Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and want to voice my concern with the argument that somehow we are allowing flexibility. We took away flexibility, in my judgment, when we said we know what is best for States: They have to have prisons, but they cannot have more money for cops on the beat and what I think are prevention programs. If we want flexibility, if we on our side are saying we are going to let everyone decide, then why did we not put the prison money in with prevention and enforcement? My problem is I think this is a direct assault on the prevention programs. Maybe I am one of the few Members on this side of the aisle who represents an urban area, where in my areas police chiefs in Stamford, Norwalk, and Bridgeport put more weight on prevention than they do on cops on the beat. Candidly, I have seen cops on the beat go to some of my wealthiest suburban communities that do not need them. We need programs that will help young people not go through a life of crime. In Fairfield, CT, which I represent, the people now have so many programs after school and during school and on weekends, they do not have a hard time not doing something, their challenge is what don't they do. In Bridgeport, CT, when school is out, they are left on their own, in most cases in a latchkey environment with no parent, no adult supervision. We have an after-school program, we have weekend school programs. These kids are hungry for preventive programs. I do not buy for a minute that we are saying we want flexibility. If we wanted flexibility, we would have put prison money in this package. Instead we took money out of the police, out of enforcement, out of prevention, and gave it to prisons. My State does not need to build more prisons. It needs to decide who better should be in the prisons. I support this amendment. I urge its passage. I say to my colleagues, If you represented an urban area, you would know prevention programs are more important than anything else we could do.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to congratulate the Jewish Federation of Greater Bridgeport, CT, as it proclaims Sunday, February 5, 1995 Super Sunday. For nearly 55 years, the Jewish Federation of Greater Bridgeport has served and represented Jews in need, through its service to the cities and towns of Bridgeport, Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Stratford, and Trumbull. It provides health services, social and educational opportunities to citizens through agencies such as the Greater Bridgeport Jewish Community Center, the Jewish Home for the Elderly, Jewish Family Service, Hillel Academy, and Merkaz Community Hebrew High School. Through the continuing work of the United Jewish Appeal, the Jewish Federation has been able to provide both social and humanitarian services to hundreds of thousands of Jews in Israel and in 40 other countries around the world. On Sunday, February 5, both organizations will conduct a combined annual telethon campaign to raise vitally needed funds to continue providing these worthwhile services abroad and here at home. The dedication and perseverance demonstrated by each of these organizations is a testament to the commitment they have to the Jewish community. I commend each organization for the valuable contribution they have made to Jews in this country and around the world.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. It may be that the executive branch is your champion and my champion on this issue and that the judicial branch isn't. It could be a different court. It could be filled with different people. In response to the question, do I think all virtue is in the executive branch: of course not. In response to the question, do I think all virtue is in the judicial branch: of course not. In response to the question, do I think all virtue is in this place: no, I think it is not, and that is why I want that balance, and that is why I want those powers separate, and I will fight as hard as I can to somehow cut out one branch from the process that it was given to us by the Founding Fathers. I know we are all sincere here, and at the end I could be wrong, but I feel this as passionately as my colleagues do on the other side.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I love the fact that we have for the first time in many, many years an open debate on what truly is a very important piece of legislation, and I know there are some Members who think it may take too long, but I have learned a lot from my colleagues on the other side, and I also have thought a lot about this issue, as they have, and want to weigh in. I hear talk about an independent judiciary, and I want to say without any hesitation that I want the same independence, that I want the same independence that I see in the judiciary. I want to see that maintained, and I take some exception to an argument that says that somehow this amendment will give them the independence that they would not have if this amendment were not to pass. This amendment is wrong because it flies in the face of separation of powers. We in this amendment would give to the legislature a power that it does not deserve. We would give the power for the legislature to have the same kind of manipulation that is seen in the President because the President maybe has been a Republican President for so long that they tend to think that way and think that all virtue is in the legislative branch. It is not. That is why our Founding Fathers made sure there were three separate branches with three separate powers. I want the judicial branch to be the judicial branch. I want the legislature to be able to bring forward appropriations. I want the President to utilize the power to veto when he thinks there is excess. I do not want to create an island unto itself within the judicial branch, so I stand firmly in support of an independent judiciary. What I think happens if this amendment were to pass is, when the judges come or their people come and sit down in that room with the legislative branch, there is a