Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we are almost ready to embark on a great decision of whether we should have term limits for Members of the United States Congress. When George Will writes about term limits, he uses a couple of baseball stories to illustrate his point. When Earl Weaver was managing the Baltimore Orioles, he used to shove his chin into the chest of the umpire and shout at the top of his lungs: ``Are you going to get any better, or is this it?'' Well, the American people have decided that their Government in Washington is not going to get any better, something has to be done, this can't be it. When the Washington Senators were owned by Clark Griffith, he said one day after the opposing teams had hit a bunch of home runs: ``Fans like home runs, and we have assembled a pitching staff to please our fans.'' Term limits are a way of correcting this approach to Government. Government goes as far back as the Athenian democracy, but I think it owes a good deal to the British political philosopher John Locke, who described government as a necessary nuisance to cope with inconveniences. Locke's view was we didn't need a powerful government to overcome the inability of Americans to deal with each other. As with George Will, I have changed my mind on term limits. I now believe they are necessary to restore the faith of our Government. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 68, wrote: ``The true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency.'' As we look over the last 30 years, what has been the aptitude and tendency of this Government? The aptitude and tendency is to borrow, to tax, to spend, and to perpetuate ourselves in office. For example, this Government has now spent $5 trillion coping with our welfare problem. We have resulted in a permanent underclass. We have got a Social Security system that is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. What have we done for future generations? We have gone into debt $5 trillion, thinking that what we do now is more important than giving them a responsibility to pay for our overindulgences. Is this it, or can we do better? I have come to believe in term limits only after examining our Government from the inside. The Founding Fathers were aware of term limits. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many Members of Congress know that term limits existed in the Articles of Confederation. While recognizing the inherent problem of perpetuating oneself in office, the Founding Fathers did not include term limits in our Constitution because at that time it wasn't a very fun job. It wasn't pleasant to be in Congress. At that time, and they were to a great extent correct, the living wasn't good, and it was hot in Washington. It wasn't until after the Civil War that we saw the advent of the career politician in Washington. Today, as we look at the modern Federal Government, it is obvious that things have changed. We do not have the citizen legislator that the Founders envisioned. We have failed to heed Jefferson's warning about public office. He said ``Whenever a man casts a longing eye upon them, a rottenness begins in his conduct.'' The Congress and the rest of the Federal Government has become a system of career politicians. It is a problem where we now depend on this career for our livelihood. Can you imagine the career politician that wants this good- paying job when it comes to the tough leadership decisions that are often asked of Members of Congress? When it becomes a conflict between that career and a good-paying job and making the tough decisions, too often we see too many taking the easy road to perpetuate their own job in office. Some people argue that we have term limits now. It is in the ballot box. But the reality evident to anyone who takes a look at this system, it is heavily weighted towards incumbents. Let us look at this last election, which is such a good example, some people say, of the power of the people to exercise their own term limits. It didn't happen. Most incumbents won. Most of the PAC money went to incumbents. And it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we do something to make this Government better, more responsive to the people. I suggest that something is to exercise term limits and our votes to include it in the Constitution.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I want to say good job to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], good amendment. You know, the breakdown of the family is a national tragedy, and when we do have time to discuss the amendments, let us discuss what is happening. This is another notch. This is another foot forward in trying to control irresponsibility of parents that forsake their kids. I just want to, in the U.S. News, read a couple of quotes out of it. It says: More than virtually any other factor, a biological father's presence in the family will determine the child's success and happiness. Rich or poor, white or black, the children of divorce and those born outside of marriage struggle through life at a measurable disadvantage. The absence of fathers is linked to the most social nightmares from boys with guns to girls with babies. This is a step forward. We have the ability within H.R. 4 to identify these individuals. It is reasonable that we do not reward the individuals that have forsaken their responsibilities for their kids by giving them additional Federal handouts.