Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to reform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]. This legislation is exactly the same as H.R. 707, which I introduced during the 104th Congress. H.R. 707 had 19 cosponsors, including 2 full committee chairman and several subcommittee chairman. Since 1970 OSHA has been tasked with the duty of maintaining safe and healthy workplaces. I intensely support them in this effort and I think you would be hard pressed to find a Member of Congress who didn't. However, OSHA's directive to carry out this task through mandatory standards enforced by surprise inspections and fines need to be rethought. My bill will move OSHA from a heavyhanded enforcement bureaucracy to a compliance based cooperative agency. By relieving OSHA from its ``gotcha'' mentality, I believe we can create even safer workplaces. Every Member of Congress has heard about some of the OSHA's ridiculous regulations and tactics from their constituents. It's time to send a message to the agency and to employers that OSHA's sole purpose is ensuring that safety of employees through common sense regulation. What better way to do that than to bring the two sides together. The ``us against them'' mentality doesn't do anyone any good. My legislation puts both the enforcers and the stakeholders on an even playing field in order to protect our most valuable resource: our work force. Please join me in this effort by cosponsoring my OSHA Reform Act of 1997.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to the free flow of information--and it is our country's libraries that provides the public with access to such information. Libraries also serve as community meeting places for events and public forums. Groups of folks can gather and share ideas at libraries. Since 1966 the Arapahoe Library District in my home State of Colorado has provided library services to residents of all ages--from pre-school children to senior adults--and it has supplied communities with endless information through books, periodicals, newspapers, recordings, and on- line internet searches. Public libraries are the backbones of close-knit communities--and the Arapahoe Library District of Colorado is to be highly commended for 30 years of service to its State and to its neighborhoods. I would like to offer my hearty congratulations to this fine organization for their actions to create and support a well-informed populace.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which this body passed on November 1, 1995. The House voted overwhelmingly to ban this procedure, however, despite these earlier votes, this procedure is still being carried out today. After many months of testimony and debate on this issue, and after seeing and hearing the grizzly details of this procedure, Congress voted to end its practice. Dishearteningly, the cries of the children and those of their parents were ignored by the President when he vetoed this bill. Since the time of that veto, I have received over 2,000 letters and postcards from my constituents. All of these letters expressed the shock and sorrow they felt that the partial-birth abortion procedure was not brought to an end. These letters asked, pleaded, begged, and prayed that this Congress, that this House--the people's House--vote once again on this issue. They asked us, their representatives in Government, to vote again and override the President's veto. They asked us to ban partial- birth abortions. I had hoped that we would not have had to vote on this again. I had hoped that the President would have joined this Congress to ban the cruel procedure that my colleagues here have so clearly described. Unfortunately, the President did not join with this Congress, nor did he join with the people of this great country in banning this procedure--he vetoed this bill. So, it is with a purposeful will and a compassionate heart that I ask my House colleagues to vote yes on this vote and override the President's veto and ban this callous act of partial-birth abortions.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, throughout the 104th Congress no issue has struck a chord with the American people like tax reform: Fundamental radical tax reform to make paying taxes simpler and fair, tax reform that will get rid of the IRS. This does not come from tax cheaters. It comes from hard-working Americans who are tired of being intimidated by their own Government in the form of the IRS. During one of my meetings in August, I was given this very beautiful piece of modern art that I am wearing today, this T-shirt, to show how strongly people feel about the IRS. They said, take this back to Washington and tell them that we want the IRS gone, and to do that, we want a different tax system; and this particular group preferred the sales tax system. This should be a top priority of the 105th Congress. They also gave me an additional shirt, a little lady come up to me and said, would you please take this shirt to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his hard work to get rid of the IRS? So I have to put up with the gentleman's popularity even in my own district.