[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2260-2284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 42, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 42

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 391) 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. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
     303 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. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. 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 8 of rule XVIII. 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. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose 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 the resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 42 is an open rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 391, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act 
Amendments of 1999. The purpose of this legislation is to reduce the 
burden of Federal paperwork on small businesses.
  The rule waives section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget authority 
or contract authority for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for 
that fiscal year has been agreed to, against consideration of the bill.
  The rule provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  The rule further provides that the bill shall be considered as read.
  The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to their consideration.
  The rule allows for 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.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I believe House Resolution 42 is a fair rule. It is an 
open rule for the consideration of H.R. 391, the Small Business 
Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1999.
  It is my understanding that some Members may wish to offer germane 
amendments to this bill and, under this open rule, they will have every 
opportunity to do so.
  H.R. 391 is a step in the right direction in relieving our Nation's 
small businesses from an overwhelming paperwork burden that threatens 
to bury them.
  Time and money required to keep up with government paperwork prevents 
small businesses from growing and creating new jobs. H.R. 391 gives 
small businesses the relief they need from paperwork burdens created by 
the Federal bureaucracy.
  It has been reported that last year it took seven billion man hours 
to complete government paperwork. Seven billion man hours that could 
have been spent finding new job markets, expanding business or creating 
jobs, were instead spent on nothing more than dotting I's and crossing 
T's in duplicate and triplicate.
  Madam Speaker, as a longtime small businessman myself, I know the 
hurdles that our entrepreneurs face: Strangling red tape, burdensome 
regulations and mountains of paperwork.
  Just a few days ago our Nation marked President Ronald Reagan's 88th 
birthday, and I am reminded of what President Reagan said in his first 
inaugural address: that the Federal Government's role is to work with 
us, not over us; to stand by our side, not

[[Page 2261]]

ride our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother 
it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
  H.R. 391 recognizes the challenging legacy that President Reagan 
handed us: to make the Federal Government a catalyst for opportunity 
rather than an obstacle for growth by fostering communication between 
Federal agencies and small businesses; helping small businesses come 
into compliance on civil paperwork mistakes; and making sure all 
information regarding paperwork requirements is readily available to 
small businesses.
  What the bill does not do is create a threat to public safety and 
health. H.R. 391 specifically suspends fines only for small businesses 
on first-time paperwork violations; and only, and I repeat, and only 
when those violations are not covered by several exemptions, including 
an exemption for violations that result in actual harm, violate 
Internal Revenue Service laws, and present an imminent threat to public 
safety and health.

                              {time}  1030

  I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and 
the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for their hard 
work on H.R. 391. I would urge my colleagues to support this open rule 
and the underlying bill.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 42 is a fair, 
completely open rule, and I urge its adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my 
next door neighbor, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I do not oppose this rule because it allows Members to 
offer all germane amendments. Like all Members of Congress, I support 
efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork requirements on small 
businesses. I have endorsed both legislative and executive efforts to 
streamline regulations.
  We in Congress have enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Just yesterday, the House 
passed the Paperwork Elimination Act by a bipartisan vote. The 
administration, under Vice President Gore, has attacked excessive 
regulation through its initiative to reinvent government and the 
implementation of the White House Conference on Small Business 
recommendations.
  In addition, I support many aspects of the underlying bill. H.R. 391 
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 and to help small businesses 
comply with their legal obligations, and it would establish a task 
force to consider ways to streamline paperwork requirements even 
further.
  However, it is unfortunate that the Committee on Government Reform 
has again in this Congress included provisions in this bill that could 
be dangerous to the health and safety of the American people.
  H.R. 391 would prohibit the assessment of civil penalties for most 
first-time violations of information collection or dissemination 
requirements if those violations are corrected within six months. The 
civil penalty provisions in this bill effectively remove agency 
discretion from regulatory enforcement decisions against the first-time 
violators. Only if actual serious harm has already occurred or the 
violation presents ``an imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health and safety'' would the agency have any discretion to impose a 
penalty. This extreme standard will not adequately protect the American 
public.
  Each of us has the responsibility to abide by protections enacted for 
the safety of the community. Paperwork requirements, such as drivers' 
licenses, are our way of minimally ensuring that everyone who 
undertakes a potentially hazardous activity, such as driving, is 
informed about the potential dangers and knows how to prevent them. If 
H.R. 391's ban on penalties were applied to drivers' license, there 
could be no sanction for driving without a license until your driving 
had already caused actual serious injury or was so dangerous as to pose 
an imminent substantial danger to others. Such a provision would be 
outrageous. To protect society, we need the discretion to step in, in a 
meaningful way, to protect ourselves before the actual harm occurs.
  This bill would hamper legitimate agency efforts to protect the 
American people. For example, its one-size-fits-all prohibition on 
penalties could endanger both our traveling public and our emergency 
service personnel by weakening the enforcement of reporting 
requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials.
  New methods to ensure the safety of our meats, shellfish, and poultry 
depend upon providers keeping adequate records and accurate records of 
their efforts to prevent contamination. This paperwork is not a 
frivolous add-on, but it is central to ensuring a wholesome product. 
Noncompliant companies should not have the option of saving money by 
skipping the paperwork at the cost of endangering the public. In life 
and death situations such as food safety, providers should not be given 
a free pass on the first violation. Such a policy could cause the 
needless deaths of hundreds of our constituents and the serious illness 
of many thousands more.
  Similarly, paperwork requirements are designed to help nursing homes 
monitor the patients' health and assure appropriate care. For example, 
records of fluid intakes and output are key tools in diagnosing 
conditions such as dehydration and infection that, left untreated, can 
be life-threatening. We should not take discretion away from regulators 
trying to protect our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
  This bill could also make our workplaces less safe. Tracking the 
information disclosure and training requirements for working with 
dangerous chemicals and machinery is not useless paperwork. It assures 
that our workers have the knowledge needed to protect themselves from 
on-the-job hazards. An industrial disaster should not be required 
before agencies can effectively enforce these lifesaving requirements.
  H.R. 391's ban on regulatory discretion sends businesses a very bad 
message. It says that Congress does not consider violation of these 
health and safety requirements a serious matter.
  Curiously, H.R. 391 also preempts State and local discretion in the 
performance enforcement of health safety and environmental standards. 
Normally the majority believes that localities should have the autonomy 
to set priorities for local implementation of Federal standards. But in 
this bill, they paternalistically prohibit local governments from 
making their own enforcement decisions.
  In reality, this nonenforcement mandate provides no relief to honest 
businesses, those 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 were enacted in its current form, those businesses 
disinclined to follow the law would have no incentive to obey until 
they had actually been cited for a violation.
  For these reasons, this bill is opposed in its current form by the 
administration and a wide variety of consumer, labor and health 
advocacy groups, including the Safe Food Coalition, Public Citizen, the 
AFL-CIO, Consumer's Union, the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing 
Home Reform, the American Public Health Association, the Consumer 
Federation of America, United Auto Workers, the American Lung 
Association, OMB Watch, USPIRG, and the National Council of Senior 
Citizens.
  Thankfully, the rule we are debating will allow the House to solve 
many of the problems with this bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) 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 to waive

[[Page 2262]]

or reduce civil penalties for first-time inadvertent violations.
  The Kucinich amendment is a common-sense compromise that achieves the 
goal of not over-penalizing inadvertent, good-faith violations, without 
risking the health and lives of the public.
  Madam Speaker, I support this open rule, and I would urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of the Kucinich amendment allowed by 
the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
outstanding and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I certainly will not in any way argue with 
the description the gentleman has provided and I thank him for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule. But I am 
here primarily to extend very hearty compliments to the newest member 
of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), 
who is at this point managing his first rule on the floor, and I know 
it is the first of what will be many outstanding measures that will be 
reported out of the committee.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has a stellar background 
of service as minority leader in the State legislature in New York, and 
he is bringing that expertise not only to the Committee on Rules but 
down here on the House floor.
  I also want to say that he is joined in this effort, I see, by my 
predecessor's successor in his congressional seat, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) the former labor commissioner in New York, who 
has a very interesting background in dealing with paperwork reduction 
for small businesses and he is going to be describing that. And I 
suspect we will even hear from the veteran member of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) who does a great 
job, too.
  As has been said very well by both my friend from New York and my 
other friend from New York, this is an open rule which allows for the 
consideration of the Kucinich amendment and any other amendment that is 
germane, and I strongly supported our attempt to make that in order.
  The bill itself is actually what we really describe as a one-two 
punch, if we take what was considered yesterday. The gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has done a superb job on this measure, following 
up on passage of the Mandates Information Act, which we were in a very 
strong bipartisan way able to report out of this institution yesterday.
  We know that the burden that is imposed on small businesses is 
extraordinary. In fact, in a memo that came from the subcommittee of 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), when we look at what this 
bill actually provides, it would put on the Internet a comprehensive 
list of all the Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses 
organized by industry, and it offers small businesses compliance 
assistance instead of fines on first-time paperwork violations that do 
not present a threat to public health and safety.
  It would establish a paperwork czar in each agency who is the point 
of contact for small businesses on paperwork requirements. And it would 
establish a task force, including representatives from the major 
regulatory agencies, to study how to streamline reporting requirements 
for small businesses.
  Madam Speaker, I happen to believe that this measure is a very, very 
important environmental initiative. For a number of reasons. First and 
foremost, because it makes it very clear that nothing that is proposed 
here would in any way jeopardize environment or safety standards at 
all.
  What it will do is, it will in fact decrease the amount of paper. 
Now, I come from California. The timber industry is a very, very 
important industry in our State. But frankly, there are more than a few 
people who are concerned about the constant pumping out of paper. This 
is the Paperwork Reduction Act. So I consider it to be a very strong 
pro-environmental measure.
  So I think that this is a great win, as I said, a one-two punch, 
going for mandates information to the measure that the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) will be handling. I would like to congratulate 
my colleague again, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), for the 
great job that he is doing and will be continuing to do on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule. Our Nation's 
small businesses are the backbone of our economy and deserve relief 
from the burdens of unnecessary paperwork.
  However, H.R. 391, in its current form, could have wide-ranging and 
serious negative, unintended consequences. That is why the 
administration opposes it. In fact, four department heads have 
recommended a veto if the bill is passed in its current form.
  Similarly, senior citizens' groups oppose the bill. Environment, 
labor, public health organizations also oppose it. And several State 
attorneys general oppose it. This opposition stems from a well-intended 
but dangerous provision in the bill which would bar agencies from 
assessing civil penalties for most first-time paperwork violations.
  Essentially, this means that businesses would have one get-out-of-
jail-free card which they can use even when they have willfully and 
maliciously violated the law. These provisions could interfere with the 
war on drugs, endanger our drinking water, jeopardize the care in 
nursing homes, and threaten our pensions, our environment and our 
health.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of the problem. 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 
environmental protection officials knowledge of environmental 
compliance before any harm occurs.
  Now, under H.R. 391, the small businesses who run the drinking water 
systems would have little incentive to comply with reporting 
requirements because there would be no threat of a fine. The adequacy 
of the reports would be seriously jeopardized. The EPA would become 
even more dependent on inspections and not reports when detecting 
contamination of our drinking water.
  However, as I am sure my colleagues know, the EPA only has enough 
staff to inspect our 200,000 public water systems once every 40 years. 
Therefore, contamination of our drinking water may go undetected for 
extremely long periods of time.
  Another example: Reporting on toxic emissions. Under the EPA's toxic 
release inventory, companies that meet reporting thresholds must report 
their emissions of toxic pollutants into a community's air or water. 
The requirement that businesses disclose their toxic emissions has 
prompted significant voluntary emission reductions.
  H.R. 391, however, would effectively waive public reporting 
requirements until a business is caught for a violation. It would thus 
cripple an effective, voluntary, nonregulatory method of reducing 
pollution.
  Another example, Madam Speaker: Lead poisoning regulations. The 
Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 requires 
persons who sell or lease housing to give buyers and renters a pamphlet 
describing lead-based paint hazards. The entire purpose of the law is 
to prevent children from becoming lead-poisoned by requiring 
information about the risks of lead-poisoning be distributed before a 
family moves into a home.

                              {time}  1045

  Under H.R. 391, however, this law becomes unenforceable. Even a real 
estate broker or landlord who deliberately failed to distribute this 
pamphlet, even if that happened, the EPA could not take enforcement 
action until after the health of a child has been injured or eminently 
endangered.

[[Page 2263]]

