[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10748-10754]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         YES, WE ARE BETTER OFF NOW THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, lately, in a rare turn of events, House 
Democrats have adopted the old adage of Republican leaders and, in 
floor communications, they have posed the famous question from Reagan, 
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
  Well, when the quote came, I think Democrats have found a moment of 
despair. We will welcome their call for comparison of today's economic, 
international and domestic status to that of 4 years. Yes, we are 
better off now.
  Just look at the war on terror. The attacks on September 11 awakened 
the Nation to the threat of terror. Republicans have a clear strategy 
to keep Americans safe and to spread freedom and peace throughout the 
world.
  In the past 3 years, we have seen great progress. Afghanistan is 
free, Libya is now disarmed, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Iraq 
is becoming a free country, making the heart of the Middle East more 
stable and America more secure.

[[Page 10749]]

  The Republican-controlled House quickly passed legislation creating 
the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. All border activity has 
been consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security, a single 
agency, doing away with the fallible INS, or Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, that allowed the September 11 hijackers to slip 
through our borders, rent apartments, find employment and train in 
flight schools, only to have their visas approved by INS after they 
carried out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
  The Department of Homeland Security is implementing background checks 
on 100 percent of applications for U.S. citizenship and has registered 
over 1.5 million travelers into the United States VISIT program.
  Over 500,000 first responders have been trained in weapons of mass 
destruction, awareness and response since September 11, 2001.
  The USA PATRIOT Act has broken down unnecessary barriers between 
intelligence and law enforcement officers, ensuring that the best 
available information about terrorist threats is provided to people who 
need it most.
  After two rounds of across-the-board, Republican-led tax cuts in 2001 
and 2003, America's economy is strong and growing stronger, and we have 
overcome the triple shock of terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and 
recession.
  Americans are seeing the benefit of the Republican progrowth agenda. 
In the eighth straight month of growth, the economy created 288,000 
jobs in April, bringing the total increase since August to more than 
1.1 million jobs created.