cozy possibility of a relationship, and somehow the argument that 50 percent of the litigation is the executive branch, implying that the executive branch, as the lawyer for the legislative branch, is totally in agreement with everything it brings before the court, it is enforcing our law, my law, the law of the legislative branch passed into and signed by the President. But maybe it was a previous President. Maybe it was not the President who is now President. He may not even agree with the legislation that he is having to defend because he is required to as the executive branch person. When I hear questions to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. is the litigant, he is the attorney representing the client. We are the client. But somehow it is all right for the client and the judiciary to be in bed together in the sense of making their budget without the oversight of the executive branch. I think the executive branch should weigh in. And when I look back at the Federalist Papers, that is what our Founding Fathers thought as well. Madison in Paper 47 said he proclaimed that accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, of many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. I say to my colleagues, you think, as you argue this, that you are protecting the judicial branch in our government. I think you are hurting it. I think that we want separation. I believe with all my heart and soul, whether you agree with me or not, that I want the separate power. I don't want the executive branch being a judiciary branch. I don't want the judiciary branch being a legislative or executive branch. I want to keep them separate, and by keeping them separate we have a check and a balance. So, I calmly, I calmly, object to the kind of comment that says that maybe we do not understand what is happening. I think we do, and I think my colleagues do as well. I just think that we come from it from a different perspective. I believe that our Founding Fathers were right. I say to my colleagues, I believe our Founding Fathers didn't want two to team up against one. I don't think they wanted to leave one branch out so it couldn't weigh in, and I think, when you have three, you guarantee there will be fairness and that one won't become dominant, and just as some of my colleagues, who rightfully know that the judicial branch, in particular as it relates to civil rights issues, has been your champion, just as it has been, there may be some day when it isn't your champion. It may be that the executive branch is your champion, and it may be the judicial branch----

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of any legislation that would prevent the exploitation of children. I also rise in support of the unfunded mandate bill and in opposition to this amendment. I rise in opposition to this amendment because it simply is not needed, because the concerns of the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from California have been addressed. This bill, the mandate bill, says very simply that there has to be an estimate of cost to the private sector and to the public sector. If there is not an estimate of cost, then a point of order can be raised. If there is an estimate of cost, and it is over $100 million for the private sector and $50 million for the public sector, a point of order can be raised if no money is provided, but a simple majority can override the point of order. The same majority that is needed to pass the bill, the same simple majority, can also be the same simple majority that can override the point of order. This amendment is not needed, Mr. Chairman, as were many of the amendments that preceded this. The concerns of the gentleman have been protected in this mandate bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SHAYS. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to ask for unanimous consent if we need more time, the point I would like to make, as someone who has sat on the Subcommittee on Employment and Housing of the Committee on Government Operations, which actually investigated the horrible event that took place that the gentlewoman is referring to with the processing plant, I am not aware that we passed new regulations, passed a new law, to deal with that issue. Mr. Chairman, we told OSHA to do its job better, and they did their job better, but it did not require us to pass new legislation to deal with it. Mr. Chairman, I just think in one sense, dealing with that issue, there would have been no effect of this legislation as it related to that incident. Mr. Chairman, I make another point to the gentlewoman. The fact is that this mandate bill is very clear that the very people that want to pass the bill to deal with a mandate, if it is not funded, the very people, the 50 percent who want to do that, can also be the very 50 percent who override the objection that it is not a funded mandate if in fact it is not a funded mandate. We are constantly having to remind the other side that it is merely a simple majority that can overrule an unfunded mandate, so it is hard for me to understand how, if there is concern to bring a bill before the Chamber, and it has 50 percent of the vote because it is a real concern, why that 50 percent does not remain in cases like the gentlewoman's concern of a need to deal with a very serious worker issue. Mr. Chairman, we are being redundant on this side, but I have weighed in so strongly in favor of OSHA. I happen to be someone who supports OSHA. If I thought a bill came before us that deserved the merit, and we could not come up with the money for a variety of reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would vote to override the unfunded mandate based on that need. What we did on this side was guarantee that it was only 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we are constantly being told of specific concerns that Members have on that side of the aisle, and we have voted them down because we know that within the bill is the mechanism to deal with every one of those concerns.