  A third example which will be of concern to all Americans: 
firefighter safety. I believe that, as currently constituted, H.R. 391 
undermines worker protection laws with respect to firefighters and 
emergency workers. They depend, they depend on having adequate 
information to respond safely and effectively to chemical or fire 
emergencies. If a business does not report its hazardous chemical 
inventories as required under the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right To Know Act, firefighters' lives will be endangered if they are 
called to respond to a fire at the facility.
  Under H.R. 391, however, the failure to report hazardous chemical 
inventories is not enforceable until after a dangerous situation has 
already developed.
  I think our colleague and good friend the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) said it well when he said that this legislation, this H.R. 
391, could endanger the lives of America's fire and emergency service 
workers. Under the guise of exempting first-time violators from fines 
for paperwork violations, H.R. 391 would eliminate the enforcement of 
fines against businesses who fail to post notices about whether 
manufacturing and storage facilities contain hazardous chemicals. If 
firefighters are not informed of the presence of these dangerous 
materials, their lives could be needlessly jeopardized.
  The International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International 
Association of Firefighters, the National Fire Protection Association, 
the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Congressional Fire Service 
Institute, and the International Fire Association of Arson 
Investigators have all raised serious concerns about the impact of this 
legislation. According to these experts, removing or relaxing penalties 
for failure to comply with regulations that require disclosure of the 
presence of hazardous materials will almost certainly result in a lack 
of compliance and raises serious safety issues for firefighters. No 
amount, and I repeat no amount of remedial action, can compensate for 
the death or injury of a firefighter after the fact.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 391 also preempts State law. The Federal 
Government has delegated enforcement of numerous environmental worker 
safety and health laws to the States. H.R. 391 would prevent States 
from assessing civil penalties from most first-time violations under 
these laws. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the States will 
lose about two million dollars a year in revenue.
  Madam Speaker, I will be offering an amendment that will address 
these concerns that is supported by the administration and by many 
interest groups. In summary it requires agencies to establish policies 
that would provide civil penalty relief for first-time violations 
without giving a free pass to businesses who intentionally break the 
law.
  Currently there is a veto threat on this bill. If my amendment is 
adopted, the bill would have strong bipartisan support and would likely 
become law. We should seize the opportunity to provide real relief to 
our Nation's small businesses, and I urge my colleagues' support for my 
amendment when I offer it under this open rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that a paperwork violation 
in the area of health and safety would not receive a first-time 
exemption, and certainly that would apply to firefighter safety as 
well.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman for that brief 
clarification on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying 
legislation because this legislation provides some long overdue reforms 
to address the burden of federally mandated paperwork. As a former 
small businessman before I got into this life, I know how time 
consuming these friendly forms can be. Like all working Americans, 
small business men and women resent these activities that slow down 
their productivity. Frankly, when a friendly form found its way to my 
desk when I was in business, I would first look to see if the words 
``voluntary'' or ``required'' were printed anywhere, and honestly, if I 
did not have to fill it out, that form would end up in the circular 
file.
  Madam Speaker, that is why Congress needs to pass the Small Business 
Paperwork Reduction Act and the President needs to sign it into law. 
This commonsense legislation simply requires that the Internet and the 
Federal Register list all required paperwork by industry. I know from 
experience that all of the incoming forms and surveys can be difficult 
to keep track of especially when we cannot see the relevance or purpose 
of taking the time to fill out some of these forms. In addition, in the 
event that a required form ends up in the circular file, this 
legislation protects that small business owner from unnecessary fines.
  The bottom line is that most of the information that the Federal 
Government collects through forms and surveys is of questionable value 
to the business community. We do not need alphabet soup agencies and 
federal bureaucracies involved in market research. That is the 
responsibility of the private sector. Useless paperwork in my view is 
one place to start.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the author of this bill, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and I look forward to working 
with him on other measures to help small businesses succeed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to discuss the health and 
safety issue.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, there are proponents of the bill who are 
claiming that the current exceptions to the penalty waiver provisions 
adequately protect the public, and I think it is very important at this 
moment, Madam Speaker to focus in on why that is not true.
  Unfortunately the exceptions to the penalty waiver provisions do not 
adequately protect the public. They may contain many of the buzz words 
which imply that the public health and safety is protected, however in 
reality the benefits of these exceptions are negligible. For instance, 
one exception permits the assessment of penalties when the violation 
has already caused actual serious harm. Paperwork requirements are put 
in place so agencies can prevent an accident before it occurs.
  This exception comes too late. It comes into play after the damage 
has been done.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this is an extremely different standard 
of proof. It is practically impossible to show that a failure to file 
paperwork, not some intervening event, was the actual cause of the 
accident.
  Another exception allows fines to be assessed when the violation 
poses a serious and eminent threat to the public health or safety. 
Again, this is an extremely difficult standard of proof. It is 
practically impossible to show that the danger posed by a lack of 
paperwork poses an eminent danger.
  For instance, if an employer fails to provide adequate instruction on 
how to operate dangerous machinery, it would be impossible to prove 
that this failure created an eminent threat unless the employee has 
already been injured. That is why this idea about there are current 
exceptions to the penalty waiver provisions which adequately protect 
the public is flat out wrong.
  Moreover, the exception which allows fines when the failure to fine 
would impede criminal detection makes little sense. It is the failure 
to file information, not the failure to fine, that impedes criminal 
detection.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) as the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for this rule and bringing it forward, and it is a 
pleasure

[[Page 2264]]

to see him taking up his new duties on the Committee on Rules as a 
freshman, and I look forward to working with him.
  I support this open rule and look forward to the debate on the bill. 
I think it is a very serious issue that we will be addressing today in 
this Congress. I would like to note for the record that when the bill 
is brought forward, there is going to be a manager's amendment that I 
will offer that I think will go a long way toward addressing some of 
the concerns about public health and safety by making it clear that it 
is the potential to cause serious harm to the public interest which 
would not create an exemption so that if there is that potential, if 
the agency determines in advance that there is a potential that certain 
forms not being posted for hazardous materials could cause serious harm 
to the public interest, then the provisions of the bill would not 
apply.
  I think with that in mind, Madam Speaker, the rest of the provisions 
of the bill are critically important. This country labors under an 
enormous paperwork burden coming out of Washington. The total cost is 
$229 billion. Now $229 billion may not sound a lot to people in 
Washington who are used to spending a budget of $1\1/2\ to $2 trillion, 
but when we talk to America's small businesses, the men and women who 
are running grocery stores, who are running a drugstore, who are trying 
to farm the family farm, the men and women who are operating a doctor's 
office, who work to provide services in our country, $230 billion is a 
lot of money, and frankly, they cannot afford to hire hundreds of 
lawyers, to hire hundreds of accountants in order to keep up with the 
morass of paperwork that comes from Washington.
  It is estimated by the Federal Government that it takes 7 billion 
man-hours to complete paperwork in 1998, 7 billion man-hours. 
Oftentimes these reports are contradictory, they are confusing, people 
make mistakes, and it has been our experience as we held several 
hearings on this issue and field hearings around the country before 
that that America's small businesses, the men and women who operate 
them, on the whole are trying to do their best to complete those 
requirements. They are good law-abiding citizens who are trying to do a 
job, they are trying to make their business successful, and they are 
trying to do what is right in filling out all this government 
paperwork.
  But sometimes they just do not get it right, and then the agencies 
come in and play gotcha. They come in and say:
  ``Well, you owe us a thousand dollars here because you didn't fill 
out this log correctly.''
  ``Oh, you owe us $750 here because you didn't bring the book with you 
to the job site.''
  Madam Speaker, that is one of the stories that I tell that relate to 
people that we heard at our hearings. Those type of penalties where it 
is very clear that the small businessman or small businesswoman are 
being harassed are what we want to stop with this bill.
  Frankly, we took President Clinton at his word in 1995 when he said, 
and I will quote:
  ``We will stop playing gotcha with decent honest business people who 
want to be good citizens. Compliance, not punishment, should be our 
objective.''
  Madam Speaker, we did take the President at his word and introduce 
this bill. Since then we found he does not always mean things that he 
tells the American people. But I think what he was saying there was 
correct. The government should not be playing gotcha with good law-
abiding citizens in this country, and so we provided a 6-month period 
when the agency points out to the small businessman they need to be 
doing it differently, where they can correct the mistakes. And as long 
as there is no harm to the public, as long as there is no danger of 
allowing criminal activity to go forward, then they will have that 6-
month period to correct their mistakes.
  I look forward to the debate on this bill, and I look forward to 
discussing these issues with my colleagues, and I look forward to this 
House once again in a bipartisan fashion passing a bill that will help 
America's small businesses.
  Again let me say thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
for bringing forward the rule, thanks to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for their 
eloquent talks earlier today, and I also want to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his work. Although he doesn't support the 
bill as it is currently written, many of his comments have helped us as 
we crafted this in order to make sure that we do not create any 
unintended consequences.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that my 
good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and I have tried 
to work together to craft a bill which we could have agreement on. H.R. 
391 is not that bill, but it would be nice if it was. I am glad that 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has just indicated in this 
discussion, where we both favor an open rule, that he will come forward 
with an amendment to try to make the bill a little bit better.
  I would humbly and respectfully suggest to my good friend the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), that I have had the chance to 
look at that amendment, and, while we will be talking about it later, I 
thought I would mention at this moment, while we have the opportunity, 
to say that the gentleman is coming along in the right direction, but 
it is not far enough to protect some of the health and safety and 
environmental concerns which we are very concerned about.
  I would just like the gentleman to think about this, because in the 
next two hours, maybe this Congress can come to the whole direction and 
get support for the amendment which I will be offering under the open 
rule.
  As I have understood the amendment which the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. McIntosh) will be bringing forward under this open rule, agencies 
would still be prevented from assessing fines for intentional and 
malicious violations. As I understand the amendment which will be 
offered under this open rule, which I support, the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) would not provide any protections 
for the environment, and that the amendment, as I read it, would make 
it still almost impossible to prove that a violation, not an 
intervening action, would pose a serious harm.
  So while I support the open rule, I thought I would comment that 
while the amendment that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) will 
be offering is starting to come in the right direction, we still have 
some major problems here, so we just do not leap over and defeat the 
purpose of the open rule, which is to give us the opportunity to bring 
out our amendments and debate our possibilities, because I am sure 
Madam Speaker and many in the Congress have read the novel Catch-22 by 
Joseph Heller, and what is being offered to the Congress is a Catch-22, 
in which you can fine someone if there is a potential to cause harm, 
but, Madam Speaker, and this is what this is all going to be about in 
the next few hours, we do not know if there is a potential harm if 
there is no paperwork being filed.
  So I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh), I am sure the next few hours will be interesting as we are 
able to explore some of these contradictions under this open rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 391. As 
a new Member I sought appointment to the Subcommittee on Regulatory 
Reform and Paperwork Reduction of the Committee on Small Business in 
order to pursue this very type of relief for our hard working small 
business people.
  I happen to represent a district in upstate New York where the 
predominant

[[Page 2265]]

employers are represented by the small business community, so this is 
an important measure for my constituents. We know that small businesses 
are the driving force behind our strong economy, yet they are forced to 
shoulder nearly two-thirds of the regulatory costs. As has already been 
stated, total regulatory costs to businesses in 1998 exceeded $700 
billion, with paperwork accounting for $229 billion, an astonishing 
one-third of all costs of regulations.
  Madam Speaker, I have real experience in this area. By way of 
example, I would like to relate to this distinguished body an 
experience of mine as a former regulator in the State of New York where 
I served as Labor Commissioner.
  As I said, I was a regulator in the state, and, along with the New 
York State Tax Commissioner, we sat down and compared the forms that 
the two of us required of the employer community. Laid out in front of 
the conference room table in my office were 25 forms on which the State 
Tax Department and the State Labor Department were asking employers to 
fill out important information.
  What we found on those forms is that we had a number of areas of 
duplication. After laying out those forms on the table and physically 
highlighting those areas of duplication, we literally found ourselves 
faced with a sea of yellow. The seemingly simple exercise allowed us to 
consolidate those 25 forms into just two forms.
  I am also proud to say in my tenure as State Labor Commissioner we 
were able to cut the regulatory burden to the employer community by 50 
percent, and yet our worker safety numbers, our safety numbers, were 
increased because we were able to more smartly apply our resources and 
dedicate our efforts to ensure safety.
  Madam Speaker, think about the time and the productivity saved by 
this act. Small business owners inherently fear unknown regulations and 
paperwork, a situation which discourages business start-ups, expansions 
and job growth.
  This bill provides a positive step in changing the punitive manner in 
which agencies seek regulatory compliance. It provides for a suspension 
of civil penalties for first-time paperwork violations of small 
businesses, as long as the violation does not result in harm, impede 
the detection of criminal activity, or threaten public health or 
safety. It is called voluntary compliance. It is an effort we used in 
New York very successfully, and, as I said, and I will repeat, we 
increased our safety numbers.
  Madam Speaker, small business people deserve to work with regulatory 
agencies in a proactive manner and should not live in fear of the 
``gotcha'' approach of achieving regulatory compliance.
  This bill also requires the publication of all Federal paperwork 
requirements on small businesses and establishes, very importantly so, 
a single agency point of contact for paperwork information, allowing 
small business to anticipate the otherwise unknown paperwork hurdles 
they must clear in launching new business ventures and in turn creating 
new jobs.
  I again praise the work of the bill's sponsors. I thank my friend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for affording me this time on 
behalf of the 22 small businesses, and urge passage of this important 
bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, this bill just simply helps small 
business.
  Madam 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. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 42 and rule XVIII, 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. 391.

                              {time}  1107


                     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. 391) 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, with Mrs. Emerson 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 Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, today the House takes up a bipartisan bill to ease 
the burden of government paperwork on America's small businesses, H.R. 
391, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1999. 
This bill would give America's small businesses relief from government 
paperwork and the agencies ``gotcha'' techniques, to which the 
President often refers.
  Madam Chairman, as you know, the burden of government paperwork is 
significant. According to the Office of Management and Budget, 
paperwork counts for one-third of the total regulatory costs in this 
country, or about $230 billion each year. That is $230 billion that 
America's small businesses and other businesses pay in order to fill 
out forms like these that I have brought with me here today. This is 
the total paperwork that a small businessman or woman would have to 
fill out in order to operate a new small business in America for one 
year. Later on in today's record I will testify as to exactly what 
those forms are. That is the mountain of paperwork that we are trying 
to reduce.
  We are also trying in this bill to give small businesses a break when 
they go through the paperwork, when they fill it out. As the gentleman 
who spoke on the rule told of his story in New York, when they have 
those 26 redundant forms and they miss one of the lines on it, happen 
to fill it out incorrectly, we are going to give them a break and let 
them have six months to go back and correct this.
  It takes about seven billion employee hours a year to fill out all 
the Federal paperwork. That is seven billion hours that a small 
businessman has to pay someone to fill out those forms, or he or she 
has to do it themselves.
  We heard testimony from many small business owners. They cannot 
afford to hire lawyers or accountants or an employee that will do all 
of the paperwork, so they stay up late at night, burning that midnight 
oil, filling out the forms, so they can be law-abiding small businesses 
in this country.
  Now, last year the Congress passed this bill. It passed with a strong 
bipartisan majority, 267 to 140. Fifty-four of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side joined virtually every Republican in supporting this 
bill. Last week the Committee on Government Reform approved the bill by 
voice vote and sent it to the floor today.
  The bill would do four things, and I think it is important that we 
focus on this because a lot has been said about this bill that, 
frankly, is not true.
  What are the four things that this bill does? First, it would put on 
the Internet a list of all of these Federal paperwork requirements, one 
place where the businesses by industry could go and look. If you are a 
doctor's office, you would see all of the forms that you have to fill 
out. If you are a sign company, you would see all of the forms that you 
have to fill out. If you are a machine tool company, you would see all 
of the forms that you have to fill out. It would be on the Internet, it 
is widely accessible, so that every small businessman would know 
exactly what their responsibilities are.
  Second, it would offer small businesses compliance assistance instead 
of

[[Page 2266]]

fines on a first time paperwork violation, so that, frankly, we would 
not be playing ``gotcha'' with America's small businesses. Government 
would be saying we are on your side. We think it is important that you 
fill out these forms, and we will help you do it. If you make a 
mistake, we will give you time to correct it.
  There are times when that provision does not apply, and this is what 
is important. It does not apply when doing so would harm or threaten 
the public interest, and, as I mentioned in the debate on the rule, I 
would like to offer an amendment after our hour of general debate that 
tightens that language and addresses some of the concerns to make it 
clear that if it has the potential to cause serious harm, that would 
mean there is no exemption from the fine. It would not apply if it 
would impede criminal detection or if it would involve one of the 
Internal Revenue laws.
  These exceptions we thought were important, because the agencies made 
a good case why they needed to be able to go forward with civil 
penalties.
  But I will tell you, it is my firm belief that filling out a form 
does not stop an environmental spill. Filling out a form does not stop 
somebody who wants to be crooked. If 99 percent of America's businesses 
are good, honest, decent people, but there is one rotten egg trying to 
cheat the government, frankly, we are not going to find out because he 
does not fill out the form. There is much too much reliance on 
paperwork to do the hard diligent work it takes to ferret out those bad 
actors.
  What we have preserved in this bill are all of the other remedies, 
criminal sanctions, if someone commits fraud. Many of the agencies have 
injunctive relief, where if they find a business is doing something 
that is illegal, doing something that might harm the public, they can 
come in and close it down.
  FDA has been doing that for years now, where they detect that 
somebody is producing a product, maybe it is apple juice, maybe some 
other food product that might be harmful, they do not wait to look at 
the paperwork. They go in with injunctive relief and shut that business 
down until the problem is corrected. That remedy is still available 
after this bill.
  So this is an important provision, and one that I think it is 
important we think about correctly in the debate.
  The third thing that the bill does is it would create a paperwork 
czar in each of the agencies who would contact small businesses on 
paperwork requirements and help them fill out the forms.

