[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.

                          ____________________