Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I believe that when we complete this vote, and I would at this point request a recorded vote when it is in order to do so, we are very close to final passage. I believe the gentleman might have colloquy with another Member.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical amendment if we want to have a reasonable, cost-effective regulatory reform bill. I must from the outset say that we have made great progress already discussing this issue, and the issue essentially is what is the threshold for a major rule in the context of title II. That is a very important issue, because once a rule has been declared a major rule, then an agency must do a rather elaborate and potentially expensive regulatory impact analysis. To the extent that all rules are major rules, then regulatory agencies will be spending lots of money thinking up alternative approaches and all sorts of paperwork and doing very little in terms of serving the American people directly by carrying out the duties of their agency. This is a very, very important principle that we must I think establish. Initially the legislation proposed a very, very low threshold, a million dollar effect on an individual in the United States. It has been raised to $50 million, but frankly that $50 million still in my view and that of many Members does not constitute a truly major rule. Let me tell you why. Years ago when President Ford first by Executive order instituted the regulatory impact analysis approach, he chose as the benchmark for a major rule $100 million. Today, in 1995, that $100 million would be somewhere between $300 and $400 million in today's dollars. So you can see not only has the major rule threshold shifted and slipped down, but in fact this legislation would bring it down from the current $100 million to $50 million. Every succeeding President, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, all chose a very simple, clearly understood threshold, $100 million, because they knew and they understood that valuable resources in terms of doing studies cannot be dissipated for every rule that the Federal Government does. In fact, if that is the process, if that is what takes place, we will actually trivialize all we are doing today. Indeed, in testimony before the committee, C. Boyden Gray, who was the counsel to President Ford and chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, recommended that the threshold remain at $100 million. That is simply the purpose of my amendment, to move the threshold from $50 to $100 million and make it a clear, simple, bright line test, $100 million. The current language of the bill, although an improvement, still contains some vague terms about impacts that would make the rule major. All I think this will do is require judges and courts to make endless determinations of whether or not a particular rule has an impact on employment that is major or significant, an impact on competitiveness, et cetera. What I think we are about today is trying to develop a system that is simple, cost effective, makes sense, and is reasonable. The best way to do this is pick an objective, sensible, reasonable target, $100 million. If it was good enough for President Bush and President Reagan, and currently President Clinton's Executive order, I think it should be good enough today. We are not trying to advance the ball. We are not trying to raise the threshold to $500 million, which as I pointed out before would be the equivalent of the same measure used by President Ford when he started this process. The consequences could be very real if we continue this $50 million threshold. Rules which most Americans would consider to be innocuous, routine, would require expensive analysis. Rules, for example, on raising and lowering drawbridges over naval waters, things that are done every year by the regulatory authorities, could require each year a $1 million or several hundred thousand dollar analysis. That does not make sense. One final point: We have in the language of the bill given the Director of OMB the authority to declare any rule, regardless of its impact, its financial impact, a major rule. I think that is a sufficient escape clause to confront those situations in which it might be $99.9 million, or might even be $9 million in impact, but it is an important So I urge all my colleagues to save money, to make sure that this works, to make sure that this process does not result in the trivialization of the regulatory impact analysis, that we support this amendment, raise the level to $100 million, and continue the sensible policies of President Ford, President Reagan, President Carter, and now President Clinton.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the amendment at the desk, which is designated amendment B.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. REED. Similarly, we concur and accept your perfecting amendment, I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be briefer than 5 minutes. I appreciate the chairman's offer to work with us on this issue. This is an important issue. We have worked to date to try to narrow the language and make it more effective. I think what has been said before by my colleagues though indicates that this is a very important issue, and let me just respond very briefly to the tenor of some of their remarks. First, there needs to be some discussion, I think, and obviously a discussion about small business and how they are oppressed, et cetera, but I would like to make the point that small business people do not run their companies simply to minimize costs. In fact, there are a lot of businesses out of business today because that is all they did. What they tried to do is maximize profit, and that is taking into consideration not only the cost, but how well they are doing, how well they are serving their customers, et cetera, so to have a single factor analysis at least cost is, I think--I am skeptical of this, and skepticism has prompted this amendment and prompted a continuing dialogue