Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Even if they do not call it back up, it is going to tell the American people who to vote out of the Senate in 1996. I mean I know the message sent to me was that we want to stop the spending. The American people know we owe $5 trillion. They know we are borrowing over $250 billion every year, and they know that math does not work. These children in the pictures are in trouble all right, but it is not because we are not funding WIC, and it is not because they are not going to get their school lunch program. It is because in 20 years they are not going to have a way to make a living because we are broke.

Mr. NORWOOD. It did.

Mr. NORWOOD. Because he knows he will. Our school superintendent realized that there are 110 Federal employees sitting in Atlanta, GA, directing the food program in Georgia, the lunch program, and she realizes full well that if we will block grant this money back to the States, we are going to cut some bureaucrats out of that group. Let me mention to the gentlemen, you were talking about earlier, a lot of countries call what was going on as propaganda. It is spreading misinformation. For example, when they were talking about, they keep saying that we are going to cut the money that goes to feed the children as if this is a contest over who is most compassionate, who cares most about the WIC Program, who cares most about the School Lunch Program. But, you know, we are spending $5.9 billion this year on our food programs, not including, not including food stamps, and it is going to rise next year. It is going to rise to $6.1 billion. It is rising 4.5 percent.

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, probably the big difference is that we care more about the WIC Program than they do, because the greatest threat in the world to the WIC Program is this county going bankrupt. I mean, I have wondered for a long time why we have not been able to balance our budget, and you cannot really tell that from C-SPAN. But sitting on this floor tonight, I see why in the last 25 years the party in control of the budget who balanced the budget one time, and I can clearly see tonight why they will not. That is all we are trying to do so we can save the WIC Program.

Mr. NORWOOD. Presuming there are one or two, I have to tell you, I wondered tonight, as I listened, has any country, any nation on Earth ever, ever spent more money for the poor than the United States of America? And in doing that, what we basically do is we take money from one human being and give it to another which there is nothing in our Constitution that suggests that we have to do that. We do that because, I think, we all do care about those that are less fortunate. Now, let me just make one other comment about the information. One of the things we could do in Congress that would really help us is that we could get factual information, or perhaps make the Members be responsible for what they say and make sure that what they say is the truth. But so much of the information that we have heard tonight comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their report that they have put out on the nutritional programs is a report put out by a lot of people who know that they are going to be out of work.

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman. I know we gathered here tonight because we were going to talk a little bit about our first 57 days in Congress, and, of course, we have to change what we were going to talk about because we realize everybody on C-SPAN that has been watching for the last hour has been inundated with a great deal of information.

Mr. NORWOOD. I will be very happy to. I want to make it very clear we are going to spend in 1995 $5.9 billion. We are going to increase that spending next year to $6.1 billion, and we have also made absolutely sure that 80 percent of this money goes to feed low-income families.

Mr. NORWOOD. I have been working with the people for the last 30 years. I am a lot closer.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, why the Democratic love affair with the bureaucracy? What motivates the Democrats to fight so hard to save it? As part of our welfare reform package, we Republicans have proposed increasing money for school nutrition programs and giving it directly to the States, thereby cutting out the bureaucracy. Yet, the Democrats have lied about the Republican plan to save the bureaucracy. Why? Well, a good investigator always follows the money. When we do, we find that the eight largest Federal Government employee PAC's in the last five election cycles contributed $17.1 million to Democratic candidates, but only $1.9 million to Republican candidates. That is about a 9-to-1 ratio favoring the Democrats. Could this be why the Democrats fight so hard and misinform so much? Are they really committed to the children, or to the bureaucracy that fills their electoral coffers? The Republican plan, Mr. Speaker, will put more money where it is needed most.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, allow me to read a few OSHA rules written shall be fueled at least 20 feet from any open flame; the chain-saw operator shall be certain of footing before starting to cut; prior to felling any tree, the chain-saw operator shall clear away brush or other potential obstacles which might interfere with cutting the tree; the chain saw shall be carried in a manner that will prevent operator contact with the cutting chain. Mr. Speaker, Federal regulators should use common sense, not regulate common sense. If American taxpayer's hard-earned money is going to pay for someone to write rules like these, then I know where the budget chain saw should be put to use next.