Mr. SHAYS. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the proponent of this amendment is very sincere in her concern for worker safety, as she has demonstrated so often in the past. But I strongly rise to say that we oppose this amendment for the very reason that we opposed the interstate impact amendment on Friday, the 20th; on Monday, the 23d, the air pollution amendment, the airport safety amendment, the nuclear waste amendment, the minimum wage and child labor amendment, the radioactive substance and toxic waste amendment; and then on Tuesday, the 24th, for the same reason we opposed the amendment on age and on child molester data base and so on and so on, with all the various amendments that Members want to exclude from this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I get the gist of my colleague's comments. I think it is very well taken. There are people who feel passionate on this issue, and we do not spend the money. That is very true.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is an open debate. If we had been debating this in past years we probably would have been done by now and had two or three amendments and would be on to some other issue. I think it is important we are going through this process. But as I count the amendments, I know that we had a debate on the clean water, and we wanted to exempt that. We then wanted to exempt the clean air, and had very impassioned reasons why we should do that. The we wanted to exempt airport aviation security. Then we wanted to exempt child labor laws and the minimum wage, and so on. waste. Then we wanted to exempt toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances. Then we wanted to exempt the national data base for tracking child molesters and now we want to exempt issues dealing with children. I am convinced we will have voted on every exemption and if every one had passed, we would not have a bill. Now, I do think children are very important. And for some to make the assumption that when we would pass a bill that we would not come up with the money to pay for it suggests to me that we must not think children are important. If we think they are important, we will come up with the money to pay for it. If we do not think we can come up with the money to pay for it but we think it is a mandate that is required, then we will logically make a motion to overrule the point of order, because we think children are important. We are debating this bill today because Republican and Democratic Governors and Republican and Democratic mayors and Republican and Democratic legislatures throughout the country have said, ``You have got to stop putting mandates without knowing the cost. And in some cases, you simply have got to stop doing the mandates, even if you know the cost. In my judgment this bill is extraordinarily fair. It strikes me as a situation that we need to just wake up from. And I just hope that we do not go through the process of continuing to ask ourselves to exempt ourselves from this mandate bill, because we will have no bill left.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is very simply that we have consistently, in the course of the last few days, had amendments offered to exempt more and more categories. There is no need to have any exemption because we have a very simple process. A simple majority allows the will of this Chamber to override a point of order even if money has not been appropriated to provide for the legislation that as been argued on the other side.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is just, in that instance, an assessment of cost. That is the point.

Mr. SHAYS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we are new at this. We are learning the process.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted, since I did not want 5 minutes, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to rise and say that one of the things what has been fascinating about this debate is that we have learned a lot, I think, from each other during the course of the days that we have had what is truly an open rule. It is the first time in my time in Congress where we have actually had a give and take and a dialog between and among Members. I just want to say to my colleagues that as someone who has a record of supporting environmental laws and health laws and safety laws and labor laws, including my intention, if it is a reasonable increase in minimum wage, to support the President, if he requests a rise in the minimum wage, if it is logical and meaningful. I just make a point to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this mandate bill that was designed really by Members on both sides of the aisle, allows us the opportunity to have the full kind of debate we are having right now. If a minimum wage is desired by more than a majority of the Members of Congress, or OSHA safety laws, we simply can override the point of order by a simple majority. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that some of the dialog we have been having is a dialog that would legitimately happen when those particular bills come before us. However, at least then we know the cost of the legislation if we do not want to fund them. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], for yielding to me, but I also oppose this amendment. This amendment, like any other amendment that has been offered, would really kind of gut the concept of the bill. If we have a mandate bill, a simple majority can override the mandate requirement point of order.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for moving forward on this important legislation. It is just absolutely essential that a woman know of her rights, and never be denied because of a government law from knowing of her rights. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for introducing this bill. We will be working on a bipartisan basis to have the will of the Chamber be recognized.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have waited 7 years to have the opportunity to vote and to speak on an unfunded mandate bill. I just have to thank the authors of this legislation, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Portman, Mr. Condit, for their work over a number of years. Mr. Davis, who was here earlier. I thank them for the opportunity to vote on this bill, one I really believe in. Mr. Chairman, why is it that Republican and Democrat governors throughout the country want this bill? Why is it that Republican and Democrat mayors want this bill? Why is it that our county executives throughout this country, Republicans and Democrat, want this bill? And a few in this Chamber do not? I do not understand it. To me, it is extraordinarily fair. My concept of an unfunded mandate bill did not reach the status of Mr. Condit, I thought. I thought at least knowledge to the private sector of what it was going to cost, knowledge to the public sector of what is was going to cost, was tremendously important for us to know when we voted out a bill; something