Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up, Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function.

Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we might make some of these programs work better. The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation, not unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in Washington without communicating to States and localities. If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of federalism.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made from the gentleman from Virginia. I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do have constant communication with States and localities. There will be an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as consistent with the points that he was just making.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, to give a specific example, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] is the last to raise the point, so let me direct it at him, and he is particularly familiar with the situation that affects all of us in this body because he represented a lot of constituents last year when we had a boiled-water alert. We could not use the drinking water in this area. The Members of Congress that were here last year remember we had to get bottled water. Well, that is because we had excess turbidity in the water. That problem was not adequately covered by the existing Clean Water Act. It has to be covered by the new authorization. It was due to a runoff upstream, not in the District of Columbia that was affected, not in Fairfax County, who had to drink the water, and it was the District of Columbia and Fairfax and Arlington who had to drink the water, but the problem was in another jurisdiction that really has no particular vested interest in spending the money to prevent that runoff. But that runoff meant that we could not use drinking water in this jurisdiction. That is the problem, and it was not adequately addressed by the Clean Water Act. It has to fall under the new unfunded-mandates legislation because it is new activity, and we do not have the money to fully fund it. That is what we are trying to get at. I do not argue with the need for unfunded mandates, and the one argument that we keep hearing is, ``Don't worry. When you have a situation like this, the Congress is going to do the responsible thing. We're going to ignore this legislation. There will be a point of order, but don't worry. We'll all vote against the point of order because you can trust us.'' We do not want to set up a situation where the American people have to accept that. Trust us. Let us pass this legislation, and then we will ignore it when it is important, when the legislation applies to important things that are in our best interests. We are trying to avoid that situation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, we just heard from our good friend from Fairfax County, Tom Davis, who was my neighbor. He chaired the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as I was mayor of Alexandria. Like Tom, when I came to this Congress 4 years ago, my highest priority was to do something about unfunded mandates because they were unfair. The worst part about it was that the executive branch took a cookie cutter approach, one size fits all, regardless of the geography, demography, or cost. They also did not seem to be willing to talk with us, to work things out, to exercise judgment. So I authored what we call the FAIR Act, the Fiscal Accountability and Intergovernmental Reform. We worked on it for 4 years. Virtually everyone on this bill was a cosponsor because in the last term we had 250 cosponsors. That bill had the support of every one of these local organizations that we have mentioned today, National League of Cities, Conference of State Legislatures, several of the larger ones, even the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and virtually every business group. It should have been passed last year. It is a source of great frustration that it was not. The principal reason that it was not is that we in the Democratic Party are responsible for most of the Federal legislation that has been passed over the last 40 years. Of course each one of those pieces of legislation created their own interest group who want to protect their own turf, and so it was impossible to get through their special-interest lobbying efforts to get a reasonable bill. Eighty percent of that bill that had such overwhelming support is in this bill. But it is the 20 percent that causes the problem, and the biggest problem is one of unintended consequences, so that is why I do not speak in an accusatory way of people that are supporting and sponsoring this bill. But I have to share my concerns. The first concern is that it will completely limit the Committee on Appropriations from being able to exercise judgment. In fact, in the explanation for this bill in the National League of Cities' publication, which was just published, it says for any program over $50 million it creates an entitlement to [[Page H351]] fully pay for the mandate. Now 75 percent of the Federal budget goes for existing traditional entitlements, Social Security, Medicare and the like, interest on the Federal debt, and Defense budgets, so we are only talking about 25 percent of the budget. For any new Federal program to get passed, it has to be fully funded by the Committee on Appropriations. We now have to deal with a pay-as-you-go requirement that there be new revenue raised to pay for any new initiative or other programs cut. It is exacerbated by a balanced-budget amendment that may very well pass within a week, and it is further exacerbated by the intended cuts of almost a trillion dollars over the next 7 years. So, we do not have the prerogatives to exercise judgment. The second problem is that it treats the private sector different than the public sector. The unintended consequences: there will be no more competition between the private sector and the public sector, and in fact all of our privatization efforts where we contract out to the private sector will no longer be available because the private sector will have to comply with laws and regulations, whereas the public sector will exercise the option of not complying because the reality is that there is no money to pay for any new initiative. Now we are told that no program that currently exists when it is reauthorized applies to this. There has never been reauthorization that was identical to the existing authorization. We always expanded upon it. Every committee puts its mark upon it. We expand its scope, and we expand its costs, so it means every Federal program ultimately will fall under this unfunded-mandate legislation. Virtually everything will become optional to States and localities, and the unintended consequence is that unfunded mandates will be eliminated. But the biggest problem on States and localities is going to be unfunded burdens, and within 5 years I guarantee my colleagues those States and localities will be coming back to us to relieve the burdens that ultimately were created by this legislation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this year, we have a real opportunity to resolve the issue of the Lorton prison. When Lorton was first constructed, it was intended to house 60 inmates in rural Fairfax County. Today, the Lorton correctional complex is a 3,000 acre site in suburban Fairfax [[Page E61]] County housing more than 7,000 prisoners. Fairfax County can no longer safely house a prison. The communities surrounding the prison have