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. This [[Page H2311]] legislation is necessary because of the immense cost piled onto the American economy by Federal bureaucrats. This bill establishes requirements for regulators to use risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in creating the rules we live under. It requires development of peer review for regulations. It subjects decisions of agencies to judicial review. It requires the President to set regulatory priorities. It is a necessary step that we must take to free the American economy from burdensome regulations, but we have the opportunity to do better * * * to give small business the power to fight the bureaucrats on their own. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will do the most for the small businesses that can afford new regulations the least. H.R. 1022 would help small business by allowing these companies to direct their scarce resources toward achieving the maximum environmental cleanup for the least cost. Small businesses are often more severely impacted by costly regulation than large businesses because the cost to comply with these regulations represents a larger percentage of the small business's operating expenses and profits. If a Federal agency is required to perform a risk analysis on regulations that impacts small business, small business is likely to be better able to afford to comply with the resulting rule. H.R. 1022 will result in fewer small business being financially bankrupted because of excessively expensive regulations. The wood preserving industry, which is very important to my district, is made up mainly of small businesses. This industry could have been devastated in 1991 when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a hazardous waste listings regulation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The tools of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis were not applied in this act. The budget for the 1992 fiscal year stated that this RCRA regulation would have cost the wood preserving industry $5.7 trillion per premature death averted. This huge monetary amount would prevent one cancer case every 2.9 million years. That's one death every 2.9 million years. The regulation's costs, as noted in the 1992 budget, were so outrageous that the wood preserving industry was able to gain congressional support for a request that EPA work with the industry to craft a more cost-effective regulation. The negotiations resulted in a cost-effective regulation that was protective of human health and the environment. The wood preserving industry, with its' heavy small business component, was able to stay alive and facilities were able to comply with the regulation. Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect every industry to be able to rally support to save themselves from such bureaucratic nightmares. Mr. Speaker we should not expect every industry to be able to rally support to save themselves from such bureaucratic nightmares. We must give them the power to take on Federal regulators head on. We can do that if we approve the Barton amendment later today. The Barton amendment would give the average citizen the right to challenge Federal regulations themselves. It would force bureaucrats to review existing rules for their cost-benefit. Mr. Speaker, industries should not have to come to us to save them from overzealous bureaucrats. By passing the Barton amendment, we give individual American citizens the power to fight for themselves. The main principle of our regulatory reform system must be common sense. The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act will force Federal bureaucrats to focus their regulatory efforts on what will benefit Americans the most. It will prevent Federal bureaucrats from forcing industries to spend millions, even billions of dollars without proving the responsibility of that action. It will force Federal bureaucrats to give cost-effective solutions the same consideration and the same weight as the extravagant ideal solutions they pursue today. This we must do. But, Mr. Speaker, I also hope my colleagues will realize that this is but a first step. We must also give our citizens the power to fight the bureaucrats themselves. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Barton Amendment and empower individual Americans.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to congratulate the gentleman who produced this amendment in a bipartisan fashion. I think that this probably is the most exciting thing that I have witnessed in my 54 days in Congress. There are two parts of this amendment that I believe are very important. What have we been doing for 2 days? For 2 days we have debated the changes needed with the rules and regulations that have been oppressive to the American people. Why did we ever write H.R. 1022? Because the American people have finally said that they have had enough of a bureaucracy that tells them what to do from morning until night. What is my standing in this bill, in this debate? Well, I have only been a Congressman for 54 days. I have not had the last 10-15 years writing legislation in terms of our air quality. But I have lived in the economy of this country, and I have lived under the impressive oppressive rules and regulations that this great large bureaucracy in Washington, DC, feels that they know best how I should live. Part of the problem is I guess I am a rebel. I am much like those rebels who opposed the king, who did not want to be told what to do from the minute they get up