Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak today to those that have supported the Tauzin amendment. I want them to do two things. I want them to listen to this argument and to read the bill. I want Members to think of this: All development, all land in the United States is somewhere, it is in some county or in some city. Anyone who level. They have got to go to a city council, board of supervisors or whatever the requisite there to petition for change in that land, whether it is change in zoning or they want to develop it or whatever. The Constitution of the United States for over 200 years has said in the fifth amendment no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. That did not just relate to the Federal Government. That did not just relate to the State government. That did not just relate to the county government. That did not just relate to the city government. It said no person shall be deprived of property by any government. This issue in this bill speaks to the Federal Government, and why it is so difficult is because a lot of those Federal laws have become part of land use management at the local level. Think of wet plains zoning back in the 1970's. We asked every city and county in the United States to figure out where the wet plains were, we had that as Federal law in order that they could qualify for Federal flood plain insurance. That was Federal law carried out by local government. This bill as it came out of committee is in trouble. We have seen that today. In the last 2 hours we have heard about how much trouble it is in. In fact, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has here an amendment to try to improve the bill and even with that there have been arguments about how you determine fair market value. The trouble with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin's bill, with his amendment, is he is dealing with four issues. Two of those issues, the wetlands and Endangered Species Act come up for reauthorization this year. If indeed those are the problems, then let us deal with them at that time. Let us not change what this law does. And I want to ask those Members who are supporting the bill to read it, because as I said, the Constitution says you cannot take for public use without just compensation. That is what the law has been for 200 years. This bill says, this bill says no law or agency of the Federal Government that diminishes value, not takes, diminishes the value by 10 percent of any portion of your property, you must find just compensation. This is a radical departure from where we have been in the law in the United States. This is why the argument is that is going to be opening the bank, the Federal Government, that is why the argument is we are going to have to create so much Federal bureaucracy about what the law says that agency, that portion or that percent is all about. It is going to be a nightmare to implement. Later on I am going to offer a bipartisan amendment that I think corrects all of this, but I think we are moving seriously with this Tauzin amendment into an area that is going to make this country in a lot of difficulty. One of the comments the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] made is he said this bill is prospective, not retrospective, which is interesting to note because every speaker that has come up and talked about the problem talks about a problem that existed before this bill was introduced. This bill will not solve that problem, and it is interesting to note that those of my colleagues from California who talked about certain problems, as I looked at the list of supporters I never saw any planning commission, any county supervisors, any State legislator come in and support this bill in the form it has been presented. This is a bill that hurts local government land use zoning, despite the fact that the author says it does not, and let me just tell you why. Because on page 6, line 10 through 15, it says but it also includes the making of a grant to a public authority, conditioned upon an action by the recipient that would constitute a limitation if done directly by the agency. So, if the State of California takes over the 404 permit process, as it is planning to do, and if the local county and city governments implement that planning process, they would be triggered by this bill. And, therefore, we are going to really I think mess up the ability for local government to come up with sound land use planning. And I think that this amendment and the bill ought to be rejected.

Mr. FARR. The gentleman is changing the playing field because he is changing that from a right to discuss takings to a right saying that any portion that is affected or diminished.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong apposition to the rule. We are here tonight to debate the rule. I think in the opening we heard how complex this rule has been. What was not explained is that this rule really violates the law. The bill is a very serious issue. It opens a major debate and changes existing law. The existing law deals with takings, this bill deals with givings, and in that it is a budget buster. It is the biggest waiver in the history of the Budget Act. It is a violation of the Budget Act. If we are serious about the issue, then we have got to be honest about the consequences. The Committee on Rules knew this bill was so controversial that they just waived all of the provisions. The bill, as reported by the committee, creates an entitlement because it creates a right to payment regardless of whether appropriations are available on the budget. The basic rule of the Budget Act is that new entitlements have to be provided for in the budget resolution or they have to be paid for. This bill does neither. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, it violates, the rule, section 302(f), the basic rule that any new spending bills have to be within the committee spending allocation. The Committee on the Judiciary has zero allocation for entitlement authority. Section 311(a) is the rule against bills that breach the total ceiling on spending set by the budget resolution. We have no cost estimates. It violates section 308, the reporting requirement. Every bill must have a spending report. I say, ``When you have a bill, committee report, it should compare the spending, disclose and justify new spending, but the Committee on the Judiciary report on the Canady bill does really none of these things. The explanation in the report is that the CBO report was not complete, but duty lies with the committee, not with the CBO.'' It violates section 401(b) which prohibits new entitlements before October 1. OMB cost estimates are that several billion dollars during the fiscal years 1995-98 will occur. In fact, Mr. Speaker, let me read the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, and their statement on here is that the administration strongly supports property rights and is continuing to implement regulatory reforms that will provide relief to property owners. However H.R. 925, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, would impose, without regard for the Government's important role in protecting the general welfare, an arbitrary compensation requirement for reductions in property values attributable to regulatory or other actions by Federal agencies. This is unacceptable and an extreme requirement. First, it seriously undermines the Federal Government's ability to protect the general welfare. Second, it imposes an almost unlimited fiscal burden upon the American taxpayer. Third, it creates a potentially costly new direct spending program as well as a new and costly Federal bureaucracy to evaluate compensation claims. Fourth, it supplements 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence under the fifth amendment. For these reasons the administration strongly opposes H.R. 925. The administration is prepared to work with Congress to provide relief and does not impose new burdens on the American taxpayer which would create new bureaucracy, or costly spending programs, or threaten the public welfare. Pay-as-you-go scoring: H.R. 925 would affect direct spending. Therefore it would be subject to pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990. Preliminary estimates indicate that the effect of the bill would be to increase the deficit, increase the deficit by at least several billion dollars in the fiscal year 1995 through 1998. The bill does not contain provisions to offset the increased deficit spending. Therefore, if the bill were enacted, its deficit effect would contribute to a sequester of the mandatory programs. Such a sequester would force automatic reductions in Medicare, veterans readjustment benefits, various programs providing grants to States, child support administration, farmer income and price support payments, agricultural export promotion, student loan assistance, foster care and adoption assistance, and vocational rehabilitation. This estimate is based upon a preliminary analysis and is likely to increase as agencies analyze the bill's full effect. Thus final scoring of this legislation may deviate from this estimate. In closing I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise on the general debate on the bill, and I think we really ought to take a very close look at this, because this bill shifts the law, really shifts the law from an issue which has been long held in our Constitution, that when the Government takes something, they ought to pay for it. Certainly that is the role of our courts, to determine, if landowners and Government regulators cannot agree on it, exactly what that taking process is and what the value is. This bill shifts that. Just in the bill itself, it says that this bill relates to diminishing the fair market value of the property by 10 percent. Let me repeat that again. This bill goes to any action that diminishes the fair market value of the property by 10 percent. That, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely ridiculous. What is the fair market value? Who determines fair market value? Is it what we thought we would make if we got a big windfall in a big development? Is that the fair market value: expectation? What is the price of that? What is 10 percent? My God, when you went out and bought a house, there was an appraisal on that house. You probably did not pay full price. You bargained it down. But this bill says no, if the value of the owner is diminished by 10 percent, then you trigger a taking. This legislation is going to cost State, Federal, and local governments billions of tax dollars. It is going to increase the government bureaucracy, not only for the government agencies to try to figure out what a taking is and whether 10 percent is diminished, but then the argument will be carried out by appraisers, land appraisers, lawyers. This is a wonderful bill for lawyers, because it is going to guarantee a full- court systems. It is going to create a new entitlement program. Just think, you can own a piece of land and you know that land may be thousands of acres, but you have a couple of acres that are in a wetland. Maybe you have a couple of acres that are in that habitat of an identified endangered species; not the whole property, just that couple of acres. You can say, ``All right, I want to do all my development right on those couple of acres.'' You know that the government will prohibit you from taking, and you can then trigger and say, ``That is a taking. You have taken my land. Compensate me for it. Then I am going to use that compensation to build all over the rest of the land.'' That indeed is going to create chaos. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to look at the people that are down in the trenches. I have been there as a county supervisor dealing with land use regulation and master plans and zoning and elements of those master plans that require that the zoning be consistent. I have dealt with the State legislature in those issues when I was in the California State Legislature, a very complex State. Look at the people down in the trenches. What do the State legislatures say about it? The National Conference of State Legislators' policy resolution passed this last year strongly opposes any legislation or regulations at the national level that would, one, attempt to define or categorize compensable takings under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or, two, interfere with the State's ability to define and categorize regulatory taking requirements requiring State compensation. Let us look at the League of Cities, all the cities in the United States; these are the people that do this land-use regulation at the local level. They oppose this. Let us look at the State attorneys general, who have to go to court and defend what State and local governments have done. The attorneys general oppose this legislation. Virtually everybody who knows anything about land-use planning at the local level opposes this legislation. It is a bad bill, and I urge Members to defeat it.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to honor Mr. Joseph A. Cavanaugh today, an outstanding public servant and citizen from Monterey, CA, on the occasion of his retirement as project coordinator for the Fort Ord Reuse Authority [FORA]. From his service in the Peace Corps, helping Tanzanians learn English and develop their communities, to his work as project coordinator for the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Joe has helped people develop their communities and gain the skills they need to help themselves. His career in public service spans 30 years of work as a teacher, planner, researcher, and community organizer in California and throughout the United States. In the community assistance arena, Joe has had a long and successful career. In 1964 he worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in east Africa where he helped local residents develop their community, including constructing a bridge and developing a local water system. He then went on to help plan and direct several Vista programs, on both a regional and national level. Joe continued his work in community planning and development as community development director for the cities of Boulder, CO and Lawndale, CA. In my central coast California district, Joe served for 8 years as a community redevelopment and economic development coordinator for Monterey County. Most recently, Joe served as the executive staffmember of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority [FORA]. When the closure of Fort Ord was announced in 1991, the local community faced the loss of one of the largest employers in the region. Rather than simply accept this plight, however, the community organized itself to find uses for the closing base which would benefit everyone. With Joe's skillful leadership and direction, the Fort Ord Reuse Group, the predecessor to the newly created Fort Ord Reuse Authority, successfully worked with Monterey County and surrounding impacted communities to develop a reuse plan that has turned a potential catastrophe into an economic and educational center which serves as a national model for the reuse of closed military installations. I commend Joe for his commitment to public service, and for helping thousands of people develop and strengthen themselves and their communities. I thank him for his contribution to the economic development in my district, which has ensured healthy, enriched local communities for years to come, and I call upon my colleagues in the House to salute Joe Cavanaugh with me on his outstanding career and for a job well done.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus for the last hour colloquy on the issue of affirmative action. I want for a few minutes to recognize someone who brought to light the plight of the conditions of many of the people who represent and live in the district that I represent in the central coast of California. For today is a very special day in my central coast of California district. Today would have been the 93d birthday of one of our Nation's greatest authors, John Steinbeck, John Steinbeck Nobel Laureate and native son of California, led a life as rich and provocative as the Salinas Valley he immortalized in his writings. His obsession with his hometown would develop into a lifelong theme, unfolding through the course of time like a Steinbeck novel. The year 1995 is also being celebrated as the 50th anniversary of the publication of ``Cannery Row,'' his novel about the