Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and I appreciate his work in this area. All I can say is, after the gentleman from Wisconsin's remarks, here we go again. Class warfare. the only argument in favor of the Pelosi- Nadler amendment is that people that wear suits do not understand the working man. I think we have to first understand that OSHA is not only not equipped to do this scientific gathering or scientific evaluation, nor does it have the authority to do the scientific gathering. What OSHA does is promulgate regulations. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and it is really unfortunate that we have to fight this battle all over again. I do not understand why some Members of this body are so willing to allow OSHA to put forth a standard that has absolutely no basis in science. Just last month the American Academy of Orthopedic surgeons issued a report based on a comprehensive study of back injuries. Do you know what its findings were? There is no relationship between back injuries and work. That is not Tom DeLay saying that. That is the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Earlier this year, the Association of Hand Surgeons determined that there is not enough data available for the Federal Government to move forward with an ergonomic standard. Further, the National Coalition on Ergonomics reported that OSHA cherry-picked and manipulated the data, which bureaucrats are so prone to do, that it gathered last year in order to put forth its proposal. My point is that there is no consensus in the scientific community over risks and remedies or implementing or failing to implement ergonomic policies. There is certainly no consensus that a Federal ergonomic standard can actually have any positive impact on the working man or woman in the workplace and the impact on health and safety. Yet OSHA itself admits its draft proposal is likely to be the most expensive, the most far- reaching ever promulgated by this agency. So by focusing on work spaces and stations, tools and equipment, lighting, typewriter keys and telephones, ergonomics virtually affects every aspect of American businesses large and small. It has been estimated that it could cost American businesses and cost us jobs to the extent of billions of dollars to implement. The sheer magnitude of the paperwork required would impose an enormous and unnecessary burden. The number of professions that would be affected is potentially limitless. A truck driver would be affected since he is exposed to vibrations for an extended period of time, sits in a truck cab, keeps bent wrists on a steering wheel and grips the steering wheel. It has been proposed that every hour that truck driver would have to sit down for 15 minutes because he has had too much vibration. Then there are hair stylists who open and close scissors for hour after hour. What about day care employees who have to lift children all day? Of course, there is the job of the golf pro who has got to swing a club over and over again, the florist who must wrap flower arrangements one after another, and the painter who has got to paint wall after wall. After identifying an at-risk job, according to OSHA's draft proposal, the employer must control the job. The OSHA does not give any indication how this can be done. It simply mandates that the employers control the job. If the employer cannot control the job, OSHA could require that the employer eliminate the job. Because of the lack of existing scientific data to support its draft proposal, OSHA has resorted unbelievably to creating its own data. Currently, OSHA requires employers to report work-related injuries and illnesses. In its proposal, OSHA would expand this recordkeeping requirement to include aches and pains which cannot be definitely tied to the workplace on injury and illness logs. The result would be a database of injuries that is outrageously inflated to show a far greater number of truly work-related injuries than there really are. I cannot condone this kind of activity. The Bonilla amendment rightly prohibits OSHA from continuing to develop an ergonomics standard that involves the imposition of regulations costing billions of dollars on the private sector and a radical new level of government intrusion into the workplaces, work practices without scientific support. The Bonilla language does not prevent the scientific community from developing any necessary data to show a relationship between musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace. Congress has given the authority to do this kind of research to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Nothing prevents NIOSH from continuing this research. OSHA's mandate is to promulgate work safety standards that are based upon sound science and statistics. Without regard to an ergonomic standards, the debate that should be taking place now is the scientific area, not in the regulatory area. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of sound science.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. They are better off because most Americans do not realize that over 40 years we have built the Federal Government to the point that it takes 52 percent of their income to survive.