to the minute they go to bed, and I do not want to be told what to do from the Federal Government, 435 elected officials and millions of bureaucrats. This bill is not, my colleagues, necessarily just about General Motors and Dow Chemical. I agree with my friend from South Carolina when he says that this is a bill for the people, and it excites me every time I read this part of the bill, and if I may, Mr. Chairman, I will. [[Page H2352]] Any person who demonstrates that he or she is affected by a rule or program element referred to in subsection B may submit a petition. That is what is important here. People at home do not believe they have any control over their lives. They believe we want to control their lives right up here. This will give them great good feelings to know that they, as an individual, can petition their government to change what we are doing. I heard earlier this afternoon the question asked what does it require of the Government, what does this amendment require of the Government. I ask, ``Who amongst you is standing up and saying, `What does this rule require of the small business man?''' I am ready to hear a little bit more of that in this body than just what does it require of the Government. I ask each of my colleagues to consider strongly passing and voting for this amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]. I think this is exciting legislation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer some very interesting statements that were made earlier by the gentleman from Texas on the other side of the aisle. When I hear him talk about the sin of reasonableness, the sin of balance, the sin of moderation, I have to ask, where has reasonableness, balance and moderation been over the last 14 years when that side of the aisle controlled this Congress? We are here today basically to discuss not just cost analysis. When we hear the other side speak, we really hear only of cost analysis. We are here to allow and ask Federal agencies to do a cost-benefit analysis. We, too, want them to look at the benefit for the American people in terms of safety and health. The problem is, you take situations that have occurred over and over in this country like the example where the EPA forced Columbia, Mississippi to clean an 81-acre piece of land that was contaminated with small amounts of hazardous chemicals. Who can be against that if a risk assessment is done? We all want those chemicals cleaned up if need be. But what does the EPA do? They order the removal of 12,500 tons of dirt. Why could they not simply have just covered over that hazardous chemical with other dirt? Because the EPA based its cleanup standard on a theoretical child by eating half a teaspoon of dirt per month for 7 years? a gallon of dirt, so we spend $20 million to remove that dirt rather than covering it over for the cost of $1 million? That is what is driving the American people crazy out there. They know we owe $5 trillion. They know we are borrowing a half a trillion dollars every 2 years. Yet we continue to allow a Federal agency to pass down rules and regulations that have absolutely no conflict of interest. I notice that the gentleman from Texas talks about conflict of interest. He cannot believe that people with an economic interest could actually be invited to the table to discuss the problem. I find that unbelievable that people who have been done to over the years with rules and regulations that are not necessarily reasonable cannot be invited to the table of the Federal agencies that are not elected to office to discuss the right and wrong of every regulation. I know that the American people must not understand this bill, because I have been told that. But I am absolutely certain that the American people understand what has been done to them over the last 5 and 10 years in terms of excessive rules and regulations where so many are not necessary, where every time they lose another freedom. I ask you all to please support our bill and vote against this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I do not just rise, I stand up with great glee to support H.R. 1022. I have for the last 5 years of my life lived under the rules of this Federal Government. Finally, I decided to run for Congress to try to get out of the way of the Food and Drug Administration, OSHA, and all the other regulatory agencies in this country. This bill is an important first step toward a Federal rulemaking system that solves legitimate problems cost effectively, a rulemaking system that cooperates with governments and businesses and that prioritizes potential risks to society based on objective science rather than subjective whimsy. I know that this town may not be full of crazy regulators or standards writers or enforcers, I do know there are a lot of them here, but Mr. Chairman, they are all over the country. And if I may cite a couple of examples which have a source: EPA regulations require municipal water treatment plants to remove 30 percent of organic material before discharging treated water into the ocean. What a good idea. Who could disagree with that? cleaned, the town has had to recruit local fish processors to purposely dump 5,000 pounds of fish guts into the sewer system each day, thus allowing the city to clean the water and satisfy EPA requirements. Another wonderful example, Mr. Chairman: Montana rancher John Shuler was awakened one night by a grizzly bear rummaging through his sheep herd. He went outside with his guns and fired shots into the air in an attempt to scare them off. An unseen grizzly emerged from the dark to attack Shuler. Fearing for his life, Shuler shot the bear. The grizzly bear, you know, is on the endangered species list, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Shuler was consequently fined $4,000 by the EPA. I am amazed today to hear people say that it is unfair to have a peer review committee where the very people who are being ruled and regulated are going to sit on that committee and be able to defend their families and businesses. I am amazed to hear the people that sit in the hearings, directors of agencies, complain about paperwork, complain about being regulated and complain about lawyers. For goodness sakes, that is what we have been living with for the last 10 years. Mr. Chairman, Federal regulatory costs are estimated to be over $540 billion. Our supporters ask us to support H.R. 1022.