in some
States being harassed and some small businesses in other States being
protected by the statute.
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. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about this
amendment. I have read the amendment and I understand the concern which
is behind it, but I would offer this cautionary note, that States feel
very strongly about their prerogatives with respect to oversight and
enforcement. States' attorneys general, the attorneys at various
district levels, county health officials, are all very much involved in
enforcement processes, and as a matter of fact, I think one can argue
that in some cases, they are the closest to it.
So to amend this law by taking the State out of it, by saying no
State may impose a civil penalty on a small business concern, and then
it goes on in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this
subsection, it takes the power away from the States. I think that we
should be very cautious about doing that without having full hearings
on this to hear testimony from State officials as to how this could
impact their ability to enforce the law.
Mr. Chairman, I think there are instances where Congress needs to
respect the rights of the States, and certainly this amendment calls
into question whether we are really doing that; and for that reason, I
have to reluctantly oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. McIntosh), my good friend.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek recognition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 1
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and an amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the request for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the
additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings after this 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 221, not voting 26, as follows:
[[Page H1579]]
[Roll No. 72]
AYES--183
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
John
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Redmond
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--26
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Cook
Crapo
DeLay
Ford
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Harman
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Olver
Paxon
Payne
Rangel
Reyes
Riggs
Royce
Waters
{time} 1325
Mr. KIM and Mr. HORN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LIPINSKI and Mr. DIAZ-BALART changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 72, Kucinich amendment to
H.R. 3310, had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
I was giving a speech to the National Equipment Manufacturers at the
Carleton Hotel at 16th & K; my beeper simply did not function, possibly
because of being inside a center room on the ground floor. I am a bit
miffed because it broke my 100% voting record!
Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. McIntosh) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 179, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 73]
AYES--224
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
[[Page H1580]]
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--27
Becerra
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Cook
Crapo
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Harman
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Olver
Paxon
Payne
Rangel
Riggs
Royce
Sanders
Waters
{time} 1337
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DIAZ-BALART changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 73, McIntosh Amendment to
H.R. 3310, had I been present, I would have voted yes. I was giving a
speech to National Equipment Manufacturers at the Carleton Hotel at
16th & K. My beeper simply did not function, possibly because of being
inside a center room on the ground floor. I'm a bit miffed because it
broke my 100% voting record!
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Are there any other
amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3310) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, for the
purpose of facilitating compliance by small businesses with certain
Federal paperwork requirements, and to establish a task force to
examine the feasibility of streamlining paperwork requirements
applicable to small businesses, pursuant to House Resolution 396, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267,
noes 140, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 74]
AYES--267
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--140
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Poshard
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
[[Page H1581]]
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--23
Archer
Becerra
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Crapo
Ford
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Harman
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kasich
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Rangel
Royce
Waters
{time} 1359
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Royce for, with Mr. McDermott against.
Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. Rangel against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, for the purpose of
facilitating compliance by small businesses with certain Federal
paperwork requirements, to establish a task force to examine the
feasibility of streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small
businesses, and for other purposes.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________