                              {time}  1115

  This paperwork czar would be an ombudsman for small businesses within 
the agency where they could feel they could call up and say, how do I 
do this? How do I fill out this form? I have gone through half the pile 
already, but I just do not understand this one. What do I need to do to 
comply with the law?
  The fourth one is that it would establish a multiagency task force to 
study how we can do even better at streamlining those requirements. I 
was enormously impressed with our colleague from New York who reported 
that with some effort as the head of the Labor Department in that 
State, he was able to reduce all of those 20-some forms down to just 2 
or 3. It took hard work I am sure to do that, and that is what we hope 
this multiagency task force will accomplish for us.
  These are 4 important goals, 4 things that this legislation 
accomplishes that will be good for America's small businesses.
  Now, one reason that this bill is needed is that the Federal agencies 
frankly have not been doing their job under the 1995 Paperwork 
Reduction Act. In 1995, Congress mandated and the President signed into 
law a bill that told the agencies they must reduce their paperwork by 
25 percent, so that we could take a quarter of this pile of paperwork 
and throw it out the door, as being redundant, unnecessary, something 
that was not needed.
  Well, the record shows the agencies are not doing their job. In 1996, 
they were supposed to reduce it by 10 percent. In fact, it was only 
reduced by 2.6 percent. Then, in 1997, they were supposed to reduce it 
by another 10 percent, and it actually increased, increased by 2.3 
percent. And then in 1998 when they were supposed to finish the job, 
make that 5 percent reduction, the agencies actually increased their 
paperwork another 1 percent.
  So we have seen a net increase since the Paperwork Reduction Act was 
enacted in 1995. To me, that screams of the need to make a change to 
that bill and to create the proper mechanisms to actually reduce 
unnecessary paperwork.
  Now, there is another provision in the law that Congress passed in 
SBREFA, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, that 
was passed in 1996 that mandated that the agencies on their own adopt a 
policy that would allow small businesses to be exempt from the civil 
penalties. Very similar to our provision, but what it did was it gave 
the agencies the latitude for adopting their own policies. It frankly 
is very similar to the amendment that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will bring later today.
  Well, the record is clear, frankly, that the agencies are not obeying 
SBREFA either. In fact, only 22 of the 77 agencies that assess these 
civil penalties even submitted a plan, and those that did address the 
question of relief for small businesses did so in a way that often 
caused more harm. What they said was, we are still going to impose the 
fine, but then we will allow you to arbitrate, to come in, hire a 
lawyer, go through an arbitration process, and maybe we will reduce the 
fine at the end of the day.
  As I tried to emphasize earlier, Madam Chairman, America's small 
businesses are not large corporations, they do not have hundreds of 
lawyers on their staff to handle those types of cases. They are trying 
to each day just get a product out the door, do their services, help 
the public with what they are providing in the way of their service in 
their community.
  So that policy actually does more harm than good. For that reason, I 
am not able to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), because it really just repeats the same language that SBREFA 
had that the agencies have indicated they have no intention of 
following through with.
  Now, let me mention a couple of actual examples that our hearings on 
this bill brought forward. Last spring, our subcommittee held 2 
hearings. Several small businesses were represented at those hearings.
  One lady, Teresa Gearhart, who owns a small trucking company with her 
husband in Hope, Indiana, a small town in rural Indiana, told us that 
her company has enough business to grow and add new employees, that she 
thinks she could actually add 5 more employees in the coming year. But 
they have made a conscious decision not to do so. I was puzzled by 
this, quite frankly, and I said, Teresa, why would you not want to 
expand? You seem to be successful. You offer a great service to the 
community. She said, we have looked at the paperwork and if we go over 
a certain threshold, then the amount of paperwork we have to fill out 
actually goes up, and it is not worth our time, we cannot hire somebody 
to fill it out. My husband and I already do all the paperwork as it is, 
and we cannot take anymore. So they made a conscious decision to not 
grow their small business, to not offer more opportunities for 
employment in that community, and to not thrive and perhaps have a 
chance to compete and become one of America's larger businesses.
  A second person who testified was Mr. Gary Roberts. Now, Gary is the 
owner of a small company that installs pipelines in the town of Sulphur 
Springs, Indiana. He came and told us about a problem that he had with 
OSHA. Now, when one mentions OSHA to America's small businessmen, 
instead of saying yes, they come to help me make sure I have a safe 
work site, they cringe, because they think OSHA is going to come and 
find something that they have not filled out right in their paperwork 
and charge them $750, $2,000, whatever the fine may be.
  This happened to Gary Roberts. He was working on a job, his men were 
on

[[Page 2267]]

the site, they had complied with all of the safety requirements to 
excavate and lay the pipeline, but they had left the manual that 
repeated all of those requirements that they had been trained on and 
drilled on back at the office. The OSHA inspector came, he did not find 
anything wrong, it was a perfectly safe work site. One of the workers 
actually ran back to the main office and brought the manual to show 
they had one and had been using it, and they were told, you are out of 
luck. You did not have it here when I arrived; that is a $750 fine.
  That type of ``gotcha'' technique is continuing to go on and it is 
exactly the type of problem that we need to address with this 
legislation.
  We have heard from farmers as well. Mr. Van Dyke, a muck crop farmer 
in Michigan, was fined this year for not having the proper employment 
disclosure paperwork. This was his first violation. He had always 
filled it out, he did not have it for some reason, and he ended up 
settling for $17,000. This is a farmer who has workers who help him 
harvest his crops who had a $17,000 fine this year as a result of a 
paperwork violation.
  Now, this is all the paperwork, as I said, that is required for 
America's small businesses. We need to do better by them. We need to 
reduce that. We need to put the agencies on the side of small 
businesses, and we need to do our job in making sure that the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is working and helping America's small businesses. Madam 
Chairman, I look forward to the debate on the amendments.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have my remarks prepared, but there is something that I heard the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) say relating to the case 
involving Mr. Roberts, the owner of a small company which installs 
pipelines in Indiana.
  We have been doing some research on this matter, and I would just 
like to report the results of our research and see if it is out of 
variance with the information which the gentleman from Indiana has. The 
inspections which he mentioned took place in 1987 and 1989, during the 
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. According to OSHA 
records, Mr. Roberts' company was not assessed any fine for any of the 
3 paperwork violations uncovered during the inspection. Those 
violations included ``no written hazard communication program,'' ``no 
hazard warning labels on hazardous chemicals being worked with,'' and 
``no material safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals.''
  Instead, Mr. Roberts was fined after OSHA inspectors found 
substantive violations during 3 separate inspections, including 
violations determined to be serious. The first inspection on December 
2, 1987 found 10 violations involving, among other things, flammable 
and combustible liquids and electrical hazards. On May 10, 1989, OSHA 
found 7 more violations, including actual safety violations. The third 
inspection on November 9, 1989 found 4 serious violations. It was only 
then, after the third inspection, that the company was fined. This 
included a $400 fine for failing to provide sufficient protection for 
employees from traffic, a $160 fine for operating equipment without 
appropriate wheel guards, and a $400 fine because the construction site 
did not have, this is a construction site, did not have the required 
hand rails, guardrails, or get this, manhole covers. No penalties were 
assessed for 12 other violations uncovered during that inspection, 
including the paperwork violation referred to by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  So much of this debate involves mythologies that need to be 
challenged. For instance, what is a small business? Well, the image I 
have of a small business is a mom and pop delicatessen; that is part of 
my memory growing up in America, but we know there are not many of 
those left anymore.
  Let us look at what a small business, for purposes of this bill, 
would be identified as. How about a petroleum refining company of up to 
1,500 employees. Or, a fire and casualty insurance company with 1,500 
employees. Or, a pharmaceutical company with 750 employees. Or, an 
explosive manufacturer, an explosive manufacturer with 750 employees. 
That is a small business. They would be exempt from fines, even if they 
have willfully and intentionally violated the law with respect to 
reporting requirements. An explosive manufacturer.
  Car dealers with $21 million in annual receipts, gas stations with 
$6.5 million in annual receipts, dry cleaners, banks with $100 million 
in assets. A small business.
  Now, H.R. 391 waives penalties for most first-time violations by 
``small business concerns.'' And the bill states that a small business 
is what is defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act. Just 
understand when we are speaking of small businesses what we mean and 
where the impact is on this bill.
  The general rule is that a small business has less than 500 
employees, but we have to remember that in this case, in this bill and 
in a number of cases, small business may be even larger.
  Now, we all know that small businesses are the backbone of America. 
They are where the new jobs are being created. However, many small and 
family-owned businesses spend a great deal of their time and resources 
learning about and complying with applicable laws. It is good that we 
are looking at ways to simplify and streamline the resulting paperwork, 
but we are not looking for ways I hope to give someone a free pass on a 
willful violation, a get-out-of-jail-free card on a willful violation.
  Madam Chairman, I oppose H.R. 391, and I am definitely not alone. The 
administration strongly opposes it. Four department heads would 
recommend a veto. A growing number of State attorneys general and 
labor, environmental, consumer, senior citizens, health and firefighter 
groups oppose it. The list of opposing groups is daunting, including 
names like the National Council of Senior Citizens, the AFL-CIO, and 
the New York State Attorney General's Office.
  H.R. 391 contains a number of noncontroversial provisions that will 
reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses. That is good. However, 
the provisions that prevent agencies from assessing civil penalties for 
most first-time violations would create a number of unintended, but 
serious, negative consequences. These provisions could endanger 
seniors' pensions, threaten the quality of nursing home care, interfere 
with the war on drugs, undermine food safety protections. Think about 
that in an era where pfiesteria has confronted American consumers.

                              {time}  1130

  Think about that, in an era where food contamination has become a 
greater concern. This legislation would also undercut controls on fraud 
against consumers and investors, and this legislation would threaten 
the environment and provide a safe harbor for violators, even when the 
violation is longstanding, intentional, and committed in bad faith.
  Of interest to those who are devotees of the Tenth Amendment, this 
bill would preempt State law. The National Governors Association wrote, 
and I quote, ``States are best able to direct State enforcement policy 
on the issue, and we believe that Federal preemption of State authority 
is unjustified.''
  So I rise not simply as a Member of Congress representing people in 
the northeast area of the State of Ohio, but I rise on behalf of the 
State of Ohio in stating that, and of other States who are concerned 
that a Federal preemption will occur.
  Madam Chairman, let me give some examples of the possible pitfalls 
created by these provisions.
  Food safety. In 1996, the FDA implemented the hazardous analysis 
critical control point, pronounced HACCP, system of seafood inspection. 
This is a serious inspection program that would prevent the centuries-
old what was known as the poke-and-sniff test as the primary method of 
preventing the sale of seafood contaminated with dangerous pathogens. 
HACCP, the law, requires seafood companies to identify

[[Page 2268]]

local food safety hazards, such as toxins, parasites, bacteria, and 
they have to develop procedures to monitor on-site preventive control 
measures. Shellfish producers are also required to keep records of the 
origin of shellfish, in case a recall is necessary. The entire system 
depends on processing plants to report their own compliance with food 
safety requirements. It is kind of an honor system.
  Under H.R. 391, however, FDA officials will be unable to enforce 
seafood safety laws because the violations of recordkeeping 
requirements will be unenforceable. FDA's only alternative, and get 
this, America, the only alternative that the FDA would have would be to 
take enforcement action after the consumers have been poisoned.
  Opponents of the amendment which I will offer argue that the 
exception for violations that pose a ``serious and imminent danger to 
the public health or safety'' adequately protect the public. This is 
simply not true. And notwithstanding any other amendment that may be 
offered, if a business fails to report where it received its oysters, 
there is no imminent danger. The imminence of the danger only becomes 
apparent after someone has gotten food poisoning and the agency is 
attempting a recall of the poisoned foods.
  Worker safety. In fact, the exception for imminent and substantial 
danger offers little protection under any set of facts. For example, if 
an employer fails to provide a worker with instructions on how to 
safely operate machinery, this is a paperwork violation. Again, there 
is no obvious imminent danger until after the worker has been injured.
  Madam Chairman, there are so many things wrong with this bill that 
even an attempt to amend it, to clean it up, is going to be lacking in 
sufficient import to be able to protect the health, the safety, the 
environment, of the people of the United States of America.
  I believe the gentleman from Indiana may now have the opportunity to 
respond to the concerns that I expressed about food safety or any other 
matter that he certainly has information about.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, what I would simply like to point out, and I think 
the gentleman knows this, and I would ask him to amend his remarks to 
reflect this, the FDA has ample authority to go in and close down an 
unsafe food production facility before any injury to the public. They 
have used it often. Perhaps the gentleman was misinformed, or in the 
heat of the debate overstated the case, but I think if he goes back and 
checks he will realize that that is the case. There are serious things 
that can happen and that we need regulations for, and the agencies have 
the tools to do that under this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I am something unique around here. I 
actually am a small business person and have run small businesses in 
the past. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what happens in 
America.
  I am kind of shocked to find out that we are going to have to 
increase the amount of paperwork that small businesses are obligated to 
do in order to save America as we know it. I did not know that the 
minority in the administration are predisposed to the idea that all 
businessmen are criminals, or that we want to destroy the environment 
or contaminate America's food supply. I always thought the small 
businessmen in this country were honest, hardworking men; we try to do 
the best thing, we get up every morning, we make the payroll, we work 
hard. We do the things that are necessary to keep this country on 
track.
  Fifty-three percent of the private workforce in this country are 
represented by the small business people, or are hired by small 
business people, not just large companies. I would agree with the 
gentleman that 1,500 employees is a pretty good-sized company, but I 
did not have that many employees. I had less than 100. I would define 
that as a small business.
  It is tough out there. It is tough to meet all the requirements that 
are put upon us every single day. So not only am I here to support this 
gentleman in his legislation, but enthusiastically support it. It 
amounted to over 7 billion man-hours a year to complete paperwork in 
1998, a cost of $229 billion annually to businesses. It accounts for 
one-third of regulatory costs in America.
  What is wrong with trying to have more efficient operations of the 
United States government? Do we want more government? Do we want more 
paperwork? Do we want more bureaucracy? I do not think so. This is an 
opportunity for us to do a small, little bit to cut back on the costs 
and the burdensome regulations that are placed on businesses every day.
  I do not understand why the minority is opposed to this. I guess I 
do. I guess they want more paperwork and more regulatory costs. But I 
certainly cannot support that. I am happy to be here to support the 
gentleman on this good piece of legislation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I had come down here hoping to engage in 
a high-level debate. I am a little disappointed to see the cynicism and 
skepticism creep in, and there is some sort of contest here about who 
is most in love with America's small businesses.
  I suspect all of us appreciate and acknowledge the importance of 
America's small businesses. My colleague who just spoke is not the only 
Member of Congress who is a small business person, nor is it unique 
among our colleagues here to have a small business experience in their 
past before they came to this body. So I would hope we start with the 
assumption that all of us are here intending to do what is best, not 
just for small businesses, but for America and for our population, 
including our consumers, and including all of us who have a concern 
about the environment and law enforcement, and all of the other 
agencies that are involved in making our quality of life at a high 
level, or as high a level as possible.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, having been somebody who has a 
long experience with small business and with their regulatory affairs, 
having represented numerous small businesses as they dealt with 
regulations and their application.
  But I look at this bill, Madam Chairman, and I see it has some good 
points and it has some deficiencies. The problem that I see is in the 
efforts to work with the other side to correct some of these 
deficiencies, and we are met with sort of a challenge that any 
correction of the bill in a bipartisan manner will take away the 
opportunity for somebody to be the champion and somebody not to be the 
champion. I do not think that is the way we ought to proceed in moving 
legislation through this body.
  There is much in this bill that in fact can be supported. I think 
that we all agree that businesses should not be burdened or 
overburdened by overzealous application of the law. The proposal in 
this bill to publish in the Federal Register an annual list of the 
requirements that pertain to small business makes sense. We ought to do 
that.
  The establishment of an agency point of contact, a liaison for small 
businesses to work with, should make compliance easier. That, too, is 
something everybody should be able to support, as is the proposed task 
force that would examine how the requirements for information 
collection can be streamlined.
  Everybody here wants to make sure that small business gets a break 
when it is deserved. We just want to make sure that we do not provide a 
disincentive for filing reports that protect our health and our safety. 
I believe we should be able to achieve that goal if we put aside the 
concept of winners and losers here.
  We all agree with my colleague's comments about small business being 
the backbone of America, creating the majority of new jobs; the fact 
that

