Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I ask the distinguished ranking member, did he vote for Jackson-Vanik or not? The gentleman has left the floor. He does not want to answer the question. Because I am sure the gentleman as well as many Members of this Congress were outraged at the notion that the Soviet Union charged their people huge taxes to leave the government that they so despised. The problem with people leaving this Government is that the welfare state and the taxes charged and the regulations charged in this country have forced people to leave.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Has it not been the longstanding tradition of this House to allow the majority leaders of both parties, including the Speaker of both parties, to have a little extra time when they are speaking?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Clinton- Deal substitute, and I applaud the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] for his efforts to bring a conservative Democrat approach to welfare as we know it. For 30 years we have seen a series of Presidents, from Lyndon Johnson, to Jimmy Carter, to Bill Clinton, who have failed to deliver on their promise to end welfare as we know it. Now we have another approach to tinker around the edges, and a very weak effort in my opinion. The Clinton-Deal bill throws more money at the problem, creates more programs on top of programs, more job programs on top of over 150 job programs that are already out there failing, and it is amazing to me under this bill welfare spending is going to increase from $300 billion this year to $500 billion by the end of this decade. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is so exercised on that kind of issue because the savings under our bill would not explicitly go to deficit reduction. The irony here is there are no substantial savings in the Clinton-Deal substitute to go to deficit reduction under it and a paltry $10 billion in savings as described by the previous speaker over the next 5 years out of a trillion dollars in spending on welfare. What we have here is very basic. We have a conservative approach by the Democrat Party to take a system that asks a 14-year-old child that has a baby out of wedlock to stay in a public housing system, be isolated in a torn-down public housing unit, live among the rats and cockroaches with the drug pushers standing outside the door, and, as long as she does not get married or work, the cash will keep flowing. Their new system is all of that, living in public housing, not getting married, with the drug pushers standing outside the door. As long as she worked a little bit, the cash will keep flowing.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended, and the procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states the following: It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended, and is, therefore, not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to sustain my point of order.

Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my point of order.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for the work he has done on this bill. I would just like to take this time to address two provisions in H.R. 1159 that act as moratoriums on Federal trip reduction requirements and mandated emissions testing programs. The bottomline is simple: The scant environmental benefits to be gained from these flawed programs fall way short of the costs involved in implementing them. I would like to thank Chairman Lewis for working with me on these very important provisions and commend him for producing one of the toughest subcommittee marks in this rescission bill. By preventing EPA from enforcing these requirements through the end of the fiscal year, we are giving the authorizing committee time to reopen the Clean Air Act. Changes must be made to reflect the expensive failures all of our constituents have encountered in dealing with these programs. Likewise, we must give States the option to choose the methods that work best for them to address their pollution problems. EPA has backed off the trip reduction requirement. They acknowledge its ineffectiveness and say they will not enforce it. But businesses must still submit ``employee commute option'' plans to their States, forcing employers to divert resources to comply. The bottomline is that the law is still on the books and just because EPA says it will not enforce it now, there is nothing to stop them from reversing their position in the future. the business community. The moratorium in this legislation would provide that certainty until the Congress has an opportunity to reevaluate the authorizing language. As far as the federally mandated emissions programs go, a virtual rebellion has occurred in those States required to implement them. Of the 28 States forced to comply, 22 programs have been delayed or suspended or the State has refused to comply altogether. For example: in Maine the program was suspended after only 2 months due to the high number of false failures and reports of vehicle damage; in a demonstration in Denver, in January, cars were actually deliberately rigged to fail the IM 240 emissions test but instead passed with flying colors; according to a 1992 GAO report, the EPA itself found that in one case, over 25 percent of the vehicles tested using IM 240 failed initially, but then passed a second test, even though no repairs were made; according to one State coordinator of the so-called Green Party, ``This law is unfair to poor and working people who cannot afford to pay $450 to have their cars fixed.'' Another member said, ``The program won't accomplish what it is supposed to-- clean up the air.'' The fact is, that despite the EPA Administrator's pledge to grant States flexibility on their emissions testing programs, EPA cannot be trusted to handle these issues administratively. This moratorium provides a desperately needed short term fix until a long-term retooling of the requirement can be developed. This bill doesn't repeal the laws that have broken down on the heads of the American public. And it doesn't fix those laws either. All it does is prevent the fact that these laws are broke from causing further unnecessary pain.