                              {time}  2115

  The real gross domestic product has grown at its fastest rate in 
almost 20 years over the last three-quarters. Productivity has grown at 
its fastest rate in 40 years. Homeownership is at an all-time high, 
68.6 percent, with substantial gains among minority homeowners. We have 
the highest total number of people working in the history of America. 
Let me repeat that. We have the highest number of workers in the entire 
history of America on the payroll today. Unemployment today is at its 
lowest rate, lower than at the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. 
The average earnings by American workers is up, higher than it has ever 
been before. These are high-paying jobs that are coming to America. 
Manufacturing jobs have also increased for the first time in a long 
time, 1.1 million jobs in total since August.
  Now, we have had some really good news on the economy, but we need to 
do much more; and we will talk about that later. First, let me talk 
about health care. Republicans have been working to see that the rising 
costs of health care are capped and lowered, accessibility to quality 
care is expanded, and jobs for more Americans are created in the 
process.
  Millions of Americans are benefiting from lower prescription drug 
costs and increased access to health care. In December 2003, a 
prescription drug benefit was signed into law that will make Medicare 
prescription drug coverage available to millions of seniors and people 
with disabilities for the first time since Medicare's inception.
  Health savings accounts were signed into law to give employees more 
control over their health care decisions and the opportunity to save 
tax-free income for future health care costs.
  The number of children enrolled in the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program increased from 4.6 million in 2001 to 5.8 million in 
2003.
  Now, let us talk about education. Under President Bush and the 
Republican-led Congress, No Child Left Behind was signed into law to 
ensure that all students become proficient at reading and math and to 
close the achievement gap that exists between students of different 
socioeconomic backgrounds. Students, teachers, and parents have seen 
the prospective effects of accountability, challenge, and incentive.
  No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, funding for K through 12 has increased 
by 35 percent, and title I funding has increased 41 percent, the 
largest investment in education to date. While only 11 States are in 
full compliance with previous Federal education accountability 
standards in January of 2001, NCLB ensured that by June 2003 all 50 
States had approved accountability plans to ensure that students become 
proficient in reading and math. Under NCLB, math scores have increased 
by 9 points for fourth graders and by 5 points for eighth graders since 
the 2000 National Assessment of Education Progress.
  Under a Democrat watch, we would not be better off. With the 
Democrats in the majority, 34 million working families would not have 
received an average of $1,549 in tax relief each year; 47 million 
families would not have received the $1,000 child tax credit last 
summer for each child; 35 million Americans would still be paying the 
unfair double taxation on dividend income, discouraging them from 
investing in our economy; the defense of our homeland would still be 
spread among 22 different Federal agencies; 50,000 highly trained 
Federal screeners would not be protecting America's airports; 24 
million Iraqis would still be living in fear under Saddam Hussein's 
hostile regime; more than 15 million Afghan citizens would still live 
under the oppressive brutal regime of the Taliban; two-thirds of al 
Qaeda's top leaders would still be on the loose, plotting attacks, 
while congressional Democrats treat terrorism as a law enforcement 
problem; millions of seniors would not benefit from access to 
discounted prescription drugs, and an eventual prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare; and millions of American employees would not be 
able to save pre-tax income towards future health care costs in 
personal health savings accounts.
  The largest number in education to date, a 42.5 percent increase in 
funding, would never have seen its day in American classrooms; and only 
11 out of 50 States would meet acceptable accountability standards in 
education today.
  But things are better off under Republicans this year than they were 
4 years ago. Now, every day we hear about how American jobs are going 
overseas. We have a chart here that reflects some of the issues that 
are going to be coming up and that I want to start talking about. But 
there is a reason why jobs have been going overseas. It is not Benedict 
CEOs, as we have heard before. It is not the wage levels in America. 
The responsibility lies right here in Congress.
  Over the last generation, Congress has passed laws that have come 
back to haunt this generation and future generations, unless we act 
now. Republicans have divided these barriers that prevent Americans 
from keeping and creating jobs into eight categories. We have already 
acted on two of these categories. The first one was health care 
security. We have voted to limit health care costs and help provide 
health care security in America. This week we have dealt with the cost 
of bureaucratic red tape in our Bureaucratic Red Tape Termination group 
of bills, these five bills which I will discuss later on.
  In the weeks that follow, House Republicans will bring up to the 
floor and vote on issues that address lifelong learning, so that we can 
have a skilled and talented workforce that focuses on math, science, 
and engineering skills.
  We are going to deal with trade fairness and opportunity, so that we 
have fair trade policies to help assure jobs here in America. We are 
going to deal with tax relief and simplification so we can provide tax 
relief and tax simplification for Americans. We are going to move 
forward on an energy self-sufficiency and security plan. And we are 
going to encourage research and development by bringing legislation to 
the floor for research and development innovation. And we are going to 
end lawsuit abuse and deal with litigation management, which is the 
last issue we will deal with.
  This is how we will make America more competitive. This is how we are 
going to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a strong 
economy, with opportunities to get a job if they want or start a 
business if they choose.
  This week, we focused on bureaucratic red tape, and I want to read 
some facts. There are 65 words in The

[[Page 10750]]

