Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I know that our fruit industry producers in central Washington will be very relieved to know that they will not be the target of inappropriate retaliation by the Mexican Government due to the overly stringent United States restrictions on avocados. amendment offered by mrs. clayton

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, a number of fruit producers in my central Washington district have expressed concern about the report language pertaining to the United States importation of Mexican avocados. They fear that it could continue current restrictions on United States imports of Mexican avocados, and we will have the unintended consequences of diminished access to Mexico for our products. In Washington State the apple industry expects to suffer a 50-percent reduction in exports to Mexico this year due to a costly onsite inspection program mandated by Mexico. Washington cherry exports to Mexico were also halted 4 years ago in response to alleged pest concerns. Representatives of the tree fruit industry have told me that these actions were in response to United States restrictions on Mexican avocados. The language in the report states that in order to modify the current restrictions on Mexican avocados this product must be scientifically viewed, adequately safeguarded with enough time provided for public comment. Mr. Chairman, does this mean that, if adequate pest risk assessment is concluded, if APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has certified that adequate safeguards have been taken and that industry has been afforded adequate comment period as spelled out in the proposed APHIS rule announced earlier this month, that the United States importation of fresh avocado fruit grown in Mexico will go forward?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates amendment which attempts to remove the Taylor-Dicks emergency salvage language from this bill. Throughout the West, the condition of our forests could not be worse. Years of drought and lack of any management activity on these lands led last summer to some of the most devastating wildfires on record. Millions of acres of pristine national forest land were destroyed and 34 lives were lost. If we don't take emergency action, millions more acres will be destroyed and even more lives could be lost during the upcoming fire season. The Taylor-Dicks language in the bill allows for the immediate harvest of 6.2 billion board feet of dead and dying timber. In addition to providing for healthier forests and more wood for our struggling timber dependent communities, this provision will bring in an estimated $1.5 billion of revenue into the Federal treasury. Mr. Chairman, the Taylor-Dicks amendment is good for the economy. It is good for the environment. And on top of all that, it is good for deficit reduction. Rarely in this body do we come across a ``win-win- win'' situation. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity by voting no on the Yates amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at reforming our failed Federal welfare system. Reforming welfare is among my top priorities and is supported by a majority of the American people. The time for reform has come. Since 1965 we have spent $5 trillion on the War on Poverty--yet the poverty rate is higher today than it was then. The current welfare system has failed both the people it was created to help and those whose tax dollars support it. It is a bureaucratic nightmare and it offers the wrong incentives for recipients. It fosters illegitimacy and dependency, rather than strong families and economic independence. We must act now to enact fundamental and far reaching change. I believe the most important change Congress can make would be to allow States and local communities the flexibility to find creative solutions and determine who should be eligible to receive benefits. The legislation I am introducing empowers States and local communities by shifting the responsibility for welfare to the States in a single block grant--with no strings attached. I repeat: no strings attached. This isn't just a swap for government control of Medicaid or other assistance programs--it strictly empowers the States and local communities to address the problem in the most effective manner possible. No additional mandates would be imposed on the States. Finally, Federal funding will be reduced by 5 percent per year and will be phased out completely in 20 years. The States have proven themselves to be more successful than the Federal Government in dealing with welfare and developing innovative and effective solutions. States better understand the problems within their own communities and can more efficiently determine who should be eligible to receive benefits. Consider, for example, Wisconsin. Governor Tommy Thompson's welfare reform proposal has reduced State welfare rolls by 25 percent and saved the taxpayers $16 million per month. In Michigan, Governor John Engler requires that welfare recipients sign a social contract agreeing to work, receive job training, or volunteer at least 20 hours a week. In just 2 years, the plan has helped almost 50,000 welfare recipients gain independence, and welfare caseloads have fallen to their lowest level in 7 years, saving the taxpayers $100 million. The urgent need for reform--particularly welfare reform--was exemplified during the November elections. It is time for the Government to return control to the States. My proposal to shift the power to the local level is ambitious--yet it is only at the local level that the most effective solutions and most efficient answers will be found.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, former Senator John Sharp Williams, an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, once noted that: ``My reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government.'' This is exactly the problem that we are attempting to address in today's debate. When I first began working for my father's small business many years ago, the onslaught of Federal mandates on our local communities had only just begun. Later, as a Washington State legislator, I saw first hand how destructive Federal mandates could be. Today, the Federal Government has used the mandate loophole to radically expand the scope of Federal intrusion into the lives of all Americans. Our constituents have paid the price in an ever-increasing State and local tax burden, and in unnecessary restrictions on our struggling regional economies. The U.S. Constitution set up a clear delineation in powers between the State and Federal governments. The Founding Fathers wanted to make certain that the Federal Government would have limited power to infringe upon States rights, or to raid State coffers. But like an octopus, the Nation's bureaucracy has slowly but surely extended its power and influence, and in so doing has eroded many of the Constitution's fundamental provisions. [[Page H368]] Let me give you a few examples. Federal regulations are forcing one country in my home State of Washington to spend $142,000 to convert their traffic signs to the metric system. Never mind that almost none of my constituents have any interest in making the conversion. Never mind that the money might be better used to improve our schools, refurbish our infrastructure, or reduce our constituents' taxes. Never mind that the regulation defies common sense. My constituents are forced by the bureaucrats to comply with this unfunded mandate. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--passed by Congress in 1991--has forced my State to include recycled rubber in asphalt laid by federally funded highway construction projects. Never mind that engineers are divided on the wisdom of this program. And never mind that this Federal provision may well cost Washington State tens of millions of dollars. My constituents are forced to comply with this unfunded Federal mandate. Unfunded mandates impose enormous costs on cities in my district as well. One, Kennewick--a city of approximately 40,000 residents-- estimates that Federal mandates cost it more than $4 million a year. And nationwide, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the cost of complying with Federal mandates has gown to almost $600 billion. Mr. Chairman, the people of this Nation spoke with one voice this past November. They want less Government, less regulation, and lower taxes. They also want a Government that is more responsive to local concerns. They're exactly right. And the best way for us to combat the mandate plague is to make it more difficult for Congress to usurp the constitutional prerogatives of our State and local leaders. That is what this legislation would accomplish, and as a result, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this measure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this legislation. Former Senator John Sharp Williams, an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, once noted that, quote, my reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government, end quote. That is exactly the problem that we are attempting to correct with this legislation. When I first began working in my family business years ago, the onslaught of Federal regulations on our local communities had just begun. Later, as a Washington State legislator, I saw firsthand how destructive these Federal mandates could be. Today the Federal Government has used this mandate loophole to radically expand the scope of Federal intrusion in the lives of all our Americans. Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. Federal regulations are forcing one county in my State to spend $142,000 to convert their traffic signs to the metric system. Never mind that nobody wants it. Never mind that those dollars could go to schools, or infrastructure. It is just an extra cost. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and this legislation.