thirties in Monterey, CA. Fifty years ago John Steinbeck shook off the anguish and horrors of World War II which he had experienced as a war correspondent. He wrote ``Cannery Row,'' a lively story about the thirties, when life seemed to him to have more meaning. His novel about Doc, Mack, and the boys, Flora and her girls, and Lee Chong became an instant success with the war-weary American public. Today, schoolchildren throughout our Nation read Steinbeck's ``Cannery Row'' as part of their curriculum. Steinbeck won the Pulitzer Prize fiction award for the ``Grapes of Wrath'' in 1940, which has now become an American classic. In 1962 he received the greatest honor of his distinguished writing career--the Nobel Prize for Literature ``for his realistic as well as imaginative writings, distinguished by a sympathetic humor and keen social perception.'' John Steinbeck's fiction has been recognized as being representative of the character of our people, especially their vitality and uniquely American qualities. People from around the world are attracted to our Monterey Bay shores because of his writing and come to the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas Valley to renew memories of his novels. Especially to visit the localities of his stories which are so vividly portrayed in ``Cannery Row,'' ``The Pastures of Heaven,'' ``Of Mice and Men,'' ``East of Eden,'' ``The Red Pony,'' and ``Travels with Charley.'' Steinbeck achieved worldwide recognition for his keen observations and powerful writings of the human condition, bringing the plight of the disadvantaged and outcast to the forefront of social consciousness. Our Nation has bestowed high honors on him, including the Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson and the American Gold Medallion issued by the U.S. Mint. I invite you to join me in honoring John Steinbeck, on the 50th anniversary of the publishing of ``Cannery Row'' and in memory of his 93d birthday. His is truly a national treasure.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party would like to have the American public believe that all government regulation is evil and burdensome. The proposal before us today will stop all government regulations issued since November 20, 1994. I believe this is another master gimmick being promoted by the headline hungry Republican Party that is willing to pursue destructive policy in order to gain favor with a disenchanted public. This is one more initiative by the Republican Party to close debate and rule by decree. This proposal paralyzes Government in order to fix it. This is not the way to do things around here. We do not need to hurt our fellow American citizens in order to help them. Let me give my colleagues two examples in agriculture alone. The first relates to the fresh cut flower and fresh cut greens promotion information program which was implemented when the rule passed in December 1994. If House Report 450 is passed today, the program cannot be implemented and will result in widespread losses to producers and to shippers. We are talking here about jobs. A second example is rules establishing comprehensive regulations governing the introduction of nonindigenous organisms that may be plant pests. It is estimated that harmful introductions have cost the American taxpayer $97 billion. We need these regulations to protect the American public. Mr. Chairman, my own district, where we have a base closure example, we required local hiring preferences. Those regulations were put into law just recently, the Federal Register, so that one could hire local businesses affected most by the base closure. Those base closures would be thrown out. says the enactment of new law or laws require that the Federal rule- making process include cost-benefit analysis. I say to my colleagues, ``You cannot, you cannot, do cost-benefit analysis. You can't do it for military music, the salute to the flag or to the kinds of provisions that are included in this bill.'' I urge a rejection of House Report 450.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, rather than voting for a measure that would seriously increase the deficit by nearly $645 million over 5 years while making fatal cuts to domestic programs such as the school improvement fund, youth job training programs, the INS emergency fund, and environmental cleanup and restoration efforts, I support the Obey substitute. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible alternative to the Republican emergency supplemental. It adds an additional $670 million in unrequested defense spending without identifying offsets for this spending. This plus-up of the emergency supplemental is not for emergency funding. The Republicans are trying to tell the American people they are in favor of balancing the budget. The Obey substitute would allow the Department of Defense to guide the rescissions from lower-priority defense programs to offset this supplemental appropriations bill. It does not affect domestic cuts. In my central California district, the cuts to the youth job training programs would impact many disadvantaged youth. I ask my colleagues to support the Obey substitute.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, before we end this road race to the finish line of H.R. 7, let us stop, look, and listen. This bill takes something that is not broken and breaks it. This bill moves from peacekeeping to war making. Where peace exists, this bill creates conflict. Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos. This bill makes false assumptions. It says where we have troops under foreign command, and we all know that the President never relinquishes his command. Where Congress has eliminated spending for star wars, billions of dollars, this bill reinstates it. The Republicans say, ``Spend it.'' The worst part of this bill is to undermine the constitutional role of the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy. It says, ``If you don't like the President, cripple his powers.'' I say to my colleagues, Don't cripple our country. Don't retreat from leadership. Reject this isolationist bill. Mr. Chairman, the bill the Republicans bring before the House today destroys the underpinnings of our country's dedication to peace around the world. By slashing the U.S. commitment to the United Nations, this bill says to the world community: we don't care about maintaining peace. Got a war? That's your problem. The role of the United States in peacekeeping around the globe, unilaterally and in concert with the United Nations, is far from an exact science, but it is a system that works well and has worked well within the construct resolution. But in a perverse twist on an old cliche, the Republicans today ask us in H.R. 7 to take something that ain't broken, and break it. Where peace exists, this bill creates conflict. Where order reigns, this bill creates chaos. This bill begins with a premise that is wholly false, then creates solutions to problems that do not exist. For example: Though we don't have troops under foreign command, this Republican bill says: stop putting our troops under foreign command. Though we don't have problems sharing in peacekeeping responsibilities, this Republican bill says: no more peacekeeping--it causes too many problems. H.R. 7 ignores the Republicans' own plea to reduce the deficit by calling for unnecessary and wasteful spending. For example: Now that we have eliminated spending billions and billions on star wars weapons system, this Republican bill says: spend it. The gist of this bill is supposed to be to restore America's leadership role in the world. But it does just the opposite. For example: Where we have played a leadership role in the United Nations--as we should, given our status as the remaining global power--this Republican bill says: no more United Nations involvement. The worst part of this bill is that its real purpose is to undermine the constitutional role of the President to conduct foreign policy. In essence, if you don't like the person who is the Command in Chief, this Republican bill says: cripple his powers. Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? What in the world is going on? Has this body stooped so low that in order to flex its partisan political muscle it will destroy the framework of peace that this Nation has dedicated itself to for years and years? This bill makes a mockery of the tenets of peace and accommodation that men and women have died to enforce. Mr. Chairman, to pass this bill is to bring shame on this House. To pass this bill is to move from disarmament and peace and return to cold war hostilities. To pass this bill is to leave the global community without the benefit of American input to resolving international conflict. To pass this bill is to snub the world community and retreat into our own isolationist shell. Mr. Chairman, this world has grown too small to ignore our neighbor's problems, for surely if we do, they will spill over into our backyard. America deserves better than what H.R. 7 offers. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I think at a time when we are putting emphasis on cost-benefits it is ironic that this bill puts all the emphasis on cost and none on the benefits.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as coauthor. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], on their efforts toward bringing some balance to this bill. I think that the authors of the bill ought to consider very carefully that this bill needs to be balanced out. Mr. Chairman, in recent days this body has dealt with such heady issues as amendments to our U.S. Constitution. Many of our colleagues lately have taken to reading the Federalist Papers. In that vein, I would like to remind everyone of something the Preamble to the Constitution says, which is to ``promote the general Welfare'' of the United States. This bill does not promote the general welfare of the United States because it creates a system under which laws, designed to promote the general welfare, can be circumvented. Mr. Chairman, every equation has two parts. The part before the equal sign and the part after it. If the purpose of this bill is to agree that we must measure the cost of legislation to the State and local governments--the part before the equal sign, then should we not also agree that we must measure the benefits of legislation to the people as well--the part after the equal sign? This bill is weighted only on one side; the cost side. But in many cases, the benefits outweigh the costs. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide for that estimate to be made a part of the equation. Under H.R. 5, city and State governments would be exempt from basic rules that now protect the health and well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans. For example: City and county water utilities would be exempt from rules to disinfect their water. When workers remove lead or asbestos from government buildings, they would be exempt from rules that they must follow careful procedures to limit toxic dust. City-run garbage dumps would be exempt from requirements to use liners as necessary to limit water contamination and city garbage incinerators would be exempt from requirements to install equipment to limit toxic air pollution. Unless we insist on measuring the benefits of a policy and not just the cost, many health, safety, and environmental protections will be lost to us. Let me make the argument another way. This bill could mean the unraveling of the Clean Water Act. Despite the progress we have made since passage of the Clean Water Act, there were still over 2,600 beach closings in 1992 due to pollution and over 4,000 fish advisories or bans are in place around the country today. Under H.R. 5, instead of reducing beach closings or fish advisories, we will see more closed beaches and more fish advisories. We will be moving backward. Is that what we want? Despite the progress we have made since passage of the Clean Air Act, over 70 million Americans still live in cities that violate air quality standards designed to protect human health. Under H.R. 5 those 70 million Americans may never get a breath of fresh air, ever. Is that what we want? Despite the progress we have made since passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, over 28 million Americans drank tapwater that violated health-based standards in 1991-92. Do you want to risk your family's or your neighbor's health because of this bill? The benefit of policies enacted by this Congress must be weighed against the cost. It is only fair. It is part of the equation. I ask everyone to support this amendment. Let us not leave here just knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hall amendment. There isn't a more vulnerable population out there than children, especially poor children. The food programs the country has instituted over the years have been put in place to protect this most at-risk group. It is unconscionable for this body to consider legislation that would deny food to the very mouths of babes. Upward of 2.2 million children could be affected in the Food Stamp Program alone by this bill. Another 1 million children could be affected by cuts to the WIC Program. Even more would feel the impact of cuts to child nutrition, school lunch and breakfast and other hot meal programs that provide essential services to our youngest and most tenuous of constituents. I urge my colleagues to support the Hall amendment and give American kids a fighting chance.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing important legislation to convey surplus real property at the former Fort Ord Army reservation, by sale to the city of Seaside, CA. This legislation would, among other things, help implement the 1993 recommendation of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In the Commission's 1993 report to the President, the Commission made specific recommendations for parcels of property to be disposed of by the Department of the Army, while recognizing the unique needs for supporting the military personnel remaining on the Monterey Peninsula. Specifically, the Commission directed the Department to dispose of all property, including the golf courses, not required to support the Presidio of Monterey and the Naval Postgraduate School. Accordingly, in 1993, the Acting Secretary of the Army decided to sell the two Fort Ord golf courses to the city of Seaside, CA. Unfortunately, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act does not permit the Commission to take into account the nonappropriated fund revenue needs which are supported by the golf course revenues. Accordingly, this legislation would address that need by allowing funds received by the Army for the sale of the golf courses to be deposited into the Army morale, welfare, and recreation account. The sale of the two Fort Ord golf courses to the city of Seaside is in accord with the Fort Ord preferred reuse alternative prepared by the federally recognized local redevelopment authority, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority [FORA]. As such, the Seaside purchase of the two Fort Ord golf courses will implement the community redevelopment plan as endorsed by S.B. 899, the State of California legislation creating the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. The legislation conveys approximately 477 acres, which consists of the two Fort Ord golf courses, Black Horse and Bayonet, and the surplus Hayes housing facilities which have been excessed and appropriately screened according to the Pryor process. The city of Seaside will be required to pay fair market value for the property. The legislation directs the proceeds from the sale of the golf courses to be deposited in the Department of the Army morale, welfare and recreation fund, and the proceeds from the sale of the housing into the DOD BRAC account. In the 103d Congress I authored legislation to convey certain surplus real property at Fort Ord to the California State University, and the University of California, the centerpieces of the community revitalization strategy. The legislation I am introducing today is another step in the community development reuse plan which is now falling into place. A single local governing entity has been formed, the 21st campus of the California State University is about to open, the BLM land at Fort Ord is being cleaned up by AmeriCorps participants, and the University of California's Science, Technology, Education, Policy Center is attracting investors. My legislation will move the process forward again by assisting the Army in divesting itself of the golf courses vis-a-vis the 1993 BRAC recommendation, at the same time it helps foster economic development in the city of Seaside, which has been adversely impacted by the closure of Fort Ord.