Lord's Prayer. There are 286 words in the Gettysburg Address. There are 
1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence. And there are 26,911 
words in the Federal regulation governing the sale of cabbage. This was 
made in a speech by FDIC Vice Chairman John M. Reich. He said this 
because he wanted to emphasize that bureaucratic red tape termination 
is vital for U.S. competitiveness in a global economy.
  Bureaucratic red tape termination means less government not only by 
granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams, but it 
also means providing space for businesses to thrive. Instead, our 
Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of regulations that 
strangle enterprise. Unrealistic, impractical, unnecessary 
environmental prohibitions, OSHA mandates and the like are literally 
driving our industries and small businesses and our health care system 
to a grinding halt.
  How can we expect our economy to develop when bureaucracy prevents 
businesses from starting or expanding; when doctors cannot even keep up 
with the ever-changing codes, and teachers are forced to spend more 
time filling out paperwork than teaching in the classroom? The total 
compliance burden on our economy of environmental, economic, workplace, 
and tax compliance regulations is $850 billion; $160 billion on 
manufacturers alone, which is the equivalent of a 12 percent excise 
tax.
  Of the $860 billion, we can see in the chart that it is spread 
between four categories: tax compliance, the total is $132 billion; 
workplace compliance is $84 billion; environmental regulations are $201 
billion; and economic regulatory costs are $444 billion.
  Now, if we compare that $860 billion to the gross domestic product of 
Mexico, we can see that the $860 billion is higher than the $574 
billion that is the entire gross national product of Mexico. Our 
regulatory burden is higher than the $701 billion, which is the entire 
gross national product of Canada. It is a tremendous burden on our 
businesses.
  The regulatory costs compared with individual income taxes and 
corporate taxes and corporate pretax profits, here again is the $860 
billion of regulatory costs, the total individual income taxes that 
were paid last year were $949 billion, the corporate income taxes were 
$201 billion, and the corporate profits were $699 billion. So we can 
see this is a tremendous regulatory burden on our businesses, and it is 
keeping us from creating and holding jobs here in America.
  But the Bush administration has made great strides in curbing the 
growth of regulations and is making a concerted effort to review 
existing regulations to the extent possible. They have utilized the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and its administrator, Dr. 
John Graham, more than any other administration. We must support them 
in our efforts and encourage them to do even more.
  Congress should also do a better job of oversight. Too often my 
colleagues and I are overburdened with committee work and we do not 
have the time or the staff to completely review how agencies operate 
within what cumbersome and unnecessary regulations they are placing on 
our citizens. I hope, myself, to work with leadership and refocus the 
committees' efforts to take time to review what is in place as we do 
the work that must be done immediately.
  I have come up with a bill called CARFA, that I will explain more 
later, but it is called the Commission on Accountability and Review of 
Federal Agencies. It is a base realignment-type committee, a BRAC-like 
effort. BRAC was used for the military to determine which bases should 
be closed. CARFA would be used by this commission to find out which 
parts of the Federal Government should be closed, but I will explain 
more about that later.
  House Republicans are taking on these problems of regulations and 
overburdening of rules. Over the last generation, legislation has been 
passed with good intentions, but the disastrous consequences have come 
in the form of these regulations and policies. These regulations and 
policies have made it difficult to stay competitive; and Congress, the 
Republicans in Congress, intend to do something about it.
  We divided these into eight categories, and we are going to continue 
for the next 6 weeks, after we return from recess, to take one issue a 
week in order to reach the compliance that we need. Our goal is more 
high-quality, high-paying jobs today and for future generations.
  The Heritage Foundation asserts that regulatory costs are killing our 
jobs. They say that reducing the regulatory burden would do much to 
speed the economic recovery and create jobs as well as help consumers. 
There are opportunities for reform in a number of areas, ranging from 
the burdensome telecommunication rules that are slowing progress for 
the next generation of Internet technologies, to unnecessary costly 
environmental regulations that make economic growth difficult. It goes 
to outdated workplace regulations that also discourage job creation.
  OMB, or the Office of Management and Budget, recently reported to 
Congress that the annual cost to society of major Federal regulations, 
just issued between 1992 and 2002, in other words for a decade, are 
estimated to range between $38 billion and $44 billion. Now these are 
dollars that are going to compliance and not towards investment. This 
estimate suggests that Americans spend about $1.50 in compliance costs 
for every dollar in tax costs devoted to regulation.
  For firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the annual regulatory 
burden in 2000 was estimated to be $6,975 per employee, nearly 60 
percent higher than the $4,463 estimated for firms with more than 500 
employees. In other words, it is the most difficult for small 
businesses.

                              {time}  2130

  Instead of spending more on wages or health care for these employees, 
they have to spend nearly $7,000 per employee just complying with the 
paperwork that the Federal Government requires.
  Over the last decade, small firms have accounted for 60 to 80 percent 
of the net new jobs in the U.S. economy. During and coming out of the 
last two recession periods, 1990 through 1992, and 2000 through 2001, 
small businesses created all of the new net jobs.
  According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the 
budgetary cost to taxpayers for funding regulatory agencies topped $25 
billion in 2002 alone. The Code of Federal Regulations extends 19 feet. 
If you can imagine that, that is more than three times my height. If it 
was stacked from the floor up towards the ceiling, 19 feet high. From 
1991 to 2000, the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations 
increased 28 percent.
  This Republican Congress has made regulatory reform a priority. It 
started back in the 104th Congress when we passed the Federal 
bureaucratic reforms under the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, 
which was part of the contract with America. That, among other things, 
has Federal agencies assess the risk and cost imposed by regulations.
  To mark the passage of H.R. 1375, the Financial Services Regulatory 
Relief Act, had a myriad of bills and amendments that aimed at cutting 
red tape. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average 
number of rules issued each year, proposed and final, declined sharply 
during the Reagan administration, and dropped even further during the 
Bush administration, rose slightly during the Clinton administration, 
and has declined even further during the first 3 years of George W. 
Bush.
  The average number of rules issued each year during the current Bush 
administration is 6,712. It is just over half as many issued, on 
average, each year during the Carter administration; that was 12,325. 
They have utilized the Office of Information Regulatory Affairs to do 
this through Dr. John Graham, and the U.S. Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy has gone out of its way to stand up 
for small businesses and encourage fellow agencies to reduce the red 
tape and the regulatory burdens.

