John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] on his presentation. I agree with him. I am pleased that he would quote the former Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, now the mayor of the city of Detroit, Dennis Archer. Just to show the bipartisan nature of this amendment, I am quoting Ronald Reagan and Senator Dole, so I think this amendment has just about everything going for it as far as bipartisanship is concerned. I compliment the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is the takings legislation is a budget buster. We have already been told by the Office of Management and Budget that it will increase the deficit by at least several billion dollars during the fiscal years 1995 to 1998 alone. The bill contains no provisions to offset the increased deficit spending. will surely drive up the deficit just as we are trying to do the opposite. That is why we had to have so many waivers of the budget bill to even get this measure up on the floor. It will require a whole new class of Federal officials to evaluate claims and will lead to much more bureaucracy, redtape, and litigations that will be borne by ordinary American taxpayers. In effect, H.R. 925 is a reverse Robin Hood. Ordinary Americans will end up paying to enrich wealthy speculators and the 65 million homeowners would lose because their tax dollars would go to pay off speculators or also their property values would fall because of reduced health, safety, and environmental protection that would otherwise go to their communities. The takings legislation is supported by the mining companies, the developers, the industrial polluters. It is opposed by 30 State attorneys general. Forty States have already rejected takings legislation and even 9 have gone as far as to adopt the assessment legislation proposed and similar to the Porter-Farr measure. Please, let us not be fooled by the biggest ripoff in the Contract With America. We do not need takings legislation that goes too far, as this does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have two points of view here, one that the American people are being robbed, and the second one is that the 65 million homeowners are going to be diminished because their tax dollars are going to go out to pay speculators on their property values. I think that the attorneys general in the several States and the others who have joined in opposition to this bill are really more aware of the fact that this is going to hurt property owners rather than help them. Forty States have rejected takings legislation, 32 attorneys general have opposed it, and this measure is opposed with letters that have just come in from throughout the government. From the Environmental Protection Agency we have a statement in opposition. The Interior Department has weighed in. We have comments from others as well that we are going to make available to the Members as we come across them. The Department of Justice has now taken a position. So we know where the interests of the ordinary homeowners lie; they lie in opposition to this big ripoff for speculators, for polluters and for mining interests in America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. That is a possibility, but there are also a lot of other possibilities. I think it is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that a 30-percent threshold would be supported by the same people that would now be asked to support a 20-percent threshold.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just a few minutes in beginning the general debate. The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements. Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today. As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex. In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small business in particular have been waiting for. I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war syndrome. I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of people. And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process. Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us in earlier years. I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 while making the regulatory process more responsive and more streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the sunshine amendment that would require that there be a written record of any contacts between agency persons and persons outside of an agency during the rulemaking process. The necessity for this rule has come from long experience for those of us who have served on the Committee on Government Operations or the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman and Members, in connection with this sunshine amendment, Justice Brandeis once said there is no better antiseptic than sunshine in order to prevent the misdeeds of government, and that is exactly what this amendment is about. While we are trying to seek accountability in the regulatory process, we should ensure that what often goes on behind the scenes and off the record is accountable also. That is all that this is about. Regulations are public law and should not be conducted in secrecy. Now, in truth we have an Executive order that covers this, and what we are doing is putting it into the law, nothing more, nothing less. The amendment would ensure that the regulatory process is open and accountable and that there are records of those who seek to influence regulations from behind the scenes. This is not an abstract matter. It is the real world. It comes out of many years in which special interests were able to shape regulations regardless of whatever new procedures were put in place without any record or trace of their involvement, and what we are trying to do is make sure that we know everybody that had a hand, a meeting, a phone call involved in the shaping of these all-important rules. Ladies and gentlemen, the Government is already living in this sunshine. As I have already indicated, President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 has already put in place many of the sunshine requirements that we are proposing here today. The amendment before the House would do two things. First, it would require that all communications between an agency and the Office of Management and Budget during the consideration of this rule be recorded. During past administrations there were countless examples of the OMB informally rewriting agency rules before they were submitted to them for review, only there was no way for congressional committees to conduct oversight of this process because no records were kept of this highly influential and highly secret process. We want sunshine. Second, my amendment would require that all communications, including oral ones between Government officials involved in a particular regulation and private parties, be recorded and that such a record be publicly available. This is to prevent what we have seen in the past as backdoor channels whereby favorite special interests were able to profoundly influence regulations behind the scenes without any public record. Is there anybody here that would not want this kind of openness to be a part of the law that we are passing here today? It is a terrible abuse of the principles of openness that the Administrative Procedures Act symbolizes. We on this side of the aisle continue to be concerned about the possibility of perverting the requirement for openness and accountability in the regulatory process by allowing ex parte or third- party contacts to be off the record at critical stages of the regulation process. Congressional investigations over the years have repeatedly documented the profound impact that such secret contacts have had on important regulations affecting public health and welfare. Remember the Clean Air Act where we had all kinds of problems in terms of behind-the-scenes activity in which we found out that the Clean Air Act, the rules on it, were being negotiated secretly? The Nutrition Labeling Act with the Food and Drug Administration had the same problem. We had the biodiversity accord scuttled during the summit in Rio because of outside, behind-the-scenes undermining of the U.S. support. We had the guidelines on disabled access to public housing weakened as a result of backdoor intervention that was not recorded and not very well known. I have a long list that goes on and on. We believe that it is consistent with the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act that should be kept when Government officials involved in writing regulations meet with private parties, attempting to influence the outcome of those regulations, and it might not always be illegal or subversive. It could be a good-faith meeting.