grown too large and as they continue to press on the boundaries of the prison, the safety of the residents is being compromised. Another important issue driving this legislation is the question of whether resources are available within the District of Columbia to operate a large prison. The District is not a State. It does not have the resources or the tax base to manage State functions such as operating prisons. In the past 10 years, the population of the prison has more than doubled while the budget has remained constant. The D.C. Department of Corrections is jamming prisoners into cells and dormitories that cannot correctly house them. We have heard reports of unsafe housing practices at the Lorton facility, where high security prisoners are being kept in dormitory style facilities. We have also heard reports of improper safety procedures, where there are not enough guards to correctly and safely monitor the prison. The Lorton prison has literally become a power keg with too many prisoners in too little room with too little supervision. We should not and cannot wait for an incident to occur before we act. We should not put our constituents who live near the prison or who work at the prison at such risk. In the mid-1980's, Jack Anderson wrote a column calling the Lorton prison a ``finishing school'' for criminals. Since that time, the problem has become worse. The D.C. Department of Corrections cannot afford to offer even the most basic rehabilitation services. Inmates who leave the system are no better than when they entered. In many cases, they are worse off. It is no coincidence that on the same day last month, articles ran in the newspapers reporting the cancellation of the drug treatment program in Lorton and the arrest of a guard trying to bring crack cocaine into the complex. It is simply unacceptable for us to allow this situation to continue. Our communities deserve to be free of crime, not subject to criminals who continue to move in and out of the system. The inmates themselves should be given the tools to cure their addictions and begin their lives anew, free of crime. The current situation does little to deter or prevent crime or recidivism. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to move the District's prisoners into a prison system which rehabilitates inmates, treats drug abuse, and breaks the cycle of crime and recidivism. We must seize that opportunity. This has been and will continue to be a true bipartisan effort. The legislation we are introducing combines the best pieces of previous efforts and improves upon them. It offers a rational and realistic method for closing the facility that does not penalize the District of Columbia. It establishes the mechanism for the local community to determine the future of the property. Through the Commission that this legislation establishes, the local community can ensure that the area's open spaces are kept and the impact on local traffic is minimized. We have an historic opportunity to work together and close the Lorton facility. We must take advantage of this opportunity. [Press Release, Jan. 9, 1995] Moran, Wolf, Davis Introduce Legislation To Close Lorton Prison Washington, DC.--Today, U.S. Representatives Jim Moran, Frank Wolf and Tom Davis introduced legislation to close the Lorton Correctional Complex and relocate the current inmates to existing federal prisons. ``This year, we have a real opportunity to resolve the issue of the prison at Lorton,'' Moran said. ``Today, the Lorton Correctional Complex is a 3,000 acre site in suburban Fairfax County housing more than 7,000 prisoners. In the last decade, the communities surrounding the prison have grown larger. The safety of the residents is being compromised--the prison must be closed.'' The legislation calls for an eleven member commission that would oversee the closing of Lorton and allow those concerned about development of the property to have a voice in the process. Many Lorton residents fear that if the facility is closed, it will be replaced with 3,000 acres of houses, roads and traffic that will choke the area with congestion. Moran explained, ``I understand their concerns, but I do not think that we should continue an intolerable situation because we fear the alternative.'' Rep. Moran had introduced legislation during the 103rd Congress that would turn control of Lorton over to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He feels that this legislation, introduced by all three Northern Virginia legislators, combines the best pieces of previous efforts and improves upon them. ``This legislation offers a rational and realistic method for closing the facility that does not penalize the District of Columbia and establishes a mechanism for the local community to determine the future of the property,'' Moran said. ``This is an historic opportunity to work together to close this facility. We must take advantage of it.''

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this proposal as well to conduct an audit of the financial and administrative operations of the House. But it really does not go far enough. I suspect that the audit itself is likely to show that we have been conducting our business in a responsible, professional manner. One of the reasons that has been the case is that we have had professional, nonpartisan, individuals conducting these affairs, and we reached that agreement in a nonpartisan way, as Members will recall. But, we have two problems with this. I am going to vote for it, as is the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and probably the other speakers, but the two deficiencies are one because it is a closed rule and we cannot insist that we continue to conduct the administrative and financial nonlegislative operations of this House in a nonpartisan professional manner which we could if we had an open rule, and secondly, the person who has been put in this position is not nonpartisan. I will not repeat the arguments for why there ought to be an open rule because my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], knows them by heart. He is certainly the most persuasive, articulate proponent of an open rule. But I guess where you sit is where you stand now. We are faced with a closed rule where we cannot improve this amendment. I do think we ought to raise that issue, though, because I am sure other Members of the House have read the articles about the individual that has been appointed to this position as I have. It raises very serious concern. I do not know Mr. Faulkner. I do know he was head of the Young Republicans, that he has been investigated and interviewed on any number of partisan political issues. At one point he was asked by investigators about leaking documents to the Reagan campaign and he said, yes, we have been obtaining leaked material from whistle blowers and passing them on. This is not the nonpartisan professional individual we are looking for.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, our forefathers had such a deep respect for major rule that they determined that majority rule was insufficient to send our troops to war. They knew how difficult it would be to resist politically popular pressures, but they were insistent that there not be minority rule determining those issues that took the most political courage. Mr. Speaker, this pressure does not belong among these internal rules changes. It is constitutionally illegal, and it is fiscally irresponsible, and, if we are ever going to address a $4 trillion debt, we have to make it within the reach of this body and the American people to do so.