with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and we can discuss these things in very theoretical terms, but it helps, I think, to focus on very practical, pragmatic terms. For example, the FAA requires de-icing of aircraft. There is probably least costly ways to de-ice an aircraft than having the truck go two or three times with the fluid and having all these procedures which I just observed flying down here 3 days ago, and thank goodness. I say to my colleague, you could probably prove to the FAA that somebody with a squeegee brush on the wing might be cheaper than the truck, and the capital investment, et cetera. The point though is that the FAA is not constrained just on least cost. They want to have a cost that justifies the benefits of some approach that is cost effective, so I think this is a very valuable discussion. I think it is a discussion that makes a great deal of sense and in the spirit which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has offered to continue this dialogue to seek language that might not be most cost effective might be another way to phrase it. But to get to the point where, and I think this is the fear of some of my colleagues, that an agency would feel that they have a very good solution like de-icing airplanes today, but they cannot use it because they have to use something that is just cheap, but not good. Mr. Chairman, I would in this spirit ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and continue to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation today, and I look forward to tomorrow and for a vigorous debate.

Mr. REED. And educational.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment en bloc with my colleagues; Mr. Wynn of Maryland, Mr. Baldacci of Maine, and Mr. Sanders of Vermont. I have shared it with my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I believe it has their support. This issue was recently brought to my attention by Colonel Culhane, chief of Rhode Island's State Police, who told me that State law enforcement agencies would not be eligible to receive any of the funding earmarked for police in cities and towns. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the State police provide many of the small and rural towns in New England, including Vermont and Maine, with critical police protection. For example, in Exeter, RI, a small town in my district, there is no local police force. When a person dials 911, the State police receive the phone call, and State officers respond. In other towns like Richmond, RI, the local government cannot afford to operate a police force 24-hours a day, and the State police are called upon to fill the void. Under current law, State police forces are eligible for COPS and prevention grant programs. According to the Justice Department, several State police agencies, including the Maine State Police, have applied for and received COPS funding. We ought to be consistent in making these funds available for all law enforcement agencies that provide protection to our cities and towns. That is what my amendment would do. My amendment would restore eligibility for those State agencies that perform the same role as the local police departments that are eligible to receive funds under the block grant. It would give State law enforcement agencies a fair shake at getting the funding they deserve. Although this amendment does not solve the problem completely, I believe it is a step in the right direction, and I hope to continue to work with Mr. McCollum as this bill goes to conference.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, of all the dubious proposals that are contained in this particular bill, perhaps the most dubious is the space-based star wars system which we are debating. I learned at West Point and in 8 years as an infantry officer in the Army that you build a strategy around a realistic assessment of the threat and then you use that strategy to allocate scarce resources. This proposal does neither. They do not have to take just my word for it. This is what the Defense Budget Project has said about this particular proposal. I think most Members are conversant with the fact that this is one of the most well-respected, nonpartisan, analytical military think tanks operating today in the United States. Here is what they said, Mr. Chairman. Point 1, ``There is no significant long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States, nor is there likely to be such a threat over the foreseeable future.'' Point 2, ``A military revolution is underway. Information technologies that are critical to the ballistic missile defense activities, such as sensing, discrimination, and battle management, are progressing rapidly. There is a danger that if we buy into national missile defense too soon, it may rapidly obsolesce, leaving us with another huge capital investment to make if and when a long-range missile threat does emerge.'' Point 3, ``Perhaps nowhere is this danger greater than in the case of space-based interceptors. A national missile defense system that included space-based interceptors could cost tens of billions of dollars to acquire and deploy. This is clearly not a commitment that the United States should consider entering into in the foreseeable future.'' Mr. Chairman, the final point, ``With deficit and tax reductions a priority, funds for defense will almost certainly remain tight. A national military defense system is an expensive proposition, and defense systems often end up costing substantially more than projected by initial estimates. This mix could, over time, have the effect of presenting the Defense Department with an unfunded mandate; that is, with a program requirement that cannot be fully offset with additional resources necessitating substantial cuts from worthy DOD programs already under considerable stress.'' Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan group that thinks closely and well about defense issues. Their conclusions are very dramatic. I urge that they be considered and this amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] be supported.

Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. modification to the amendment offered by mr. edwards

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about welfare reform, work is and should be the centerpiece. During this welfare reform debate, I have heard many people declare that they find it amazing that so many individuals do not work. What I find equally amazing, however, is that so many individuals work full time, play by the rules, and find themselves below the poverty level. Currently, there are 2.5 million hourly minimum-wage workers, and 1.5 million more workers are paid less than the minimum wage and depend upon tips. From January 1981 to April 1990, the cost of living increased 48 percent while the minimum wage remained frozen at $3.35 an hour. It is no wonder, then, that the number of working poor in this country has increased 44 percent between 1979 and 1992. As a first step to giving value to work and to promote individual responsibility, we must increase the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage is also an important component of welfare reform. Real welfare reform has the potential to move individuals and families from dependency toward lasting self- sufficiency. But meaningful welfare reform must be sensitive to both the realities of the job market and the difficulties faced by individuals when an individual is unable to work because of a disability or when dependent children require care. If the goal of welfare reform is to move individuals from welfare to work, we need to ensure that an individual working full time will not fall below the poverty level. If we want to instill responsibility, we must ensure that the minimum wage is a livable wage. The minimum wage is not just about our workers, it is also about our children. Some 58 percent of all poor children under six in 1992 had parents who worked full or part-time. The number of children in poverty increased from 5 to 6 million from 1987 to 1992. Some 18 percent of all poor children under 6 in 1992 lived with unmarried mothers who worked full-time. An increase in the minimum wage is also necessary because the income gap between the wealthiest of our society and working Americans is growing. In fact, income inequality in this country is currently at its highest level since 1947. As we move into the area of welfare reform, it is time to question old assumptions. We must ask the question: ``Can we do it better?'' I believe we can. The majority currently advocates the block grant as a mechanism to reform our welfare system. But let us be very clear, block granting programs do not make the problems go away. It simply shifts responsibility to the States, and if a block grant is a way of simply saving money as opposed to providing adequate assistance to eligible individuals, then we are not doing the Governors any favors. If we adopt a block grant approach, these grants must be flexible to adjust to changing local economic conditions. Currently, funding for entitlement programs increased to meet demand during economic downturns when State budgets are financially strapped. Under discretionary block grant programs in a recession, sufficient money is unlikely to be available to meet the demand. While the number of people eligible to receive benefits will grow as the economy weakens, they will not necessarily be entitled to receive any support. Because Federal funding for assistance would no longer automatically increase in response to greater need, States would have to decide whether to cut benefits, tighten eligibility, or dedicate their own revenues to these programs. The demand for assistance to help low- income Americans would be greatest at precisely the time when State economies are in recession and tax bases are shrinking. A second issue that must be addressed in designing block grants is the formula by which funds are allocated. A formula that is based merely on historical data would not reflect economic and demographic changes. These changes must be reflected. Another concern I have with block grants is the phenomenon of interstate competition, which may encourage a downward spiral in benefit levels and result in a race between States to the lowest benefit level. More than two dozen States have been granted waivers from the Federal Government to experiment with their welfare programs, and already State officials are expressing concern that welfare recipients will travel to their States if the benefits are reduced in neighboring States, and while we must be careful not to be overly prescriptive when it comes to designing block grants, we have a responsibility to ensure states are moving welfare recipients from welfare to work in providing a minimum level of support for their citizens. We have begun an important debate. The present welfare system must change, but we must continue our commitment to providing all of our citizens an opportunity to support themselves. I welcome the challenges in the days ahead during this crucial