[[Page 10751]]

  Bolstered by the President's commitment to remove regulatory barriers 
that can stifle entrepreneurial growth and job creation, it has 
incorporated the views of small businesses into hundreds of agency 
decisions. Those efforts have changed regulations and curbed new 
mandates resulting in over $31 billion of savings. Those savings have 
been reinvested back into the economy, and we are starting to see the 
improvement with a number of jobs. I support the administration's 
efforts and encourage them to do more.
  Let me talk about competitiveness, because compliance costs can be 
regarded as the silent killer of manufacturing competitiveness. 
According to the Heritage Foundation, a global CEO survey shows six of 
ten company heads view regulations as a serious threat to the growth of 
their business, topping exchange rates, corporate governance issues, 
and even terrorism. Small business is leading America's economic 
recovery, but an overwhelming burden of Federal paperwork rules and 
regulations threatens their competitiveness and their ability to spur 
job creation.
  Regulation imposes its heaviest burden on small- and medium-sized 
businesses because it is even harder for them to handle the necessary 
paperwork and overhead costs, and the attorney and the accountant fees 
that go along with it. Richard Vedder, an economist at the Center For 
the Study of American Business, finds that Federal regulations cause 
$1.3 trillion in economic output to be lost each year.
  In order to give an idea of what a trillion dollars is, let us assume 
you started a business the day after Christ rose from the dead, and you 
made a million dollars that day and each day until today. In other 
words, your profit was a million dollars a day for nearly 2,000 years; 
by that time you would not yet have made a trillion dollars. You would 
only be three-quarters of the way to earning a trillion dollars.
  So the cost of $1.3 trillion to economic output is a tremendous cost 
to our economy. This is roughly equivalent to the entire output of the 
Midatlantic region which includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, 
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
  According to a study done by the Manufacturing Alliance, entitled 
``How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S. Manufacturers Harm Workers and 
Threaten Competitiveness,'' in terms of compliance, three areas of 
regulation are hit particularly hard: consumer safety, workplace safety 
and environmental protection.
  The total compliance burden is the $850 billion we have been talking 
about. And again, for manufacturers, that is equivalent to a 12 percent 
excise tax. That means we are 12 percent less competitive. If we could 
cut that in half, we could make ourselves 6 percent more competitive 
worldwide.
  The burden on the pollution abatement expenditures alone reduces the 
cost of competitiveness by 3.5 percentage points, in comparison with 
our nine largest trading partners.
  In a recent working paper by the Mercatus Center, which surveyed 100 
manufacturing companies and estimated that the total cost of complying 
with the 25 statutes and executive orders, just 25 statutes and 
executive orders that encompass workplace regulation, it was about a 
$32 billion cost in the year 2000. That is equivalent to a 1.6 percent 
excise tax on manufactured goods.
  In addition to the problem of adding to the number of uninsured and 
employers losing work due to the inability to provide coverage, health 
care costs are making America uncompetitive in the global market as 
well. While I do not advocate socialized medicine, most foreign nations 
provide health care coverage through their government and this is a 
huge cost that our companies have to worry about, but foreign companies 
do not have to worry about.
  The National Association of Manufacturers calculated that the benefit 
costs put American companies at a 5.5 percent disadvantage compared to 
our nine largest trading partners. Not only does the United States 
spend more on health care annually, but 7.7 percent of our gross 
domestic product is the private sector contribution to health care 
coverage, and that far exceeds those of our foreign competitors. If we 
add the public sector to that, it is 14 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  America has been blessed with the best health care system. However, 
we must keep working to make it available and affordable, and the 
bureaucratic red tape tied to it is driving the cost of health care up. 
The Kansas Hospital Association has told me that for every hour of 
health care they provide, there is an additional hour required for 
paperwork compliance. We must improve access to health care and reduce 
the demands on paperwork so the quality of health care does not 
diminish.
  Now, this week we have dealt with four OSHA bills and one paperwork 
reduction bill and we are committed, the Republicans are committed to 
reduce the cost of bureaucratic red tape. Congress established OSHA in 
1970. OSHA, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
OSHA's mandate was to ensure for all workers safe and healthful working 
conditions, I am quoting from the original law which says, ``by 
encouraging employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the 
number of occupational, safety and health hazards at their place of 
employment.''
  Yet, unsurprisingly, OSHA's 30-year record has been marred by 
failure. According to the regulatory analysis performed by the Cato 
Institute, while OSHA's supporters cite evidence attesting to the 
agency's effectiveness, the vast majority of studies have found no 
statistical significance in the reduction of workplace fatalities or 
injuries due to OSHA. Interventionists are hard pressed to maintain 
that OSHA meets even the minimum criteria for any government program. 
That criteria is, does it have any desirable effect on the problem it 
is supposed to solve.
  OSHA's failure has been bad for business. A 1995 study by the 
Employment Policy Foundation found that 19 percent of the productivity 
slow-downs in the 1970s was directly attributable to regulations 
imposed by OSHA, and nearly half of those slow-downs in long-term 
productivity can be explained by rising governmental regulatory 
activity.
  OSHA's poor track record even forced Vice President Gore to admit 
that the agency ``does not work well enough.'' Yet despite its 
failures, OSHA continues to intimidate businesses with the heavy hand 
of regulation, and it continues to make us worse off. As with almost 
any form of persistent government meddling, regulation stifles the very 
forces that drive growth and enhance prosperity here at home.
  OSHA was created to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for workers 
throughout our Nation. Over the past 30 years, America's workplace has 
become safer and more secure than any time in our history, much of it 
through initiatives through the private sector. But in the last 3 
decades, OSHA has developed an affliction which many Federal agencies 
share. Those same Federal agencies, while created to do good, have 
become unwelcome visitors, bearing gifts such as regulation and 
misguided oversight. The affliction to which I am referring is an 
insatiable appetite for too much control of the day-to-day lives of 
American workers and the companies they have worked hard to build.
  This is particularly true in the residential construction industry. A 
few months ago, OSHA seemed to unfairly target the residential industry 
in Sedgwick County, Kansas. In June, I was contacted by the home 
builders from Wichita who were terrified by the prospect of having to 
stop work in order to avoid fines by OSHA. OSHA had targeted three 
counties in Kansas and they flooded these OSHA employees into those 
areas.
  My constituents told me that OSHA was planning to fine builders for 
having plastic coffee cups on the ground and workers' failure to wear 
ear plugs while operating a wet-vac. These fines could be as high as 
$50,000, and would effectively put these small businessmen out of 
business.
  OSHA claimed these reports were exaggerated, but there is no way I 
can exaggerate the impact of OSHA's hostility and excessive regulation 
on the