that we have not had in the past. Mr. Condit wanted the most extreme deal, and you could make an argument for it. If you do not come up with the money, you do not have the mandate. This to me is a logical compromise between the two positions. Obviously, there are times for health reasons, for environmental reasons, that we have to mandate. But when we do, we had better be very conscious of that mandate. We need to know the cost, and we should come up with the money if we have a mandate, unless there are reasons not to. If those cases, a point of order can come up if there is not the money or is not the disclosure. A Member can stand up and say, ``I make a motion to override the point of order,'' with a simple majority. Now, why would I want that here? For some of the reasons I am hearing on this side. It would be a conscious effort and an important one. I do not want New York City to pollute Long Island Sound. I do not have the ability in Connecticut to tell New York simply to stop. I do have the ability to come to the Federal Government and ask the Federal Government to tell New York to stop--no offense made to New York. Obviously, if New Jersey is polluting the air that comes into Connecticut, I want the ability under those cases, extraordinary cases, to override the point of order. This is a very fair proposal. It is logical. I do not understand the objection to this legislation because of its fairness. I salute Democrats and Republicans for writing an extraordinarily fine bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say very clearly that this is no one person's bill. I mean that very sincerely, because in fact there are more the aisle. I would like to take this time first to thank the gentleman from Maryland Steny Hoyer, for stepping in and taking the place of Dick Swett, who was not returned to office, who has worked on the Democratic side with me working on the Republican side, on this issue, and to thank him and his staff for doing such an excellent job in helping to draft this legislation and the legislation that passed the House earlier in this session. Also I would thank both the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and to the new empowerment committee, both the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], because they have been working on this issue for years and years and years. Without their work, and particularly, with no disrespect to the Members, but their extraordinary staff, who have weighed in tremendously on this issue, have had an amazing contribution. I see the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as well, who over a year ago said to me that he had a conversation with the former Speaker encouraging him to move forward with congressional accountability, and that, frankly, was the major movement that brought this bill forward. Without the effort of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], done behind the scenes, without a lot of credit, this bill also would not move forward, so I think I need to thank the prior Speaker, and thank the present Speaker for working on this issue. In a summary form, and I would like to then just briefly touch on the concern of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], because it is valid, I would like to just make the point that when we passed our House congressional accountability last year, the strength of the legislation was that we applied all of the laws we imposed on the private sector onto Congress, and that we applied all the instrumentalities that are part of what makes up Congress: the Library of Congress, the GAO, the Architect's Office, and so on. Additionally, very importantly, we gave people full access to the court, with all the rights of going to civil action, de novo review, as well as being able to have judicial review. That was the strength of what we did. We also set up this Office of Compliance so that we dealt with the separation of powers, but gave this Office of Compliance independence. The weakness in our bill, if there was a weakness, was that we did it by regulation, in that we asked the Office of Compliance to then get us under all the laws by regulation, rather than by law, even though in the end we saw we are under the law, but the actual process was going to be determined by the Office of Compliance through regulation. So the strength was all the laws, all the instrumentalities, full access to the court, but we did it by regulation. The Senate last year passed legislation on congressional accountability, admittedly very late, and ultimately it never even had a debate on the floor of the Senate; but what they did was, they did not include all the laws, all the instrumentalities, or give full access to court in their legislation. That was the weakness of their legislation. The strength was they went directly to law. So after this, the defeat, or actually the failure of the Senate to deal with this issue, Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers got together to say what could we do to get the strength of the Senate bill and the strength of the House bill, and we actually did what I think you have a sense of, what I have spoken to already. We took all the laws, all the instrumentalities, full access to the court, the House version, took the language of the Senate going fully to law, rather than regulation, and put them together. That is the bill we have before us. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that clearly has the support of most Members of Congress. It is one of those odd occasions when the House and Senate get together, and instead of taking the weaknesses of their two bills, took the strengths of their two bills. But addressing the point made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] about frequent flyer mileage, I am partly, if not totally, responsible for the fact that it is not part of this legislation, and it is not part of this legislation because frequent flyer is not connected to the issues that were central to the whole concept. What applies to the private sector should apply to us, and frequent flyer did not match that test. It is an important issue. It is an issue that I think will be dealt with either by the House Oversight Committee, or actually by a law of Congress, and I believe the gentleman will be dealt with because of his tenacity and his conviction that it is important. This day and age, in this Congress, as we go through this process, the gentleman will find, notwithstanding the opening day, there will be open rule. He will be able to offer this amendment countless times on germaneness, and I believe that it will be passed by this Chamber, if it is not dealt with sooner by one of the committees of Congress. Frequent flyer should not be used to go on vacations. I totally agree with the gentleman. I have signed onto the gentleman's resolution and told him I agree with him. I understand his point on this legislation, because there appears to be certainly a contrast. The Senate has it in theirs and we do not have it in ours.