John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the time is really at hand to begin the regulatory reform debate, and I cannot think of a fairer forum that has been provided than this rule. Now we had the last 2 years to bring forward all kinds of proposals on regulatory reform, and the other side denied the opportunity for this debate. This is a fair rule, this is an open rule, and it is time that we brought before the American people the true facts about regulation, how regulation is tying up this country in knots, how regulation is ruining job opportunities in this country, how regulation is ruining our opportunity to compete in a world market. This is a fair rule, it is an open rule, and I say to my colleagues, ``Don't be dissuaded by the administration, don't be dissuaded by the other side. This is the time and hour that the debate on regulatory reform has come, and the Nation will know the facts. This is Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. It is a good rule, and I ask my colleagues to vote for this rule.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman of the House, I cannot believe what the other side of the aisle is saying. Let us really get the facts straight here. They are accusing us of delaying. They are accusing us of endangering health and welfare. Well, let me say this: I served on the subcommittee that oversaw this matter, so I know in depth what tool place. The problem with E. coli bacteria is not anything new. The report goes back to May 21, 1993. The question about risk-based inspections and the need for monitoring meat and poultry are here in these reports that span the length and breadth of this administration. Come on, let us get the facts straight here. What is going on? Mike Espy said at a press conference, May 1993, he said, ``The regs are on the way. I have directed FSIS officials to publish in 90 days.'' Do not give me that. Let us see what the New York Times said about delays in this process. This is an article in the New York Times, June 9, 1994. The decision by the Agriculture Department in 1993 which spared Tyson and other poultry producers from rigorous inspections brought a chorus of complaints from the meat packers and consumer groups about enforcement of an industry with longstanding ties to the President. Come on, let us not scare the people of this country. We also know that we heard in those hearings on E. coli bacteria, people were told to cook their meat. The point brought up about Milwaukee, here is another example: There are 53 water contaminants mandated by this Congress in regulations to study and the Milwaukee contaminant was not one of them. The blame is here. We are not delaying anything. You saw the chairman of this subcommittee stand up and give an explanation of the exemptions for public health, safety, and welfare. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is not going to do anything to endanger any child or any individual. It is not going to endanger the health, safety, and welfare of one American. What we are doing is we are saying we are overegulating. We are saying--why not concentrate on real problems. not make any sense. We are tying up industry, business, and local government, and the people of this country are rebelling against that regulation. That was the message on November 8, and that is the message today. If we want to look at delay, if we want to look at reasons for endangering the health and welfare and safety of people, look at what this administration has done, look at the delays that have been caused here. The date of this rule is February 4, 1995. That is when it came out. Those are the facts.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are literally drowning in regulations. Let me say to my colleagues that something is dramatically wrong when the tooth fairy can be charged with mishandling biohazardous waste. Tens of thousands of pages of regulations have been passed, millions and millions of complex rules for average Americans to deal with. I guarantee the average American cannot get up in the morning and live 1 day without violating one of these rules. We have tied up business, we have tied up industry, we have tied up local government. This is what the November 8 election was all about. The other side just does not get it. This bill does not stop regulations. This only says, ``Stop, look and listen.'' This bill does not affect public health, safety, and welfare where there is an emergency. I say to my colleagues, ``If all else fails, read the bill.'' President Reagan's measure in 1981 did some good; I am sorry, his executive order only stopped some of the onslaught. If we do not have the leadership from this administration to do the same thing, this Congress will impose this moratorium, and this is not a permanent moratorium. If all else fails, read the bill. It is only temporary. It is only this year. I submit that we have to stop killing jobs, we have to stop killing productivity, and we have got to allow this country to compete in the international arena. If we pass this measure, we can begin to do just that.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the Waxman amendment. I would like to make several points. First of all, the new language that is being proposed here, I really do not believe that it does that much to protect public health, safety, and welfare. I know the gentleman is well-intended, I know our independent colleague is well-intended, that they are indeed concerned about public health, safety, welfare. However, I think that we have provided in this moratorium some very specific language that in fact will do the job. In fact, we are not ending regulation as we know it. This is not an end to regulation. This is, again, as I said earlier on the floor, this is a stop and let us look at what we are doing with these regulations. Let us make some sense. We have a mechanism in the bill and I believe we have a precedent for the language that we have put in this bill, to really accomplish what they would like and really, in a more effective fashion. That is why we have to defeat the Waxman amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned here. We are all human beings. I am a parent. I have children. I am concerned about the air they breathe, the water they drink. I am concerned about our