[[Page 2269]]

small business owners work hard in their communities to help build 
them, and that we should make sure that everybody in small businesses 
is encouraged in creating jobs and new jobs. That is something we 
definitely want to do.
  But we know that most small businesses do in fact obey the law. There 
is no question about that. They are good Americans. We were all good 
Americans when we were small business people. We salute them, and we 
are sure Members on both sides of the aisle do.
  However, there are problems with this bill, because not all of us are 
angels, in fact. Some of the small businesses we find in this bill are 
not in fact small businesses by our normal account of how that word 
might be defined.
  In this bill, I might note, Madam Chairman, there will not be any 
requirement for the filing of one less piece of paper when this bill 
passes. Every small business will be filing just as much paper the day 
after.
  As I mentioned, there is nothing actually in this bill that reduces 
paperwork. If this legislation is enacted, no individual will file one 
less piece of paper tomorrow or the day after than they would have 
filed before, but this H.R. 391 would bar agencies from assessing civil 
fines against those who violate a large variety of laws, even those 
when the violations were intentional. I do not think that is someplace 
where small businesses want to go or the American public wants to go.
  The administration is strongly opposed to this bill for obvious 
reasons, as it is currently written. There is a Statement of 
Administration Policy on the bill which states that if presented to the 
President in its current form, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency would recommend that the President veto 
this bill.
  All of those people, Madam Chairman, cannot be against small business 
in America. They do, however, see that this bill needs some remedial 
action, and they are going to suggest that.
  I think when we talk to the amendment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) is proposing, it takes that action. It allows and requires, 
in fact, the agencies to look at the nature and seriousness of a 
violation, the good faith efforts to comply that might be there, and 
other relevant factors in determining whether or not there should be a 
waiver.
  I think the American people want to lessen the burden of paperwork 
everywhere, they want to lessen the burden of regulation, but they want 
it done in a reasonable way, they want it done with common sense, and 
in a way that still provides for protection of our health and our 
safety in all counts.
  So I would ask, Madam Chairman, that everyone reconsider their 
hardened positions and their concept that people are going to be better 
than others or more a champion of small business, and settle in on what 
is best, not just for small business, but to help small business keep 
maintaining the health and safety of the American public; simply 
allowing agencies to waive when appropriate, but to retain the ability 
to check all different circumstances when it is appropriate and when it 
is not.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, I would mention one of the examples. If we would 
check and examine the paperwork from a dermatologist in Columbus, 
Indiana, who does his own lab work, fills out his own forms, he is 
required to fill out on a form a report that he has been trained on how 
to change the light bulbs in his microscope.
  This is a doctor, highly trained, and a medical technician who could 
be subject to a civil penalty if he did not fill out a form correctly 
certifying that he has gone through the training in changing a light 
bulb. That is the type of paperwork that we need to eliminate, and 
certainly need to say we are not going to play gotcha and fine you 
$1,000 if you do not fill it out right.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Greg Walden), a new Member.
  (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I want to follow up on the 
comments of my colleague from Massachusetts that this bill does not 
reduce one piece of paperwork that has to be filed. Well, I would say 
this is a good step in the right direction. And if that gentleman would 
like to work with us, I am sure there is a lot of this sort of 
unnecessary and burdensome paperwork that maybe we could strike a 
bipartisan effort to eliminate. That should be our absolute goal.
  My wife and I, for nearly 13 years, have owned and operated a small 
business. We have been on the forefront, right there on the battlefield 
with our neighbors and friends in a small rural town who are trying to 
make ends meet and employ people and fill out the forms, and risking 
the fines and the penalties because we did not do it right.
  Now, there are those in big companies who can go down the hall and 
turn to a legal staff or an implementation staff at some point and they 
can fill out all the forms for them. But in a small business, in a 
small town, the owner of that business becomes that legal staff. That 
owner becomes that personnel department. The owner becomes everything 
in that business. The owner is trying to make ends meet, he or she is 
trying to meet a payroll and trying to serve their clients and trying 
to serve their community.
  And then the government comes along with another form or another 
inspection or another penalty. I am regulated by the Federal Government 
in the business I am in. I have a one-week window to pay the fees each 
year to that government. And my colleagues can smile about it. I 
understand that. But this is serious business, because we have a one-
week window to fill out the form and send the fee to the Federal 
Government. If that form is filled out incorrectly or if that fee 
arrives late, it is a 25 percent penalty that I may be subject to. I 
cannot send in that form or fee ahead of time. It has to be done in a 
5-day window.
  This government of ours, unless an individual is right there on the 
forefront, they cannot appreciate the number of forms and the number of 
inspections. And not that they come in, in each case and drop the 
hammer and issue a fine on first-time offenses, but the threat is 
always there that they will. And in some cases there may be an 
overzealous inspector, an overzealous bureaucrat who decides to drop 
the hammer and do that.
  That is what we are trying to say here. Give us a break in small 
business. Give us a little relief. Give us the benefit of the doubt 
that what we are doing is trying to follow the rules, trying to follow 
the government's regulations, and do it honestly and fairly.
  I do not believe that most small business people in my town, in my 
district, are trying to circumvent what the government wants them to 
do. Indeed, the farmers and ranchers and small businesses are trying to 
follow the rules. But I tell my colleagues what gets unfair is when a 
fruit grower has farm housing, and OSHA comes in and fines him $75 
because the toilet paper is out in the toilet paper dispenser in the 
bathroom. There is a roll on the tank behind, but that does not count.
  Madam Chairman, we need to pass this measure and pass it today.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Some comment was made about some smiling on this side of the aisle. I 
am totally unaware of what the gentleman was referring to, but I will 
submit if this bill passes as written, there will be a lot of people 
smiling who are deliberately and willfully and intentionally failing to 
fill out paperwork which relates to the public safety, the public

[[Page 2270]]

health and the environment of the country. That is where the smiles 
might be coming from. But they are sure not coming from this side.
  There is a lot of discussion about the reduction of paperwork we have 
heard here. Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork, blah, blah, blah, blah, 
blah. I want to make it very clear that the controversial positions 
that the administration and I are opposing have nothing to do with 
reducing paperwork.
  The administration strongly opposes H.R. 391 in the statement of 
administration policy, which says, in part, and I quote, the waiver 
provision, the waiver provision for first time violators. The bad 
actors, not the people who want to keep the law, not the good Americans 
out there who are faithfully doing the right thing, who are filling out 
the forms, who are running those businesses who we salute, but the bad 
actors would get off.
  This waiver position would seriously hamper an agency's ability to 
ensure safety, protect the environment, detect criminal activity, 
criminal activity, not talking about the small businesses of America 
who are good Americans who do not violate the law. This waiver 
provision would seriously hamper the detection of criminal activity and 
the government's ability to carry out a number of other statutory 
responsibilities.
  If H.R. 391 were presented to the President in its current form, the 
Attorney General, Secretary of Labor, Department of Transportation, and 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would 
recommend that the President veto it.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to note that my colleague uses the terms ``willfully'', 
``intentionally'', ``deliberately'' and ``off the hook''. These are 
terms that are used in talking about criminals and crooks.
  The difference on this bill is fundamental. We do not think America's 
small businesses are criminals. On the whole, the vast majority of them 
are good, decent, honest, hard-working American men and women who 
deserve to be cut a break when they try to fill out the myriad of 
paperwork the government asks them to do.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Ewing).
  Mr. EWING. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for allowing me to talk about something that is very close to 
my heart.
  This is my fifth term in the Congress. And from the very beginning, I 
can tell my colleagues that in Illinois, in the part that I represent, 
that if there is resentment of government, it comes from how we enforce 
our rules and regulations. And it comes from people who have good 
intentions, who are not criminals, who are not trying to poison the 
environment or poison any citizens. They are there doing their job. But 
they get some pretty heavy fines for pretty insignificant violations.
  This bill does not let anyone off who is doing something criminal. 
This bill merely says to the regulator, work with these people. It 
should not be an adversarial relationship between the regulated and the 
regulator. We need to work together.
  I think that is what we have been talking about in this new Congress, 
is working together, trying to find common ground to do things to make 
America better. But I am afraid, and I say to my colleagues on the 
other side, if we played back the tape of today's debate, the vitriolic 
part is coming from over there. The scare tactics that we are going to 
do all these terrible things hearken back to the Contract days and the 
same type of attack on just good common sense legislation.
  If we go back to the Contract, most of it was signed by the 
President, most of it became law, and we are all taking credit for it 
today. I would just like to see us work together. Work together and let 
us do some things that are good for Americans.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. And I want to express to the previous speaker that I very 
much agree with his sentiments. I understand what he is saying.
  We want to help small business people who get tangled up in 
regulatory bureaucracy and find themselves a victim from those who are 
overzealous. But let us step back and look at the bill before us, not 
what we would like the bill to be. Because if the bill did what the 
gentleman said, I would support it, and I hope we can get the bill to 
reflect that goal.
  The first problem we have is that we are voting on a bill that never 
had a hearing. It never had a hearing in a subcommittee, there was 
never a hearing in the full committee, so the groups and individuals 
that wanted to give input into this legislation, particularly those who 
would be affected, do not know why they were not heard, and we have not 
been able to get their reactions on the record in the usual legislative 
process.
  This bill is called the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. We 
all want to reduce paperwork, but it is a misnomer. I think a better 
name for this bill, in the way it is framed now, is the Lawbreakers 
Immunity Act. It is not about small businesses, since it applies to gun 
manufacturers with a thousand employees, oil refineries with 1500 
workers, and drinking water utilities with millions in annual revenues.
  And it is not just a bill about paperwork. What is at stake here is 
the public's right to know about toxic emissions, an employee's right 
to know about workplace dangers, and a senior's right to know about 
safe conditions in nursing homes.
  Make no mistake about it, the scope of this bill is far-reaching, 
with huge effects that deserve a full hearing and deliberation. Over 57 
groups have expressed their opposition to this bill. Few issues have 
attracted such a diverse range of voices in opposition. Groups ranging 
from the State attorneys general, the labor organizations, the National 
Breast Cancer Coalition, consumer organizations, religious groups, fire 
fighters, environmentalists, handgun control advocates, they all oppose 
this bill.
  Now, why are all these groups concerned? They were not given a chance 
to come before a hearing and express their concern. This bill gives 
first-time violators of important health, environment and consumer 
protection laws a free pass, making enforcement of our laws more 
difficult, if not impossible. By taking a blanket waiver approach, the 
bill creates a disincentive to comply with the law.
  Now, let me give my colleagues some examples of this, and it is 
important to realize that there are serious consequences to this bill. 
The National Council of Senior Citizens wrote: ``We believe that 
passage of this legislation will present serious problems in regard to 
the protection of older persons receiving care in nursing homes. 
Because inspections of nursing homes and their records are often 
infrequent, passage of H.R. 391 could cause deliberate violations of 
required procedures.''
  Let me elaborate a little on that, because I was the author of the 
Federal law on nursing home standards. Nursing homes have to submit 
paperwork to show that they are monitoring drug use by their patients; 
that they are monitoring the treatment and quality of care given to 
their patients. If they do not submit the paperwork because they know 
that in submitting that paperwork they will be found to be poorly 
treating the patients in that nursing home, and therefore they 
intentionally do not file that paperwork, knowing that nothing will 
happen to them for violating law, they will be off scot-free. But the 
consequences will be a lot of people will be overdrugged in a nursing 
home and ignored and left to just sit there.
  The fire fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs 
joined five other fire service organizations in a letter expressing 
concern over, and I quote, ``Provisions of this legislation that would 
permit or facilitate the relaxing of regulations designed to warn fire 
fighters and other emergency personnel of the presence of hazardous 
materials. The bill raises serious safety issues for fire fighters.''

[[Page 2271]]

  Well, we do not want to do that, and we do not have to do that to 
give small business people some relief from inadvertent errors in their 
paperwork obligations.
  The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, they wrote 
on behalf of their membership stating, and I quote, ``Numerous crucial 
health and environmental programs, including those for tracking 
hazardous materials, assuring food safety, reporting on hazardous 
emissions, reporting on drinking water contamination, and giving notice 
of chemical accidents rely on crucial reporting requirements that would 
be undercut by this legislation.''

