Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for the question, my good friend from Philadelphia. And what I would say, I am not a member of the Committee on Appropriations, but typically these items are added on line by line. They are specific in nature, and, in fact, we would have that opportunity. In fact, I would be happy to show this list to any of my colleagues. Every one of the items in the R&D account of $2 billion of unauthorized appropriations are in fact individually listed. They, in fact, are not lumped together. I do not think that would be a problem. If it is, we will effort of this type.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, one of the high priority items for the 104th Congress is resolution of the problem of unfunded mandates. Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with local elected officials in Pennsylvania to discuss this issue. I found their comments and insights revealing. Testimony was given by every member of the Delaware County Council, including Chairwoman Mary Ann Arty, Paul Mattus, Ward Williams, Wally Nunn, and Tom Killion. I also heard from Joseph Blair, president of Upland Borough Council; Bruce Dorbian, manager of Marcus Hook Borough; Kenneth Hemphill, Upper Darby School District; Thomas Kennedy, mayor of Ridley Park; James F. Shields, executive director, Delaware County Intermediate Unit; and Thomas J. Bannar, manager of Haverford Township. I found their insights and experience very valuable. As we prepare to debate this issue on the floor of the House, my colleagues would do well to look beyond the statements of inside-the-beltway lobbyists and listen to the experience of local elected officials. I have included the testimony of several of the participants which I found particularly insightful. I urge my colleagues to review their statements to better understand how unfunded mandates affect local governments. Statement of Wallace H. Nunn, Delaware County Council Earlier we identified that Unfunded Mandates occur as the result of passage of legislation, by promulgation of regulations in response to legislative initiatives, through policy decisions by government bureaucrats and as a result of court orders. Each of these has played a part in helping to construct a welfare system that is one of worst bureaucratic nightmares in terms of its size and expense, its red-tape, its lack of coordination through the various state and federal agencies that mandate its operation and its effectiveness. If we view the social welfare system as a chronological continuum of services beginning with Children and Youth Services and running through the various adult services, we note redundant programs due to more than one state and/or federal agency mandating not only the services but the way in which they are provided, with no coordination or even apparent knowledge of the other agency's mandate. This concern is exemplified in the area of Drug and Alcohol (D/A) where the County receives funding through the Department of Health, the Court system and, in some instances, the Department of Public Welfare. While we are able to cooperate internally and to coordinate the provision of some of the services, we nevertheless must maintain complex administrative structures to deal with the plethora of regulations and policies imposed on us. There may be as many as fifteen (15) different programs to deal with specialized aspects of D/A problems. Each of these is governed by its own set of regulations for operation and reporting. Many of these regulations that govern our operation are circuitous and address not just the broad policy guidelines but actually stipulate the provision of individual services. For example, in the County Juvenile Detention Home, we are mandated not just to feed and cloth the juveniles but also to supply an evening snack. (Is eating just before bedtime a healthy practice?) I have touched on the justice system. Approximately $48.3 million of the County Budget is projected to be expended on Administration of Justice. This accounts for over 57% of the approximately $84 million raised in taxes. It also points out the failure of social welfare programs since these programs obviously have not resulted in shaping all of our citizens who are clients of our systems into productive members of our society. While I am not naive enough to think that we can be 100% successful in moving people toward productivity, I would like to have the opportunity to design our own programs without interference from the federal and state bureaucracies. Block grants without the punitive strings attached would be a mechanism that could be used to funnel dollars to Counties. We suggest this approach to you. Statement of Bruce A. Dorbian, Manager, Borough of Marcus Hook On behalf of the Crum and Ridley Creeks Council of Governments I graciously recognize the Honorable U.S. Congressman from the 7th congressional district, W. Curtis Weldon, and the Honorable State Senator from the 26th senator district, Joseph Loeper and members of the county council. thank you for organizing this public hearing on the subject of unfunded mandates and extending to us the opportunity to provide oral and written testimony. The Crum and Ridley Creeks Council of Governments is an organization with 11 member municipalities formed to facilitate and develop mutual cooperation and coordination among the participating municipalities. The membership includes the boroughs of Media, Marcus Hook, Rose Valley, Rutledge and Swarthmore and the townships of Edgmont, Middletown, Nether Providence, Newtown, Upper Providence and Concord. Whether Federal or State imposed, a mandate is a mandate. The word is feared in the local government community. Mandates can be fatal to the budget process and they occur far too frequently. They are feared because there is usually little notice or preparation, they carry new responsibilities, and seldom little authority or fiscal resources to carry them out. what are mandates? They are requirements placed on local government by the Federal and State government to perform specified tasks. They are ``mandates'' because they must be done. The mandate message delivered from Federal and State government is similar to that national advertising campaign theme--``just do it.'' who pays for mandates? Local citizens and