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding time to me. I am truly shocked by the gentleman from Virginia's remarks about calling this resolution an innocuous resolution. I think it gets to the crux of the matter of why we wanted to bring this resolution to the floor, to highlight to the American people something that obviously the Democrats think is insignificant, innocuous, does not mean anything, that the American family today started on July 4 working for itself. That is what this resolution is about. They know that. They are trying to cover it up. For 40 years they have built the Federal Government to such a huge size and taking money from the American family that now we work until July 3 for the Federal Government and start on July 4 working for ourselves. No one is talking about their bad regulations. What we are talking about is rushing to regulations, rushing to judgment without cost-benefit analysis and taking a commonsense approach to regulations. USA Today newspaper yesterday was talking about the number of kids that had been killed by airbags, airbags, rushed to put into cars without the kind of commonsense, thoughtful regulations that may have created an airbag system in cars that would not have killed those kids. So I rise in support of this resolution. I think it is a very important resolution that shows the American people that the cost of government day is July 3. It is altogether appropriate that we let the American people know how much they are spending for their Government. This year the average American family did not gain its freedom from the cost of government until July 3. July 4 may have been the day that we celebrated the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from British tyranny, but this year it was July 3 when Americans actually gained their freedom from paying off their own Government. Thomas Jefferson once said, a wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth the labor of bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. My friends, while that description may sum up good government, it certainly does not describe our Federal Government. Far too often the Federal Government takes, through direct and indirect taxes, the bread the American people have earned. As a former small business owner, I have felt the very real sting of Federal regulations and its costs on my business. More people need to realize that government is a cost of doing business. Government is also a cost to the American family. If you add up the cost of regulations and taxes on the local, State and Federal level, the average family involuntarily donates over 50 percent of its income to the government. Today one parent is forced to work for the government while the other one works to support the family. According to the Commerce Department figures, Federal, State and local governments last year consumed 31.3 percent of all national output, the highest level in the history of the United States. That is the real legacy of the Clinton administration: the tax trap; higher taxes on working families. On the other hand, the Republican Congress has made great strides toward reducing the size and cost of government. This 104th Congress has already cut spending by $43 billion. We have cut our staff by a third. We have passed legislation to reduce taxes on middle-class families. We have signed into law unfunded mandates reform. And we have enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act, and we have passed two balanced budgets, two balanced budgets, the first budgets that balance in a generation. We are moving in the right direction. In fact, 2 years ago it was 52 percent of a family's income. We have it down to 50 percent and moved the days back a day or two. This resolution serves as a simple reminder that the Government is too big and it costs too much. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution and to work with me to make the Government work better and at less cost to the American family.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, take time to look at the excessive regulations the gentleman just said that we ought to be looking at, and the gentleman was criticizing the riders on our appropriations bill last year that does exactly what the gentleman just said that we ought to be doing: set the standard allowing local and State governments and private industries to come up with the solutions. That is all we are talking about.

Mr. DeLAY. I am sure the gentleman does not want to mislead the people watching C-SPAN. The only moratorium we were talking about is suspending any new regulations, not suspending existing regulations.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and he is more than gracious in yielding. I just pointed out the fact that the gentleman earlier was criticizing the moratorium on regulations.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I ask once again of the gentleman that in order to bring comity to this floor, and this is a very serious matter and we all understand how serious this matter is, normally under the precedents of the House, if a gentleman's words have been found to be out of order, of the regular order of this House and the Chair has ruled that the gentleman's words were out of order, under comity of the House the gentleman should apologize. Under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for that apology.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I hope I do not have to object. I hope that this interlude has calmed down some of the heat that has been on the floor, and I remind Members that if we can get through this, maybe we can finish our business tonight. I rise under my reservation to find out if the gentleman intends to apologize to the gentleman from Arizona?