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. We must put an end to the overreaching bureaucrats whose choking regulations threaten American people every day. We must make the first rule of our regulatory system common sense. The bill will force Federal bureaucrats to use a little more common sense. The examples of Federal regulatory nonsense are too numerous for me to mention here. Some are painful and some are just plain absurd. A pair that come to mind include an OSHA rule that cost the dental industry over $2 billion but produced no measurable improvement in worker safety, or then there's OSHA's attempt to declare bricks a potentially poisonous substance--yes, bricks. I imagine it is only a matter of time before some bureaucratic genius issues an advisory that says, ``If Americans stopped driving their cars, there would be a lot fewer auto accidents.`' Mr. Speaker, the way to bring sensibility to Federal regulations is to apply risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis as in our bill. The EPA and the FDA's own estimates suggest that their new regulations cost the economy as much as $12 billion each year. Our bill will force these bureaucrats to prove that the cost is worth the benefit we receive from those regulations. It will force agencies to focus on the most dangerous risks to society. It will force regulators to look at the effectiveness of $10 million solutions versus $100 million solutions. Our opponents will argue that this legislation will roll back existing regulations. They will argue that this bill will endanger the safety of Americans. Mr. Speaker, the EPA Director, Carol Browner, went so far as to say, ``20 years of protection of our children, our air, our land, and our water are being rolled back in the dead of night.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, EPA Director Browner's remarks only show how desperate Federal bureaucrats are to hold on to the coercive power they now have over American business and the American people. The main principle of our regulatory reform system must be common sense. The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act will force Federal bureaucrats to focus their regulatory efforts on what will benefit Americans the most. It will prevent Federal bureaucrats from forcing industries to spend millions, even billions of dollars without proving with good science the responsibility of that action. It will force Federal bureaucrats to give cost-effective solutions the same consideration and the same weight as the extravagant ideal solutions they pursue today. Mr. Speaker, it is past time that we recognize that our resources are not boundless. If we are to save ourselves from the debt that is crushing us every day, we must force Federal regulators to behave responsibly and ease the burden they place on our economy.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, Joe Dear is at it again. I ran for Congress not only because imperial Washington was hopelessly out of touch with normal Americans, but also because many of the rules and regulations imperial Washington imposes on the rest of us help so little while costing so much. To cite one example that hits very close to home for me, in 1991 OSHA announced a standard on infection control for dental offices. OSHA projected that the annual expense of compliance would be $87.4 million. However, according to a recent study by RRC Inc., it turns out billion. The OSHA regulations ended up costing $2.7 billion, but produced no measurable improvement in worker safety. How I wish we had done a cost-benefits analysis. Madam Speaker, rarely have so few done so much to harm so many. This is one more example of why we need regulatory reform and a moratorium on new regulations until we can sort all this out. OSHA is one agency that needs to be restructured, reinvented, or just plain removed.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving local law enforcement the power to do what they think is best. That is what my sheriff, Charlie Webster of Richmond County, GA, wants. The bill we are debating gives State and local governments the funds to fight crime as they see fit. That is what all 19 of my sheriffs want. The other side will argue for strings to be attached. They will argue that we here in Washington truly know best how to fight crime. What a laugh. Look at the District of Columbia. I ask the people back home to listen closely to these arguments. One side wants to give you the power to fight crime; one side will tell you that they know what is best for you. It is as if they did not hear you at all last November. Local law enforcement officers know what they need to do to fight crime, and they absolutely do not need bureaucrats here in Washington telling them how to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support local law enforcement by supporting our crime bill.