environment. However, we have to start taking all this regulation in perspective. This is not an indefinite moratorium. Even the moratoriums of the Reagan administration were more long-term than this. In fact, this even says if we take time and read it, that when we have some provisions in place to look at the cost and the benefit and risk, that we can go forward. We have in here protections that reasonable people, working together, can use to go forward, and we can enact necessary restrictions and needed regulations. No, in fact, this is not an end to regulation as we know it. This bill is concerned about people; that we have limited resources; that this country and its taxpayers want the very best regulation as far as protection of the health and public welfare and safety of our children. So yes, we on this side of the aisle, are concerned. We want to work with the gentleman, and we want to pass something reasonable. We think our language is better. I urge my colleagues to come down here and to sort through all of the smoke and mirrors, to defeat this amendment, to pass a well-crafted, a well-defined piece of legislation that will put a stop sign, that will put a yield sign, and that will also put a go sign and a green light where we must protect public health, safety, and welfare. With those comments, I do appreciate the gentleman's position, and speak against his amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to a couple of the points that have been made in this debate. I am very familiar with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, having visited and examined some of their emergence from the former Soviet bloc, and I can tell you that this amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey is a grave mistake at this time. The point was made here that this is some extension of foreign aid, and that is not correct. There is foreign aid already in all of these countries, United States foreign aid. This amendment says the President shall establish a program to assist in the transition to full NATO membership. He says ``may.'' Well, the President already may. That is what we are suffering from, is a lack of leadership, a lack of direction. And what this Congress is trying to do is say that we shall assist these emerging nations to reach NATO status. And that is the clear intent. That is what has been lacking here, and that is what will be lacking if we miss this opportunity. We will make a grave mistake if we pass this amendment and put us back in the situation we are in, because these countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia want this status and want to work toward this status, and this directs from the Congress, providing leadership, to say that we will establish a program and the President will cooperate with us to bring these people into NATO. And that can only be in the long-term interests of the security and peace of not only this Nation, but the entire world. If we adopt this amendment, we are voting for the status quo, and we are voting to make a great mistake in the history of these emerging nations. I urge its defeat.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am probably one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body. I am a strong supporter of the legislation before us to provide the President with a line-item veto authority. However, quite frankly, I do not think that this particular amendment proposed by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] really deserves our support at this point. The reason is, first of all, while his intent may be good and sound good, the policy, in fact, is bad policy. We could have some serious unintended consequences by instituting this legislation. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the rescission of highway and aviation contract authority will not save any money. By law, funds that are not expended from these trust funds remain in the trust fund, and may not be used for any other purpose, so we are not saving any money with adoption of this amendment. Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also oppose it when it come before the House.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honor and privilege to speak at this juncture of the debate with the Moran substitute before us at this hour. This is really the conclusion of years and years of work for people who were in the Congress before me and people who served with me in the past 2 years, and I want to just take a moment in this historic debate and its conclusion and thank a few people. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman. He has shown incredible leadership on this issue, not just today but over the years, in working in the past 2 years in the minority. Also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] who joined us in the last Congress and he took up the mantle of unfunded mandates and carried it through, and carried it through some tough times. My compliments to them. Also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], who formerly chaired our subcommittee. I served on that subcommittee. He helped us fight the battle to get unfunded mandates and the question before the Congress and before the country. To these gentleman and colleagues, I want to say thank you so much. Also to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. He and I worked on this issue, and this has indeed been a bipartisan issue. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] offered a measure much tougher than anything we see before us today. It was no-money-/no-mandate proposal. And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren. We were called the unholy trinity, because we believed in moving forward with some action on unfunded mandates and property rights and risk assessment, issues that have long been swept under the rug and left behind the carpet. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], myself, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], we all participated in hearings. This is not a new issue. It is an issue that people were not listening to or paying attention to the debate. We conducted field hearings. I will never forget the field hearings in the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] where local officials came and said, ``We can't take it anymore. It is cheaper for us to deliver bottled water than to comply with the regulations and mandates coming out of Washington. We have to make some common sense out of this mess.'' We held field hearings in my district and we heard of local tax caps and State requirements for balanced budgets. Unfortunately here we passed on these matters to local governments. They said they could take it anymore, but no one was listening. Last year, ladies and gentleman, we pleaded and we begged and we asked for the opportunity to bring this legislation forward, and our words were not heard. We did not have the opportunity to bring this issue forward, and here we are today at the last hour and the last minute. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the final answer to unfunded mandates. It does not cure the problem, but it does set a standard. It does set some sense of responsibility and accountability for the process. At this particular historic juncture, I wish to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I cannot support his substitute. Mr. Moran has made some great contributions to this effort, not just today but over the history of this particular legislation. I want to also thank our staff who have worked hard on both sides of the aisle and contributed to this effort and also this historic occasion. With that, ladies and gentleman, again at this historic juncture, I oppose the Moran substitute. I have the biggest smile on my face of anyone in this Congress to see this long neglected legislation move forward in the next hour, and I compliment everyone who has been involved in its success.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during my first 2 years in Congress as a freshman, I had the opportunity to serve as the coordinator for the balanced budget amendment effort. During the last Congress, unfortunately, our efforts to pass any balanced budget amendment were defeated. On this historic day, however, the question before us is not whether or not we will pass a balanced budget amendment. The question is which of two balanced budget amendments will be adopted. I personally favor a balanced budget amendment that places some limit on Congress' ability to raise taxes. However, quite frankly, I can and will and intend to support any reasonable measure that finally brings fiscal order to this body. On the first day of this session of Congress, Republicans kept their promise. We required Congress to live under the same laws we impose for everyone else. We cut committee staffs. We opened meetings to the public. We banned proxy voting. We required an audit of this Congress. We eliminated some of the wrongs of former Congresses. And we also required by rule of the House of Representatives a three-fifths vote to increase taxes. Now, as we move to the most important item in the Contract With America, I urge my colleagues to first adopt a balanced budget amendment, and, second, to adopt it with a three-fifths limit on raising taxes. Now, as we amend this great charter, let us hope that in the year 2002, people look back and they say on this day we did the right thing.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during the 103d Congress I had the opportunity to serve on the House subcommittee that considered unfunded mandate legislation. Our subcommittee held hearings both in Washington and field hearings throughout the country. We heard local officials testify in Pennsylvania, for example, that it would be cheaper to deliver bottled water to local residents rather than comply with proposed new Federal mandates. We heard that most local governments operate under restrictive mileage or tax caps, and are also required, unlike Congress, to balance their budgets. We clearly heard that Congress, through unfunded mandates, has pushed them to their financial limits. In my congressional district, our subcommittee heard our Orlando mayor explain how Federal mandates required needlessly taking naturally occurring substances out of our drinking water at one point in the treatment process and then replacing them at another point, at a very high cost. Unfunded Federal mandates have now become the greatest single source of increases in local taxes. The problem today, Mr. Chairman, is little different from the problem in 1776: taxation without the consent of local representation. Think about it. Today Congress has replaced the distant parliament passing edicts from afar. Today King William has replaced King George, signing off on more laws and rules and edicts. Today our State and local governments have replaced the former colonies. Today they are now mere puppets, with Washington pulling the strings and choreographing a costly dance. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, some people in Washington like it that way. They would like to keep it that way. They still believe that Washington knows best. They want to keep central control, and they cannot believe that people beyond the beltway can actually think and act responsibly on their own. For those and other reasons I urge the passage of this historic legislation. Mr. Chairman, although some people here just don't get it, the people have rebelled. Without firing a shot, they're thrown the old ways overboard. Why? Because Americans have been over-mandated, over-regulated, and over- taxed from Washington. They have clearly said they are ``mad-as-the- dickens'' and they're not going to take it anymore. That is clearly why we have this legislation before us. For too long our Federal elected representatives have passed good- sounding and well-intended mandates to State and local governments. Unfortunately, these ``edicts from on high'' have reached a new low. Over 170 laws have been passed in the last two decades that have imposed billions upon billions of dollars in unfunded Federal mandates. While this legislation may not stop all unfunded Federal mandates it will create speed bumps and stop signs for halting the enactment of unnecessary Washington edicts in the future. To those who say this legislation will prohibit the Federal Government from mandating protection of our environment, public health or safety, I believe the term used ``out West'' would be appropriate here: ``That's a lot of Hefferdust.'' If a mandate is important enough for Congress to pass, then it is essential for Congress to fund.