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think the point needs to be made that welfare in this country is not working. For 40 years, we have been trying to solve the problems of poverty. Politicians created many well-meaning programs designed to transfer wealth to the poor. Over this period the Government has borrowed $5 trillion and spent $5 trillion on welfare programs. And what has happened? Illegitimate births have grown from 5 percent to 30 percent of births; single parent families have gone from 4 per cent of all families to 29 percent; teenage pregnancy has doubled; and violent crime has arisen fivefold. We have shown that simply transferring taxpayers' money to poor people doesn't work. H.R. 4 will reform traditional welfare programs that have robbed people of self-respect by giving them something for nothing. These handouts too often breed a complacency that prevents people from helping themselves. They create a culture of irresponsibility by subsidizing bad behavior. The current welfare system pays unwed mothers to have babies. It tells women that if they bear an illegitimate child, the government will pay them a monthly allowance and give them a place to live. The resulting explosion in illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family shouldn't surprise us. Let me read a few excerpts from the February 27th U.S. News and World Report to emphasize the importance of two-parent families: More than virtually any other factor, a biological father's presence in the family will determine a child's success and happiness. Rich or poor, white or black, the children of divorce and those born outside marriage struggle through life at a measurable disadvantage. * * * The absence of fathers is linked to most social nightmares--from boys with guns to girls with babies. No welfare reform plan can cut poverty as thoroughly as a two- parent family. * * * Raising marriage rates will do far more to fight crime than building prisons or putting more cops on the streets. Studies show that most state prison inmates grew up in single-family households. A missing father is a better predictor of criminal activity than race or poverty. H.R. 4 helps promote families. Too often, welfare discourages traditional families. Benefit formulas have discouraged marriage and encouraged women to have illegitimate children. Government can't create two-parent families, but we can stop encouraging one-parent families. I hope Congress has the determination to make needed changes by: (1) ending payments to teenage mothers who decide to have a baby without a husband; (2) requiring all welfare mothers to identify the father; (3) making deadbeat parents live up to their child support obligations; and (4) in the next couple weeks, passing legislation to get rid of the marriage penalties in the tax code. This bill H.R. 4 also makes needed changes in our food and nutrition programs. The food stamp program costs $26.5 billion; the school lunch and other child nutrition programs cost $7 billion; WIC costs about $3.5 billion. H.R. 4 block grants the WIC and child nutrition programs to the states. The food stamp program, which is the most abused and wasteful program, is tentatively being kept a the federal level. We are making long-overdue changes to improve the program. We also need to stop food stamps from being used for candy, chewing gum, soda pop, and other junk food. If hard-working Americans are going to pay taxes for this program, it should be for nutritious food for individuals who might otherwise go hungry. States should have the flexibility to modify the eligibility criteria for food stamps. Right now, national standards make a couple with four children eligible for food stamps if they earn less than $26,692 a year. But $26,000 goes a lot further in different areas of the country. We need to give states the authority to vary these eligibility requirements, making limited funds better serve their citizens. H.R. 4 ends many welfare abuses. For too long, we have allowed alcoholics, drug addicts, and those with dubious ``functional disabilities'' to collect for disability payments. We need to end these abuses and this bill will help to do that. H.R. 4 is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill that starts to replace a failed system of despair with more compassionate solutions that encourage work, strengthen families, and offer hope for a brighter future. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, during my 5 minutes I would like to comment on two different areas. One is to report on the testimony before the Committee on the Budget today. Witnesses appearing before the Committee on the Budget stressed the importance of increasing capital formation in this country if we expect to increase our standard of living. I, and we all, should be particularly concerned, because as we compare what is happening in the United States with other nations around the world, we see that the United States ranks either last or very close to the bottom in terms of the amount of savings. For every take-home dollar, our savings are very low. You compare our 5 percent savings with countries like Japan at almost 19 percent, South Korea at approximately 32 percent, we see that we have encouraged spending and consumption rather than savings that are so important to having capital available for investment. In comparing the United States with the rest of the world, we also see that the investment in those new tools and machinery per worker is lagging in this country compared to the rest of the world, and not surprisingly, the rate of increase in our productivity is also at nearly the bottom of the list. I bring this to my colleagues because I think we are tremendously challenged today with a problem of other countries, now that we are past the cold war, doing everything that they can do to attract capital investment. If we want to increase our standard of living in this country, we cannot just look at pretend things like increasing the minimum wage. What we have got to do is look at