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the people the administration has targeted for help through the minimum wage. These people need help today because of the administration. I rise today in support of hardworking Americans everywhere who are being unjustly punished by the IRS. The IRS encourages people to file electronically. It saves time, paper, and mailing costs. Many Americans have utilized this service because it means they can get their refunds much faster. Companies that prepare taxes will make refund anticipation loans to people who file electronically. It is a simple way for hardworking people to get money owed them by our Government fast--and these people depend on that refund check. But in steps the IRS. The IRS has begun holding the refunds of those people who are filing electronically for the earned income tax credits. Our information is that the IRS is holding as many as 95 percent of those electronic filers seeking the earned income tax credit, in a supposed effort to cut down on fraud. These are people who do not make a lot of money and need those refund checks to get by. Their refunds are being held up to 2 months. They are unable to get refund loans from tax preparers because of the delay caused by the IRS. The IRS is creating a terrible problem for people who can afford it the least. Mr. Speaker, we are just beginning to learn the consequences of the IRS' irresponsible actions. My office has learned of instances where people have been evicted from their homes because they were expecting a refund check that has yet to come. The other side has spent a lot of time telling us of the plight of the low-income worker. Well, right now, there are low-income workers depending on the Clinton administration, depending on a check from the IRS to pay for food or rent or heat on this cold February morning--a check that the IRS is holding up. We live in an age where we depend on ever-expanding information technologies. In tax-filing, we encourage taxpayers to file electronically. We encourage people to use the information super highway. The Clinton administration has promoted the use of the information super highway. The Vice President has championed this as a step toward reinventing Government. Well, Mr. Vice President, I hope you are paying attention, because some of America's hardest working low-income workers have stepped out onto the information super highway, and have gotten run over by the IRS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has documented the abuses of the IRS. This is just one further example. I am willing to consider a flat tax if for no other reason than it would eliminate most all of the need for having an IRS. I call on the IRS to immediately release the refunds due those hard-working people who filed electronically and to act more responsibly in the future. To the IRS, I say this, ``You may be responsible for collecting taxes from the people, but that does not mean you are not responsible to the people.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about disincentive. In a typically bizarre manner, OSHA has created a rule that provides a disincentive for employers to look out for the safety of their workers. If an employer voluntarily starts a study to see if their employees are at risk due to exposure to chemicals or hazardous materials, OSHA requires that employer to keep medical records for their employees for the duration of their employment plus 30 years. Employers are not required to do these self-studies, but if an employer wants to begin a voluntary self-study, OSHA makes the costs so prohibitive that no employer in his or her right mind would every try. What employer wants to keep medical records on employees for over 50 years? Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of an agency with no common sense. This is why we need regulatory reform and a moratorium on new regulations until we can sort all this out. OSHA is one agency that needs to be restructured, reinvented, or just plain removed.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. In support, I will cite three statistics. Two-thirds of all violent crimes are committed by 7 percent of criminals; 51 percent of violent criminals are released within 2 years. We have 65 murders a day; 30 percent of all murders are committed by people on probation, parole, or bail. Mr. Speaker, we are abdicating our responsibility to protect society. By passing this act, we provide States with the incentive to keep violent criminals in prison, and we provide the support for them to do so. We cannot expect to deter crime in this country if we do not have serious punishment. This bill makes a real change in how we attack the problem of crime in America. If we cannot do this much to protect society, then we have no business being here.