businesses pay for most Federal and State mandates through increased local taxes and fees. Most mandates are unfunded or underfunded. This means the Federal and/or the State government adopts the legislation and establishes regulatory requirements without appropriating any funds to implement the legislation or regulations. The costs for implementation are left to local and county governments. why are mandates a problem? Federal and State mandates are a problem for three reasons: (1) they are imposed without consideration of local circumstances or capacity to implement the Federal/State requirements; (2) they strain already tight budgets forcing increases in local tax rates and fees to pay for mandates while we continue to provide local services and keep local budgets in balance; and (3) they set priorities for local government without local input. Because most mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs, Federal and State mandates often ``squeeze out'' projects and activities that are local priorities and which would contribute more to local health, welfare and safety than the specific action or activity dictated by Federal/State laws and regulations. Local dollars spent on Federal and State mandates is money that cannot be spent on local priorities. are local governments opposed to mandates that protect the public health, safety and civil rights of citizens? No local elected officials are committed to providing public services that enhance the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. But local officials are opposed to unfunded, inflexible, ``one-size-fits-all'' laws and regulations. These laws and regulations impose unrealistic time schedules for compliance, specify the use of procedures or facilities when less costly alternatives might serve as well, and require far more than underlying laws appear to require. Local officials want to concentrate on performance, not procedures. why should citizens care about federal and state mandates? They allow the Federal and State government to write checks on the local government checkbook. They interfere with local decision-making and give authority to remote Federal and State lawmakers and bureaucrats rather than easily accessible local mayors, council members, commissioners and supervisors. And, perhaps most importantly, they force local governments to raise local taxes and fees in order to comply with mandates and maintain local services. As municipal mangers, we have day to day, hands-on experience with mandates. They impact virtually every aspect of local government operations. Recent mandates include mandatory recycling, expanded training requirements for municipal police officers, additional pension benefits for police and fire officials, workers compensation enforcement through the local building permit system, agency shop, and public access requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Then there are those that simply become institutionalized in the operations of the municipality and continue to impose costs ten to twenty years after enactment. Public advertising requirements, State and Federal mandatory wage requirements for public works project, minimum wage, to name a few. Whatever the case may be, we know one thing for certain--once a mandate is imposed it is never repealed. One recent national research study ranked Pennsylvania second in the number of new mandates imposed on municipal government. The current system allows Federal and State lawmakers and bureaucrats to impose their priorities without considering local budget and service impacts. Local budgets are statutorily required to be balanced, taxing authority is limited, and mandates cannot be passed on to another level of government. We must bring fiscal responsibility to the mandate process in this country and in Pennsylvania. The buck has been passed to local government for too long; it is time for the ``bucks'' to be passed on as well. Statement of James F. Shields, Executive Director, Delaware County Intermediate Unit It is a pleasure for me to be here today representing the Intermediate Unit, the fifteen public school districts in the county and the Delaware County School Boards' Legislative Council. [[Page E131]] The issue of unfunded mandates has received much attention lately. I want to commend County Council for the leadership you have shown in bringing this issue to the attention of the general public. We can also look at Governor-elect Tom Ridge's campaign pledge in which he states: ``I will fight to give our communities greater control over their schools and tax dollars, free from state micromanagement. I want to provide districts with relief from existing state mandates and stop the flow of new ones to encourage greater local control and help ease the pressure on local property taxes.'' Likewise, the new leadership in Congress has also expressed their intent to focus on this issue. It appears that the issue of unfunded mandates is approaching front-burner status on the political agenda. Focusing public attention on unfunded mandates and the impact they have on local school district budgets has also been a priority of Delaware County school districts for the past five years. In the 1991-92 school year, a committee of superintendents and school board members started a process to identify some of the high cost mandates affecting schools. A survey was developed and completed by all school districts that identified and placed a dollar cost on some critical areas. A presentation of the results was made to the Delaware County legislative delegation at the School Boards' Annual Legislative Breakfast held on May 15, 1992. The following is a partial list of the information shared at that time. Although the cost data will have changed since that time, what hasn't changed is the economic impact these mandates have on local school budgets. Certification restrictions and staff ratios as applied to Nurses, Dental Hygienists, Librarians ($3,014,750) Sabbatical leaves for purposes of study and travel ($4,508,317 over previous five years) State requirement to transport nonpublic school students up to ten miles outside local school district boundaries ($6,072,374) Use of prevailing wage rate on school construction projects in excess of $25 thousand ($12,329,800 over previous five years and