                              {time}  1200

  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) a few minutes ago told us 
an anecdote that none of us had ever heard before, about a 
dermatologist who had to change his light bulb and was fined as a 
result of that.
  Well, we will have to check out whether that was true or not. And the 
reason we have to check it out is that that gentleman told us last time 
we had this bill up that OSHA had a regulation, that is the 
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which would require that 
all baby teeth be disposed of as hazardous waste materials rather than 
given back to the parents.
  Well, we were all in dismay over such a regulation. The problem is 
there was no such regulation. The New York Times investigated this 
claim and found that it was completely false.
  In 1991, under the Bush administration, OSHA issued regulations to 
protect health workers from blood-borne pathogens. One rule required 
dental workers to handle extracted teeth safely because they are 
contaminated with blood. So contrary to this claim, the regulation 
allowed a gloved dentist or employee to take the tooth, place it in a 
container, and give it to the parents.
  I want to cite the New York Times, February 28, 1995. Too often on 
the floor of this House Members state things that they just made up, or 
maybe they heard it from somebody, but it turns out under further 
examination to be absolutely false. It may fit in with their theory, 
but if it is not true, it is not very helpful.
  This bill has not had hearings. It has not had the airing that it 
should in the legislative process. It is astounding that not one of 
these groups had an opportunity to express their views to our 
committee. This is a bad bill. It makes intentional violations of vital 
laws unenforceable. We should not want that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair will advise that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our whip, who has been laboring in 
this vineyard even longer than I have. I appreciate his coming to the 
floor.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the hard work that the 
gentleman from Indiana has done in trying to bring some reasonableness 
to the regulatory policy of this country.
  I think it is really interesting that some in this House base all 
their information and the veracity of that information on the New York 
Times. I would think that it would be more important to go straight to 
the agency itself and get the real truths from the agency, as the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) does, in supporting the claims 
that he makes.
  But Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of this very 
reasonable legislation, in support of what the Clinton administration 
has claimed all the time in reinventing government, to reach out and 
create partnerships with the private sector and work with the private 
sector rather than bring down the regulatory hammer on small business 
people, and this legislation does that.
  But in 1995 we passed a bipartisan Paperwork Reduction Bill that 
required a decrease in the Federal paperwork of 15 percent over the 
last three years. Do my colleagues know what the result of that 
legislation has been? Federal paperwork requirements have increased.
  Do we have to reinvent the reinvention of government? What part of 
``decrease'' do the bureaucrats and the regulators and their supporters 
not understand?
  Mr. Chairman, the business of America is business; and over the last 
decade, American businesses have made huge strides to cut waste and 
improve the efficiency of their operations. But despite all these 
efforts, America's small businesses still have to spend too much time 
and too much money filling out unnecessary government paperwork, which 
prevents them from growing faster and creating new jobs and does not do 
anything to improve the health, safety, or the environment that the 
gentleman from California purports.
  Remarkably, one-third of all Federal regulatory cost is the result of 
paperwork requirements. One-third. That amounts to $229 billion of an 
albatross roped around the neck of the small business person every 
year. Over seven billion man-hours are being drowned in this sea of red 
tape.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal regulators need to start complying with the 
law. And this bill will list Federal paperwork requirements for small 
business on the Internet. It will assist rather than punish small 
businesses with their efforts at compliance. And it will create a 
multi-agency task force and an agency-specific paperwork czar to tackle 
this problem, and it is a problem.
  Above all, it is lenient on first-time offenders when there are no 
health or safety concerns involved, so the Federal Government does not 
have to strangle this economy's biggest job creator in red tape and 
regulations and unnecessary paperwork. This bill takes another step 
toward lending companies a helping hand with this paperwork morass. I 
urge that my colleagues support it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  As part of my work on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I 
chair the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and in 1998 we 
went to the GAO and we asked them to take a look at paperwork as it 
affected America's businesses. They came back with a proposal, and they 
were going to take a look at companies in the State of California, to 
take a look at the Federal laws and the overlay of State laws that 
would affect a business within that company. They would take a look at 
the compliance requirements flowing from the Federal and State laws. 
They would take a look at the types of assistance that was available to 
different firms. And then they would take a look at the impact of 
workplace and tax laws, the impact that they would have on human 
resource operations.
  What did they find? Well, in the State of California they found that 
there were 26 key Federal statutes that would impact a small- or 
medium-sized business. Interestingly enough, they also found that there 
is no single public agency, State or Federal, that would coordinate or 
provide a single point of contact for these small businesses, no single 
place to go to to get an understanding of, as a small business person, 
what do I have to do and how do I comply with the law?
  What did these managers tell the GAO? Here are some of the things 
they said: Rules and regulations from the Federal Government are 
ambiguous under the law. They are constantly dealing with shifting 
sands. It means the regulations or the impact or how they are 
interpreted evolve over time.
  What H.R. 391 does is it starts to deal with these kinds of issues. 
It would put all of the rules or a comprehensive list of all the 
Federal paperwork requirements on the Internet, a single place to go to 
to get the information. It would offer small businesses compliance 
assistance. They go to a small business and say, we are going to help 
you comply with the regulations. Establish a paperwork czar. A single 
point of contact for small business so that there

[[Page 2272]]

would be a place to go to to get an understanding. And finally the most 
important might be that we would get a process that would outline 
streamlined requirements for small business.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 391, because small businesses are 
the backbone of our economy. Over the last 25 years, two-thirds of the 
new jobs in our country were created by small businesses, and overall 
small business employees are more than half of our private workforce, 
and they desperately need relief from the burdensome requirements of 
government, of more and more paperwork.
  Regulations imposed by government cost a tremendous amount of money 
for each family, each working family. In fact, they cost a staggering 
amount. The typical family of four pays approximately $6,875 a year 
because of excessive government regulations. That would go a long way 
toward a college education, and it goes instead to regulations.
  Families actually spend more on regulations than they do medical 
expenses, food, transportation, recreation, clothing, and savings. That 
is startling. Paperwork accounts for one-third of these regulatory 
costs. The American economy needs this bill and needs the relief it 
will afford.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the parts of this debate that I think is perhaps 
confusing to people is the assertion that paperwork is not important.
  We certainly want to relieve American small businesses of any 
paperwork which is unnecessary. But I think most reasonable Americans 
would agree that there are certain types of paperwork which can become 
very necessary.
  For example, let us suppose that a jet plane which was a cargo plane 
had a particular type of cargo which had to be labeled ``cargo only'' 
and flown from one destination to another to arrive safely, and the 
cargo they had in some cases were oxygen cannisters; but let us suppose 
that cargo which happened to be oxygen cannisters was not labeled 
``cargo only'' and ended up on a passenger plane. It is paperwork.
  Well, actually this happened, that some oxygen cannisters ended up on 
a passenger plane instead of a cargo plane because they were not 
labeled ``cargo only.'' Paperwork. There was an explosion and 110 
people were killed on a ValuJet, which I think everyone remembers the 
crash in the Florida Everglades. The FAA pointed out that the company 
knowingly failed to package, mark, label, identify, or certify a 
shipment of 125 unexpended oxygen generators and 10 empty generators 
aboard the ValuJet.
  So we cannot say paperwork is not important. I think that we have to 
keep having incentives to comply. And the only way we have an incentive 
to comply is to make sure we do not waive the penalties, because 
otherwise we end up with the condition where lives are jeopardized. 
That is what so many people are saying, paperwork can save lives, that 
there is a reason to have paperwork.
  That is why the International Association of Fire Chiefs pointed out 
that removing or relaxing penalties for failure to comply with 
regulations that require disclosure of the presence of hazardous 
materials will almost certainly result in lack of compliance and raise 
serious safety issues for fire fighters. So there is a reason to have 
paperwork.
  More than that, we need to have compliance; and the only way we have 
compliance is we do not waive the penalties. This legislation is about 
waiver of penalties for violators.
  The AFL-CIO said that H.R. 391 would make the American workplace more 
dangerous than it currently is and needlessly remove safeguards 
currently in place to protect American workers.
  Many environmental organizations are opposed to this legislation. The 
Sierra Club and the Natural Resource Defense Council said, ``Numerous 
crucial health and environmental programs, including those for tracking 
hazardous materials, assuring food safety, reporting on hazardous 
emissions, reporting on drinking water contamination, and giving notice 
of chemical accidents, rely on crucial reporting requirements that 
would be undercut by this legislation.'' And there are dozens and 
dozens of groups who have similar concerns.
  We are for small business. We support those small businesses who are 
trying to do the right thing. We want to lessen their burden. But no 
one in America wants to remove all paperwork, which would create a 
circumstance where America's health, safety and environment would be 
jeopardized.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing the debate on this bill, and then we will 
move into amendments, let me put into the Record all the groups who are 
supporting the legislation, from the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant 
Association, the Academy of General Dentistry, and about three dozen 
other groups who support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers on the other side of the aisle said 
that they view this bill as the Lawbreakers' Immunity Act, and I think 
that just about sums up the difference of opinion here. They view small 
businesses as potential criminals, crooks, people who are looking for 
ways to get out of their requirements to obey the law.
  We view them as decent, honest men and women who are struggling to do 
a job, provide a service, build a product. And they are confronted 
every day, every time they hire a new employee, with a mountain of 
paperwork this high.

                              {time}  1215

  We want to give them a break. We want to reduce that paperwork. We 
want to say to them if they make a mistake or they do not fill out one 
of the forms right, we will give them a chance to correct it and get 
their paperwork in order. It is that simple.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues today to once again show 
bipartisan support as we did last year in the last Congress for this 
paperwork reduction bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 391, the 
Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. It is time we cut the red tape 
of the government and give some long overdue assistance to our nation's 
small business owners.
  The Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act will streamline federal 
paperwork requirements and waive fines for minor, first-time paperwork 
violations. Previous legislation has forced small businesses to spend 
over seven billion hours filling out paperwork. This costs small 
business owners over $229 billion dollars in expenditures.
  Simply stated, H.R. 391 will allow business owners the opportunity to 
correct minor mistakes without being fined thousands of dollars. It is 
time we take the fear of federal agencies away from the law-abiding 
citizens of this nation.
  Madam Chairman, this is just common sense. It is time we reduce the 
burden of frivolous paperwork and the enormous costs associated with it 
for our nation's small business owners.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 391, the 
Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1999, introduced 
by my colleague, Representative David McIntosh.
  Small business enterprises are the engine of our national economy. 
Today, small businesses generate 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, the young and elderly 
individuals, and current recipients of public assistance.
  Yet, the smallest firms bear the heaviest regulatory burden. Firms 
under 50 employees

[[Page 2273]]

spend on average 19 cents out of every revenue dollar on regulatory 
costs. These businesses desperately need relief from the burden of 
government paperwork.
  These entrepreneurs live in constant fear of fines 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 accounts for one third of total regulatory 
costs, or $225 billion. In 1996, it required 6.7 billion man hours to 
complete government paperwork.
  This legislation will give small businesses the much needed relief 
from the burden of paperwork. H.R. 391 will place on the Internet a 
comprehensive list of all federal paperwork requirements for small 
businesses, organized by industry, as well as establish a point of 
contact in each agency for small businesses concerned with paperwork 
requirements. In this way, the auto parts dealer in Essex, MD, and the 
corner grocer in Dundalk, MD, will have a government-paid advisor--
rather than having to pay a high-priced lawyer.
  Further 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 to streamline 
reporting requirements for small businesses.
  This legislation is a positive step in addressing the demands for 
reform from many of my small businessmen and women in the 2nd District 
of Maryland.
  Madam Chairman, please join me in strongly supporting this common-
sense paperwork reduction bill for small business.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 391 is as follows:

                                H.R. 391

       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 1999''.

     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 1999; 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.
       ``(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.''.
       (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.
       ``(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--

[[Page 2274]]

       ``(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 1999, 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 the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh:
       Page 4, beginning on line 8, strike ``caused actual serious 
     harm to the public'' and insert ``the potential to cause 
     serious harm to the public interest''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 1, strike ``an imminent and 
     substantial danger'' and insert ``a danger''.
       Page 5, line 6, strike ``an imminent and substantial 
     danger'' and insert ``a danger''.
       Page 6, line 13, strike ``an imminent and substantial 
     danger'' and insert ``a danger''.
       Page 8, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(6) At least two representatives of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, including one representative of 
     the Health Care Financing Administration.

  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. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say very briefly this is an 
amendment that I think we have broad support for. It is a manager's 
amendment, frankly to respond to some of the concerns that there may be 
a potential harm to the public rather than an actual harm that would be 
addressed by the paperwork. I frankly am confident that the bill will 
cover that, but working particularly with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) and his staff on his subcommittee, we have crafted this 
amendment to make it very clear that where there is a potential to 
cause serious harm to the public interest or any type of danger to the 
public interest, that we will allow the agencies to go ahead and 
impose, in addition to all of their other remedies, a civil fine.
  It also provides for two representatives from the Department of 
Health and Human Services, including one from the HCFA, to serve on the 
task force that we are creating. I think they will be a very beneficial 
addition and would welcome this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that it will receive support by all of my 
colleagues here, and then I understand the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) also has an amendment where there will be some differences.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) to 
address the amendment in the bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
recognizing me on this. Let me just note this ought to take care of a 
number of concerns that were raised in the preliminary debate on this 
when we talked about the crashed ValuJet and so on, but language in 
this amendment when it talks about threats and harms and so on in 
section 2(b) really makes sure that those kind of paperwork violations 
are taken care of.
  Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I think 
what we do not want to do is get our small businesses in a ``gotcha'' 
situation where they fail to file one of the reams of technical filings 
and paperwork that we so often require in laws and amendments.
  And if my friend would bear with me, Steve Lampges is the owner of 
Maysville Grain and Fertilizer in Maysville, Oklahoma, employs 13 
people. As part of his business, Steve sells chemicals used for 
fertilizer. Three years ago Steve decided to switch from selling 
chemicals in 2\1/2\ gallon containers to a more environmentally 
friendly system of selling from bulk storage. His reward for switching 
to bulk storage of chemicals was a new set of environmental rules and 
regulations which he acknowledged and complied with. In fact, Steve 
built a container storage building that was praised by Oklahoma State 
officials as a model for other agri suppliers.
  In Steve's second year of providing fertilizer chemicals from bulk 
storage he failed to submit the pesticide production report required by 
the Federal EPA and was fined the maximum allowable penalty of $5,500. 
He submitted the 2-page form to EPA, but they continued to insist on 
the fine, and even when the government admitted it was in the public's 
interest to settle this action, the settlement offered by EPA was 
$3,300.
  Steve recently put up his hands, admitted he can no longer fight with 
an EPA that seems determined to put him out of business, and he paid 
the settlement. But he cites this multi-year battle with EPA as the 
straw that has broken his company's back, and is unsure of the 
business's future.
  This is the kind of horror story we hear from companies doing 
environmentally friendly things, getting caught in reams of paperwork 
and having a Federal bureaucracy that will not bend and work with them 
to help them comply where the public is not endangered in any way, 
shape or form, and they are not harmed at all. But the ``gotcha'' 
mentality that we sometimes find in Federal regulators is putting small 
businesses like this around the country out of work, and I think this 
amendment protects the public, but at the same time I think puts the 
proper emphasis on allowing our small businesses to grow and prosper as 
we pass reams of more rules and regulations which we force them to 
comply with.
  Would the gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, and I appreciate Mr. Davis' 
example there. We have heard hundreds of those in the various hearings 
that we have held on regulatory oversight, including the two on this 
bill that we held last year.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that the 
health, the safety, the environment does not need to be jeopardized 
with this amendment. We can in fact protect that. We can give our 
regulatory agencies the ultimate judgment. But when we get into these 
technical violations, when a company is late filing some paperwork or a 
new form comes in that maybe they did not get it when they inquired, or 
their country attorney went and inquired and did not know about, that 
instead of saying, ``We got you, you owe us, we're going to put you out 
of business and we're going to make you pay,'' that we can work with 
these small companies, help them nurture and grow, help employ people, 
help tax bases in these small communities across the country and 
suburban areas as well.
  And it is a question, I think as the gentleman noted, do we trust the 
businesses to do the right thing, or do we think to come after them as 
if they are somehow crooks to begin with? The vast majority of small 
businesses are trying to do the right thing by their