[[Page 10752]]

fragile economy in Wichita. Allow me to explain, and prevent further 
harm to the small business sector.
  As the Air Capital of the World, nowhere else do you find so many 
top-name general aviation aircraft manufacturers located in such close 
proximity. We also manufacture structural components for large 
commercial airlines. It has been said that what Detroit is to the 
automobile and what Silicon Valley is to the computer chip, Wichita, 
Kansas, is to the airplane.
  Wichita proudly claims as corporate residents the Boeing Company, 
Cessna, Raytheon, Bombardier Aerospace's Learjet division. As a result, 
Wichita supplies components of two-thirds of the world's commercial 
airlines and manufactures 60 percent of the world's general aviation 
aircraft.
  As you are aware, the aviation industry is the first to feel the 
effects of an economic downturn and the last to recover from it, and 
that is exactly what happened after the terrorist attacks on September 
11, 2001. Wichita and surrounding area lost more jobs as a percentage 
of the total number of jobs than any other community in the United 
States. That resulted in the layoff of over 12,000 aircraft 
manufacturing workers.
  The last thing Wichita needs is a Federal agency running around 
harassing small business and operating as though it would rather push 
paper and impose fines than working with employers to create a safe and 
healthy work environment.
  In the case of the residential construction companies, OSHA chose 
surprise visits, ill-conceived compliance guidelines, and an 
adversarial demeanor to achieve everyone's goal of a safer, more secure 
workplace. Many small contractors were forced to stop working in order 
to avoid unfair fines which could have been as much as $7,000 per 
infraction, no matter how insignificant the infraction was.
  Under this approach, OSHA was doing more to hurt employees than to 
help them by threatening the ability of the men and women in the 
residential construction industry to make a living. The work 
environment was safer; it was safe because there was nobody there. They 
were afraid to go to the work site in fear of being find by OSHA.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a leader in the 
fight to keep American businesses competitive without sacrificing 
workplace safety and health protections. As a part of our Bureaucratic 
Red Tape Reduction Week, the gentleman brought to the floor this week 
several bills which are aimed at establishing the basic principles of 
fairness, reducing regulatory burdens and expediting administrative 
reviews that will increase business productivity among America's small 
businesses.