Mr. CONYERS. Surely. We debated it in the full committee with not the complete success that got it or that would have gotten it included in the bill. I would just like to make a couple of concluding remarks. Because even the Reagan administration, what I have not quoted recently, in the so-called Graham memorandum governing regulatory review procedures by OMB, recognized the need to address the problem of secret off-the-record contacts.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. What I am saying now is that every meeting or call between the private sector and the OMB motivated. It may be a perfectly legitimate attempt to get a position or something on the record. What we want to know before the rule comes out is what happened, and that is what this does.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you for your unwavering, steadfast, and totally committed support that you bring from the other side to this amendment. And I assure the gentleman that we on the Judiciary Committee will work to keep the kinds of recording activities that this suggests to a minimum. We are talking about recording a phone contact or a meeting, not a complete recall of the entire transaction.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, having worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] on a variety of committees in the Committee on the Judiciary over a dozen years or more, I say it is true that his record as committee chairman in this new role--where I have not witnessed him before--on judiciary, it is true that his record as being a committee chairman in this leadership position that he is discharging it in a very excellent way and he deserves the accolades on that subject.

Mr. CONYERS. Precisely, that and no more, and we continue the rule in the Administrative Procedures Act which does not cover these kinds of activities once it leaves the agency and goes to OMB and to the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The opposition to this measure comes from the view of compensating private property owners under the Constitution's taking clause when Government regulation results in reducing the fair market value of private property by more than 10 percent. This is a serious departure from long-established Supreme Court doctrine in an effort that, I think, is very clear and is getting clearer the more this debate goes on, to undermine the Government's ability to promote the common good by providing for clean skies, fresh water, and safe and fair work places that the American people have come to expect. The result of such a measure passing would be, as one witness testified, hard-working American taxpayers will be forced to watch as their hard-earned wages are collected by the Government, as taxes are paid out to corporations and large landowners as takings compensations and large landowners as takings compensation. And all this at a time when the Government downsizing is the rallying cry with the new majority in the contract. This measure senselessly creates a vast new bureaucracy and a new entitlement program with so much uncertainty that endless litigation is a distinct likelihood. Oh, yes, there is another motivation for takings legislation, to undermine the enforcement of one of the Nation's most important civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, which will surely occur once a measure of this drastic nature is brought into our law. This measure radically expands subtle Supreme Court law and leads to an absurd result and windfalls to investors of every stripe. For centuries now the courts have grappled with the essential questions arising from the few words in the fifth amendment which drives the takings law. What uses are public and how much compensation is just and what is property and what amounts to a taking? In the Armstrong versus the United States case, the Court described the takings clause underlying purpose: The fifth amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken without just compensation was designed to bar the government from forcing some people alone to bear burdens which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. In several subsequent cases, there have been further definitions of the ways that a taking can occur. We proceed in this general debate absolutely stunned at the way we would turn this concept of taking on its head. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]. I presume that will leave me with 15 minutes for tomorrow?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. At a time when the Senate is considering passage of the balanced budget amendment, here comes the new majority proposing a massive new spending program. The only way it can do that is to waive nearly every budget rule. This rule waives budget rules restricting new entitlements. The rules say that a committee cannot enact new entitlement authority beyond that allocated by the budget resolution. This rule waives that budget discipline requirement in the Budget Act. Current rules requires legislative reports accompanying legislative reports on bills creating new authority to fully explain the entitlement implications. This rule waives that requirement. Budget Rules require that any new entitlement spending conform with total outlays or make the proper adjustments. This rule waives that. Budget rules prevent new entitlements too late in a fiscal year to make other needed budgetary offsets. This rule waives that. Want some more? Let us try the appropriations side. House rules prevent appropriations authority in legislative bills. This rule waives that. House rules require germaneness of amendments and substitutes. Republican members have argued the need for strict adherence on germaneness for decades. This rule waives germaneness requirements. Mr. Speaker, the