[[Page 2275]]

employees, by their customers and by the Federal rules and regulations, 
and I think this is a good sound amendment that gets to the crux of a 
lot of the opposition of this bill, and I congratulate the gentleman 
and hope that the House will support it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is 
a step forward, but the bill would still preempt State law. It still 
does not exempt intentional violations. It still provides no 
environmental protections. It still has inadequate exceptions for the 
public health because it requires a high burden of proof, and exemption 
therefore has a potential to cause serious harm. And there is still a 
Catch 22: We cannot discover violations that threaten the public safety 
without the paperwork.
  So this bill does, even with the amendment, still jeopardize public 
health, but I would say the amendment is a step forward, and I accept 
the amendment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and 
I rise today in support of H.R. 391, the Small Business Paperwork 
Reduction Act Amendments of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 391 provides our Nation's small businesses with 
desperately needed relief from the burden of government paperwork which 
has continued to grow each year. The number of hours required to 
complete government paperwork has increased more than 350 percent since 
1980. Clearly we should do all we can to help relieve government 
paperwork demands that this Federal Government places on its citizens, 
and H.R. 391 helps us in this process.
  Specifically, the legislation does the following:
  It requires the posting on the Internet of a comprehensive list 
organized by industry of all Federal paperwork requirements for small 
businesses, it offers small businesses compliance assistance rather 
than fines for first time paperwork violations that present no threats 
to public health and safety, and it establishes a single individual in 
each agency to be the point of contact for small businesses on 
questions about paperwork requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, these are all common sense provisions that every Member 
of this House should support.
  Let me say also that they are consistent with other actions the House 
has already taken. Earlier this week the House passed H.R. 439, the 
Paperwork Elimination Act. This legislation will allow small businesses 
to take advantage of the information age when responding to government 
information demands. Both of these bills are designed to help small 
businesses meet the requirements that the government places on them in 
an efficient and fair manner.
  I also want to address some of the concerns that have been raised by 
the opponents of this legislation. Some have claimed that H.R. 391 lets 
small business scofflaws go free, and that it protects drug 
traffickers, and that it undermines the ability to uncover illegal 
activity. But when I hear some of these statements, I am reminded of 
the story of Chicken Little in his warning that the sky is falling in. 
The fact is that the bill already contains numerous exemptions to 
ensure that bad actors are not rewarded for negligent or illegal 
behavior.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that I am a former 
small business owner. I know the frustrations that can be created by 
having to fill out mountains of paperwork from the Federal Government. 
This frustration easily turns to outrage when one is fined for a small 
paperwork violation that they may not even have been aware of. H.R. 391 
will remedy this situation.
  This legislation simply ensures that small business owners who are 
honest law-abiding citizens, and this will cover the vast majority of 
them, are not penalized for a minor first time paperwork violation.
  I urge all Members to take a good look at all amendments that are 
offered and possibly to reject the Kucinich amendment and support H.R. 
391.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I will not use all that time. I just 
wanted to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for accepting 
this amendment, and we have no other speakers on this portion of it, 
but we will address his amendment when it comes up. I wanted to thank 
him for accepting it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 4, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 6, 
     line 24, 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 1999, 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 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, this amendment replaces the controversial 
provisions that would prevent the assessment of civil penalties and 
preempt State law with language that requires agencies to implement 
policies for reducing or waiving penalties against first time violators 
in appropriate circumstances. Again, it replaces the provisions that 
prevent the assessment of civil penalties and preempt State law with 
language that requires agencies, we are going to require agencies to 
implement the policies for reducing or waiving penalties against first 
time violators in appropriate circumstances. The agencies would be 
required to implement these policies within six months and report to 
Congress on those policies six months later. So there is a strong 
attempt here to make sure that businesses who operate in good faith are 
rewarded.
  This amendment dovetails a provision in the Contract with America. 
Section 223 of the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Act which 
enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress when it was signed 
into law three years ago, that provision required agencies to implement 
policies for waiving or reducing penalties under appropriate 
circumstances. However, SBREFA, as it is called, did not target relief 
to first-time violators. Some of the SBREFA policies specifically 
provide relief for first- and second-time

[[Page 2276]]

violators. However, many agencies did not specifically address the 
subset of violations. My amendment would require that every agency 
draft policies providing relief for first-time violations.
  This amendment has numerous benefits. It would provide penalty relief 
to first time violators without giving a ``get-out-of-jail-free'' card 
to those who intentionally violate the law. It would provide relief 
without encouraging businesses to ignore their paperwork objections. It 
would protect the integrity of our system of regulation, which depends 
on self reporting instead of relying on surprise inspections.

                              {time}  1230

  It would protect the integrity of the laws that protect our seniors, 
workers and the environment. It would protect our drinking water, 
nursing homes, pensions, and more.
  Mr. Chairman, the political reality is that without my amendment, 
this bill will doubtfully become law. Many environmental, labor, 
consumer and health groups, as well as several States Attorney General, 
have voiced their opposition to the bill. Moreover, the administration 
strongly opposes it and four agency heads have threatened a veto.
  A similar bill did not pass the House with a veto-proof margin this 
year. It will doubtfully become law if my amendment is not adopted. On 
the other hand, if my amendment is adopted, the bill, likely, will be 
non-controversial and likely will gain overwhelming support.
  We should seize this opportunity to provide real relief to small 
businesses who are waiting for Congress to provide them with relief. I 
urge the support of my amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said before, this bill has enjoyed much bipartisan 
support, and while there has been controversy swirling around the 
provision to suspend fines for first time paperwork violations so small 
businesses can have the chance to correct innocent mistakes, that 
controversy often has, frankly, overstated the cause.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's efforts to point out 
legitimate concerns, as we did in the amendment today and the one 
earlier, in drafting a very clear statement that if there is a 
potential for actual law breaking or potential for harm to the public, 
that then those fines would go forward.
  But, sadly, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment today, because 
it does not add anything new to the current law to protect small 
businesses. This amendment replaces the bill's suspension of fines with 
a provision that the agencies develop policies on the reduction, 
elimination and delaying of fines for first-time paperwork violations 
under appropriate circumstances.
  This amendment essentially duplicates existing law. As I stated 
earlier, under Section 223 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act, or SBREFA for short, the agencies are already required to 
have these policies in place. They were supposed to submit them to 
Congress by March 31 of 1998, nearly a year ago. But nearly a year 
later, many of these agencies, including six cabinet departments, have 
not submitted their plans to Congress. In fact, only 22 of the 77 
agencies that assess penalties have sent any policy at all.
  This amendment simply reverts back to the status quo. It simply says 
to America's small businesses, we are going to ask the agencies to 
submit a policy, but not ask them to change their behavior when they 
play ``gotcha'' with innocent men and women who are attempting to run 
their small businesses.
  It is clearly not working. It does not do anything to help the small 
businesses, and that is why the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Restaurant Association have made opposition to this amendment 
a key vote today.
  Last year we did amend the bill, as I stated earlier, in response to 
some of those concerns. I think the bill is a good bill today with the 
new amendment we adopted just a few minutes ago. It does make sure that 
the agencies can protect the environment, can protect health and safety 
and can protect and enforce the laws. But what it also does is says to 
the agencies, we want to give America's small business a break. When 
you have innocent small businessmen, not law breakers, but innocent 
small businessmen who make a mistake, they deserve to have a chance to 
correct that mistake.
  I do believe that is the fundamental difference in this debate. Last 
year in the debate one of the members of my committee said that they 
thought this would be an excuse for small business not to file the 
paperwork required of them, that a small business person should not be 
let off the hook.
  That view, that America's small businesses are looking for excuses 
not to comply with the law, simply is not what we found. Most of 
America's small businesses try to follow the law, they try to fill out 
the forms, they try to do what is required. Every day it seems they get 
a new requirement or are confronted with a stack like the one we have 
here before us when they hire a new employee.
  They are working hard to follow those requirements. They are not 
criminals, they are not crooks, they are not people looking for excuses 
to not obey the law. They are not people trying to pollute. They are 
people who are trying to help clean up the environment, doctors trying 
to help with the public health, small businessmen providing a service 
in their community.
  I think that we have to recognize that, and that in this bill, with 
the provision we have with the six month leniency that allows them to 
correct any of those mistakes, we are saying to the American small 
businessman and woman, we know you are trying to do a good job, and we 
are going to be on your side; we are going to switch the emphasis 
towards compliance, and not, I repeat, not assess you with penalties 
and fines.
  Last week I received a letter from the Small Business Administration 
advocacy, Mr. Glover, who is a member of the Clinton Administration and 
who does support this legislation. One of the things I would like to do 
is quote from that letter where he says, ``Small businesses generally 
want to comply with the law, but are inundated with these requirements. 
In some cases, violations occur not because small businesses are 
ignoring the law, but simply are unaware that such requirements exist. 
As always, there are a few out there that will try to take advantage of 
the law, and I believe section 2(b), which we have in the bill as it 
currently stands, leaves enough discretion to allow the agencies to 
punish those bad apples.''
  Mr. Glover, I think, also would recognize that those bad apples are 
few and far between, and that is where we need to direct our 
enforcement, not harassing the vast majority of America's small 
businesses who are trying to comply with the law.
  For that reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the Kucinich 
amendment, and allow the bill to go forward with the strong bipartisan 
support as it was drafted and previously amended.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Governors Association wrote a letter to 
our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and I would 
like to quote from it. ``We applaud the goal of reducing paperwork 
burdens for small businesses and would support the Federal Government 
taking steps to ensure that information collection and paperwork 
requirements on small businesses are reasonable. However, we must 
express concern over the preemption of state authority in section,'' 
and they spell out the section of the Small Business Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1999.
  ``As governors, we understand the critical role that small businesses 
play

[[Page 2277]]

in our economy. We appreciate the importance of ensuring that Federal 
reporting requirements on small businesses are sensible and that 
enforcement of those requirements are reasonable. Clearly the Federal 
Government can direct its own enforcement policy on this matter. 
Likewise, states are best able to direct state enforcement policy on 
this issue, and we believe that Federal preemption of state authority 
is unjustified. We urge you to take our views into consideration as you 
move this legislation forward.'' It is signed by Governor Thomas Carper 
and Governor Michael Leavitt.
  My amendment addresses these concerns and removes the preemption 
provision.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all let me just say that I have great respect 
for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of our committee, 
a very hard working member, and I appreciate the input the gentleman 
gives us on a lot of legislation. The gentleman has helped a great 
deal. However, I disagree with the gentleman's amendment, and I would 
like to say why.
  First of all, small business people across this country are 
overburdened by Federal regulations and paperwork, unnecessary 
paperwork, and, because of that, many of them have had their overhead 
increased to such a degree that they have to start letting people off. 
They have to lay people off. It has an adverse economic impact on them.
  This legislation passed the House I think with 54 Democrat votes, it 
was a bipartisan bill last session. This bill is extremely important 
for the small businessman, the backbone of the economy of the United 
States of America.
  Now, there have been some misstatements made by some of the special 
interest groups that want this bill to die. They have said that workers 
are going to ``die on the job'' because of this, that the environment 
is going to be ``devastated,'' senior citizens in nursing homes are 
going to ``perish.'' Fortunately, none of that is true.
  I want my colleagues who are paying attention to this to listen to 
the safeguards in the bill, and I will not be redundant, because I 
think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has done an outstanding 
job of not only getting this bill to the floor and being the author of 
it, but also explaining it.
  Agencies do not have to suspend fines if the violation causes any 
actual serious harm. That is in the legislation. They do not have to 
suspend fines if the violation presents a threat to public health or 
safety. That would take care of the senior citizens in nursing homes 
and so forth. They do not have to suspend fines if doing so would 
impede the detection of criminal activity.
  These are very broad exceptions, and the agencies involved, if they 
detect any violations of the law, they can impose these fines. However, 
if it is a legitimate mistake that a small businessman has made, he has 
six months to rectify the situation. If he does not, then the penalties 
will be imposed.
  So I think if an honest mistake is made by a small businessman, he 
should not be penalized by the agencies of the Federal Government, and, 
for that reason, I think this legislation is extremely important, and, 
although I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), I urge my colleagues to defeat his amendment and pass the 
McIntosh bill as written.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, streamlining our Nation's regulatory system and 
eliminating overhanded regulations in our Nation's small businesses is 
a good idea. Paperwork reduction is an important part of these reforms, 
and who could be against reducing paperwork?
  But what we are talking about today is far more important than just 
paperwork reduction. In our eagerness to shred paperwork, it is 
important that we be careful not to shred basic protections in areas 
like food safety, nursing home care, the environment and crime control.
  These regulations can often mean the difference between life or 
death. At first glance, this bill sounds like a godsend, but, as the 
old saying goes, the devil is in the details, and the details here are 
a one-size-fits-all, blanket waiver for even deliberate violations of 
Federal law and Federal reporting requirements, that could result in 
serious and grave consequences to our public safety.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the issue of gun sales to criminals. Mr. 
Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from Sarah Brady, the 
Chairperson of the Board of Handgun Control, detailing how this bill 
would weaken the reporting requirements of the Brady law.