true improvements in our economy and the true availability of more and better jobs by encouraging businesses to buy that machinery and that equipment and those facilities that are going to increase the efficiency of those workers, increase the productivity, and ultimately increase their wages and standard of living. the attorney accountability act I would like to briefly comment on a second area, and that relates to the passage this afternoon of H.R. 988. I was disappointed that we ended up with only attorneys being able to offer amendments in the limited time period simply because of the rules and precedents that allow the recognition of members of the committee; in this case, essentially all the committee members of the Committee on the Judiciary are attorneys. The title of the bill that we passed this afternoon was the ``Attorney Accountability Act.'' In fact, this bill as currently written does little to make attorneys accountable. The only part of the bill that does anything to make lawyers accountable for their actions is the change in rule 11, and that change requiring a mandatory penalty for violation of the rule applies only in a small number of cases in which an attorney is actually sanctioned by a judge under rule 11 and, of course, as we heard in much of the testimony, there are very few sanctions, and even when there is a sanction, that attorney-judge has the latitude of not imposing any sanction on the attorney, but simply a sanction, a financial sanction on the client. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, my amendment would have made an attorney liable for half of any attorney's fee award a client cannot pay. This sanction is not unduly harsh. There can be no award of fees unless: First, a settlement is offered; second, the offer is rejected; and third, the jury returns a verdict less than the offer. In the few cases in which these conditions are met, the award is limited. First, it is capped at the amount of the offeree's expenses; second, it is limited to the actual costs incurred from the time of the offer through the end of the trial; and third, the judge has discretion to moderate or waive the penalty when it would be manifestly unjust. These modest steps, it seems to me, should have been necessary if we truly intend to make attorneys accountable. My amendment would have told lawyers, ``This is a court, not a lottery office. You are an officer of this court, and as an officer of this court, you have a responsibility to the court and the other litigants not to waste their time and money, and if you ignore these responsibilities, you can be held liable.'' Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express these thoughts.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. It is somewhat of a frustrating experience to have amendments, as Members from both sides of the aisle have had only to be pre-empted and ultimately denied the opportunity to offer those amendments. The members of that committee are given priority. Mr. Chairman, the members of that committee are essentially all attorneys, so those of us who are members of other occupations get little opportunity to say ``wait a minute.'' Mr. Chairman, the title of this bill is ``The Attorney Accountability Act.'' In fact, this bill as currently written does little to make attorneys accountable. The only part of this bill that does anything to make lawyers accountable for their actions is the change in rule XI. That change, requiring a mandatory penalty for violation of the rule, applies only in the small number of cases in which an attorney is actually sanctioned by a judge under rule XI. As we have heard from most everybody, Mr. chairman, there are very few sanctions that take place. If ever this sanction does take place, the judge even has the right to waive the penalty on the attorney and assess all of the sanction penalties on the client. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would have required attorneys to accept some responsibility for their actions by making them liable for 50 percent of the unpaid costs of unnecessary litigation that the client does not pay fully. I think this is important. Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 988 as currently drafted, attorneys seeking a big, contingency fee payday have an incentive to litigate weak cases aggressively. If the client wins, the lawyer cashes in. If the client loses, the client is stick with the bill. It's even better if the client's poor--then no one has to pay. My amendment makes an attorney liable for half of any attorney's fee award that a client can't pay. This sanction is not unduly harsh. There can be no award of fees unless: First, a settlement is offered; Second, the offer is rejected; and Third, the jury returns a verdict less than the offer. In the few cases in which these conditions are met, the award is limited: First, it's capped at the amount of the offeree's expenses; the time of the offer through the end of the trial; and Third, the judge has discretion to moderate or waive the penalty when it would be manifestly unjust. These modest steps are necessary if we truly intend to make attorneys accountable. My amendment tells lawyers: This is a court, not a lottery office. You're an officer of this court. As an officer of this court, you have a responsibility to the court and the other litigants not to waste their time and money. And if you ignore these responsibilities, you can be held liable. I ask the House to vote ``yes'' on the Smith amendment to H.R. 988.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that I have the right to be recognized and to have that vote on the amendment, even if there is no debate, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Inasmuch as my amendment was printed in the Record, do I understand I have a right to have a vote on that amendment?