                              {time}  2145

  These four bills are H.R. 2728, the Occupational and Safety Health 
Small Business Day in Court Act; H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and 
Health Review Commission Efficiency Act; H.R. 2730, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act; and H.R. 
2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to 
Justice Act. I am pleased to say that the House passed all four 
measures despite overwhelming Democratic opposition to the measures.
  As we continue to focus on Bureaucratic Red Tape Termination week, I 
would like to share with my colleagues legislation that I will be 
introducing to assist small businesses in their latest battle against 
Big Government. My legislation accomplishes five goals. First, the bill 
will streamline the amount of time businesses have to contest citations 
and the amount of time OSHA has to issue citations. Today, businesses 
have 15 days to contest citations while OSHA has 6 months to issue 
them. Under my bill, OSHA will have 30 days to issue citations and 
provide employers with 30 days to contest it.
  Secondly, this legislation allows businesses the right to correct 
OSHA violations without immediate monetary penalty. Under my plan, 
safety would be improved because employers would be given the incentive 
to promptly correct conditions that violate OSHA standards, except in 
the case of willful violations where the employer had knowledge of the 
violation and made no reasonable effort to correct it.
  This section of the bill would give employers 72 hours to correct a 
violation following an OSHA inspection. Once corrected, the employer 
must provide an abatement certification to OSHA of the correction. Upon 
completion of the correction and certification, OSHA would not issue a 
monetary penalty for the citation, although the citation would be kept 
on record.
  Third, my bill addresses the multi-employer citation policy issue by 
more narrowly defining the multi-employer citation policy at OSHA.
  OSHA's recent enforcement of this policy has potentially overstepped 
their statutory authority that was authorized by Congress in the 
Occupational Safety and Heath Act. The legislation that I will be 
proposing clarifies to whom OSHA can issue citations on work sites 
where multiple employers are operating and allows OSHA to issue 
citations for a violation only to the employer who has exposed their 
employee to that given condition.
  Fourth, my legislation will change the criteria for issuing 
subsequent repeat citations by stating that ``other than serious'' 
citations cannot be used as a basis for repeat or subsequent citations.
  Finally, the bill will require OSHA inspectors to provide to 
employers a written statement or summary at the conclusion of the 
inspection that lists the items which OSHA inspectors noticed during 
the inspection. OSHA must then use these summary items as the basis for 
their citations. Requiring a summary at the end of the inspection would 
provide employers with prompt notification of hazardous conditions on 
their job site, thereby improving safety on the work site by providing 
employers with the opportunity to correct hazardous conditions 
immediately.
  Currently, employers are often unaware of what the inspector's 
concerns were until they receive the citation, sometimes up to 6 months 
after the inspection. The bill also includes the added benefit of 
providing OSHA with the incentive to ensure that their inspectors are 
well versed and educated on OSHA regulations prior to conducting the 
site inspection.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that OSHA's first approach to those who 
provide jobs in our communities should be cooperative and not 
combative. This agency should be driven to work with, and not against, 
America's businesses.
  Since 1971, OSHA's safety guidelines have accomplished some decline 
in occupational injuries and illness rates, and workplace fatalities 
have been cut in half. And I am convinced that it is possible to 
continue job protection for the American worker while at the same time 
create a climate for more jobs and economic growth.
  The fifth bill that was passed this week to reduce bureaucratic red 
tape and paperwork was called the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements 
Act. It was H.R. 2432, and it requires the Office of Management and 
Budget, in concert with the Internal Revenue Service, to conduct a 
review and then report to Congress on possible actions to reduce tax 
paperwork burden imposed on small businesses. H.R. 2432 provides 
Congress with a needed permanent analytic capability to serve as a 
check and balance on the executive branch's cost-benefit estimates of 
its proposed and final regulations and their consistency with 
congressional intent. Under the current law, OMB is required to submit 
an annual regulatory accounting statement with the President's fiscal 
budget.
  To date, the usefulness of these reports has been undermined since 
they have not been integrated with the budget. In other words, they do 
not permit Congress to review simultaneously the on-budget and off-
budget costs associated with each Federal agency and each Federal 
agency program that imposes regulatory or paperwork burdens on the 
public. H.R. 2432 improves the utility of these reports to Congress by 
ensuring we have this simultaneous review.
  Currently, there is no end to regulatory burdens imposed on the 
public

