Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS

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

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions I wanted to ask, if I could, the chairman of the committee. As I have heard the discussion, first, the bill does require, does it not, for the first time that the public and private sector competition issue be considered by Congress before it enacts such legislation?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor Mr. William (Bill) Behan, a resident of Woodbridge, VA, a dedicated American and outstanding public servant. Mr. Behan has officially announced his retirement from the Federal Aviation Administration, and will retire on February 3, 1995. Mr. Behan will have accumulated over 33 years of combined Federal service, starting with the U.S. Marine Corps in 1961 and 24 years with the FAA beginning in 1971. In his 24 years with the FAA Mr. Behan has held many different positions in numerous States. FAA headquarters in Washington, DC, as Manager of the Air Traffic Plans and Programs Division, where he has done an outstanding job. Over the years Mr. Behan has received many awards and recognition for his services to the flying public. He was recently recognized by the Secretary of Transportation for accomplishments on the Level I Contract Tower Management Team and received the FAA Administrator's Superior Accomplishment Award in 1994 for excellence for increasing representation of women and minorities in GS-13 and above positions from 10 percent to more than 60 percent. Mr. Behan is regarded by his friends and coworkers alike as a public servant dedicated to ensuring the flying public the highest quality of safety and service. His dedication and devotion to duty will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, I know the rest of my colleagues join me in recognizing Mr. Behan for his many years of selfless public service and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment. But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that and study these matters and report back to us.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of scary stories told here that really do not apply to this legislation, if my colleagues take a look at what we are asking here. First of all, what this legislation is about is it forces Congress to finally be honest with the American people about the programs and the regulations it creates. Taxpayers deserve to know the price of a program or a regulation before they are forced to buy into it. This bill for the first time ever will force us to honestly determine the cost of mandates before we push them off onto local taxpayers. Also this bill is about accountability. What are we afraid of here? Are we afraid to cost out what these new mandates are going to cost our State and local governments? Are we afraid of being accountable for the costs that then go on in terms of local taxes, raises in property taxes that we end up mandating? This bill for the first time is going to hold us accountable for the decisions we make, but we still have the flexibility, and I think we will exercise it in many of the cases proscribed by the other side of the aisle in terms of these interstate problems that are going to need some kind of Federal direction, some kind of Federal mandate, but at that point we will have the costs in front of us. The individuals are going to be able to pay for this downstream, are going to be aware of this and be part of the dialog. This is really true federalism. Finally, this bill is about accountability and making Members of Congress stand up and cast recorded votes on substantial mandates with the full mileage of their costs by requiring extensive, extensive information on the costs of these mandates. This legislation is going to make us accountable for what we are too often explained as unintended consequences downstream of these actions. Taxpayers in my jurisdiction are sick and tired of routinely paying for unintended consequences that should easily be foreseeable by Federal lawmakers. These will put this up front, and we will have the flexibility then to make the right decisions in a more cost-accountant manner.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] is correct, this does not eliminate, in fact, one unfunded mandate. In point of fact, we are simply getting the costs before us. We are once again starting a dialog with the people, the State and local governments, the local taxpayers who are paying for these through local property taxes, which are much more regressive than the Federal income tax when it comes to paying this. We will have that in mind, we will have that on the record before we proceed.