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, then I would yield back to the gentleman, because I am still in hopes that I can have the 5 minutes to offer my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. I would like to say I will not ask for a recorded vote on this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Senate failed to muster the courage to join us in passing the balanced budget amendment. Thomas Jefferson once called public debt ``the greatest of dangers to be feared.'' Borrowing and spending is addictive for politicians, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, wrote: I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and not for increasing by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing. I agree with Mr. Jefferson wholeheartedly, and I suspect that most other Americans do as well. Today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment that would attack the root cause of our budget deficit, that is Government spending. My amendment would limit the growth of Federal spending to the rate of economic growth as measured by gross domestic product. This would freeze the growth of Government as a percentage of the U.S. economy. The language of the amendment is an adaptation of a spending control proposal in Milton Friedman's book, ``Free to Choose.'' Professor Walter Williams, Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University, and the National Taxpayers' Union have endorsed this concept. The CATO Institute has given their enthusiastic support and suggested that this might be an acceptable compromise position to the balanced budget amendment. Today, the Federal debt is in excess of $4.7 trillion and growing at a rate of $200 to $300 billion per year. This is both an economic and a moral problem. The economic problem is that deficit financing is the ultimate form of hidden taxation. Federal borrowing injects a huge pro- spending bias into the budget process by allowing politicians to hand out a dollar of Government spending to voters, while only imposing 80 cents of taxes. Unbridled Federal spending will eventually lead to what economists call monetizing of the debt, which in plain English means that the government pays for its debt by increasing the money supply, thereby causing inflation. This hidden tax, which Adam Smith called the worst form of taxation, strikes most heavily on those who save. As every senior citizen knows, their security can be wiped out in short order by even moderate inflation. At 8 percent inflation, the Government can effectively take away half of the money one has saved over a lifetime of work in about 9 years. The moral argument for a balanced budget is that Federal borrowing is taxation without representation. Recall the words of the Declaration of Independence which refers to the repeated injuries and usurpations of King George because he imposed taxes on us without our consent. Can't our children make this same claim against a Congress that saddles them with debt interest payments that are already at $339 billion annually? None of our children and grandchildren currently have a say in the political process. Federal deficits may almost be thought of as a form of fiscal child abuse. I call on my colleagues to stop deficit spending, and I call on all citizens to commit themselves to do their part, to sacrifice some of the many things they get from Government, so we can cut spending, look our kids in the eye, and tell them that we will no longer force them to pay future taxes to enhance our current standard of living. As a nation of people who look to the future, and care about our children as much as we care about ourselves, we can make the commitment to limit spending, and keep that commitment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, wrote: I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officer and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing. I agree with Mr. Jefferson wholeheartedly, and I suspect that most other Americans do as well. Today, the Federal debt is in excess of $4.7 trillion and growing at a rate of $200 billion to $300 billion per year. As the CATO institute has pointed out, this is both an economic and a moral problem. The economic problem is that deficit financing is the ultimate form of hidden taxation. Federal borrowing injects a huge prospending bias into the budget process by allowing politicians to hand out a dollar of Government spending to voters, while only imposing 80 cents of taxes. Nobel Laureate James Buchanan in a 1977 book with his colleague Richard Wagner, alerted us to this problem. In their book Democracy in Deficit, Buchanan and Wagner argued strongly for a balanced budget amendment in order to contain the spending bias of a Government able to increase its expansion into the economy without the political restraints of raising taxes. Unbridled Federal spending will eventually lead to what economists call monetizing of the debt, which in plain English means that the Government pays for its debt by increasing the money supply. That cheats the lenders and causes inflation. This hidden tax, which Adam Smith called the worst form of taxation, strikes most heavily on those who save. As every senior citizen knows, their security can be wiped out in short order by even moderate inflation. At 8 percent inflation, the Government can effectively take away half of the money one has saved over a lifetime of work in about 9 years. The moral argument for a balanced budget is that federal borrowing is taxation without representation. Recall the words of the Declaration of Independence which refers to the repeated injuries and