Masonry Magazine June 1996 Page. 22
Washington Update
Continued from page 11
In the Senate version of the Regulatory Fairness and Regulatory Flexibility Act (S.942), sponsored by Senator Kit Bond (R-MS), requires agencies to provide small businesses with guideline manuals explaining regulations covering them and methods for compliance. An agency which has not published and made available such a guideline for a regulation may not enforce that rule against a small business. If a regulation is vague or ambiguous or a small business could be considered to be reasonably interpreting and following the agency compliance guide, no fines or penalties may be imposed on the business. An ombudsman program and Small Business Regulatory Fairness board is established at the SBA regional level. A small business which successfully defends itself against an agency regulatory action in an adversarial proceeding must have its fees, costs and expenses paid by the losing agency.
DAVIS-BACON
Two bills have been introduced to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act in the Congress. The House of Representatives has H.R. 500 introduced by Representative Cass Ballenger, (R-NC). The Senate version bill is S.141 introduced by Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS). A reform bill of Davis Bacon has been introduced by Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) which raises the threshold to $1,000,000 and restricts the use of helpers on a Davis-Bacon project, and expands Davis-Bacon coverage to include suppliers not on the construction site. In the House, HR. 2472 introduced by Curt Weldon (R-PA) raises the threshold of Davis-Bacon coverage to $100,000, repeals the Midway and Brosmer decisions, overturns helper regulations, requires monthly payroll reports, creates private rights of administrative and judicial action, authorizes fines and damages, expands Davis Bacon coverage to leases, and prohibits ERISA from preempting state and local wage laws.
The Davis-Bacon repeal bill H.R. 500 was included in the budget reconciliation bill, but was later removed. Senate Bill S.141 was dropped from the Senate reconciliation bill. No further action is pending in either body of Congress.
ESTATE TAXES
The House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate have introduced legislation and incorporated in the seven year balance budget plan an estate tax reform bill. Senat. Majority leader Bob Dole (R-KS.) and Senator David Pryor (D-AR) introduced Senate Bill 1086 which is targeted at providing relief to family-owned business. In the House of Representatives Jim McCrery (R-LA), Bill Brewster (D-OK), Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) and Jan Meyers (R-KS) have introduced H R. 2190 with similar estate tax reform legislation. Both S. 1086 and H. R. 2190 would provide an exclusion from estate for value of qualified family-owned business interest up to $1.5 million and excess value over $1.5 million would be taxed at 50% of current estate tax rates. This legislation was included as part of the Seven Year Balanced Budget Plan, however, the $1.5 million exclusion was lowered to $1 million in the conference report.
According to the Small Business Council, the Dole and McCrery legislation will yield the most benefit to the small business community. This estate tax bill has already been vetoed once by President Clinton as part of the overall balanced budget bill.
Estate tax relief is another example of what a new majority in Congress means when it comes to being sympathetic to small business and free enterprise concerns.
PRODUCT LIABILITY
(Civil Litigation)
When the new Congress was elected, Republicans pledged to overturn the nation's civil litigation laws. Two major bills have been introduced in Congress which would reform these laws. HR. 956 would cap punitive damages in all civil cases at three times the economic damage award or $250,000 whichever is greater, eliminate joint and several al liability for non-economic damages in all civil suits, cap punitive damages for small companies in product liability cases as well as placing limits on such awards for other companies. In the U. S. Senate version, S. 656 is not as dramatic as House bill 956 but it would cap punitive damages in product liability cases at the greater of two times the level of compensatory damages or $250,000 (whichever is greater) but not in other civil litigation suits. It would abolish joint liability for non-economic damages in product liability cases but permit its retention for economic damages, make product sellers liable only for their own negligence or failure to comply with an express warranty. However, sellers could still become liable if the manufacturer cannot be used or is unable to pay a judgement.
Of considerable concern to contractors are provisions in S. 656 relating to the subrogation of liens. Presently, workers compensation law permits employers and insurance carriers to recover workers compensation costs from judgements involving defective products where the suit was successfully brought by an employee against a manufacturer. The Senate bill would make such recovery more difficult and interfere with improvements initiated by many individual states.
The House version contains no such language. HR.956 passed the House by over 100 votes (265-151) in March, 1995. The Senate could not pass this version and passed a substitute Senate 656 for the House bill and passed the measure 61-39 in the Senate in May, 1995. The House/Senate Conference Committee has recently come to an agreement on this bill and may soon pass it to President Clinton who is threatening to veto this legislation. If vetoed, there is a good chance the