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, clean water is a noble purpose, and the current act and its current regulations are grandfathered under this bill. The reauthorization will be grandfathered. To the extent that the level of funding in the reauthorization or new mandates come in that exceed $50,000,000, they would be subject to the provisions of this act. Now should that be covered, though, I want to remind my colleagues we still have the flexibility to pass that legislation. We have the flexibility to pass those unfunded mandates. Nobody is taking away that authority from this Congress. However, we would do this, first, knowing what the costs are going to be, and, second, taking responsibility for sending those costs back down to the States and localities. That is what this act does. But we do not lose the flexibility, the right to do that at all. It is just simply going to be costed out. It seems to me we will still have the authority to pass the legislation that the gentleman from Mississippi spoke about, but we will know the costs first. More importantly, the cities and the towns in the gentleman's district, my district and other Members' districts are also going to have a preview of what these costs are going to be on them. Before we shift the burden of paying for these mandates from the Federal Government to local property taxes, we need to understand what those costs are. What is wrong with making the State and local governments part of the dialogue as we move through this; that is, they look at their respective costs as well? That is what this does. We do not lose any flexibility to move ahead. We pass the bill traditionally, and then we pass the buck. There is nothing wrong with any one or two of these mandates taking effect, but what has happened, as the Vice President's National Performance Review showed, in 1992 over 172 unfunded mandates have been taken down to the States and localities.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], my friend and colleague, that there is nothing in this that will prohibit us from going ahead, going ahead with the authorization just discussed, but we are going to know those costs ahead of time, and there is nothing wrong with that. The local match on that, we will know what that is ahead of time. There is nothing wrong. I think that really is basically adding some truth and some sunlight to the way we do business before the people who pay these bills down the stream get sent the bill, which we so often do.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a brief minute. Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working together. In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I could, just sum up for a minute. Mr. Speaker, I just note that one of the issues that came up today during the course of the debate, Members were saying, well, if one State dumped pollution into another State, the polluting State would not have to clean up unless Congress gave them a billion dollars and funded the mandate. That just is not so. All we are asking for is a cost accounting to find out what the costs are of imposing these mandates onto the State and local government. Then we can get a clear picture, enter into a dialog with Senate and local governments so that we can act appropriately to make sure that the will of the people is carried out. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, included a provision requiring that highway asphalt in federally funded projects contain a certain percentage of recycled tire rubber, starting with 5 percent in 1994 and increasing incrementally to 20 percent by 1997 and beyond. Governors note that not a single State transportation department, nor the Federal Department of Transportation, nor any engineering trade association endorsed the rubberized asphalt provision when it was proposed here in this body. They further point out that the requirement had no supportive evidence of any ostensible environmental benefits and potentially disrupts a common State practice of recycling asphalt by introducing an additive without testing its effects on the reclamation process and imposes a requirement that is terribly costly and inefficient. That came from the Congress. The cost impact is most easily measured. States with effective tire-disposing programs found that disposing of used tires and asphalt was the most expensive method of disposal. The Ohio Department of Transportation, which normally pays $38 per cubic yard of asphalt, discovered that the average cost per cubic yard of rubberized asphalt is $108, almost three times the cost. The Governor estimates that a 20-percent crumb rubber requirement will cost the State $50 million annually. My question to my colleagues during this debate has been, what are we afraid of? Are we afraid to cost out these new mandates, to be accountable for the costs that we allocate to State and local governments and they, in turn, pass on to their taxpayers at the local level? Or are we willing to stand up and say, there are going to be measures, many of them environmental measures, that in point of fact call for Federal interference and mandating these costs. But we are not too afraid to face up to these costs up front, to have a dialog with the localities that are being asked to pay for this and then work in the most efficient way we can possibly to clean up the environment and to do whatever health and safety or whatever mandate we feel is so required. I think that is the issue that is going to be before this body over the next week. I look forward to continued dialog with my colleagues on this, and I think the American people are waiting for action.