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here is a desperate attempt on the part of the minority to protect the status quo and what has been going on for the past 40 years. They want to continue spending and the joy ride that they have been on for the last 40 years, and they want to protect the bureaucrats that have been oppressing American citizens for a very long time. That is what this amendment is all about, is to stop the bureaucrats and stop what is going on. I have been collecting horror stories about regulations for every year that I have been in Congress, and the most horror stories come from OSHA. OSHA is an oppressive agency, an agency that steps way beyond its bounds and way beyond the intent of the legislation. When we had a decisive vote in this House to send a message to OSHA and other regulations that we want regulations based on good science, what did OSHA do? They decided to run off and continue operating as usual. Under these standards of ergonomics, slouching in a chair could be a hazard, or someone holding a phone between their shoulder and their neck could be a hazard. In Australia, when ergonomic standards were adopted in the early 1980's injury rates increased. Workers' compensation costs increased by as much as 40 percent in some industries. And a single company lost more than $15 million in a 5-year period due to increased production costs. All we are saying is: ``OHSA, heed our message. Step back, look at what you are doing. Use good science, good studies to do what you are doing but if you're not going to get the message,'' then the best way to get a bureaucrat's attention is to cut their central office. That is what this amendment does. It goes right to the heart of the bureaucracy and cuts $3.5 million right out of the heart of OSHA. If OHSA does not get this message, we will come back on an appropriations bill and send them another message. It is time the bureaucrats in this town got the message. America is fed up. I appreciate the Members' support for my amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is going to close, I will use the rest of the time myself.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a champion against regulations.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the protector of bureaucrats. First off, what we are after is good science and good regulations based on good science, and the gentleman probably does not know that there is two kinds of asbestos: The asbestos that comes from Africa that is harmful and asbestos that comes from America. And after some billions of dollars were spent in attacking the asbestos problem, we find out that if you leave it alone, it is not dangerous and you do not tear it out and spend billions of dollars. So the gentleman from Wisconsin has no idea what he is talking about and exactly what we are talking about is good science and good regulation based upon good science here. We have an agency that does not care about good science. It is amazing, people will die because we will not have ergonomics. Ergonomics talks about gripping 10 pounds, pinching more than two pounds, twisting and bending the neck like this. Somebody is going to lose their life because there is some OSHA regulation about how many times you can twist your neck? So, Mr. Chairman, the great majority leader in this House said it better than anything: the Democrats used to be the party of the only thing to fear is fear itself. Now they are the only party, they are the party that all they have to offer is fear itself. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I am somewhat disappointed that I have to offer this amendment today. But because OSHA is so intent on flouting the will of this Congress in an effort to add to its own regulatory enforcement empire, I must do so. My amendment rescinds an addition $3.5 million from the OSHA rescission already contained in this bill. This would force OSHA to cease its activities on the promulgation of an ergonomics standard that is paternalistic in concept and a menace in its implementation. Ergonomics is a fledgling science devoted to redesigning workplaces to better fit workers. By focusing on work spaces and stations, tools and equipment, lighting, typewriter keys and telephones, ergonomics as a practice affects virtually every aspect of American Businesses, both large and small. There is no consensus in the scientific community over risks or remedies of implementing or failing to implement ergonomic policies. There is certainly no consensus that a Federal ergonomics standard can actually have any positive impact on work place health or safety. OSHA, however, with little regard to cost, is bound and determined to press forward with what