                                              Handgun Control,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1999.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Ranking Minority Member, House of Representatives, Committee 
         on Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Waxman: As the House prepares to debate 
     H.R. 391, The Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act 
     Amendments of 1999, I am writing to express our concern over 
     a portion of the bill that may allow federally licensed 
     firearms dealers to forego completion of background checks on 
     gun purchasers using the new national criminal instant 
     background check system.
       Title 18, Section 922(t)(5) imposes a civil fine of not 
     more than $5,000 on any federally licensed firearms dealer 
     (FFL) who transfers a firearm to a prohibited purchaser if 
     that FFL knowingly fails to check that individual's 
     eligibility through the national criminal instant check 
     system.
       Firearms-related violence is one of our country's greatest 
     concerns. In conjunction with state and local law enforcement 
     agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has 
     developed a comprehensive national firearms trafficking 
     strategy aimed at reducing violent crime by investigating and 
     prosecuting those individuals who are illegally supplying 
     firearms to violent criminals.
       Failure to comply with the ``paperwork requirement'' of the 
     Brady Law poses a public safety threat to all Americans. 
     There are over 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers and 
     most are small businesses. If each received a first time 
     violation waiver, 100,000 dangerous weapons would be on the 
     streets of our country.
       We understand that Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) 
     will offer an amendment that will preserve individual 
     agencies' ability to fine deliberate violations of their 
     reporting requirements. I urge all Members to support the 
     Kucinich Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Sarah Brady,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. Chairman, the Brady law is a law, I would point out, which has 
stopped over a quarter of a million handgun sales to felons and 
fugitives of justice.
  Last November, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a 
permanent regulation to implement the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
Act. A key part of these regulations are verification and reporting 
requirements by gun dealers that are designed to prevent the sale of 
firearms to a class of restricted individuals that includes convicted 
felons, fugitives from justice, domestic abusers and others.
  Specifically, the Brady act imposes a $5,000 civil fine on gun 
dealers who fail to perform criminal background checks on prospective 
buyers. The blanket amnesty provisions of H.R. 391 would remove the 
incentives for sellers to abide by these reporting requirements.
  Under this bill, gun dealers are given a free pass to sell weapons to 
criminals with impunity. According to Sarah Brady,

       Failure to comply with the paperwork requirement of the 
     Brady law posts a public safety threat to all Americans. 
     There are over 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers, 
     and most are small businesses. If each received a first time 
     violation waiver, 100,000 dangerous weapons could be on the 
     streets of our country.

  Now, the proponents of this bill may argue that the bill includes an 
exception that would prevent this from happening by giving to an agency 
head the discretion to oppose a fine if he or she determines it 
involves criminal activity. But, in reality, the threshold established 
in this exception as a practical matter virtually is impossible to 
achieve.
  It is extremely difficult to prove that not conducting a particular 
background check definitely impedes or interferes with detecting 
criminal activity. Remember, in the mind of an unscrupulous gun dealer, 
he knows he has a free pass to sell guns to criminals, unless he gets 
caught.

[[Page 2278]]



                              {time}  1245

  And a scrupulous dealer has every reason to skirt the regulations 
because it would help maximize his profits.
  But do not take my word or Sarah Brady's word for it. The Justice 
Department has also raised concerns. In a February 2nd letter from 
Acting Assistant Attorney General Dennis Burke, the Department of 
Justice stated that two standards set forth in the bill's exception 
were ``inappropriate.'' According to the Department of Justice, and I 
quote, ``It may be difficult for an agency to determine that the 
failure to impose penalties would in a given case interfere with the 
detection of criminal activity.''
  Again, the point of the Brady law reporting requirements is 
principally to prevent criminals from getting guns.
  Mr. Chairman, particularly in the area of protection against 
firearms, agencies should not be hamstrung or have to wait until 
serious harm occurs before imposing civil penalties. Every bill has 
unintended consequences. But in this case, although the consequences 
may be unintended, they are foreseeable and potentially deadly. All it 
takes is one dealer to pass up a background check for a life to be lost 
in a shooting.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose House Resolution 391 in its 
current form and to support the Kucinich amendment, which reduces 
paperwork and injects some common sense reforms into our regulatory 
system without jeopardizing public safety.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I pointed out earlier that the bill still 
preempts State law, and State officials have opposed H.R. 391. The 
Attorney General of the State of New York has said the most 
objectionable element of the legislation is the preemption of State 
enforcement efforts.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say something. One of the things that 
bothers me in this debate is the assumption that small business people 
have an intention to do something dishonest. That is like saying that 
school teachers have the intention not to teach; that doctors have the 
intention to commit malpractice. If we continue in this country with 
the assumption that small businesses' goal is to do everything opposite 
of what the Federal Government would want them to do, we will not be 
long in terms of being an economic power.
  To say that a gun dealer will blatantly disregard the Brady law if 
this bill is passed is absurd. There are significant penalties for 
doing that which will not be abated by this law.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. In fact, it is that fundamental 
difference in the viewpoint of the good citizens of our country who run 
our small businesses, whether they are frankly lawbreakers, as they 
have been called today in the debate, or whether they are good, honest, 
decent people who are struggling to keep the doors open, struggling to 
provide a service, struggling to provide a good, and trying to comply 
with all of the paperwork.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is the paperwork that has to be filled 
out, two huge volumes like this, whenever a small businessman employs a 
new employee. That is what they have to do. They have to make sure they 
get it all right. And then there are lots of other paperwork 
requirements as well.
  I mentioned one of the people who testified at our hearing on 
regulatory problems, Dr. Proetst, who is a dermatologist, who told me 
he could be fined for failing to report to the government that he has 
been properly trained on how to change a light bulb in his microscope.
  Now, when we have doctors, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) knows this himself, who are having to spend their time filling 
out the forms rather than treating patients, that is bad enough. But 
for them to be subject to a several-hundred-dollar or a several-
thousand-dollar fine because they have not reported that they know how 
to change a light bulb, something is drastically wrong.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and give a couple of 
examples.
  Under OSHA now, every medical office, every container that might 
contain anything that would be contaminated, has to be labeled. So even 
if one has a container behind closed doors under a sink, one still has 
to have a nice orange label there that totally ruins the decor that 
somebody might get there. If a child pulls that label off and I fail to 
report that, that it was not present until I could get another label 
there, and if I were to be inspected, or caught, that is subject to a 
fine under OSHA.
  If the laboratory in my office, under its approval and certification 
procedures, makes an error on a testing, but yet we fail somehow, not 
to fill out the paperwork but if I as the medical director of that 
laboratory fail to sign that piece of paper, and when we are inspected, 
if I missed one of them, missed signing one of them, then I lose my 
CLEA license for failure to comply with a piece of paper that has 
nothing to do with the quality of care that we give our patients, has 
nothing to do with the certification and accreditation of that 
laboratory, but is simply based on a paperwork error that was never 
intended. It was just a mistake, a misstep, an oversight. Not because 
it was intended to violate the law, but because there are so many 
requirements that have so little benefit that are carried to such great 
extent by the bureaucracy that the penalty of it becomes, the penalty 
is not the fine, the penalty is that I do not get to practice medicine, 
I get to spend my time filling out paperwork for the Federal 
Government.
  So with that, let us consider the examples that are very real that we 
all encounter if we are in any small business, on how the tremendous 
paperwork burden is affecting and cutting our productivity, eliminating 
our ability to enhance the wealth of those around us, offer jobs and 
opportunity to those that do not have it today.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say very emphatically, the 
bottom line, and I do appreciate the earlier work of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) with this as we fine-tuned this bill, but the 
amendment that he presents today frankly guts this bill and its chief 
provision of allowing small businesses to a have a chance to really 
correct the mistakes that are innocent mistakes. It is as basic as 
that. What it does is revert back to the existing law which is not 
being complied with by the agencies. So I must ask our colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment. I want to 
clarify what the disagreements are on this legislation. No one 
disagrees with the idea, as far as I know, that we ought to reduce the 
amount of paperwork which burdens small and large businesses. 
Unnecessary paperwork is inexcusable, and I think a great deal of 
credit goes to Vice President Gore in his efforts to reinvent 
government, to try to avoid the requirements that so much paperwork be 
required from different businesses.
  The second thing we do not disagree about is that if a small 
businessman or woman inadvertently does not do what is required by way 
of paperwork regulations, we do not want them to be fined or penalized 
in any way when they do it inadvertently. The Kucinich amendment would 
make sure that if it is an inadvertent violation, there would be 
amnesty for the person violating the law.
  The difference that we have is that the Kucinich amendment makes 
clear that if there is a danger to the public

[[Page 2279]]

safety, if there is danger to the environment or health, and the 
violation is intentional, that we do not preclude the agency from 
giving the sanction to fit the offense.
  The bill before us assumes that any time a violation occurs, it is 
innocent, but that is just not true. There are people who do wrong 
things on purpose, and if we tell them, if they do something wrong on 
purpose, they do not have to worry about being sanctioned, we are 
suggesting that they ought to go ahead and violate the requirements of 
the paperwork regulations. Now, that means that the businessperson who 
is trying to comply with the regulations is going to be put at a 
disadvantage with somebody who is not doing what they ought to do to 
meet the requirements of the law.
  Now, this is not some insignificant matter, because there are far-
reaching consequences for our Nation's health, environmental, consumer 
protection laws, that the Kucinich amendment would preserve the 
integrity of these laws while at the same time providing relief to 
first-time violators in appropriate circumstances. Not all 
circumstances, but appropriate ones. And the bill before us would give 
them a pass for all circumstances.
  We have received a number of letters from our colleagues who are 
experts in certain areas. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) is 
one of Congress's leading fighters against lead poisoning of children, 
and he described how H.R. 391 would undermine lead hazard disclosure, 
putting thousands of children at risk. We ought not to give that kind 
of encouragement for people who violate the law and put children at 
risk.
  Our colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is one of the 
cochairs of the Congressional Fire Fighters Caucus, and he has pointed 
out that H.R. 391 would endanger the lives of fire fighters because 
this bill gives a first-time free pass to businesses that fail to 
report the storage of hazardous chemicals on site. This is different 
than somebody who does not change a light bulb. No one wants to 
penalize that person. But not to report hazardous chemicals that are 
stored on site which could hurt fire fighters is just not reasonable.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is one of the leading 
congressional experts on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and he 
tells us that the bill undermines the SEC's ability to protect 
investors from fraud.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is a champion of the 
right-to-know laws which require polluters to report the level of their 
toxic emissions, and he says these laws would be unenforceable under 
this legislation.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) offers, 
he claims would solve the problem, but it does not. We still have the 
goal of many reporting requirements, which is to prevent the public 
from being placed in danger, undermined. It defeats the purpose of 
these reporting requirements, to prevent enforcement until after the 
public is already in danger. That is locking the barn door after the 
horse has already gone.
  We do not have adequate exceptions to protect the public health. 
Expert after expert has considered this argument and rejected it. Let 
me say who some of these experts are.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Attorneys General of California and New York, local district attorneys, 
State enforcement officials all reject this.
  Now, why State enforcement officials? Because this bill is so far-
reaching that it gives a free pass to violate local laws or laws that 
are enforced at the State level. My colleagues do not have to take my 
word for it, just listen to what the experts are saying.
  It is amazing to me that Mr. McIntosh did not try to work out with us 
on the Democratic side a way to resolve this issue, because what we 
would all like to see is a bill that would say, if there is an 
inadvertent violation of some paperwork requirement, that person, that 
business person should not be fined or sanctioned. But if there is an 
intentional violation, if there is a violation that affects public 
health and safety, that person should not get a free pass. That person 
should not be told in advance, ``Go ahead and violate this paperwork 
requirement, we are going to turn the other way and not even pay 
attention to it.'' No one should defend that position.
  Now, we hear from the other side of the aisle that they have 
addressed it, but they have not worked with us to make sure that they 
have addressed it adequately, and therefore, the Department of Justice, 
the State attorneys general, these people who work in the field, who 
were not given a chance to come in and even testify are now writing to 
us and saying, support the Kucinich amendment and have this problem 
dealt with adequately, so that we have some discretion with the agency 
to look at the violation and see if it is appropriate to sanction them 
under the circumstances at hand.

                              {time}  1300

  In fact, what we are being told is not to trust the agency to look at 
the facts of the case and deal with it in a reasonable manner. We are 
saying, trust all small business people, no matter what. I think that 
puts in jeopardy the reasons why we have legitimate requirements for 
paperwork to be filed.
  I go back to nursing homes. We do not know if a patient is being 
abused in a nursing home unless we can look at some of the paperwork 
that is required of the nursing home when they inspect their own 
premises. If they do not have to file that paperwork because they know 
that even if they are by law supposed to and they are going to be left 
off the hook, it is an incentive for them to lower their standards.
  Support the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Kucinich amendment. I 
have written a Dear Colleague letter at the request of the fire 
services of this country, both paid and volunteer. I understand that 
letter has been quoted from by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
and perhaps others. I appreciate the reference of the gentleman from 
California.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, as I think the gentleman 
from California has said, has an objective that all of us I think 
support. The issue is the impact of the legislation if not amended as 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) proposed. I support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  As cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I want to share 
with the House what I believe this legislation's impact would be on 
fire fighters. Despite what this amendment would say, this legislation, 
absent the Kucinich amendment, might well endanger the lives of the 
brave men and women in the fire service.
  Why? Why? Because I believe this amendment, if it fails to pass, the 
disclosure of hazardous material will decrease. Disclosure will 
decrease, and one of these days a fire fighter in the Members' 
districts or mine will have to respond to a fire or Hazmat incident, 
and they are not going to know what they are dealing with. That is 
critically important, that they have a prenotice and knowledge of what 
the fire may be dealing with, what causes it and what fumes are being 
presented by the fire, and other matters of critical safety concerns to 
our fire fighters. They are not going to know what they are dealing 
with, and someone is going to get hurt or killed.
  While some argue that this legislation still allows a regulatory 
agency to fine the offending small business, that is not the point. I 
do not think any of us are really interested in fining small 
businesses. I know I am not. Any fine we can levy after the fact, 
however, is of little solace to many fire fighters or their surviving 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong proponent of small business. It is a 
critical element in our economy. I, too, want to relieve them from 
needless and redundant paperwork. In fact, we have