Mr. DAVIS. I thank my distinguished colleague for those remarks. I just would at this point like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. DAVIS. Basically they are looking to us to fill different levels of government to work together in the most efficient way to try to take care of their concerns and their problems. And one of the problems it seems to me with the unfunded mandates is we have it all backward. The priorities are set from a group that are not paying for those priorities. That leads to a whole different and inefficient way of doing business than if you are setting the priorities and paying for them. Do you agree?

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me just ask the gentleman one question if I may. Is it not a fact that the same individuals that elect local and State officials are the same ones who elect us? Is that not correct?

Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I would just note in my own county of Fairfax, we costs out just 10 of those mandates and are paying over $30 million annually in local taxes, that is 6 cents in our local tax rate, and if you total that up, that is over $100 a house just to comply with just those mandates you mentioned. In addition to that, there are over 100 other unfunded mandates from the Federal Government that apply to local governments. It is exactly this kind of problem, these unfunded trickle down taxes that emanate from Congress, but are foisted, that have to be paid by people at the local level, taxpayers at the local level, that Congress has not fessed up to its responsbility in that. I think it is important that we take responsibility for that. There is certainly going to be actions, there is certainly priorities that need to be set from the Congress of the United States, and the costs are going to be passed down. But we should have an accounting of that, we should be aware of these, and we should affirmatively say we think this is important enough that we are going to put this mandate on State and local governments. We are not doing that now. It is hidden from view right now. This will be full accountability.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the American people have seen over the last 2 weeks is a Congress that has made some promises and has kept those promises. In the first day this institution instituted many reforms that have been talked about for a number of years but have never been acted on. I always said, ``Actions speak louder than words.'' I think the American people are starting to see some actions, and I am going to talk a little bit today and with some of my colleagues about the unfunded-mandates legislation before this House, but I think it is important that we go back and look back over the last couple of weeks and see what we already have accomplished together. The reforms of this institution, the first day, included forcing Congress to live under the same laws that everybody else lives under. This is something that has been talked about in the previous Congress but the Shays Act has now been passed by both bodies and sent to the President for signature, and for the first time Congress and its employees are going to live under the same laws: OSHA, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and a number of other laws that we had specifically exempted ourselves from in the past. So, we have accomplished this. We have cut the committee staffs, as we promised, by one-third. We have opened up committee meetings to the general public. No longer are meetings going to be held in private, behind closed doors, where appropriations are going to be zeroed out, where tax bills are going to be marked up, without the full view of the American public and the press. Now there are going to be opened up to the people. Proxy voting is now abolished, so from now on Members are going to have to be there listening to the debate and the arguments before they cast their vote in committee, a recommendation that have been made in the past that has never been brought to fruition until we did this changing our rules in the first day of the Congress. Over the coming weeks many issues that the American people want considered, but for so long have been blocked from even coming to the floor in many cases, are going to be considered and open to debate in this body: A balanced budget amendment hopefully will be coming before this body next week with many different amendments and options, open for Members to debate and vote on before we vote on it here and send it to the other body; line-item veto, something that the administration endorses, and many of us in Congress want to work with the administration to being this needed change about, and for once the executive will have the opportunity to look at items of pork and appropriation bills and line those out, and I think this will be a needed check on spending and some of the excessive spending that has actually originated in this body in the past. We will see a real crime bill come before this body, something the American people badly want. Legal reforms are going to be coming before this body in the next couple of months, and congressional term limits, something that we have never brought to the floor of the House before for a recorded vote, will be coming here in several different versions of that. But today and next week this body, in conjunction with actions in the other body, are considering H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. This bill is simply a modest effort to cost out the effects of decisions that we make here in Congress, in Washington, force those State and local governments to use local dollars to cost out and spend on our Federal priorities. Now the opposition has responded with numerous horror stories, scare tactics, and inaccuracies in an effort to portray this legislation as an assault on environmental and health legislation. In point of fact it is nothing of the kind. This bill does not eliminate one current Federal program, but it will force Congress to assess the costs of such programs before we impose them on State and local governments. Many local governments today have to raise their real estate taxes, have to cut their local police, have to cut their school and education funding to comply with mandates that we are putting upon them, priorities that are set in Washington. The last Congress refused to act on this legislation, which is bipartisan once you get beyond the halls of Congress. The groups from the Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, where I am chairman of their unfunded-mandates task force, but my cochairman, Yvonne Burke, a former Member of this body and a supervisor in Los Angeles County, was just as strong for this legislation when we argued and testified in hearings last year before both bodies of Congress. The National League of Cities, National Conference of Mayors, even the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] have all come together to endorse this legislation which is now before Congress and will be--we have acted today in enacting some amendments, defeating others, and we will be doing this Monday afternoon and evening and Tuesday and, hopefully, wrap this up next week, and the Senate--excuse me, the other body--will be working on this at the same time, will go to conference, and hopefully have this out in the next month or so. At this point I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] I think who has some remarks to make on this.