debate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, we all want to see criminals convicted and serve prison sentences for their crimes. No one wants to hinder the police in their dangerous and difficult effort to protect all of us and to combat crime. However, this bill is not about merely eliminating legal technicalities. It is about removing the requirement for a warrant prior to a search and seizure, and the Founders of our country believed that our citizens should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The words of the Constitution, the fourth amendment, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.'' I am not talking about the rights of defendants or the rights of prosecutors. We are talking about a fundamental right of the people of this country, and that is what we want to protect here today. I do not think we should chip away at that fundamental right. The warrant requirement is not a burden on law enforcement. Police can get a warrant by telephone. In fact, it takes sometimes only 2 minutes to get a warrant. Warrantless searches are permissible under exigent circumstances. I do agree that officers who rely on a warrant that later turns out to be invalid should not be penalized. I support that part of the bill that codifies that good-faith exception. I also support extending this exception to cases where the police relied upon a statute that later turned out to be unconstitutional. However, I am reluctant to leave behind the presumption that in the ordinary course a police officer should obtain a warrant. The majority would have you believe that this technicality results in many cases being thrown out. The evidence is contrary to that. The Comptroller General, in a report, indicated that suppression motions, those motions to eliminate evidence, succeed only in 1.3 percent of Federal cases. In fact, in those cases, 50 percent of the individuals are convicted anyway. In fact, under the majority's formulation, more evidence may be thrown out as police officers have to justify after the fact their constitutional compliance. I suggest we maintain the protections of the Constitution for the people.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of protecting Social Security, but I would like Rhode Island's senior citizens to realize that the Flanagan resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 17, is weak, nonbinding, and political cover. Supposedly, House Concurrent Resolution 17 puts the Congress on record as opposing cuts in Social Security to achieve a balanced budget. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, House Concurrent Resolution 17 is the same kind of nonbinding resolution that was used in past Congresses to commemorate ``National Pizza Week''--concurrent resolutions are not law and they certainly do not supersede the Constitution of the United States. If Members truly want to protect Social Security from the cuts needed to achieve a balanced budget, they should vote for the Wise, Gephardt, Owens, or Conyers versions of the balanced budget amendments. These proposals would really protect Social Security because they would prohibit Social Security cuts under the Constitution. Indeed, if resolutions and laws are enough to protect Social Security, why aren't they sufficient to force Congress to balance the budget. As a wise person once said, ``what's good for the goose is good for the gander.'' Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Flanagan resolution, but more importantly I will support those versions of the balanced budget amendment which provide constitutional protection for Social Security.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of an outstanding Rhode Islander, Chief Madison A. Bailey, Jr., on the occasion of his retirement from the Portsmouth Rhode Island Police Department. The people of Rhode Island have been well-served by his professionalism and devotion to duty. A native Rhode Islander, Chief Bailey graduated from Rogers High School in Newport and enlisted in the Naval Reserve. Appointed in 1967 to the Portsmouth Police Department, he is a graduate of the Pawtucket Police Academy and the Rhode Island Municipal Police Academy. After receiving his bachelor's degree from Salve Regina College in 1973, he continued his police education by graduating from the FBI National Academy in 1974, and was promoted to deputy police chief. In 1981, he was appointed police chief of the Portsmouth Police Department. Chief Bailey served as president of the New England Police Chiefs Association during 1991-92 and was president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association the following year. While serving on the Portsmouth Police Department, he was awarded the American Legion Medal of Heroism for saving a child's life. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my home State of Rhode Island, I respectfully ask that my fellow colleagues join me in saluting Chief Madison A. Bailey, Jr. on his many contributions to society and applauding his outstanding citizenship.