[[Page 2280]]

done some things to accomplish that objective in years past. I, too, 
want to relieve them from having to pay onerous fines from accidental 
or inadvertent paperwork errors.
  However, without this Kucinich amendment, I very much fear that the 
legislation will encourage and result in the failure to notify, 
consistent with local and national requirements, our local firefighting 
departments, paid or volunteer, of the hazards they may face in a 
critical situation where there would be no time to find out or to in 
fact solve the breach after the fact. So that is why I rise in support 
of the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH.  Mr. Chairman, when I saw the gentleman's Dear 
Colleague, I was concerned about it. It is a question that none of us 
want to see our brave men and women who are fire fighters put in 
danger. As I understand it, the concern is that those notices, the 
Hazmat notices, are needed because without them there could be a 
potential to cause serious harm to the public; specifically, to the 
fire fighters who would go in and fight those battles.
  Mr. HOYER. That is the concern.
  Mr. McINTOSH. The gentleman from Maryland may not find this 
sufficient, but we did try to address that in an amendment that was, by 
voice vote, accepted earlier.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) did not find it enough to 
satisfy his concerns, but we changed the wording in the bill that said 
if there is that potential to cause serious harm, we do not have to 
actually show that harm has been caused, then the agency could decide 
that the civil penalty would continue to apply in that circumstance.
  So as author of the bill and author of that amendment, I would say it 
is certainly my intention that that type of regulation would continue 
to be subject to a fine where there is a potential for serious harm to 
the public, including our fire fighters.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate two things, I suppose. First of 
all, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman recognizes that we are 
raising a legitimate concern, which I think is the import of the 
gentleman's comments and subsequent actions; and secondly, that he has 
taken action which he believes will ameliorate the fears that we have, 
or perhaps not eliminate, but certainly ameliorate.
  The problem, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, is that 
if we give to businesses, and although we call them small businesses, 
in this case it is up to 1,500, I believe, employees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, these can be businesses which do in fact 
have very significant risk factors attendant to their production or 
attendant to storage on-site of Hazmat material.
  I am still concerned, even in light of the gentleman's amendment, 
which I think is a step in the right direction, that perhaps we have 
not gone far enough if they believe that they can nevertheless say 
that, well, we did not think it was a risk, and therefore we did not 
meet the letter of the request, either of the local, State, or Federal 
legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that in this 
particular area, we will continue to work to make sure the legislative 
history is clear that that type of potential serious harm to the public 
and fire fighters will be taken care of.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. We will look 
forward to working with him.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the intended purpose of the legislation before 
us is quite laudable. Although I have yet to hear any real cogent 
arguments against the amendment pending before the House, we are told 
by the author of the bill that it is going to gut the bill.
  I do not think that is sufficient enough for any of us in this 
Chamber to not support the amendment before us, which I think is a 
reasonable correction to the bill, because in its current form I do not 
think the bill is passable. One can only look to last session, where 
early on in the session the House passed the legislation, it went over 
to the Senate, and they did not even take the time to take it up and 
debate it, even though there was a Senate counterpart also introduced 
in the Senate.
  If in fact the authors of the legislation are serious about getting 
this bill signed into law, I think it is imperative that they work with 
not only this side of the aisle but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) to see if there is some kind of accommodation that can be had 
to address some serious flaws in the legislation.
  We have heard from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) about a 
problem that is contained, should this bill become law. We have heard 
from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) about nursing home 
regulations. We have heard about various other problems that could 
arise, and know full well that there is a reason this government asks 
business people, large and small, to submit the various filings.
  Let me point out that years back I was a small business person, also. 
We had between eight and 12 employees in the business. As I look at 
that stack of paper that is bounced around all the time, I cannot for 
the life of me figure out what filings the gentleman from Indiana is 
talking about, because we covered our employees with workmans comp, 
unemployment comp, we filed the FICA tax, we filed the quarterly 
Federal income tax, the State, and never did I see all those forms. So 
unless in the past few years those forms have multiplied like rabbits, 
I think that stack of paper, at least with this Member, is to be 
questioned.
  Nevertheless, if the gentleman is serious about passing this 
legislation, let us look seriously at the Kucinich amendment.
  The Labor Department requires every employer once a year to file a 
form 5500. The form itself indicates what the health of the pension 
plan for the employer is, whether or not there may be actual 
contributions on behalf of the employee. Under this legislation, an 
employer would not have to file that, regardless that it is important, 
in a timely manner.
  Nevertheless, the reason for having that filed once a year is to let 
all the employees know whether or not that employer has submitted those 
funds into the various pension plans, be they 401(k) or whatever they 
might be.
  We had a situation recently in my district where a company by the 
name of Louis Allis that subsequently went bankrupt, but prior to that 
withheld the contributions for the employees for their 401(k) plan, but 
never submitted them on to the plan managers. The effect of that was 
that the employees of that particular company have lost out on about 
$200,000 of contributions the employer should have made.
  Again, the reason for the law and for the form to be filed is to let 
the employees know that those dollars have been deposited in their name 
in their accounts. So I think all of us have a particular problem that 
can be cited with the bill as originally introduced.
  I think the Kucinich amendment would provide some reasonable relief 
from those problems ever occurring, yet give the small business people 
in the country some relief from the paperwork and from forfeitures 
where basically the error on the employer's part was just an oversight.
  Again, I have a story on that side of the equation also, wherein a 
hotel owner in my district was fined by OSHA because on the closet door 
he did not post the chemicals that were contained inside, even though 
the chemicals were basically household chemicals. Under the bill and 
under the Kucinich amendment, that particular employer, that business 
owner, would get relief.

[[Page 2281]]

  So what the bill tries to do in one fell swoop, in one-size-fits-all, 
which that side always accuses Democrats of attempting to do, but under 
their one-size-fits-all plan, I think they have some very unintended 
purposes. Again, if the authors of the legislation really want to see 
this bill become law, I think we should look at the Kucinich amendment.
  I ask the Members on both sides of the aisle to give the amendment 
support when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked a very good question, 
what are some of the forms.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kleczka was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I will just briefly list some of these 
forms: the insurance information for COBRA; EEO form 1, listing race 
and gender of all of the employees; the EEOC employee evaluation, to 
document for them on that; the EEOC----
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and ask the 
gentleman, are all those filings the initial filing upon hiring the 
employee, or is that the filings an employer would go through after an 
employee has been with him or her for a period of years?
  Mr. McINTOSH.  These are for a new employee. Some of them are asking 
the employee when they join the firm to sign, and then it is basically 
information when they quit, like the COBRA, health insurance coverage 
that they would be eligible for. But this is for when you hire a new 
employee. Mr. Chairman, I will submit the full list for the Record.

                  Groups Key Voting Kucinch Amendment

       National Federation of Independent Business;
       National Restaurant Association;
       Small Business Survival Committee; and
       United States Chamber of Commerce.

        Groups Supporting Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act

       Academy of General Dentistry;
       Agricultural Retailers Association;
       American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society;
       American Farm Bureau Federation;
       American Feed Industry Association;
       American Health Care Association;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
       Chemical Producers & Distributors Association;
       Food Marketing Institute;
       Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.;
       IPC--Association Connecting Electronic Industries;
       Metal Finishing Suppliers Association;
       National Association of Convenience Stores;
       National Association of Metal Finishers;
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors;
       National Association for the Self-Employed;
       National Automobile Dealers Association;
       National Federation of Independent Business;
       National Grange;
       National Grain Sorghum Producers;
       National Grocers Association;
       National Paint and Coatings Association;
       National Pest Control Association, Inc.;
       National Restaurant Association;
       National Retail Federation;
       National Roofing Contractors Association;
       National Small Business United;
       National Tooling and Machining Association;
       Painting and Decorating Contractors of America;
       Printing Industries of America;
       Small Business Coalition for Regulatory Relief;
       Small Business Legislative Council;
       Society of American Florists;
       United Egg Association;
       United Egg Producers; and the
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____



                           U.S. Small Business Administration,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1999.
     Hon. David McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources and Regulatory Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McIntosh: This is in reply to your request 
     for the Office of Advocacy's comments on H.R. 391, the 
     ``Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 
     1999.'' While I have not had an opportunity to review the 
     recently issued committee report in detail, I believe this 
     bill will benefit small businesses nationwide. I understand 
     that the current bill is essentially the same as the one on 
     which I testified last year (H.R. 3310).
       In my testimony before the subcommittee on March 5, 1998, I 
     stated that paperwork and reporting requirements remain a 
     major problem for small businesses that are confronted with 
     requirements to complete a myriad of reports mandated by 
     government. Enclosed is a copy of that testimony.
       The issues I spoke of then have not gone away. Small 
     businesses remain flooded by a sea of paperwork and reporting 
     requirements. While it is true that there are existing 
     statutes and regulations that address paperwork concerns, 
     these measures are not enough.
       This bill ensures that a single agency will be responsible 
     for compiling an inventory of all reporting and record-
     keeping requirements. This compilation will provide 
     significant insights into paperwork burdens overall. The 
     legislative proposal also creates a task force to study the 
     feasibility of streamlining information collection from small 
     business. The inventory will be an invaluable resource for 
     the task force.
       The 1995 White House Conference on Small Business 
     specifically included a recommendation that the Federal 
     government publish an inventory of all small business 
     paperwork requirements. H.R. 391 essentially implements this 
     recommendation and would achieve two purposes. First, small 
     businesses would be able to find, in one place, a compilation 
     of paperwork and reporting requirements. Second, 
     policymakers, both inside and outside the Federal government, 
     would have the opportunity to review this inventory, and make 
     informed decisions about eliminating duplicative and 
     unnecessary mandates. The ``gas station'' rule that I cited 
     last year, requiring gas stations to report that they do, in 
     fact, store gasoline, probably would not have remained in 
     effect as long as eleven years with a centralized inventory 
     and a task force to examine the need and usefulness of the 
     reports. (A final rule virtually eliminating all gas stations 
     from filing reports was published last week by EPA.) The 
     inventory might also help guide decision makers as to the 
     advisability of imposing new mandates.
       Compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act would be 
     significantly enhanced by the availability of such an 
     inventory. I strongly support this provision of the bill.
       The White House Conference also recommended that agencies 
     not assess civil penalties for first time, violators, where 
     the violation is cured within a reasonable time. This bill 
     adopts that approach for paperwork violations that do not 
     involve serious health and safety risks, and where compliance 
     is achieved within a reasonable time. I, too, support this 
     approach.
       Small businesses generally want to comply with the law, but 
     are inundated with these requirements. In some cases, 
     violations occur not because small businesses are ignoring 
     the law, but simply are unaware that such requirements exist. 
     As always, there are a few out there that will try to take 
     advantage of the law. I believe section 2(b) leaves enough 
     discretion to allow agencies to punish those ``bad apples.''
       I am pleased to offer my support for the conceptual 
     underpinnings of the proposed legislation, and I look forward 
     to working with you and the Subcommittee.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jere W. Glover,
                                       Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise simply in support of the Kucinich amendment. For 
the life of me, having listened to this entire debate on the amendment, 
I have not heard any real justification from the other side as to why 
they would not try to correct this bill and improve this bill by 
agreeing to accept the terms of the Kucinich amendment.
  I have listened for some time here. What we are talking about on one 
side is an alleged reduction of paperwork. I repeat what I said earlier 
in talking about the bill, that the bill would not reduce one single 
piece of paperwork. The real crux of this addresses the issue that when 
someone fails to file a piece of paperwork that speaks to the health 
and safety, what action would be taken.
  We all agree there should be some leeway for people who make innocent 
misfilings or failings to file. That is why the Kucinich amendment 
talks about the agency being able to look at the nature or seriousness 
of the alleged violation, whether or not there were good faith efforts 
to comply and other relevant factors, and in those instances where it 
is appropriate, to waive it; but

[[Page 2282]]

not a carte blanche waiver, which in effect is a disincentive for some 
bad actors to not file papers.
  We are talking about a business community that by and large is full 
of good actors. We all understand that. But regulations are for the bad 
actors, and to make sure they do not do that, and there is no reason 
not to put in the Kucinich amendment language so that the bad actors 
are not encouraged not to file on issues where safety and health are 
very important.
  We have also heard a lot of discussion about the fact that this might 
be some sort of a partisan effort. I do not think that is the case at 
all. I think the evidence for that lies in who are the groups that 
support the Kucinich amendment, and make a point that they are very 
interested in health and safety.
  We talked about the fire fighters. The International Association of 
Arson Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the 
International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Fire 
Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, all under 
the category of fire fighters, believe that the Kucinich amendment is 
necessary.

                              {time}  1315

  Senior citizens: The National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home 
Reform and the National Council of Senior Citizens believe the Kucinich 
amendment is necessary.
  Under the category of health: The Alliance to End Childhood Lead 
Poisoning, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health 
Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the Physicians for 
Social Responsibility all understand that we could have a situation 
where waivers are made only in the right and proper conditions.
  In the consumer category: Coalition for Consumer Rights, Consumers 
Union, Consumers Federation of America, the Institute for Agricultural 
and Trade Policy, Safe Food Coalition.
  And public interest groups: The Center for Science in the Public 
Interest, the Government Accountability Project, the League of Women 
Voters, the National Partnership for Women and Families, OMB Watch, 
Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG.
  Returning to the state attorneys general: The States of California, 
New York and Vermont.
  Other State and local officials, including the California District 
Attorneys Association.
  And environmental interest groups: The American Oceans Campaign, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends of the Earth, the League of 
Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, National Resources 
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest all of these groups cannot be wrong; that 
there has to be some semblance of reasonableness in their position that 
the Kucinich amendment makes sense. And again I say, I heard no reason 
why the opposition does not stand up, take this bill off the floor and 
work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), work with other 
Members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle who 
understand the seriousness of giving carte blanche waivers to bad 
actors and, instead, giving it a process that allows the proper actors 
to get the waivers they deserve, under the proper criteria being 
applied, and still insist that the right paperwork for safety and 
health reasons be filed, and that those that willingly misfile or do 
not file receive the action they should receive.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I certainly 
join with Mr. McIntosh and others in echoing what the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and others have said, and certainly the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), in supporting paperwork reduction and making 
it possible for businesses to operate in a competitive way without 
onerous regulations. Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder how so many 
organizations could be wrong in their assessment of this legislation, 
which is why I support the Kucinich amendment so forcefully.
  I would just quote from two attorney generals, which was really the 
turning point for me and I hope for some of my colleagues on the other 
side. The Attorney General of the State of California, in regards to 
the McIntosh legislation, says, ``In fact, the effect of the 
legislation would deprive States and local authorities of the ability 
to regulate matters which present potential harm to the public for 
violation of local laws, even in situations where the violator may act 
with the knowledge of and intent to evade local laws and regulations.''
  I think that my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), said it best when he talked about putting businesses in an 
unfair advantage, particularly those who seek to comply with the law, 
in allowing those who know the law to intentionally evade the law 
knowing they will not be penalized.
  I am hopeful we can find some agreement. On a personal note, this 
committee has certainly been riddled with a lot of divisions along 
partisan lines. Hopefully, this is one time we can come together and 
help bring this House together on this important piece of legislation. 
I would ask for Members to support the Kucinich amendment and do the 
right thing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 214, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     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
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett

[[Page 2283]]


     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Gejdenson
     Herger
     Hyde
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Rush

                              {time}  1337

  Messrs. McHUGH, HEFLEY, EWING, BARRETT of Nebraska and Mrs. CUBIN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BECERRA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, 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. 391) 
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, pursuant to House Resolution 42, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is 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. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 151, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--274

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--151

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky

[[Page 2284]]


     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Hyde
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Rush

                              {time}  1356

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________