[[Page 10753]]

including both large and small businesses, but H.R. 2432 requires the 
first-ever multi-agency study of regulatory budgeting to determine if 
agencies can better manage regulatory burdens on the public. This is a 
good government bill which makes incremental improvements in the 
existing processes governing paperwork and regulatory reviews, 
including strengthening tools for those of us here in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I also want to discuss another tool that I think 
can be used in eliminating unwanted and unneeded regulation and 
regulatory bodies in our Federal Government, and that is the creation 
of the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies 
or CARFA.
  It is certainly no secret that the Federal budget is filled with 
examples of duplicative, inefficient, and failed Federal agencies and 
programs. Many of these programs and agencies share regulatory 
oversight which very often ties the hands of businesses and employers 
due to the outrageous compliance costs these businesses must bear. I 
have introduced legislation that I believe would eliminate much of the 
fraud, abuse, and unnecessary regulation that persists in our Federal 
Government in a politically visible manner.
  It has become increasingly clear that Congress's normal procedures 
cannot address the spending and waste problems that persist within our 
Federal Government. Time and again we see congressionally authorized 
programs become institutionalized, ultimately becoming a permanent 
fixture at the expense of taxpayers. This ties up precious Federal 
resources that could be used towards paying down the national debt or 
higher congressional priorities. By cutting out unnecessary Federal 
programs and agencies, we will send a strong message that we are 
serious about exercising fiscal responsibility and controlling 
government spending.
  A first step towards a stable financial future for this country 
certainly can be found in H.R. 3213, the CARFA bill, which is also 
known as the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal 
Agencies Act. CARFA is based on a process with an established record of 
successful program elimination and prioritizing of spending. The Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC as it is called, is similar 
only it deals strictly with military bases, whereas H.R. 3213 will 
establish a commission to conduct a comprehensive review of Federal 
agencies and programs and recommend the elimination or the realignment 
of duplicative, wasteful, and outdated functions.
  CARFA provides for a disciplined spending review process for 
nondefense, nonentitlement programs. Congress will simply have to vote 
up or down on the commission's recommendations in their entirety. The 
congressional log-rolling that normally bogs down the process will be 
short-circuited. In this way, real reform can emerge and the deficit 
and debt program can be brought under control. H.R. 3213 offers 
Congress and the administration a unique opportunity rather than simply 
re-fund and increase funding for every Federal program. CARFA will 
eliminate unproductive, duplicative, and outdated programs.
  Here is how CARFA would work. The commission would consist of 12 
members appointed by the President no later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this bill. Members would be appointed for the life of the 
commission and would be required to meet no later than 30 days after 
the date on which all the members of the commission have been 
appointed. CARFA's duties would then include conducting a top to bottom 
review of all Federal programs and agencies, excepting the Department 
of Defense and any agency that solely administers entitlement programs.
  CARFA would seek to identify those programs or agencies that could be 
considered duplicative in mission, grossly wasteful or inefficient, 
outdated, irrelevant, or simply failed. The assessment of these 
programs would be based primarily on the achievement of common 
performance measures, financial management, and other factors 
determined by the President. No later than 2 years after the enactment 
of this act, the commission would be required to submit to the 
President and Congress a plan with recommendations of the agencies and 
programs that should be realigned or eliminated and propose legislation 
to implement this plan. CARFA would require congressional consideration 
of the review's findings under the expedited legislative rules. In 
short, Congress would be voting up or down to continue or stop wasteful 
spending.
  CARFA's main focus would be to make our government smarter and more 
effective and also to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to 
support programs such as the Federal Tea-taster, who until 1995 headed 
the Board of Tea Experts, which was created by the Imported Tea Act of 
1897. Until this program's elimination just 8 short years ago, the 
Federal Government was spending $120,000 in salary and operating 
expenses per year to taste tea.
  Obviously, this is only one example of the type of program that CARFA 
would target, but I am convinced that our Federal Government is replete 
with programs such as this that make a mockery out of our hard-earned 
tax dollars and that dramatically increase the costs of doing business 
in this country. Other examples of government waste that CARFA would 
target include surplus lands owned by the Department of Energy, which 
if sold would save taxpayers $12 million over 5 years. In addition, 
eliminating four duplicative bilingual education programs at the 
Department of Education would save taxpayers $800 million over a 5-year 
period. We could save $1 million every year by simply eliminating 
overlapping responsibilities and reducing administrative positions at 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The examples of inefficiency 
and wasteful government practices that CARFA could target are far too 
numerous to cite in this short amount of time. However, it is clear to 
me that the need for CARFA is very real.
  The strict time limits governing the commission which would expire 
shortly after submitting its findings would ensure that its costs are 
kept to a minimum. I believe that the savings that would occur as a 
result of the commission's findings will more than justify the minimal 
expenses the study might incur. In addition, it is worth noting that 
CARFA requires that all funds saved by implementation of this plan can 
only, only, be used for supporting other domestic programs or paying 
down the national debt.
  H.R. 3213 offers Congress and the administration a test: Can we 
address a real and present problem by adopting a method that has been 
successful in the past? CARFA is a realistic plan that will make 
genuine reform possible. We welcome support of this politically viable 
solution to government spending gone awry. If the CARFA commission 
comes to fruition, it will give Congress arms-length distance to do the 
right thing and vote down ridiculous, redundant, and outdated programs. 
Over 65 of my colleagues in the House have agreed to cosponsor this 
legislation, and our numbers are growing stronger. We hope to see the 
CARFA commission hard at work cutting wasteful spending and eliminating 
burdensome overregulation by this time next year if not sooner.
  So in summary, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that, over the last 
generation, Congress through good intentions has created barriers to 
keeping and creating jobs in America. Republicans in the House have 
come up with a plan of dividing these barriers into eight issues, and 
over a period of 8 weeks we are going to address each one of these 
issues with the purpose of creating high-quality, high-paying jobs 
right here in America and bringing jobs home, jobs that we have lost 
due to the acts of Congress and the regulations and policies and rules 
that have followed these acts of Congress.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, those eight issues are health care security, 
bureaucratic red tape termination, lifelong learning, trade fairness 
and opportunity, tax relief and simplification, energy self-sufficiency 
and security, spurring innovation, and ending lawsuit abuse.