usurpations of King George because he imposed taxes on us without our consent. Can't our children make this same claim against a Congress that saddles them with interest payments that are already at $339 billion annually? None of our children and grandchildren currently have a say in the political process that is now putting their future at risk. On January 26, the House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment. Today, it was narrowly defeated in the Senate. This amendment would have imposed much-needed fiscal discipline on Congress and it would have taken away our ability to spend recklessly while sending the bills to our children and grandchildren. Without this amendment, it will be much more difficult to balance the budget, but I for one am willing to make the hard choices. I call on my colleagues to stop deficit spending, and I call on all citizens to commit themselves to do their part, to sacrifice some of the many things they get from government, so we can balance the budget, look our kids in the eye, and tell them that we will no longer force them to pay future taxes to enhance our current standard of living. As a nation of people who look to the future, and care about our children as much as we care about ourselves, we can make the commitment to balance the budget, and keep that commitment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the point is that we need to make some changes. There is a problem in this country where we have started passing on unfunded mandates to cities and counties to let them pay for our philosophy changes. This is also a problem where we are passing mandates on to individuals to let them pay for our philosophical changes, while we are taking away people's property, sometimes by poorly written laws, sometimes by poorly written regulations, sometimes by overzealous Government agents. I am a farmer from Michigan. Let me share with you a couple of farm stories. A vegetable farmer was ordered to stop farming when two endangered species were discovered on his farm. The farmer was told he would be allowed to return to farming if he gave the Government 1 square mile of his property and a mitigation fee of $300,000. When the farmer refused this offer, he was fined $300,000. That was 10 years ago. The farmer is still fighting. A family of cabbage growers cannot farm 450 acres of its farmland because the Army Corps of Engineers declared this acreage to be a wetland. Because of the prohibitive court fees, the family could not afford to challenge the decision. Close to me, a couple of odd miles away from my farm in Michigan, a farmer had almost one-quarter acre within the boundaries of his otherwise tillable land but that small little strip with a couple of cattails, the farmer had to drive 2 miles around to get to the other side because that farmer was not allowed to plow through it or have payments. In closing, look, we have got a bill here. If it needs perfecting, we have got essentially an open rule. Let's come up with the amendments to make it better. The point is we have got to do something in this country because we are depriving a lot of people of their living because we are taking away their property.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the great 18th century political economist David Hume warned legislators against passing any legislation which impedes commerce and industry. Unfortunately, our current laws regarding taxation of capital, that is, the machines and equipment and facilities and buildings used by our Nation's businesses, are exactly what David Hume was talking about. As a result, we all have lower wages, we have less efficient tools, we have fewer factories, and we have trailed our competitors around the world in productivity growth. I am the sponsor of a vital piece of the Contract With America that will solve this problem. Estimates by economic researchers are that it will boost the growth of our gross domestic product by 25 percent, that it will create more than 2.5 million jobs, and will increase the average worker's wages by more than $4,500 per year. The name that is given to my bill is not as catchy as most. It is neutral cost recovery. This explains what the bill does from a technical tax standpoint, but from an economic effect standpoint it should be called green thunder. It is what Steven Entin, resident scholar at the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, called, and I quote, a win/win proposal that deserves prompt passage, end of quote. As we work ardently on fulfilling the Contract with America, we should keep in mind that nearly three quarters of the contract's increase in economic activity, our country's gross domestic product, comes from neutral cost recovery. While it may not be as well known as the rest of the contract, and it may not have the first blush appeal, it is crucial to our Nation's economic growth. What is this neutral cost recovery which will do so much for economic growth? It is a change in the way we tax capital, the way we tax buildings and equipment that we work in and with. Under my bill businesses would be able to deduct the first $25,000 of investment in machines and buildings in the first year of purchase and index the depreciation of the rest of the value for inflation. It would allow businesses to continue with a current tax treatment or to choose the neutral cost recovery method. When choosing neutral cost recovery, businesses that currently choose the 200 percent declining balance method could shift to a 150 percent declining balance in return for being able to match depreciation for tax purposes more closely with economic depreciation of the assets. Neutral cost recovery is not arbitrary. Unlike what we have tried to do in past years, it allows all businesses to deduct the full present value of the purchase of a capital asset regardless of the years of life. Unlike current law, it would not be biased and penalize a business for buying new machinery or equipment, and it would not bias against the construction of new buildings and factories. What does this mean to you? If you are a wage earner, it means you will have better tools to work with, better and newer buildings to work in, higher wages and greater job opportunities. If you are a small business owner, you will be able to invest in a new building or new equipment and get a deduction which effectively allows you to treat those purchases like any other business cost. If you are a decision maker in a large corporation, you will be able to expand your company and meet the foreign competition on a more equal tax footing. This happens because neutral cost recovery reduces the cost of that machinery, that equipment, those facilities, by an estimated 16 percent. According to the National Academy of Sciences, private investment in plant and equipment in the United States has fallen to less than 10 percent of gross domestic product, and most of that goes to replace the old capital rather than equipment that embodies entirely new capabilities, the state of the art equipment. Our low rate of investment can be increased quickly through expensing and the use of neutral cost recovery. Madam Speaker, our future and that of our children depend upon the seed corn which we are setting aside today, the quality of tools and equipment that we are buying in our investment in factories. The provision in the Contract with America that I am proud to sponsor, neutral cost recovery, will provide us and our children and grandchildren with a stronger, wealthier America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have quite a bit of experience in the need for regulatory reform. As a former Michigan OSHA commissioner, I cannot begin to explain the frustration I had being a member of the OSHA who were continually asked to think of additional safety measures. The group was asked to develop recommendations not based on safety needs--but on a continuous volume of safety regulations. I fully support H.R. 1022's efforts to bring realistic risk and economic information into regulatory decisions. In addition, I am offering an amendment to bring the best available information for risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses to the decisionmakers. A quick look at the Federal Government Directory reveals that there are dozens of Federal offices whose purpose is to collect statistics, data, and information. You may think that Federal agencies already share information but I have found that this is not the case. Recently negotiations were needed just to get USDA and EPA to share agricultural data. This data was needed to refine risk assessments--to show that pesticide use was actually much lower than EPA had assumed. How can we expect better regulation if agencies refuse to share taxpayer funded research? This gets to the heart of H.R. 1022's objective of commonsense regulation. This amendment takes into account that some information is confidential for business and security reasons. But if we are to be assured good regulation, we must have the Federal agencies share crucial information. H.R. 1022 requires agencies to consider all of the pertinent information for commonsense regulation--my amendment makes sure they get that information.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before this body is simply an amendment calling on the different agencies that might be working on associated risk assessment to share that information and for the President to develop the guidelines on the basis for which they share that information. I would just like to mention that, as a former Michigan OSHA commissioner, 1 of 9 commissioners, I was tremendously frustrated as a member of that commission on having the direction to sit around a table and develop all of the things we could think of to make the workplace safer. Let me just say that risk assessment has been supported by both sides of this aisle, Democrats and Republicans, for several years. I am delighted it is coming to a culmination. I am offering an amendment to bring the best available information for risk assessments and cost- benefit analysis to the decisionmakers. A quick look though at the Federal Government directory reveals that there are dozens of Federal offices whose purpose is to collect statistics, and data, and information, and the Members here may think that Federal agencies already share information, but I have found that this is not the case. Recently negotiations between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA were fruitless, and the individual Administrators were unwilling to share that information, and it ended up having to go to the Secretaries to demand the kind of relationship where one agency would share basic database information with another agency, and in that particular case it was on pesticides, and we ended up showing the information that USDA had ended up showing EPA that the risks were much lower than they assumed. It seems to me this gets to the heart of H.R. 1022's objective of common sense regulation. Mr. Chairman, I hope this body will support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some general comments.