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the line-item veto. This is an action we need to take to save this country from our runaway debt. It is an action we must take to end the irresponsible practices by this body. It is an action that is completely consistent with the wishes of our Founders. Mr. Speaker, we are making significant changes in the way the Federal Government operates. I have listened to the arguments made by the other side against these changes, and I am struck by how little regard is shown for our Federal debt. Perhaps we do not understand the amount our debt costs us? Perhaps we think that these programs we are so afraid of cutting will survive even if we bankrupt the Nation. We owe $4.8 trillion. I hear the other side talk about us hurting programs that benefit young people. They do not seem to understand that we are trying to save the future for young people all over America. We have no right to fund any program, no matter how well intentioned, at the expense of the children of the next generation. I ran for this office because I have two little grandchildren. I saw the ever-rising debt and the dreadful impact it will have on their future. I am here to do something about the debt and free that burden from their future and from the future of young people throughout my district and throughout America. I support the line-item veto because the students in Sallie Bullock's calculus class at Madison County High in Danielsville, GA already owe $310,760'. I support it because Mary Mills fifth grade class at Oconee County Intermediate School in Watkinsville, GA already owes $365,600. I support it because Martha Scroggs' kindergarten class at Episcopal Day School in Augusta already owes $457,000. Mr. Speaker, the line-item veto is an important step for the future of these young people. I have listened to the constitutional arguments against the line-item veto. To those people, I would share the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 73. In response to those who stated that the veto would give the President too much power, Hamilton argued that the veto power was important because it limited the power of Congress. The propriety of the thing does not turn upon the supposition of superior wisdom or virtue in the executive; but on the supposition that the legislative will not be infallible; That the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of the other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that the impressions of the moments may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself on maturer reflection condemn. Mr. Speaker, if Alexander Hamilton only knew what we have come to in this body. When $20 million for a fingerprint facility in West Virginia is inserted into an emergency assistance bill for Los Angeles earthquake victims, we prove that Hamilton was right. When $11\1/2\ million are spent on powerplant modernization in a shipyard about to be closed, we prove that we need to give the President the line-item veto. If Hamilton could see what we do here today, he would certainly support it as well. One other argument that we hear is that it will be used by the President as a political weapon. Mr. Speaker, 43 Governors have the line-item veto. If it was being used as this evil political weapon as our opponents would suggest that it is, you would certainly think that far fewer States would have them. If it were being used irresponsibly by those who have it, it would be taken away. I believe that our opponents greatly overstate the danger of the use of the line-item veto. The veto power possessed by the President today is a far more powerful tool, but it has been used wisely. We have no reason to expect otherwise with the line-item veto. Mr. Speaker, we are making significant changes in the way business is conducted by the Federal Government. The line-item veto is one more way for us to show the American people that we are making their Government more responsible.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, for years, the American people have supported the line-item veto as another tool to help control Government spending and balance the budget. In November 1994, a poll showed that 77 percent of the American people supported the line-item veto, and in 1992, a poll showed a 68-percent approval rating. With this kind of support for a good Government measure, I have to ask what took us so long? Putting aside any notion of partisan politics, the Republican majority has finally brought the line-item veto to the floor for a vote. We are delivering to the President a necessary tool to allow him to control Government spending and to kill pork-barrel politics. We are keeping our promise to the American people through our Contract With America. I hope my Democrat colleagues join me in supporting this legislation. Its time has finally come.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call your attention to another crazy regulatory scheme they are cooking up over at OSHA. Buried in a proposed rule on indoor air quality is a requirement that employers provide 24 hours notice to employees every time a pesticide or hazardous chemical is used in the workplace. These so-called hazardous chemicals could include polishes, cleaners, air fresheners, pest control products, and so on. If OSHA has its way, every day my colleagues walk into this building, someone is going to hand you dozens of notices about chemicals that are going to be used tomorrow--if anybody can figure out what they are. This is nuts. I do not need to know that Windex is going to be used in the men's room tomorrow. This is another example of an out-of- control agency that disregards common sense; this is another example of why we need regulatory reform and a moratorium on new regulations until we can sort this all out.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. We need the balanced budget amendment to force discipline on this body. This Nation is $5 trillion in debt. It is a debt that we are going to pass on to these young people It is not enough to say that we would like to have a balanced budget. Were it that easy, we would have done it at least once during their lifetime. It is clear after 25 years, that we must pass the balanced budget amendment to force this body to act. Mr. Speaker, we must protect their future. We must take a stand here today so that the next generation will not bear the burden of our mistakes. I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment.