David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we are not saying that at all.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we had hearings in the 104th Congress, too.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time to respond to my friend, this legislation does not eliminate unfunded mandates. It simply creates a requirement that we be accountable for those decisions. I know my friend would be very supportive of that. We have to go on record here, rather than sneaking provisions that have been snuck in in the past into legislation, imposing unfunded mandates on State and local governments, we have to stand here and say yea or nay, which is I believe is what the American people want us to do.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend from St. Louis if he knew that during this 5-year period that we would be imposing on States the responsibility of paying $3.6 billion to comply with the Clean Air Act? We did not know that. So all I am saying is that while many unfunded mandates have been included in legislation in the past, when I say ``snuck in,'' it meant that we have not been accountable for them because we have not been required to have an up or down vote on whether or not that mandate should be imposed. And that is what I meant by that.

Mr. DREIER. I am talking about the unfunded mandate aspect.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I, like the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], represent the Los Angeles Basin and was a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act, as he knows. In fact, several years ago, while I never had the privilege of serving on the powerful Committee on Energy and Commerce, I did spend time with the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce dealing with this very important issue. In fact, the area which I represent in southern California happens to have the highest number of first stage smog alerts in the entire country. It is the Inland Empire area, the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. I say that simply to underscore my strong commitment to improving air quality. But in looking at that, we have to realize that the Clean Air Act over a five-year period, which began last year, is imposing a cost on cities throughout this country of $3.6 billion. Our city of Los Angeles alone is shouldering a burden of $787 million. I had breakfast this morning with Mayor Richard Riordan, mayor of Los Angeles. We were talking about this. Mayor Riordan and I and others of the area are strongly, strongly committed to improving air quality. But the fact of the matter is, this cost burden is overwhelming, extraordinarily onerous, and I have to rhetorically ask the question, at what level of spending will we possibly be able to attain a level of satisfaction for every Member of this House? It seems to me, from my perspective, we have reached that point.

Mr. DREIER. Well, sneaked through, I am thinking of a wide range of legislation in which, for example, the Clean Air Act----

Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from St. Louis.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to my friend by saying again that he had the privilege of serving as a city council member, a mayor of a great city in California, and as a member of the State legislature. The unfortunate thing for me is I, having not done that, I have so much confidence in your successors in those bodies that I believe we should give the right to make those decisions to them at the State and local level, and if we make the decision that they cannot handle it, we still can impose that unfunded mandate. We just have to be accountable in doing it.

Mr. DREIER. Not here.

Mr. DREIER. I am very happy to yield to my friend from Monterey Park.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe that my friends from Vermont and from Missouri and from California are very sincere in offering this amendment, and I think it is well-intentioned all the way around. But the fact of the matter is we once again have come to the point where we are imposing another mandate on State governments. Before I was elected to the Congress and I had the privilege of serving here, the only elected office I ever held was that of student council officer in high school. But the fact of the matter is, there are very many distinguished former State legislators who serve here. I look at my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], who had a distinguished career as a member of the California Legislature, and I have to say as I look at this amendment, we were basically saying to legislatures that you cannot make this kind of decision. Well, on the issue of labor and minimum wage standards, 36 States have minimum wage laws which have a rate that is equal to or higher than the Federal minimum wage standard. I happen to be one who has a great deal of confidence in those State legislatures. My State legislature out in California right now is going through more than its share of problems, but, nevertheless, I do believe very sincerely that those States should have the opportunity and really the power to make these kinds of decisions. So while I congratulate my friends for offering this amendment, I believe that it once again moves in a very, very bad direction, jeopardizing the rights of States. For that reason I am opposed to it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these are Federal programs imposing what would for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although, as I said, I am very sympathetic with it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of those constraints on local governments. But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government is the proper place to do that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on his statement, and then just underscore, my friend, the gentleman from Martinez, CA [Mr. Miller], talked about the great advances that we have been through environmental legislation which has emanated from this institution. However, what we are saying is, ``Hey, he may be right in some areas, but let us be accountable, and let us make sure that we know exactly what the cost will be to those items as we look toward improving environmental standards and a wide range of other areas,'' rather than having these things surreptitiously stuck into legislation and then as amazing cost burden passed on to State and local governments.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my friend from Cincinnati for his excellent remarks and to say as we listen to a number of people talk about the Clean Air Act, there is a sense that we are going to be doing absolutely nothing here. That is baloney. Between now and 1988 we are going to be spending $3.6 billion dealing with this, and this level of spending is obviously going to be proceeding. So the sense we are ignoring it is way off base. What we are trying to do is increase the level of accountability.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would simply like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee and say what we are creating here in fact is accountability. In the past we have seen the Congress regularly slip provisions into all kinds of legislation, which has imposed a very detrimental--had a very detrimental impact on State and local governments; we in the Congress have no longer been accountable. As the gentleman says, it is quite possible that this could happen again, but the difference is that we have to say whether we are for it or against it, we have to go on record so that we as an institution and as individuals are accountable to the American people. I thank my friend for yielding, and I am very supportive of his remarks.

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

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield further, I suspect that, well, and I know that under this legislation, when this legislation is signed, anytime there is a possible unfunded mandate that would come forward under the Contract With America or any other legislation, we, in fact, in this institution will be accountable and will have to find that out. That determination has not yet been made. It is quite possible. I do not believe that there are any unfunded mandates in the Contract With America, but if there are, the House will make that decision, and we will have a vote on it, if we can successfully move forward, report out this rule, and pass the legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a new era of open debate and deliberation in the House of Representatives. This is an open rule for H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It is the first contract item after opening day to be considered by the full House, and the Rules Committee is keeping its commitment to open and fair debate. Specifically, the rule provides for 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on Rules. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report to accompany the rule as original text for amendment purposes. The substitute shall be read by title instead of section for amendment, with sections 1 through 4 and each title considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration, and such amendments shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Let me stress that this is more than an open rule. In fact, it is a wide-open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. Contrary to some speculation, there is no preprinting requirement. Printing of amendments in the Record is an option that is encouraged, and I hope Members will pursue that option. To encourage Members to do so, the rule empowers the Chair to recognize, when two Members seek recognition at the same time, the Member whose amendment has been printed in the Record. A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that this is a complicated bill that needs thorough consideration, and giving Members the option of making amendments available for their colleagues to read in advance will further that objective. Well, who can argue with that? Apparently my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee did. They clamored for more deliberation and more openness, but when presented with a wide-open rule that allows any Member to offer amendments, many of which they say are necessary to improve the bill, they all voted against the rule. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the minority who were formerly in the majority just cannot seem to shed the closed-door mentality developed over 40 years of iron-fisted rule. The Republican majority, however, is saying with this rule, ``Let's throw open the shades and debate this unfunded-mandates bill in full view of the American people.'' So the choice before us today is very clear, Mr. Speaker. A vote for this open rule is a vote for full debate, full participation, and full deliberation on a bill that has the overwhelming support of State and local government organizations and the American people. It is a bill that will make Congress more accountable by forcing the House and Senate to face the question not only of whether an unfunded mandate is necessary but how it is to be paid for. In contrast, a vote against this wide-open rule is a vote to obstruct good-government legislation and to continue being reckless and unaccountable with decisions that affect State and local governments and their taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and even those who in the Rules Committee voted against this rule to, while we are considering it today, realize that it is wide open and will create the kind of deliberation that is absolutely essential. I hope they will vote with us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as we close this general debate before we proceed to the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I would like to add one very important point to that that was raised by my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. As we look at this overall issue, it not only says that we have to make the decisions here that we are going to fund it, but it also says that we are going to be accountable. What has happened in the past, tragically, is that the Congress has regularly snuck in these little provisions which have imposed an extraordinarily onerous regulatory burden on State and local governments and the private sector without providing any kind of funding. And none of us have been accountable because it has been snuck in there. So all this legislation says is, we have to make tough decisions and we have got to stand up, when those decisions are facing us, and say yea or nay. That is really what this legislation does. If my colleagues look at State and local governments, they all the way across the board support this. Our Contract With America basically states that we want to reduce the size and scope of government and we want to move back to the State and local levels decisionmaking rather than having it centered inside the beltway. That is exactly what this legislation will ultimately do, because I am convinced that our new majority will decide, when faced with these tough decisions, that unfunded mandates are not the way to go. It is not the way to be responsive to the American people. And I will strongly support H.R. 5 and congratulate all my friends who have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very hard-working friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].