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I wanted to share some of my experience of being one of the nine OSHA were four members on the commission representing labor, there were four members representing business. The four representing business were all safety engineers. I was a commissioner representing the public at- large. The directions before that commission were to examine all of the procedures for health in the Department of Labor for worksite safety and think of all of the things you can think of to improve safety for workers. The safety engineers and the representatives from labor continually, every meeting, thought of more and more regulations. I suggest to the Members that think that regulations are not a serious impairment to business and ultimately to jobs and wages in this country should take some time not only reading the regulations, but examining the way those regulations are implemented. Depending on how good a night sleep certain inspectors have, depending on whether their wife or husband bawled them out before they left for work because they are underpaid most of the time depends on their interpretation of the rules, and they can become very demanding in the preciseness of the way those regulations are written, all the way from the quality of wood in a ladder to the exact height to the half inch of where light switches are placed. Let me conclude by saying that I would have enjoyed bringing down the regulations that were passed this last year, but I had knee surgery a couple of months ago and those 65,000 pages were a little heavy. I would just again ask all of the Members that are not aware of the real implementation of all of the regulations that we pass in every State and at the national level to take some time reviewing those individuals, those persons, those businesses that are forced to be inspected and live under those regulations. We are taking away jobs. The estimated cost by the Vice President is over $400 billion every year that is passed on to all of the consumers in this country. It is a dangerous situation. It is important that we move on to reexamine all of the regulations that we impose on the people of this country, and a good start is the moratorium. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the economic danger our Nation faces if we don't stop the tidal wave of regulations that Congress and the President have imposed. I would have carried down to the floor a copy of just last year's regulations as an example of our exploding Government, but I couldn't carry all 65,000 pages. Every day, we endanger more jobs in this country through overregulation. According to a 1993 study cited by the Vice President's report on Reinventing Government, the private sector has to spend at least $430 billion annually to comply with Federal requirements--that's 9 percent of GDP. The price of products we buy, from health care to shoelaces, are increased by that $430 billion. As we look for ways to help Americans, let's make sure we don't help them right out of their jobs. Job loss is the result of the suffocating burden of these regulations which have been piled on businesses. This overregulation hits businesses like a wrecking ball, demolishing the hopes of American workers and entrepreneurs. Economic growth is key in ensuring a bright future for America, so I encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support this bill to reduce regulations.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago a small group of Marines raised a flag on a far away island in the Pacific Ocean--Iwo Jima. the scene was immortalized for all Americans in the famous photo and memorial statute near Arlington Cemetery. The battle for Iwo Jima paved the way to victory over Japan. It was not without cost--6,000 Marines were killed. Pvt. William Henry Haddix was one of these who made the supreme sacrifice of his life. Today when we think of the veterans who died in those wars, our minds play tricks on us. We sometimes imagine those soldiers as old and wise, but most were very young like Bill Haddix. Bill left behind a young wife Etta, and two small children. He also left behind a beautiful and precious legacy. Just days before he died he had written his wife and family. Private Haddix's daughter-- Susan Haddix Harrison from Jackson, MI--Susan is here in the chamber with us today and has generously shared his deeply moving and meaningful letter with me and I share it with you. The letter includes a poem by Private Haddix about his experience on Iwo Jima. Interwoven in the fabric of the words are the golden threads of faith in God and duty to country. Iwo Jima I have landed on an island in the Pacific salty air where heat, rain, mud and bugs are an everyday affair. The nights are long and dreary as the pale moon lights the sky, and I lie awake a thinking as the hours creep slowly by. Where men must go on fighting for land that must be won In dirt, grit, slime and sweat beneath the burning sun. I can't help but dream of home and the ones I love so dear, It makes a man cuss the day he ever landed here. All luxuries are forgotten In this land so far away and it takes a lot of guts for the guy who has to stay. I pray for you my darling every single night and know God will care for you because you're living right. When we meet our enemy be it day or night It's do or die for that poor guy for we fight with all our might. Should I ever receive a call from God I know darn good and well, That I'm bound to go to heaven for I've served my time in Hell. William H. Haddix, Private, 28th Replacement Draft, Co B, 3rd Marine Division. Private Haddix did not ask that he may live. He was prepared to die if need be. All he asked is that he may be ready if he was called. And he asked that his sacrifice may not be in vain. Today, we salute Private Haddix and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him five decades ago. We should always remember their bravery, their honor, and their dedication to our Nation. Our most precious inheritance is freedom, but we should remember that it was not free to those who earned it.