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the first title of this bill, H.R. 2941, is our attempt to deal with the backlog of housing needs in the National Park Service. The extent of the National Park Service's housing needs is vague but has been estimated to be as high as $500 million. I wish it was possible to write a check for that amount, but in these times of trying to balance the budget, that is simply not possible. Instead, H.R. 2941 will provide the Park Service with the a number of creative authorities to encourage others besides the Federal Government to invest in employee housing. Several years ago Rocky Mountain National Park, in cooperation with the National Park Foundation, attempted to address its own housing needs by purchasing a nearby church camp that was on the market. The deal fell through because, according to the National Park Foundation and the park superintendent, the authorities were not available for them to close the deal. Randy Jones, the Rocky Mountain superintendent, claims he could solve most of his housing needs tomorrow if he only had the flexibility this bill would give him. We have worked with the Park Service, and they tell us the bill gives them what they need. Several of these authorities were borrowed from legislation crafted for the military where the authorities are proving useful in improving the quality of housing. The bill also urges the Park Service to examine such options as paid transportation from home to work site and employee cooperatives, in which rangers can build up this equity while they are being moved around the country. As I have stated, the Park Service estimates its housing needs to be more than $500 million. However, in several reports from the General Accounting Office we cannot account for quite that much, but we know that there is a significant need there. For that reason, we have adopted an amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], which withholds the use of these authorities from individual park units until those units justify their needs, which seems perfectly reasonable. Further, in response to CBO's concerns about out year costs, the amendment before you makes the entire section subject to appropriations. I understand this amendment has been cleared with the Committee on the Budget. In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues to recall the horror stories we have heard in recent years of park rangers living in tents or packing crates. We have a problem, one which we need to be flexible and creative in order to try to solve, a problem which is fixable in fairly short order if the Park Service had the authorities to do so. Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to give them those authorities, and I ask Members' support of the amendment and of this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Another provision that I am concerned about in the bill, it allows the Secretary of Transportation to obligate funds for runway construction even if the Committee on Appropriations has specifically prohibited the runway from being built. This section is really referring to a proposed sixth runway at Denver International Airport. Denver officials contend that this is needed. There is some argument about whether it is needed or not. There is tremendous concern about noise created by this airport that was never anticipated by the city of Denver.

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, particularly in providing a provision on airport certification. Particularly, there is a provision in the bill which changes the FAA's requirement that all airports flying planes with more than nine passengers must have received their certification. The old requirement was 30 passengers. I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?

Mr. HEFLEY. I appreciate that provision and the improved safety it will result in, but I was concerned that reliever airports which do not intend to fly planes with over nine passengers may be forced to apply for certification. A provision has been included in the bill which states that an airport which has not currently received certification does not have to apply if they do not intend to fly planes with over nine passengers. Is that also correct?

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, today Congress provides what the American people are asking for. Today America begins to tell Boutros Boutros- Ghali that he cannot send our sons and daughters to war, that only the Congress and the American President can do that. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the President the authority of being Commander in Chief as the gentleman has just indicated. We must be cautious in protecting that. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I believe it is imperative that we establish our authority and the authority of the President. No American should be placed in harm's way by anyone other than the American Congress and the American President. Our soldiers should risk their lives only when U.S. national security interests are at stake. I do not believe that the Secretary General of the United Nations even knows what our national security interests are. During this debate, many of my colleagues will say that this is simply a political exercise, something to give Bob Dole to use against Bill Clinton. If we wanted that, that has already been done. He has already vetoed this concept once before. So that has been done. Of course we know that he changes his position a lot in an election year, so maybe he will again. We can never again allow another Somalia. Because U.S. interests became intertwined with U.N. interests, 19 Americans lost their lives. This must never happen again. Let us pass this legislation and send a message to the American soldiers that we will never again send them on an ill-defined, fuzzy U.N. mission. We never again, Mr. Chairman, should be in a position of having American young people risk their lives under a U.N. flag with a U.N. patch and under U.N. command and control. If they are going to risk their lives, it ought to be under American command and control. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. This bipartisan legislation will make significant improvements in our military installations and facilities. The conference agreement would add $850 million above the President's request for military construction and military family housing programs. When the bill left the House, it strongly emphasized needed enhancements of the quality of life for military personnel and their families. The conference agreement on military construction reflects the philosophy of the House position. Sixty percent of the added funding above the line will be dedicated to military housing and other quality of life improvements. Earlier this week, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities which I chair, held a hearing on the quality of life issue. The senior enlisted officers of the military services testified about the link between the quality of life for military personnel, retention, and readiness. We also heard from a very articulate group of dedicated military spouses who spoke about the practical problems they face in military life. No one who heard their stories could ever suggest that the additional housing, child care centers, and other improvements contained in this bill are not a wise use of our resources. With this bill, we will commit an additional $201 million to the President's request of $562 million for troop housing. For just over 3,000 military families, we will provide an additional $266 million to construct new quarters or improve existing units--a 39 percent increase to the request. For child development centers, the bill would add $30 million for nine needed centers in addition to funding the $6 million construction cost for the two centers requested by the Administration. This bill also funds important facilities improvements to enhance the operational and training requirements of the active forces as well as the reserve components. I am grateful for the strong bipartisan support for the military construction portion of this authorization conference report, led by the ranking member of the subcommittee, Solomon Ortiz. I am also particularly pleased that Chairman Vucanovich and Mr. Hefner with the Appropriations Committee have successfully brought back an appropriations conference report that supports this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3230.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Committee on Small Business; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, the current welfare system cannot be defended. It is a system characterized by dependence, illegitimacy, and family breakdown. Tuesday, the other Chamber, with a strong bipartisan vote, approved commonsense reforms that will stop welfare from becoming a way of life. These reforms honor work and encourage personal responsibility. Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to ``end welfare as we know it.'' It is now the fourth year of his Presidency and so far, he has done nothing but stand in the way of welfare reform. He postures. He poses. He talks tough, but he never comes through. Madam Speaker, it is time for Bill Clinton to lead. It is time for him to keep at least one of the promises he made during his campaign. It is time for Bill Clinton to get with the program and sign commonsense welfare reform.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, since 1950 the population of the United States has increased from 151 million to roughly 260 million. This works out to a 72-percent increase. Also, since 1950, social welfare spending at all levels of Government has increased from $18.8 billion a year to $324 billion a year. This is an increase of 1,623 percent. In other words, the growth rate of welfare spending has astronomically outpaced the growth in population. Many liberals would argue that this probably is a good thing. But my question is this: What have we purchased with this huge investment in social welfare? Broken families; a destroyed work ethic; rampant illegitimacy; and continued poverty. Not only is the modern welfare state economically unsound, it is spiritually and morally unsound. We are doing our part to enact serious reform of welfare. It is time for Bill Clinton to show leadership, to keep his promises to end welfare as we know it.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will give you the four-letter word that the EDA stands for, and that is pork. That is pork, my friends. The reason that there is such support for it, there is no other program we fund that gives you the opportunity to take home to your constituents the pork that can show them what a great job you are doing for them than the EDA. In 1991 the Economic Development Administration received $209 million. In the years that have followed the EDA has averaged about double that amount. This year the Committee on Appropriations is scaling down the EDA by giving it only $348 million. Is this what Congress calls balancing the budget? Is promulgating a wasteful and mismanaged agency like the EDA considered fiscally responsible? Surely this was not what was intended when the EDA was created to assist the most economically distressed communities in the Nation. By cutting the EDA by 30 percent, it will be forced to focus its attention on the truly needy areas of the country. Okay, so the complete cutout of it was not acceptable to this body, but certainly the 30 percent cut in this climate of trying to balance the budget is reasonable. I encourage Members to support the Goss amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Economic Development Administration was created in 1965 to promote the recovery of economically distressed areas. The EDA must not be doing its job very well because 31 years later, 90 percent of the country is eligible for EDA grants. Does that mean that 90 percent of the country is seriously economically distressed, or does it mean that the EDA is no longer running according to its original noble goals? Regardless of the answer, something must be wrong with the EDA. We are being asked today to spend over $300 million on projects that do not