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. However, I am advised that we should never amend a bad bill, and tonight I feel like a legislative cop on the highway of unfunded mandates. And I am asking my colleagues to slow down, stop, look, analyze even before they vote on this important bill. The bill before Members is not, is not an unfunded mandates bill. It is a gridlock bill. It designs gridlock. States that if they had this bill before them would sign it. Yes, there States and local governments want unfunded mandates legislation. But they do not want H.R. 5. California, the State I represent, has a constitutional requirement to fund unfunded mandates. The State has over 6,000 subunits of local government. Each keeps track of unfunded consequences of State action, and if it costs them money then the local government may make a claim for reimbursement. Unlike H.R. 5, the burden is not on the State legislatures to prove before they enact legislation that it will cost local governments money. The legislature's job is to make good law and to pay for its consequences. This bill puts all of the burden on Federal agencies and on partisan congressional staff to determine the costs before they are incurred. I would rather have cops on the beat, teachers in the classroom, nurses in the hospital determine the costs than people here in a partisan political arena. The intent of this bill is to stop Federal legislation, to prevent having an equal playing field, to allow each State to go in their own direction on the environment, on job safety, and on many other social issues. I ask the Governors of the States supporting this bill if they would sign such legislation in their own States. Look for example on page 18, line 9 which reads and I quote, Effects on the Private Sector.--Before establishing any regulatory requirements, agencies shall prepare estimates, based on available data, of the effect of Federal private sector mandates on the national economy, including the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and services. If that does not swell the size of the Federal bureaucracy, what will? Next time your Governors wonder why legislation enacted to help your State has not been implemented, it is because the studies of the regulations necessary to implement your legislation are tied up in trying to determine the effect of mandates on the national economy, on productivity, on economic growth, on full employment, on creation of productive jobs, and on international competitiveness of U.S. goods and services. Do not hold your breath while hired lawyers and economists dispute these issues over the draft of a simple regulation. Yes, my colleagues, we need unfunded mandates legislation, the same legislation that California and other States have adopted. But not H.R. 5 as it is on the floor today. How do we put a price tag on saluting the flag, on the value of military music, on the cost of leaving a stream unpolluted? Our role in Congress is not only understanding the cost, but also explaining the benefits. Please, Mr. Chairman, do not turn this place into a Congress that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with concern on the much- needed debate on unfunded mandates that is being conducted by the Republican leadership. Everyone agrees in principle that mandates should be paid for. But before we leap, let us look. I just returned from the California floods. All the talk was about help to bail out the families affected by those floods. When the water recedes, that talk will shift to responsibility. Flood prevention is dependent upon mandates. Think about it, flood plain zoning, flood plain mapping, flood plain building standards. The Republicans are more interested in having a political victory in the shortest time possible than in good law. We should take time in this session, not the first 8 days, to talk about how the unfunded mandates are going to be carried out. Let us not go too fast, too far, too soon. Allow the public, not just the politicians, to be involved in the debate.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in California because of the floods, just arrived here on the airplane, and inadvertently missed the last vote on rollcall No. 16.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget. I support deficit reduction. I support bringing entitlements under control and eliminating every bit of fat there is in the budget. What I do not support is gimmickry to do it, stealth budgets to get there, or slash and burn tactics to achieve it. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution has been sold as the panacea to all our fiscal woes. Most of us know that it doesn't work that way. There is no balance in a balanced budget amendment. An amendment doesn't automatically balance the budget. Spending cuts and tax revenues do. Congress has been working to balance the budget for the past 2 years without an amendment. The new dialog supporting a balanced budget amendment is a way for legislators to avoid the responsibility of making the tough decisions. I don't believe in trying to escape my duties through a legislative ``escape clause'' and urge my colleagues to reject the balanced budget amendment until it can be shown how to get there.