is by their own admission likely to be the most expensive, most far-reaching rule ever promulgated by the agency. It has been estimated that this rule would cost $21 billion to implement. As has been repeated on this floor, speaker after speaker, before any regulations are imposed, there ought to be good science establishing the risks requiring the regulation, as well as the benefits justifying the new regulatory burden. That is why this House passed H.R. 450, H.R. 9, and H.R. 1022. OSHA's proposal on this standard involved the imposition of billions of dollars on the private sector and a radical new level of government intrusion into work places and work practices without any scientific support. The intent of OSHA to ignore and undermine the will of this House in reforming the regulatory regime of the Federal Government is quite clear by the agency's own statements in just the recent days. I would like to share with my colleagues a quotation from the head of OSHA's ergonomics standards team which appeared in this Monday's papers: If the legislation says the moratorium runs through December the 31st, our anticipation is that we would get the proposal out January the 1st, unless it says, do not work on an ergonomics standards or go to jail. If it only says we cannot publish the proposal, we can continue to work on it. OSHA's express intention to do business as usual in this area sends a very clear signal that the discipline Congress is seeking to bring to Federal regulatory agencies will not come easily. This amendment seeks to impose a fiscal discipline where it is clear that other forms of discipline will be ignored. I appreciate Members supporting my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 29 which was printed in the Record.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, Government regulations impose a tremendous burden on our Nation's economy. Excessive regulations result in higher prices for American consumers and fewer jobs for American workers. One of the primary goals of the Contract With America is to reduce onerous Government regulations and break down unnecessary barriers to competition. In that regard, I was especially interested to learn of a new study released by the independent Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates [WEFA] Group. Their study documents the positive impact that would result from greater competition in the U.S. communications industry. They conclude that full, immediate, and simultaneous competition in all communications markets would result in more jobs, lower prices, and a stronger economy. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the results of the WEFA study as we continue to more forward with our efforts to deregulate our Nation's economy. Economic Impact of Deregulating the U.S. Communications Industries-- Highlights of Findings overview The 104th Congress is in the process of reforming the nation's outdated communications laws. A fundamental concern in this process involves when and to what extent cable TV, long distance and local telecommunications markets should be opened to competition. Opinions range from opening all markets immediately to creating lengthy approval processes for competitive entry. A study released by renowned independent economic forecasting firm, The WEFA Group, quantifies the impact that various policy options will have on diverse economic indicators, including job-creation, economic growth, technological innovation, consumer savings and the balance of trade. Specifically, the WEFA study compares three approaches: Immediate, full competition--removal of legal and regulatory barriers to market entry; change from traditional rate-of-return regulation to price-cap regulation for any noncompetitive service; complete deregulation of competitive services; and, all markets open simultaneously on January 1, 1996. Competition phased in over two to three years--local competition occurs a year ahead of long distance competition, with full competition by 1998. Competition phased in over four to five years--local competition occurs a year ahead of long distance competition, with full competition by 2000. findings and analysis I. Immediate competition means new jobs, economic growth, consumer savings Full, immediate and simultaneous competition in all communications markets will result in more jobs, lower prices and a stronger economy than any other option. The study finds that immediate and full competition in the telecommunications industry will achieve: New jobs 3.4 million additional U.S. jobs would be created over the next ten years as a result of full, immediate competition in all communications markets. These jobs would be spread across all states and all major industry groups, including: 498,000 new jobs in manufacturing; 423,000 new construction jobs; 923,000 new jobs in wholesale and retail trade; 1.4 million new jobs in the service sector. Economic growth Once competition is brought fully and immediately to the communications industry, the benefits of lower prices, enhanced services and newer technology will boost economic activity throughout the economy. Specifically, within ten years, America would experience: $298 billion increase in annual Real Gross Domestic Product; $162 billion increase in annual Real Personal Consumption; $14 billion improvement in annual balance of trade; $140 billion improvement in the annual national budget deficit; an average increase of $850 in the per year disposable income of each