projected for immediate future) Asbestos abatement ($17,650,107) Underground storage tank inspection and removal ($5,901,000) Transportation of Early Intervention students ($302,600) The development of Act 178 Professional Development Plans ($668,000) Implementation of a Teacher Induction Program ($173,730) Special education costs have consistently exceeded the funds available from both state and federal sources. Because of the many due process requirements and the strict limitations on class size along with additional supportive services needed, this is an expensive mandate. In addition, while not required to do so under federal law, Pennsylvania has chosen to include the education of the gifted under state special education rules and regulations. The federal government originally promised to fund 40% of the cost of this law but in actuality the federal share has never exceeded 12%. It must be said that in and of themselves each of the mandates may be considered to serve a noble purpose. However, the cumulative effects of these and all the other mandates imposed on local districts impose a fiscal and human resource cost on schools. Meeting the demands of some of these mandates may take away resources from other areas of the school program deemed important by the local community. As a next step in this process, the fifteen Delaware County school districts and the Intermediate Unit have contracted with the Pennsylvania Economy League to identify existing mandates that impact upon the operation of the schools and to assess their economic impact. In addition, the other three suburban intermediate units in Bucks, Chester and Montgomery Counties have likewise expressed an interest in participating and supporting this study. In 1982 the Pennsylvania Local Government Commission, after an exhaustive study, identified 6,979 state imposed mandates upon local government units in Pennsylvania. Moreover, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, representing all 501 school districts in the Commonwealth has identified burdensome mandates the Association has targeted for legislative remedy including the following: Prohibiting the furlough of staff for economic reasons; The requirement to transport nonpublic students up to 10 miles outside the district; The awarding of tenure after two years of successful teaching; The requirement to hire certificated school nurses, dental hygienists and home and school visitors according to a state- established pupil ratio; Providing full year and split year sabbaticals for travel; Permanent certification for teachers and administrators. It is clear that now is the time for concerted action by all agencies of local government to ease the financial burden caused by unfunded or partially funded state and federal mandates. On behalf of Mr. Walter Senkow, President of the Intermediate Unit Board of Directors, Mr. James Fahey, Chairman of the School Boards' Legislative Council, and Dr. Roger Place, Chairman of the Superintendents' Advisory Council, I commend County Council and our legislative delegation for sponsoring today's hearing. We stand ready to work cooperatively with you to address these important concerns.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a preeminent symbol of Philadelphia's main line society. The recent passing of Hope Montgomery Scott at age 90, earlier this week marks the end of an era. As the darling of high society, Mrs. Scott was both an honored dairy farmer and for the last 30 years the principal organizer for the nationally known Devon Horse Show and Country Fair. Scott, best known as the high society girl was the inspiration for the making of ``The Philadelphia Story,'' written in 1939 by playwright Philip Barry, a college classmate of Mrs. Scott's husband, Edgar, at Harvard Drama School. The play, was then made into a 1940 movie starring local Bryn Mawr College graduate actress Katherine Hepburn. In 1956, after great demand, ``The Philadelphia Story'' was remade into a musical called ``High Society,'' starring Philadelphia native Grace Kelley. Mrs. Scott had a dairy farm, a trade she learned from her father while growing up. Her dairy farm was the top producing Ayrshire herd in the Nation. In 1990 the farm received an award for an average annual output of 20,000 pounds of milk per cow. Mrs. Scott married an heir to the Pennsylvania Railroad fortune, threw the best parties, and became the finest American horsewoman of her day. Mrs. Scott began riding at the age of 4 and won many awards at the Devon Horse Show. Today, Mrs. Scott's contributions to the community can be best attributed to her role as chairwoman and executive director of the Devon Horse Show and Country Fair, Inc., where last year alone proceeds of over $400,000 benefited Bryn Mawr Hospital. But Mrs. Scott's charity work was not limited to the Devon Horse Show. Earlier this year, Mrs. Scott coordinated a 90th birthday bash for herself which alone raised another $100,000 for Bryn Mawr Hospital, her favorite charity. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask my colleagues to pay tribute to the late Hope Montgomery Scott. She will be greatly missed by her family, friends, and admirers.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Yes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I took out this special order the speakers on the House floor during 1-minute speeches, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], discuss with you and our colleagues in this body today the reasons why he felt that spending increased so dramatically during the Reagan and Bush years, and he emphasized the point that Ronald Reagan and George Bush could have used their veto pen to stop the excessive spending during that time period. Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the facts, and the facts are quite different than the way my friend and colleague presented them to the American people. First of all, as all of us in this body--my good friend and colleague is here. Thank goodness. We can have a little dialog here. As my good friend and colleague knows and as all of us in this body know, the President does not spend one dime of money unless it has been first of all appropriated by the Congress, and the House and the Senate meet in their 13 various appropriation bill processes to decide how much money we are going to spend in each of 13 different categories of the Federal budget, and our good friend is a member of that Committee on Appropriations. The process is set up in such a way that the President is given 13 opportunities to veto the amount of spending set by the Congress. But guess what happened, Mr. Speaker, during the 12 years of Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan? This body did not pass the 13 appropriation bills, except in one instance, and that happened to be in 1988. In fact, the other side of the aisle, which controlled the Congress, perfected the art of the continuing resolution; in other words, backing the President into a situation where not giving him the chance to veto the spending bills, allowing all spending authority to expire in the fall, and then having us pass a continuing resolution. My first year in this body, Mr. Speaker, it was 2:30 in the morning, 2 days before Christmas, that we were given a massive document that none of us had seen, and we were told this was going to be the spending blueprint for the country the following year. The document was brought to the House floor. We were given one chance to pass it, which we did, and then the President was given 1 chance, not 13 chances, 1 chance, to veto the spending levels set by this Congress. So, he was backed into a corner, and what did he do? Like the previous 7 years, or 6 years, Mr. Speaker, he signed that continuing resolution setting the spending authorities and appropriation levels that this body in fact agreed to. More important than that, not only was the President not given the ability to veto individual spending bills, but the President was not given the line-item-veto authority. Now, Mr. Speaker, the current President of the United States, Bill Clinton, campaigned on the need to have a legislative line-item veto. In fact, he said during the campaign that, like the other 43 Governors in America who have line-item-veto authority, he wanted to have that as the President. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? The leadership of his party in the Congress would not give him line-item-veto authority legislatively so he could go through the individual spending bills and redline the pork and the garbage. We are going to give Bill Clinton legislative line-item-veto authority to do what we would like to have had Ronald Reagan and George Bush do during the 12 years that they were in office. Mr. Speaker, it is unfair to say that the President of the United States controlled how much money we spend. In fact, we say, well, that is a budget, and the budget is what we agree to. During my first 6 years in office almost every spending bill that we passed, the first provision waived the Budget Act, so it did not matter how much was in the budget. We waived the Budget Act and passed whatever amount of spending that we in this body decided was important for that particular issue. So, the tools are here, and to say that this was all the fault of the President, be it Ronald Reagan or George Bush when we handicapped him with a continuing resolution, when we handicapped him with no line-item veto, when we handicapped them by backing them into a corner at the 11th hour, I think is wrong, and I am glad my good friend and colleague has shown up, and I would yield to him, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time--and I will be happy to yield further to my friend--I am well aware of that, and I am also well aware of the fact, as is my friend, that in this body budgets submitted in the past by this body have been ignored year after year after year. So I am aware of that fact. Will my friend admit on the record that this body has passed numerous spending bills during the Reagan and Bush years that waived the Budget Act that this body passed, largely on the Democrat side? Is my friend aware of that?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. We will continue this at a future date.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a Philadelphia legend who is headed for a new home. For 18 glorious seasons, Mike Schmidt patrolled third base for the Philadelphia Phillies. He was a leader on the field and off. His achievements spoke volumes about a man who worked hard, never quit, and gave generously of his time to the people of the Delaware Valley. On Monday, Mike Schmidt was elected to the Hall of Fame. It comes as no surprise to anyone who sat in the stands, watching his mastery of glove and bat. Schmidt's accomplishments were recognized by Hall of Fame voters, as he showed up on 96.5 percent of the ballots. That is the fourth highest percentage in the history of Cooperstown. Mike Schmidt's career was filled with tremendous achievements. At the plate, he was a hitter who could hit for power and for an average. He finished his career with 548 home runs, placing him seventh on the all- time list. He hit the most home runs of any third baseman in the history of baseball. His lifetime batting average of .267 included his 1981 season in which he hit .316, pounded out 31 home runs, and knocked in 91 runs. And that year, he only played 102 games. Following the season, he was selected for this second consecutive Most Valuable Player Award. In 1980, he was also the World Series MVP, leading the Phillies to the championship by batting .381 and hitting two home runs. But Mike Schmidt could do more than hit the ball. He was an outstanding fielder. His reflexes were quick, his glove soft and sure, and his throw to first came with plenty of pace. During his career, he won 10 Gold Gloves for defensive excellence, more than any other National League third baseman. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most revealing fact about Mike Schmidt is not his home run total, or the number of doubles he hit. Mike Schmidt is loved by the people of Philadelphia. In fan balloting in 1983, Mike Schmidt was selected as the greatest Phillie ever. Now, 12 years later, the Hall of Fame voters confirmed what we in Philadelphia have always known. Mike Schmidt was a great baseball player who brought joy to millions of people. I know that the people of the Seventh Congressional District and throughout the Delaware Valley join me in saluting his accomplishments and congratulating him on his selection to the Hall of Fame.