John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives completed the third piece of President Bush's promised tax relief agenda. I have been proud to support President Bush with my vote in favor of all three of the components of this proposal. But now that we have succeeded in the House with tax relief legislation, we must begin to turn our attention toward tax reform legislation. For that reason, I have come to the well of the House today to tell my colleagues that soon I will introduce in the 107th Congress my fair tax proposal. This proposal, which will be introduced as H.R. 2525, as it was in the 106th Congress, is bipartisan, cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), my Democrat colleague. This is a serious proposal supported by academic research from Harvard, Stanford, Boston University, MIT, and more, and it is a popular proposal being supported by the over 400,000 members of Americans for Fair Taxation, and having had nearly $20 million privately raised and spent on economic and market research to support this effort. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what we discovered. There is not a mechanism for a business to pay a tax. I have had several businesses in my life, and I never had that secret drawer where money piled up behind me to pay the corporate share of the payroll tax, the corporate income tax, or the accountants and attorneys to avoid the tax. It all gets embedded in the value of the product that is purchased by consumers, and the only taxpayers in the world are consumers who finally consume the product and all of the taxes embedded in it. Research we have had done at Harvard's economics department suggests that 22 percent of what one pays for at retail for personal consumption is the embedded cost of the IRS. My friends, a fair tax is a national retail sales tax with a rate of 23 percent. You will pay 1 percent more for your cost of living, but you will get to keep your whole check, the whole check, including the payroll tax will no longer be taken out. By authorizing this one sales tax, we will eliminate the personal income tax, the business income tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, the capital gains tax, the sell-employment tax, and the gift tax. And, in doing so, we eliminate the IRS and all of its associated problems. If anyone read this morning's Washington Post, Treasury Department employees, acting as citizens, making phone calls to the IRS helpline to get help with tax returns, tell us that 47 percent of the responses they received from the IRS people were in error. That is up from 25 percent 4 years ago. But our Treasury Department in which the Social Security resides tells us that 47 percent of their responses are wrong. They do not understand the system. It is time for it to go away. I believe that the time for tax reform has come. While I certainly believe that the fair tax is the best change, I believe we should have an open debate on others. I am willing to talk about the flat tax. It is better than the current system. I also believe that we virtually passed the flat tax in 1986 with only two levels of taxation and eliminating many of the deductions, and we have amended it 6,000 times since then. For as long as we know something about you and where you make your income and how much you make and how you spend it and invest it, we can find ways to tax it. America deserves this debate so we can totally revamp the system. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the sales tax is regressive and hits most heavily on the poor. I want to say that the poor are paying it. Everything that anyone, rich or poor, buys has a 22 percent burden of the embedded cost of the IRS. Getting rid of the IRS will undo that burden. We also provide a rebate at the beginning of every month, for every household, rich or poor, to offset the entire tax consequences of spending up to the poverty line. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services tells us that poverty-level spending, which is $8,500 for a household of one or $25,000 for a household of 5, will be enough spending to provide the necessities, the essentials of living, food, clothing, health care, housing. We believe that anyone should be able to buy those essentials with no tax consequences, and our rebate will cover those. Mr. Speaker, if anyone is interested in becoming a part of this effort, contact me or the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). We cannot change this world alone, but with the help of our colleagues and the enthusiasm of America, we will.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond that. With respect to litigation, these rules would begin it all over again. Any little accident on a football field could be said to hurt more when one is working and, therefore, is workplace related; and, therefore, there is a requirement that the entire business has to change its position, its offices to facilitate one injury. With respect to whether big business is being helped by this or not, most big businesses have made a mantra out of the phrase ``safety is job one.'' Most big businesses have very few problems with safety. They would be fine with this. But most of the new jobs are created by small business. Perhaps 95 percent of the jobs created in the last 8 years were created by entrepreneurs who started with one employee and hopefully ended up with 50. They are the ones who are going to be the most burdened by these rules. Let me lastly say that we are not least in the interest of harming workers. We are neither in the interest of harming workers or reducing the ability of OSHA through the Labor Department to come up with some real protections regarding ergonomics; we are opposed to this overreaching intrusive rule that could shut down businesses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 79 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 79 is a closed rule providing for consideration of S.J. Res. 6. This bill provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ergonomics. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 79 provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of S.J. Res. 6 in the House. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the ergonomics rule finalized by OSHA on November 14, 2000 is fatally flawed. This unworkable rule would require employers to implement a full blown, company-wide ergonomics program based on the report of just one injury by one employee. The ergonomic symptom need not even be caused by work activity, as long as work activities aggravate it. Under this rule, employers could end up responsible for workers' injuries sustained on the softball field. This regulation also undermines State workers' compensation laws by creating a Federal workers' compensation system for musculoskeletal disorders. The parallel workers' compensation system mandated by OSHA for ergonomics injuries tramples on the State's ability to define what constitutes a work-related injury. It is important to understand that disapproving this regulation would not permit the Department of Labor from revisiting ergonomics. Secretary Chao has stated that she intends to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics, including new rulemaking that addresses the fatal flaws in the current standard. The Congressional Review Act was made for regulations like the Department of Labor's ergonomics rule. This overly burdensome and impractical ergonomics standard was imposed by the Clinton administration as part of the same pattern of regulatory overreach that held employers responsible for unsafe conditions in telecommuters' home offices. By disapproving the ergonomics standard, Congress can support the voluntary efforts of employers who have made real reductions in ergonomics injuries and allow OSHA to focus on developing reasonable and workable ergonomics protections for the workplace. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt insist that the rule does not allow for sufficient time for debate. In fact, the question before us is straightforward. Does OSHA's ergonomics rule overly constrain employers without providing real benefits to employees? If Members confine their remarks to the matter at hand, which is the acceptance of the rule, there will be sufficient time to this question. This rule was approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support it, so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to respond to that, but I was afraid I would laugh so hard I would hurt myself. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clear up a couple of things that have been said. These rules that have been put in force are not Mr. Bush's rules. Although they had the good sense to begin worrying about ergonomics 10 years ago, they would never have come up with these rules. If these rules were so simple and straightforward, why were they not brought forth during the legislative session? Why were they dropped on the table after the election when no Congress was in session? I am amazed they had time to do it when they were walking out the door with the furniture and the silverware, but they dropped it on the table to become effective 2 days before a new President was sworn in. They are not in effect now. They do not go into effect until October. So we are not taking away something that they already have. We have heard all kinds of things about numbers. One person said it is going to cost $20 billion a year and another $50 billion a year. Documents show about $6 billion a year. But nobody has mentioned the $125-billion-a-year cost on businesses. Nobody has concerned themselves with reshaping the workforce. I do not doubt that repetitive motion causes injuries. I do not dispute the 600,000 people number. But should we create an additional workers' compensation program on top of the States' programs for just these kinds of injuries? Are they worse injuries than someone who loses an arm or a leg on their job? Right now, a typical workers' compensation package for businesses lasts only 3 years and is rotated out because it is very expensive. Are we prepared here with these regulations to double that cost on our employees and employers over the next few years? Should we allow rules that presume injuries are work related? If the employer wants to find out if it is truly work related, should we not question a rule that says it is against the law for the employer to talk to the doctor about the work-related connection to even determine? Should we demand a workplace design based on the claim of one person, with one injury that may or may not have been workplace related? We are saying that common sense ought to prevail. If we carried this ruling to its ultimate conclusion, the Coca-Cola truck driver would be bringing the Coke bottles into the store one bottle at a time. Who is going to pay for that? The consumer, of course, will ultimately pay for all of this. We are saying get these egregious, overreaching rules off the table and let an administration with just as much care about worker safety as anyone else on this floor today impose some rules that would be helpful and not hurtful, and let us at least admit one thing. Workplace safety today, based on the initiatives of the employers, without some bureaucrat telling them how to live their lives, is safer than it has ever been at any time in the history of this great country. They have done it because it is in their best interest. It is in their financial interest to improve the workplace safety because it costs them money to have days out of work. It is my guess that there is not a single agency of the Federal Government that has workplace safety as safe, with as few days lost, as virtually any major corporation in the United States; and yet these are not going to be promulgated for this Federal Government. They are not going to be watched over. Let us take the time to take this rule off the table, give a new Secretary of Labor an opportunity to do the right thing with common sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 76) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) be allowed to revise and extend his remarks today.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 670 is a closed rule providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 129, which makes further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001 through December 15. H. Res. 670 provides for 1 hour of debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of this joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, because the President refuses to sign continuing resolutions of any longer duration, the joint resolution covered by this rule simply extends the provisions of our current continuation resolution by 4 days. Mr. Speaker, after months of hard work, the House has just a few issues left to resolve. Like my Republican colleagues, I am determined to pass fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills, and I will stay here as long as it takes to achieve this goal for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President will join us in our good-faith efforts to negotiate a fair, bipartisan solution to the disagreements still before us. I am hopeful that the fair, clean continuing resolution covered by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the appropriations process in a thoughtful and judicious manner. The rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 669 is a closed rule providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 128, which makes further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001 through December 11. House Resolution 669 provides for 1 hour of debate on the joint resolution, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of this joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of today, and further continuing resolutions are necessary to keep the government operating while Congress completes the consideration of the remaining appropriations bills. Because the President refuses to sign any of longer duration, the joint resolution covered by this rule simply extends the provisions of our current continuing resolution by 3 days. Mr. Speaker, after months of hard work, the House has now just a few issues left to resolve. Some of these issues are issues of policy. Others are issues of money. Issues of policy do not belong in our appropriations discussion, they belong in our authorizing committees. The President has always been quick to chastise the Congress for such legislation, so I know this is not the proper place or time to be having these discussions. In contrast, this is now the time to talk about money. We talk so much about money here that it is easy to forget that the money is real and that it really belongs to the taxpayer. It would surprise most Americans to learn that when we here on the floor talk about spending $1 billion in a year, what we are really talking about is spending well over $2.5 million per day, $2.5 million per day. So I have come to the House floor with a great comfort for each of these continuing resolutions, knowing that every day is another small down payment to the American taxpayer. Each day is another step towards smaller and more efficient government. Like my Republican colleagues, I am determined to pass fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills. I will stay here as long as it takes to achieve this goal for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the President will join us in our good-faith efforts to negotiate a fair, bipartisan solution to the disagreements still before us. I am hopeful that the fair, clean continuing resolution covered by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the appropriations process in a thoughtful and judicial manner. This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with general debate and consideration of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 669 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 6 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 662 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.