George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, even though the State of the Union speech is still to come, given the advance reports of the President's remarks, I am not hesitant to comment. Separate from any specific White House proposal, it is the general inside-the-beltway, business-as-usual approach that concerns me. That attitude doesn't just come from the White House; but it permeates both the public and private sectors of Washington. I was elected, Mr. Speaker, to reduce the role of the Federal Government, to rid us of regulation, and to put an end What I expect to hear the President say later today will not make that happen. His message will speak of a lofty reinvention of government, when what we need is restructuring of government--from the bottom up. A State of the Union Message is called for by the Constitution. So is the concept of limited powers to be exercised by the Federal Government, and a federation of States to exercise the bulk of government powers. The 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights says all those powers not allowed to Uncle Sam belong to the States or the people. Our message to the administration must be ``before you get another taxpayer penny for the programs you propose, you must first satisfy us in Congress that you have constitutional authority to conduct it in the first place.''

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this is a day for which we have long waited. Those of us who have served at the local level of government have held out hope that one day Congress would awaken to the damage done by unfunded mandates. That day is today. When I first began public service as a member of a county planning commission, I carried into office what turned out to be a naive notion. I thought that our community's elected officials were free to do what they best believed served the citizenry. In some respect, that was--and is--the case. However, what I failed to factor was Uncle Sam's ability to determine what's best and to make us pay for it--like it or not. Imposing obligations on local government from distant beltway bureaucracies, but without Federal dollars to pay for them is wrong, wrong, wrong. H.R. 5 will right it. Mr. Chairman, I have been a county supervisor. My chief of staff here on the Hill, John McCamman, has been the chief administrative officer of two California counties. My constituents and former county government colleagues urge us on every day to end the mandate madness. Here is what my friend, Garry Parker, chairman of the Board of supervisors of Mariposa County, CA, says: One of our most pressing needs in getting to the point that our government structure makes sense to the public is in the area of unfunded mandates. It is very difficult to explain and justify to our constituents that the County cannot afford a service for which there is a well established local need, because we are obliged instead to provide funding for a much lower local priority, simply because it is a federal or state unfunded mandate. We view ourselves as partners with our state and federal counterparts and we need to operate on a much more equal footing. We need to establish sufficient trust between us that some of the more egregious oversight and overkill is eliminated, so that we can move more collaboratively ahead on our common agendas. I am grateful to another friend, Mike Coffield, county administrative officer of my home and native county of Mariposa for providing my office with Chairman Parker's expression. From the California State Association of Counties, Steve Keil, its legislative representative, writes from Sacramento: It is vital that this legislation pass at once. As you know, the increasing costs of unfunded Federal mandates have imposed an enormous drain on our limited resources. If relief is not granted soon by enacting strong legislation, we fear at some point we will not be able to provide adequate vital services such as fighting crime and illegal drugs, education, jails and corrections, health care and social services for children and the elderly. In 1993, Price Waterhouse conducted a survey of unfunded mandates affecting county governments. Based upon that study, 1993 costs for counties for just 12 mandates are $4.8 billion. For the 5-year period 1994-98, $33.7 billion of county costs for unfunded Federal mandates will be incurred. Just the 12 surveyed mandates consume an average of 12.3 percent of locally raised revenues. Unfunded mandates are, in reality, a hidden burden on taxpayers. Whether it is water testing, architectural accommodation, sewage treatment, soil contamination, wetlands regulation, petroleum problems, or farm chemicals, when the Federal Government reaches out, it doesn't touch--it tyrannizes. Lest we forget, the Founders fought to rid themselves of royal agents who would tax them while denying them any electoral say as to the who and where of that levy. Today we are considering a reform of the Federalist system itself; a return to a relationship between the Federal Government, and the various State and local governments that reflects a partnership in the activity of governing. A relief from additional Federal mandates toward correcting the imbalance of this relationship and conform our system of governance to the system outlined in the Federalist Papers and in the Constitution itself. It becomes again our opportunity to continue the reform begun when this 104th Congress convened. Our opening day showed the way as we changed rule after rule improving the way the House does business. Now, by lifting the burden of unfunded mandates, we are changing the business Congress does. The Contract With America continues to be performed, as we keep faith with the 10th amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, reserving to the States and the people all those public powers except those delegated to the Federal Government.