Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. No. As a matter of fact, with the amendment----

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, would either of the gentlemen be willing to pay the cost incurred to the Federal Government out of their pocket, should this be brought to the court by some city that does not want to fulfill its obligation to clean up its own mess? Do the gentlemen feel that strongly about the bill? Will the gentlemen tell the American public right now that they personally will incur those costs rather than the taxpayers of the United States? If the gentlemen feel that confident about it, I will not offer my amendment, but I do not feel that the gentlemen feel that confident about it. I certainly do not feel that confident about it. I am trying to protect the people of this country from facing enormous legal expenses that the loopholes in this bill will create.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the intent of the gentleman form Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] because I know his intent is correct. But we are a nation of law and it is what is in the law books that count. That language is ambiguous, and there will be reductions in Federal funding in the future just as there have been in the past. In 1980 approximately, the Federal Government was paying 90 percent of the cost of upgrading wastewater treatment plants locally. Today it is 55 percent where and when those communities are lucky enough to get it. We are going to pass a balanced budget amendment, I will vote for it, and we will then have to reduce the amount of money we give to the States and cities. It is going to happen. I think it is very important that since you have a provision in there that says this does not count, if funds are reduced, well, then, we know right off the bat that within a short period of time, funds will be reduced, it will not count, and I think it is important that we have clear and concise language on this one issue.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am not questioning your intent. We are a nation of law. It is not our intentions that count.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and 132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr. Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132 since last night.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. But, I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], I was a city councilman when they cut back on Federal revenue sharing. I was a city councilman when the biggest issue we had was to upgrade the sewage treatment plant. Had it not been for the Federal mandate, the wastewater from my hometown would still be flowing into St. Louis Bay, still be poisoning the oyster reefs off Pass Christian and Long Beach and Biloxi. That is not right. That is why we are lawmakers. We came here to be lawmakers for the Nation. The folks on your side of the aisle have made an excellent point. We need to be extremely judicious in the laws we make. We need to be extremely fair in the laws that we make. But we should also remember that we came here to be lawmakers and that we should have some laws that are common throughout the country, and some of those laws have to be that each community does not become a burden on the community downstream from them as far as wastewater, as far as toxic metals, as far as clean air. You will agree with that. I think what many of us are asking for on this particular bill, since there was not a hearing on the unfunded mandate bill, that there be clear and concise language in that bill that says we are not undoing anything from the past. We are just going to start talking more about what it is going to cost for locals when we pass something. We are going to give it greater thought than we did before, but there has to be, and there is not in the bill as yet, clear and concise language that says we are not undoing present laws. Some of the present laws make a heck of a lot of sense.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Sure. I am asking the question.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], of the estuaries that feed Santa Monica Bay, how many other States are involved in that?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so I can ask the other gentleman from California a question?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I wanted to contrast that with my home State. Over one-third of the Continental United States drains past my home State. The actions of 80 million Americans, whether clean actions or actions that are not so clean, affect my home State: The tourism in Natchez and Vicksburg, recreational opportunities along the Mississippi River. The most productive fishing grounds in the whole country are at the mouth of the Mississippi River, for shrimping, for oystering, and that directly affects my district during the springtime when the river floods. Do you think it is fair for the people of Chicago to deprive the oystermen of Pass Christian, MS, the opportunity to make a living? Do you think it is fair, because they want to cut back a little bit on their sewage treatment. For Vicksburg and Natchez to lose their tourism industry because the river is so filthy no one wants to go down to the gaming boats? I am in total agreement. I was a city councilman and a State senator. We have to get a handle on mandates. But to throw them out the window makes no sense at all. It is just not fair for the people upstream from the Mississippi to ruin our State so they can save a couple of bucks. Because just as it is unfair for the Federal Government to push its problems off on the locals, it is equally unfair for local communities to push their problems off on the Federal Government. That is precisely what happens in the nature of wastewater. It is just not fair for New York to poison the beaches of New Jersey. It is just not fair for this city, Washington, DC, to poison the water that the people of Alexandria, VA, are going to drink tomorrow, because the water for Alexandria, VA, is within one tidal cycle of what they call the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant here in Washington, DC. So if Mayor Marion Barry decides he is going to save a few bucks, or spend it on things other than wastewater, is it really fair to him to poison the people of Alexandria?