live up to the scrutiny placed on them by the Commerce Department Inspector General. We have reports of rampant fraud and abuse with EDA funds, and this is nothing new. This is something that has been going on for at least a decade. We keep getting the reports over and over again. We keep getting the reports of the misuse of funds on the part of the EDA. Almost everyone that looks at the EDA except this body says that the EDA is a waste and is one of the chief means of funneling pork into Members' districts. I am not surprised that over 300 people voted against doing away with the EDA last year. I have been down here time and time again, trying to get rid of the EDA year after year, and the votes are strong anyway. Why not? It is pork for your districts, and that is why we support the EDA. The EDA has shown that as long as we continue to fund them at these levels, they will continue to abuse taxpayer funds. Mr. Chairman, it is time we take away the EDA's gold card.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling legacies of the decades of liberal control of Congress is a failed welfare system that encourages complacency and punishes those who attempt to work. Welfare was originally proposed as a temporary safety net for those who fell victim to unfortunate circumstances. It has evolved into a system that 5 million families depend upon for an average length of 13 years. The Republican plan to reform welfare believes that this system has failed not just economically, but philosophically. A well-intentioned plan to help people get back onto their feet has turned into a system that penalizes people who try to work and traps them in a cycle of welfare dependancy. The Republican bill will restore welfare to a system that reflects the original intentions of its authors and reflects the philosophies that an overwhelming majority of Americans support: that welfare should not be a way of life and that the system should encourage work and personal responsibility.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I many consume. Mr. Chairman, both sides have agreed to the amendment. This is the amendment to strike $1 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1 million that goes to the Pacifica Radio Network. For several years we have offered this amendment. We have passed it in the House. This year we hope it would get through the entire process. Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have offered amendments to the Labor/ HHS/Education appropriations bills to decrease Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1 million. I now ask again for a $1 million reduction in CPB appropriations because this is roughly the amount of money that the Pacifica Radio Network receives each year from the CPB. Based in Berkeley, CA, Pacifica is a network of 5 radio stations with at least 57 affiliates that carry its news service and talk shows. I believe the Federal Government should stop pumping dollars into Pacifica--via the CPB--and stop footing the bill for the outrageous hate programming Pacifica has distributed. Let me list a few examples of the racist, anti-Semitic programming that has spewed out of Pacifica's networks for at least 30 years. In 1969 Pacifica's New York station broadcast an anti-Semitic poem written by a young black girl with lines like, ``Hey, Jew Boy with the yarmulke on your head/You pale-faced Jew Boy, I wish you were dead.'' In 1983 Pacifica's Washington, DC station permitted its announcer to ``tell potential presidential assassins to use more powerful guns than John Hinckley used'' when he tried to kill President Reagan. During Pacifica's ``Afrikan Mental Liberation Weekend'' in 1993, the network allowed its guest, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, to state that Jews are a ``pale horse with death as its rider and hell close behind.'' A caller to the show then suggested, ``The Jews haven't seen anything yet * * *. What is going to happen to them is going to make what Hitler did seem like a party.'' And just this year, the Pacifica network in Berkeley aired a show in which a guest claimed that ``the U.S. Congress and the White House are Israel occupied territory.'' Now I don't have anything against free speech--nor do I want to monitor Pacifica's programming schedule. However, I do not want to force the American taxpayer to subsidize this kind of programming at Pacifica. Let the network produce such shows on their own dollar--that is what they claim to be doing anyway! Pacifica states that it is the ``nation's first listener-supported, community-based radio network.'' And private donations to this network have increased over the years. So I would think that Pacifica could get along fine without Federal funding to support their broadcasts. The government should not be in the business of promoting radio shows that fan the flames of racism and hatred. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit my amendment to reduce the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1 million. Let's put a halt to the Federal funds flowing into the Pacifica Radio Network. Mr. Chairman, if I am correct that both sides have agreed to accept it, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today to talk about a recently released survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding Federal regulation and its effect on business. The results of the study are overwhelming and I commend the U.S. Chamber for their efforts. When you look at the results of this study it's easy to see why so many freshman Republicans were elected in 1994 on the promise of less government. Duplicative, burdensome regulation of business has caused job loss, lower wages, and in some cases increased the violation of the laws because employers are afraid to consult with the regulators