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, when I first began public service as a member of a country planning commission, I carried into office what turned out to be a naive notion. I thought that our community's elected officials were free to do what they best believed served the citizenry. In some respects that was and is the case. However, what I failed to factor in was Uncle Sam's ability to determine what was best and to make us pay for it, like it or not. Imposing obligations on local government from distant beltway bureaucracies, but without Federal dollars to pay for them, is wrong, and H.R. 5 will right that. Today we are considering a reform of the federal system itself and return to the relationship between the Federal Government and various State and local government agencies that reflects a partnership in the activity of governing. A relief from additional Federal mandates on State and local governments will take a long stride toward correcting the imbalance of this relationship. It becomes again our opportunity to continue the reform begun when this 104th Congress convened. Our opening day showed the way as we changed rule after rule improving the way the House does business. Now, by lifting the burden of unfunded mandates, we are changing the business that Congress does. The Contract With America continues to be performed as we keep faith with the 10th amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, reserving to the States and the people of all those public powers except those delegated to the Federal Government.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, the lesson that what is sauce for the goose also should be for the gander is learned from early childhood. Yet, it seems to have been no more than a fantasy for Congress. Today, I hope this House by its vote will make a simple declaration, saying that if we think it worthy that American business is required to operate under these several sets of workplace rules, then we on Capitol Hill are willing to be regulated by them as well. There are two benefits to be derived from securing final passage of S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act that embodies the spirit and most of the substance of H.R. 1, which we passed on the day we began this 104th Congress. The first value of this reform in the way we do business is that those men and women we employ here and in our district offices should not be prejudiced with respect to redress of employment wrongs simply because they are on our payrolls. The second significance of the Shays Act was well related by the Wall Street Journal editorial of January 4 that called H.R. 1 a ``forcing Members to live under the laws they pass may also have a useful, modifying effect on what Congress decides to pass.'' Mr. Speaker, all of us, I'm sure, have received--and welcome-- thousands of constituent communications imploring us to keep faith with provisions of the Contract With America. Even before this Congress began, one of my constituents, Mel Cellini of Madera, CA, shared with me a copy of his letter to Speaker Gingrich. Noting Mr. Cellini's statement that there must be a change in the fact that ``Congress has exempted itself from mandates imposed on the rest of society.'' I take pleasure in making the text of his letter a part of my statement of support for our passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. The letter follows: December 4, 1994. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Sir: My wife and I are approaching 50 years of age. We have been increasingly disillusioned with the operation of the federal government. The future our two children face is of great concern to the two of us. As long as I can remember the federal government has continued to intrude into our lives via control and taxation. The programs have not only been intrusive, but also quite expensive. Now one child is in college and the other will soon be going to college. Our dismay with the evaporation of the American dream has been discussed in our family. It is hard to relate to the dream sine all we hear from the media are the issues of why we need to contribute and do more for those that refuse to help themselves. Congress has exempted itself from mandates imposed on the rest of society. This must change. I backed our local Republican candidate with the fervor that this was our last chance. Yes, George Radanovich won. I truly believe this is a new dawn. The opportunity for a refocused government is here. Just Make Sure the Government Is Out of Our Lives and Our Pocketbook. Please, do not back down on the ten point contract that the Republicans agreed to fulfill in the First 100 days. Finally, ignore the personal attacks the media is doing to you. We are behind you `all the way.' I can hardly wait for the 1995 congress to begin. Again, Congratulations, and thank you. Sincerely, Mel Cellini.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, although every vote in the whole House is always important, votes in committee carry even greater proportionate weight. As such, committee votes should be cast by Members themselves, not by committee colleagues. Yet Capitol Hill practice in the past has been to allow proxy votes in committees. This has meant one Member was voting not just for himself but for absentees. Proxy holders, often the committee leadership, would vote for other Members who were elsewhere, possibly at another committee meeting voting the proxies of still more absent Members. Enough already. Let the Member who votes in committee be in committee. The American way is one person, one vote. Votes in congressional committees no longer should be by proxy, they should be in person. That is what will happen as soon as tomorrow. All it takes is approval of this proposal to change our rules. Let the reform go on as we keep faith with our promise in the Contract with America to change the way Congress does business. The American people will be the winners. time.