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] be allowed to proceed in regular order.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the celebration of our Nation's independence, let us reflect on one of the lines in the Declaration of Independence. Referring to the repeated injuries and usurpations inflicted upon them by the King of England, Jefferson wrote: He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Sadly and outrageously, Mr. Speaker, this describes the way many Americans feel about the enormous size, intrusiveness and cost of Government today. That is why I am introducing a sense-of-the-Congress resolution today to highlight cost of Government day, which this year is coincidentally 1 day before Independence Day. That is right, Mr. Speaker, according to Americans for Tax Reform, from January 1 through July 3 this year, Americans are working to pay for Government spending at all levels plus the cost of regulations. One hundred eighty-four days to pay for Government and regulations and 181 days to pay for the things they and their families really need. This situation, my colleagues, has gotten ridiculous. Maybe it is time for a new Declaration of Independence, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for the hard work they have done on this bill. While I have the deepest respect for my friend from Georgia, I have to rise in opposition to his amendment. Clearly great controversy exists regarding the age 60 rule. Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a study to be done by the NTSB to provide us with some hard data. So far the data that exists leads me to believe that this rule is totally out of date. The FAA's latest study released in 1993 showed that accidents declined to their safest level at age 55 and remained at that level until the age of 63. Now, that study also showed that the highest risk age category was from 24 years old to 39 years old, and it stated and I quote: In all of our analyses, we saw no hint of an increase in the accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday. Further, accident data collected by the National Transportation Safety Board confirms that inexperience, not age, is the leading cause of aviation accidents. When we really need to know what caused an accident, we do not call the FAA. We call the NTSB. They have worldwide respect in their knowledge of what causes accidents. So it is only natural to ask the NTSB to make this kind of study and report to the FAA and look at it. So why does the FAA insist so stubbornly on retaining this rule? I think it is time to really fully examine the relationship between age and performance and explore alternatives to the age 60 rule. Our friends on the other side of the Atlantic are already moving in this direction. Additionally, foreign carriers are allowed to fly under less restrictive age rules through and into U.S. airspace in America. This is absurd. Vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendments.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important legislation, which appropriates the funds to help build the Nation's highways and other modes of transportation. I commend Chairman Wolf for his hard work on this legislation. Transportation carries not only the people of the world, but also the ideas of the world. Better roadways, safer bridges, smarter highways, all contribute to a better world. I am not an expert in bridge building but I know that we must build bridges with the next generation. That means providing them with the material to construct a better life for their children. A balanced budget is one of those materials we will pass on to the next generation. And I commend the chairman for making this legislation fiscally responsible. Better roadways are another material we will pass on to our children, and this legislation makes the necessary improvements to our Nation's transportation systems to keep us competitive into the next century. In my hometown of Houston, this legislation increases funding for Intelligent Transportation Systems. These state-of-the-art systems pave the way for the even smarter, more effective transportation systems of tomorrow. Already, ITS has proved to be an integral part of Houston's mobility, and will only contribute in greater ways to the ability to move goods and people in an efficient manner using existing infrastructure. This bill also contains funding for other forward-looking transportation systems, including the Advanced Technology Transit Bus and Houston Metro. I am especially proud of Houston Metro for being one of the most effective and cost-efficient transit systems in the Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and keep America on the cutting edge of transportation technology.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for yielding this time to me, and I appreciate all the work that he has done and the ranking member has done in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. So, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill. As is the case each year, the diversity of programs in this bill requires many difficult funding choices, from veterans' medical care, to housing for the elderly, to Superfund, and the exploration of space. Once again, the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee have done yeoman's work in crafting a bill that addresses many of the priorities of the American people and of the members of this House. One of those very important priorities is NASA. NASA is one of the few agencies in this bill where our taxpayer dollars are invested in the future of this country. So, I am very pleased that the space station and the shuttle programs are fully funded. The shuttle program is in the process of transitioning to the private sector under a prime contract structure to the United Space Alliance and eventually to privatization. The space station is now at a very exciting point; it is just 16 months away from launch of the first element. Undoubtedly, however, we will continue to see misguided attempts to kill or wound this program later as we consider some of the amendments to this bill, but I am confident that these attempts will fail by the same large margins demonstrated by the House on the authorization bill just a few weeks ago because the American people are solidly behind this critical program. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it deserves the support of the members of this House. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving its passage.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] suggested that the science program, the defense program is so wasteful and we still pump money into it. Not in the case of NASA. We have ratcheted down NASA to the point that they are lean and doing an incredible job on much less money. But, if you cut them any more, if you take this almost $300 million out of a program that is barely working and working well, I might say, the shuttle program would result in reduction of the flag rate, reductions in personnel, and would adversely affect and possibly eliminate some of our science commercial and education customers as the gentleman has pointed out. So I just compliment the gentleman on his stand in support of his position.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and he is taking a very statesmanlike position on this issue, understanding what is happening here. No gentleman more than the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] understands the delicate balance between all of these programs, particularly in the sense of the space program. That is taking that $297 million out of the space program, that I might say in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], moneys have been taken from NASA because of some of their actions in wasting money.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?