[[Page 10754]]



                              {time}  2200

  Last week we dealt with health care security by passing health care 
liability reform and by passing Flexible Savings Accounts and Medical 
Savings Accounts.
  This week we have dealt with bureaucratic red tape termination. We 
passed four bills relating to OSHA and the Paperwork and Regulatory 
Improvement Act 2030.
  Next week we are in recess, so the following week we are going to 
deal with lifelong learning. It is our intent during that week to focus 
on those types of training and education that we believe will bring 
more jobs into America. We want to focus on math, on science, on 
engineering. We want to develop a system where we can teach our young 
men and women to be technical in their training, so they can be 
innovative and ready to accept the jobs that will be created by 
reducing these other burdens. So lifelong learning will be the week 
next after we are on recess.
  So, Mr. Speaker, these eight issues are going to be dealt with. They 
are not easily overcome by businesses, small and large, because they 
are things they cannot control. Businesses can control wages, they can 
control overhead, but they cannot control their health care costs, they 
cannot control the bureaucratic red tape that burdens them down every 
day, they cannot control the trade issues and policies, they cannot 
control the energy policy we have and they cannot control the lawsuits 
that come and haunt them. So we intend to address these issues.
  This is the debate that we should be having on the floor of the House 
now. This is how we are going to secure a future for our children and 
our grandchildren. We are going to, if successful, create a strong 
economy in the future, where they can either start a business or get a 
job.
  For those who are in opposition to these issues, I want to ask you, 
why would you oppose an energy policy that would create 700,000 more 
jobs in America? Why would you oppose reducing red tape so we can 
create additional work in areas where we do not have jobs now? Why 
would you want to oppose lawsuit reform, because right now it is 
driving jobs overseas?
  The Republicans in the House want to bring jobs back into America. 
This is our plan. It is the most aggressive and organized plan that we 
have ever had for bringing jobs back to America. I am very proud to 
head up this effort through a Jobs Action Team.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to be successful in bringing jobs 
back.

                          ____________________