U.S. household. Consumer savings American consumers would receive substantial benefits from immediate competition in all communications markets. The study concluded that competition, which will bring greater network efficiencies, including bandwidth expansion and increased use of digital services, will result in a 23% decrease in telecommunications prices over due to a 35% decline in long-distance toll rates over the first five years of deregulation. Specifically, immediate competition would: Save consumers nearly $550 billion over the next ten years from lower telecommunications rates, including: $333 billion in consumer savings from lower long distance rates; $107 billion in consumer savings from lower cellular rates; $78 billion in consumer savings from lower cable TV rates; $32 billion in consumer savings from lower local rates. II. Delayed competition means fewer jobs, slower economy, higher rates In addition to the immediate competition model, the study forecasts the economic effect of two other models, assuming that it takes three and five years, respectively, to achieve full competition--including removal of entry barriers, change from rate-of-return regulation to price-cap regulation from rate-of-return regulation for noncompetitive services, and deregulation of competitive services. A three-year delay in full competition would result in the creation of 1.5 million fewer jobs than would immediate deregulation over the next five years. A five-year delay would mean 1.9 million fewer jobs over the next five years. A three-year delay in deregulation would result in $137 billion less in real GDP, and a five year delay would mean $171 billion less in real GDP over the next ten years. III. The long-distance market is currently not competitive Contrary to industry arguments, there is no real competition in the long distance industry today. The long distance companies have not lowered their rates, despite steep declines in local access charges, the most significant cost of providing service. In fact, the big three long distance companies have raised rates in an oligopolistic fashion six times in the past three years (see chart 1). In a truly competitive industry prices do not go up when costs go down. This lack of real competition in the long distance industry may be the biggest barrier to entry facing competitors in the local market. (1) State regulators fear that opening local and short-haul long distance would result in drastic losses in the access charge subsidies that help pay for universal service in residential and rural areas. (2) Full and immediate competition, which includes lifting the long-distance restriction, would mitigate the losses of these access charges. As a result of full competition, local rates would decrease 1% per year over the next ten years. IV. Regulatory reform is necessary The study concludes that telecommunications companies must be free of pricing regulations that discourage investment in new network services if the full benefits of competition are to be realized. Specifically, the study finds: Rate-of-return regulation, designed to constrain earnings under the ``natural monopolies'' of the past, only slows the rate of network investment and the introduction of new technologies in today's environment of competition and technological convergence. Price regulation allows incumbent carriers to re-price existing services and to introduce new services in response to competition, while still holding prices below that which might occur in the absence of regulation. In competitive markets, competition and not artificial regulatory distinctions should determine pricing. V. Delayed competition inhibits new services, creates ``economic welfare loss'' A significant benefit of the Immediate Regulatory Relief model is that lower rates, better service and increased investment all would accelerate the affordable delivery of advanced services like health care, education, telecommuting and more. On the other hand, the study finds that delaying competition in communications will also delay the deployment of new, advanced services. Each delay in the deployment of these new services, results in a significant cost to American's economy and society as a whole--a cost quantified as ``economic welfare loss.'' The economic welfare loss of new services delayed as a result of current barriers to competition amounts to more than $110 billion per year of delay. This economic welfare loss includes, among other items: $40 billion per year in residential medical and education services; $20.4 billion per year in residential advanced information services; $28.8 billion per year in residential and business video conferencing; $10.3 billion per year in expanded residential entertainment programming. Full competition in communications markets would result in a gain of between $750 and $1,000 in consumer welfare per year, per U.S. household, as a result of new services deployed. Methodology Through years of research, The WEFA Group has developed a set of forecasting models that provide the framework for developing consistent and accurate views of the impact of various market and policy developments on specific industries and the U.S. economy. In July 1993, the WEFA Group completed a study titled The Economic Impact of Eliminating the Line- of-Business Restrictions on the Bell Companies. That study showed that full competition would result in millions of new jobs, significant benefits for the American economy, accelerated