only people being ``taken'' by this taking bill are the American people. This bill will be a massive raid on the Treasury. Its costs are so incalculable, that even CBO said that its costs, while unscorable because of the speculative nature of future agency actions, could be enormous. The bill will allow for potentially tens of thousands of claims against the Government, legitimate and illegitimate, and for endless attempts to raid the U.S. Treasury just when Congress has promised to bring it into balance. The bill would also require a vast new bureaucracy. Someone is going to have sift through the thousands of claims against the Government. Administrative proceedings will have to be held to adjudicate claims. New bureaucracy will spring up everywhere. At a time when the Clinton administration has reduced the Federal bureaucracy beyond that accomplished by any Republican presidency, this bill will create a massive new bureaucracy to process what could easily become hundreds of thousands of claims that would ensure any such act. Better this bill be entitled the ``Bureaucrats and Lawyers Relief Acts?'' Just for the price of a 32-cent stamp, anyone who believes that any governmental action reduced his property value by more than 10 percent could trigger a vast bureaucracy into motion to determine how much compensation should be paid. Imagine all the new jobs for assessors, evaluators, arbitrators and--of course--lots and lots of lawyers. There will be mounds of new paperwork and swirls of new red tape: all leading clearly to more government, not less. And what bothers me most is the likelihood that many of these claims could be fraudulent ones. This bill sets up the possibility that greedy land speculators could make false claims on the United States saying that actions deprived them for use of property that they never intended to use in the stated fashion. Mr. Speaker, if you want to waive every budget rule imposing discipline, if you want to raid the Treasury, increase bureaucracy, set up a situation for swindlers scheming against the U.S. Government, then this rule is for you.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday we attempted to restore the prevention part of this crime bill the way that it was written in 1994 and approved in a bipartisan fashion. Today our attempt is to restore the community police program and restore that in the original form in which it was passed only several months ago. Nothing has more symbolized the Federal Government's commitment to fighting crime than the President's program of putting 100,000 policemen on the streets. If there is anything that most people dislike about Washington, it is the breaking of commitments. That is exactly what the Republican block grant program deliberately does. It breaks a commitment to put 100,000 policemen on the street, folding it into a block grant program, knowing that thereby they will dilute or destroy both the prevention program and the police program. So we should not break this promise. This amendment, Schumer-Conyers- Chapman, is an attempt to fulfill that commitment by restoring the funding for the cops on the beat program by reserving $7.5 billion for the block grant for the program. When we want to fight crime on Capitol Hill, we should listen to those who work in this field, work on the front lines. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Sheriffs Association, the Black Police Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the California Police Chiefs have all endorsed this amendment. We have met with their leaders. They are still on board and they are still hopeful that common sense will prevail in the Congress today with reference to our efforts to have a community- based police program of 100,000 police officers emanating from the Federal Government. They support it because they understand the Republican block grant. They realize that the Republican proponents say it may increase the overall number of cops on the beat, but they will not put any guarantee in writing. There is no guarantee, as a matter of fact, that a single police officer would be put on the beat, despite the wide consensus in city after city and State after State for more community police. There is no guarantee that the funds will result in any crime reduction whatsoever. There are no performance measures written so that we can measure the effectiveness of the bill in later years. Its formula does not take into account the adequacy or inadequacy of existing police staffing levels in particular areas, or the ability or inability of such areas to effectively utilize additional police resources. The proposal could deny needed funds to hard-pressed areas that would otherwise receive funding under the existing program. Simply put, it is a total abdication of responsible legislation and thoughtfulness. In fact, the program of theirs is nearly identical to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grants that we are reminded of merely by the similarity in programs. We know what happened, the inefficiencies, the waste, the abuse, and worse. We are replacing an existing, proven police program and an existing prevention program which is widely popular at local levels with failed programs. Is that what the contract of America is about? Mr. Chairman, the program of cops on the beat has already been successful. Seventeen thousand have already been put in place. The President announced 7,000 for small communities just last week. Over half of all police districts nationwide have received or will shortly receive new police. In this body, we can write all the tough laws we want, all the death penalties, all the mandatory minimums, but this is the test of whether we really want to have community policing at the national level. Support this amendment.