and their gotcha mentality. This country's largest employer is small business and what this study shows is if we relieve them of many of these unnecessary regulations, we will increase salaries, increase employment, increase productivity, and stimulate the overall economy. As the study points out, currently the only people who are benefiting from overregulation are the attorneys, accountants, and compliance consultants. It's kind of like the Federal Government's own form of trickle-down economics. We'll create more regulations which will then create a need for lawyers, bureaucrats, and inspectors. Never mind that we're ruining small businesses. Maybe that's why the trial lawyers are such major contributors to the reelection of the current President. The most troublesome fact is one that many of us have been stressing for a long time, most recently during the debate over increasing the minimum wage. And that is, ultimately the costs incurred by the employer trying to comply with Federal regulations is passed on to the consumer which as we all know causes inflation. Additionally, one in six survey respondents reported having to lay off employees in order to offset the costs of compliance. I sincerely hope the U.S. Chamber puts an asterisk or a star or something by that figure on the copies of the study provided to Members who support further necessary regulation. Only 1 in 10 respondents reported learning about new regulations from the agency who enacted it. So all of the various trade associations and lobbyists are actually people who are simply trying to keep up with the hundreds of new regulations that affect their industry. In other words, the Federal Government is saying, ``We'll come up with whatever we want, and it's your job to find out what that is.'' Finally, I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the legislative efforts that I personally have, and will, be working on. In fact, when I saw the results of the study it felt as though I was looking at a mirror. H.R. 707 is designed to reform OSHA in a manner that would move the agency's enforcement capabilities and efforts into more consultation and cooperation. Isn't it funny though how when the Democrats controlled the Congress and bills like mine were introduced the agency never even batted an eye. Now all of the sudden I've got Joe Dear, OSHA's Executive Director, calling my office saying, ``We want to work with you.'' But isn't it amazing that when they are coming up with these regulations they don't want to work with the businesses they are affecting. H.R. 1047 would encourage for voluntary compliance with environmental rules. Currently, if a company tried to police themselves and a potential environmental problem was found they can't even seek leniency from the Federal Government for trying to fix the problem. Last, I will soon introduce legislation that will exempt small businesses from many of these unneeded regulations. In short, we need to unchain our system of regulation and let it prosper. In closing, I think the Chamber is to be commended for their efforts on this study and I think it clearly shows how desperately we need to ease the regulation of our businesses. And I think it's very appropriate to bring this excellent study to the floor today because the other Chamber of this body will be considering raising the minimum wage today, a measure this Chamber passed regretfully I believe. Remember, the best thing about our Federal Government is, it's always there when it needs you.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, several surveys over the last few months have shown a steep increase in drug use by teenagers over the last 3 years. The Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows a 137-percent increase among 12- and 13-year-olds. LSD and crack cocaine use among teens has also gone through the roof. More children are becoming addicted to drugs earlier and in larger numbers than ever before. Republicans have responded to this problem. Through appropriations, we have provided law enforcement agencies with the resources to combat the war on drugs. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has turned a blind eye. In 1993, just days after taking office, Clinton fired 80 percent of the staff at the Office of National Drug Policy; he slashed interdiction efforts by 25 percent; and he appointed left-wing judges far outside the mainstream of American life. In this election year, Bill Clinton will say anything to hide the fact that he has been AWOL in the war on drugs.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, today I call to your attention a study released yesterday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding the effects of Federal regulations on business. The results are overwhelming. One in six survey respondents reported having to lay off employees in order to offset the cost of Federal regulation compliance like the minimum wage, OSHA, and environmental laws. Only 1 in 10 respondents said they had ever learned about a new Federal regulation from the agency that enacted it. In other words, ``We'll come up with whatever we want, and it's your job to find out what that is.'' Forty-four percent of the respondents who currently do not offer employee benefit plans said they would if Federal regulations were not so confusing. Madam Speaker, I commend the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for conducting this study and I look forward to working with them and other Members of this body to get some commonsense reform to our heavy-handed regulatory process. Some regulation is necessary but we have carried it to ridiculous levels. It is time for a change, Madam Speaker. It is time to unleash the potential of our economic system to create a better life for American workers.