innovation and infrastructure investment lower telecommunications rates and encourage the development of enhanced information services. The result would be substantial consumers savings and the creation of millions of new jobs. This study uses an updated methodology to examine the costs already incurred by delaying regulatory reform and evaluate the costs of further delays in deregulation. It takes a well-defined set of assumptions and adjustments gained from research and analysis of the telecommunications industry and imposes them on the WEFA models. It forecasts the effects not only on the telecommunications industry but on the industries that buy from and supply to the telecommunications industry, and reviews how the supply and demand on both sides impacts industry prices. Each study model assumes the eventual onset of full competition, including: (1) the removal of Federal and state regulatory barriers to competition; (2) the replacement of ``cost plus'' rate-of-return regulation with a streamlined form of price regulation for non-competitive services; and (3) complete deregulation of competitive service offerings. The models differ in two significant respects: one, the timing of full competition; and, two, the sequencing--while the Immediate Regulatory Relief scenario represents simultaneous entry into all markets, the three and five year delay scenarios open the local market to competition before the long-distance market.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, today we consider legislation to end widespread abuses in our legal system--to end a litigation tax on many of the most productive companies in America. The securities litigation reform bill before us today--H.R. 1058-- will restore common sense to the Federal securities laws. When Congress wrote these statutes 60 years ago, the private right of action that H.R. 1058 addresses was not even contemplated. But 60 years of judge- made law have created a system that Congress never anticipated and that no one can defend. Today, the Federal securities laws are compensating defrauded investors little, but are making plaintiffs' lawyers rich. The consensus for reform is overwhelming--SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, pension fund managers from some of our largest cities and States, investor representatives, issuers, auditors, academics, business leaders, entrepreneurs, Democrats and Republicans--all agree that meaningful reform is necessary. And this is the legislation to do it. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1058 is a good bill that will protect jobs and stimulate economic growth--particularly for high-tech companies that are frequently the targets of these securities strike suits. It will end the legal extortion practiced today against many of America's most promising companies. It will free-up resources for investment in R&D, business expansion and job creation--rather than in lawyers and litigation expenses. H.R. 1058 is a compromise bill that has been amended since its introduction to address many of the concerns expressed by our friends on the other side of the aisle. And it is a bipartisan bill that includes among its original cosponsors my good friend from Louisiana and enjoys the support of many of my colleagues from the Democratic Party. Mr. Chairman, Congress has avoided its responsibility to fix the securities litigation system for 60 years. But today we have the opportunity to act. Today we have the opportunity to restore the Federal securities laws to their intended purpose--to protect investors and keep America's securities markets the safest and most liquid in the world. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1058 and put an end to abusive securities litigation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 101, I call up the bill (H.R. 9) to create jobs, enhance wages, strengthen property rights, maintain certain economic liberties, decentralize and reduce the power of the Federal Government with respect to the States, localities, and citizens of the United States, and to increase the accountability of Federal officials, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit, and in support of H.R. 9. Over the last week, in a bipartisan fashion, the House has taken a dramatic step in favor of the American people. We have finally started the process of freeing small business, of protecting private property owners, of inserting some sanity into our rulemaking process. Today, with H.R. 9, we put the Federal Government on notice: Don't tread unfairly on the American taxpayer. As we all know, over the last several decades, the Federal Government has run roughshod over the American people. We have taxed them. We have taken their land. We have taken their businesses. In this last election, the people said enough. They voted out incumbents in huge numbers, and threw out the leadership in both Houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. This 104th Congress has been called a second American revolution. H.R. 9 is an important battle in the second American revolution. If you are for real change and real reform, you will support H.R. 9. If you want to defend the status quo, if you believe that the American people are wrong in their disregard for the heavy hand of the Federal Government, you will vote for the motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to vote down the motion to recommit, and vote for H.R. 9.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.