[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 32 (Monday, March 12, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E333-E334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RONNIE SHOWS

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 12, 2001

  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, my family experienced a tragedy last week 
that forced me to miss a series of important votes from March 6 through 
March 8 last week. Due to the death of my mother-in-law on March 6 in 
Mississippi, I was with my family and was unable to cast recorded votes 
on rollcalls 26 through 45.
  On rollcall 26, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Pass H.R. 724, a bill to Authorize Appropriations to 
Carry Out Part B of Title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
relating to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  On rollcall 27, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Pass H.R. 727, a bill to Amend the Consumer Product 
Safety Act to Provide that Low-Speed Electric Bicycles are Consumer 
Products Subject to Such Act.
  On rollcall 28, I would have voted ``yea'' on Approving the Journal.
  On rollcall 29, I would have voted ``nay'' on Agreeing to H. Res. 79, 
a bill providing for consideration of S.J. Res. 6, Providing for 
Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Relating to Ergonomics.
  On rollcall 30, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 31, a bill expressing the sense of 
the Congress regarding the importance of organ, tissue, bone marrow, 
and blood donation and supporting National Donor Day.
  On rollcall 31, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 624, the Organ Donation 
Improvement Act.
  On rollcall 32, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 47, a bill Honoring the 21 members 
of the National Guard who were killed in the crash of a National Guard 
aircraft on March 3, 2001, in south-central Georgia.
  On rollcall 33, I would have voted ``yea'' on Passage of S.J. Res. 6, 
a bill Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by 
the Department of Labor Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, 
Relating to Ergonomics.
  On rollcall 34, I would have voted ``nay'' on on Approving the 
Journal.
  On rollcall 35, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to Adjourn.
  On rollcall 36, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Adjourn.
  On rollcall 37, I would have voted ``no'' on Ordering the Previous 
Question on H. Res. 83, a bill Providing for consideration of H.R. 3, 
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001.
  On rollcall 38, I would have voted ``no'' to Table the Motion to 
Reconsider H. Res. 83.
  On rollcall 39, I would have voted ``no'' on Agreeing to H. Res. 83.
  On rollcall 40, I would have voted ``no'' to Table the Motion to 
Reconsider H. Res. 83.
  On rollcall 41, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to Adjourn.
  On rollcall 42, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Rangel Substitute 
to H.R. 3.
  On rollcall 43, I would have voted ``yea'' to Table the Motion to 
Reconsider H.R. 3.
  On rollcall 44, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to Recommit 
H.R. 3 with instructions.
  On rollcall 45, I would have voted ``yea'' on Passage of H.R. 3, the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, for me a ``yea'' vote on rollcall 33, to pass S.J. Res. 
6, was a difficult decision. I supported S.J. Res. 6 because, although 
I firmly believe an ergonomics regulation is necessary, I am troubled 
by overly broad scope of the regulation that was promulgated late last 
year, and by the potential costs incurred by businesses required to 
implement this unfunded mandate against the private sector.
  In recent years, my district has experienced the exodus of thousands 
of jobs, Mr. Speaker, largely because our trade policies have 
encouraged businesses to take advantage of lower wages and weaker 
worker protection and environmental laws across our borders. I fear 
that imposing this particular ergonomics regulation would have 
encouraged the loss of even more jobs at home.
  At the same time, the process used to bring S.J. Res. 6 to the House 
floor disappointed me. It was rushed with no House hearings and little 
opportunity for debate. This process gave me little time to solicit the 
opinions of my constituents in Mississippi. That is why I would have 
voted against the rule governing consideration of the Joint Resolution.
  Nonetheless, I believe we need an ergonomics regulation that provides 
reasonable protections for our workforce. The Secretary of Labor has 
indicated her willingness to promulgate a new regulation and I urge her 
to initiate the process immediately.
  We need the business and labor communities to work together to craft 
worker safety

[[Page E334]]

regulations that do not place unfair burdens on businesses to comply. 
If an ergonomics regulation is implemented in the future, I will 
introduce legislation providing tax credits to help businesses offset 
the cost of compliance. This would be a fair approach, one that 
provides reasonable worker protections without forcing businesses to 
choose between implementing ergonomics regulations or shutting down and 
relocating across our border.
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 45 I would have voted ``yea'' in favor of 
H.R. 3, President Bush's measure to reduce income tax rates, because 
currently we pay more in taxes than at any time since World War II. 
Taxes consume a staggering 38 percent of the gross income of the 
average family. Most families pay more in taxes than for food, housing, 
and clothing combined. This is wrong. Ending estate and marriage 
penalty taxes will be voted on soon and I will vote to end them both 
just like I did last year.
  But honestly, Mr. Speaker, the income tax cut in H.R. 3 was a good 
tax cut but it was not perfect. Middle America, working Americans and 
Mississippians should receive more of a refund than this tax cut 
provides. The nation's wealthiest should not get a full loaf while the 
rest of us get only crumbs. But, cutting taxes in Washington is next to 
impossible. Once a revenue stream is flowing into the federal 
government, it's hard to reduce the flow. Cutting taxes for hard 
working Mississippians has been one of my priorities since taking 
office. We cannot afford to miss this chance to provide tax cuts for 
our families. More money in our pockets, not that of the federal 
government, is best for America.
  I have other priorities that are essential for our nation's future, 
too. Paying off the National Debt, restoring the promise of health care 
for our military retirees, standing with our family farmers, building a 
stronger military, providing prescription drug help for our seniors, 
protecting Social Security and Medicare, and making stronger schools 
for our children, deserve our attention and support. The debate in 
Washington has been about our ability to provide a huge tax cut and 
accomplish all these other goals. Can we have our cake and eat it too? 
The president says we can. I hope he's right.
  Cutting taxes is the right thing to do. Our priorities must be about 
building strong families and communities. This income tax cut bill now 
heads to the U.S. Senate. I am confident the Senate will consider all 
of our priorities, address the need to provide solid relief for middle 
America, and implement mechanisms to protect us--the taxpayers--from a 
return to deficit spending. The bill will then return to the House. We 
will once again have the opportunity to do the right thing. I am 
determined that we will.

                          ____________________