Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as members of the freshman class, we were elected to restore accountability and honesty to Congress. We have a unique opportunity--indeed an obligation--to fulfill our promise. In 1969, the Federal Highway Trust Fund became part of the unified Federal budget. Since that time, user fees/gas taxes paid by users of the system for the express purpose of improving and upgrading our roads and bridges, have been buried in the budget, masking the true size of the Federal deficit. Prior to 1969, the Federal Highway Trust Fund was an off-budget program. The pay-as-you-go system allowed repairs to be made as the money was collected. Today, a surplus has amassed at the expense of much needed improvements. H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, seeks to restore the Federal Highway Trust Fund to its original off-budget status. This will put an end to the budget gimmick of hiding the deficit at the expense of motorists. I urge you to join me and nearly 140 cosponsors in supporting H.R. 842, a bill that answers the people's call to improve America's infrastructure, and to make Government fiscally responsible. A promise is a promise, and it is time for us to live up to ours.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as one of the chief sponsors of the Family Reinforcement Act, I rise in strong support of the goals of the child support enforcement provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act.--Our welfare reform initiative. The strength of America's families is of utmost importance to the future of this country. We must act quickly and decisively to restore, encourage and protect our most fundamental unit of American society. I am here today to voice my support for the commonsense goals of H.R. 4: reducing welfare dependency by ensuring that parents support their children; strengthening and streamlining the State-based child support system; and giving the States the tools they need to get the job done. Too many single-parent families have had no where else to turn but to resort to Government support programs--and too many children go to bed hungry or do without--all because their dead-beat parents outrun the current bureaucratic and time-consuming child support collection system. This has got to stop. Republicans are working to change our child support collection system. I applaud the child support enforcement goals of H.R. 4, and support its efforts.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third, and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we are doing this now; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits, and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, last fall Republicans promised the American people we would reduce the size and cost of the Federal Government and we are keeping that promise with unfunded mandates reform and the line- item veto. We will continue to keep our promise by cutting the Federal regulations that are choking the life out of the little guy--small business and its consumers. Mr. Speaker, Federal regulations are costing consumers over $500 billion a year. That is right--red tape is costing $10,000 a year for the average family of four. These regulations can be even more costly to a small business. One small business was fined $6,000 because an employee violated OSHA rules when he rescued a coworker trapped under a pile of dirt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to restore reason and common sense to the regulatory process. We need to continue to work in a bipartisan way to reduce necessary and overbearing Federal regulations.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me 2 minutes to rise in support of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in unequivocal support for the amendment proposed by my classmate, Mr. Tate. This amendment provides additional breathing room--regulatory relief to those businesses which need it the most, the little guys, namely those with 100 or fewer employees. Think of who this will help the most, the shoe repair shop down the street and the auto mechanic around the block.America's smallest businesses are the ones hardest hit by the hefty regulations churned out by the Clinton administration's bureaucratic agencies in Washington. Businesses with 100 or fewer employees are those which are just beginning to grow. In an economy that is still struggling to recover we cannot afford to hamper those enterprises which provide the greatest opportunity for growth. It is these companies that create the largest number of jobs that are so badly needed in the district of each and every Member of this august body. The Tate amendment merely gives these small enterprises an additional 6 months of relief from the red tape created in this town. This will allow your neighborhood grocer, farmer, and restauranteur, the little guys, to flourish. We can only succeed as a nation if we allow our community enterprises to bloom. I can think of no better present to give the little guys--the small businesses of our districts as we approach the season of spring. I ask all my colleagues to pass this very important proposal, Mr. Tate's amendment to provide an additional 6-month hold on the burden of red tape hurting small businesses, the backbone of our economy. It is time that the people take back control of President Clinton's Big Government and look out for the little guys--small business.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for the courtesy of yielding me 2 minutes of his time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this rule and for H.R. 831 which will bring tax fairness to the little guy and especially millions of middle-class working Americans. This bill will restore the 25 percent health care deduction insurance for the self- employed. This sorely needed tax deduction was held hostage, as many will remember, by the Clinton government-run health care plan that was eventually rejected by the voters this past fall. As a result 3.2 million families, including my own parents, self- employed farmers, will now be unable to deduct even 25 percent of the cost of health insurance for themselves and their families, unless we enact this legislation. Major corporations are able to write off 100 percent of the costs of their health insurance. Yet, self-employed individuals, like my parents who run a fifth generation hog farm, may have to forgo insuring their family because they cannot afford the added cost. This situation will undoubtedly lead to thousands of Americans being added to the millions of those already uninsured. H.R. 831 will restore at least part of the tax break that is currently available to corporations which the self-employed have come to rely on. This bill not only restores the deduction for last year, but also makes it permanent so that the self-employed do not have to travel down this road again, year in and year out. Mr. Speaker, finally we have a Congress which is committed to bringing tax fairness to all Americans. Restoring the 25 percent health care deduction for the self-employed will help make health care more affordable. H.R. 831 is an important first step that must not be delayed. Let us make the right vote and vote aye for the rule and H.R. 831.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the President never ceases to amaze me. He has this incredible habit of setting up these ridiculous straw men for the express purpose of making him look good when someone knocks them over. He has misled us on the issue of Social Security, and now he is trying to mislead us on crime. The President says he will veto any bill that goes back on his promise of 100,000 new police officers, but like most Clinton promises, the 100,000 new policemen were a hoax from the start to the finish. As Republicans made clear last year during the debate on the crime bill, the Clinton bill would only result at most in 20,000 new cops. Today I placed a phone call to one of the mayors in my district, the mayor of Calumet City. Last year his city received a grant, a $1 million grant to fund 13 new police officers. Now, he says, the realities or the strings of the President's program have set in. His city council has only been able to find funding for its 25-percent share, the match it has to put up, for 6 out of 13 of those officers. The local share totals $800,000 over 3 years. Calumet City's problems highlight the problems of the President's program. It is not working. It must be changed.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I support and accept your amendment to our amendment. One of the reasons is I think of an example in the State of Illinois, in Will County, which is the largest county in my district, a county without a juvenile detention center. Of course, they are anxious to construct, because they are overcrowded, and they need a place to put bad kids and get them off the street and keep them off the street until they have the opportunity to go to trial, for a juvenile detention facility.

Mr. WELLER. I would ask the gentleman from Texas if he would confirm the amendment to our amendment which he is offering is the language that we discussed and agreed to in consultation with the chairman of our committee.

Mr. WELLER. My colleague from Texas, I would like to just confirm that the language of the amendment that you are offering to our amendment is language that we discussed and that was agreed to?

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my comments in support of H.R. 667, I wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for their leadership in bringing forward legislation which has earned bipartisan support. This crime problem in our country is out of control. I believe we must do everything we can to protect our children and our communities, and I believe that a combination of more police officers, more prison space, and longer sentences will send a clear message to criminals that they will be caught and that they will serve time. The middle class working families of my district have made it very clear to me that they want hard-core, violent criminals off the streets. We need more prison space so we can bring an end to the revolving door policy that moves criminals in and out of the justice system. The recidivism rate among violent offenders is extremely high. In fact, 60 percent of convicted felons will be rearrested within three years of their release. Eighty percent of all violent crimes are committed by 20 percent of criminals. If we keep letting them out of prison early, we are only subjecting ourselves to the continuing threat of violence in our neighborhoods and our society. The Violent Criminals Incarceration Act authorizes $10.5 billion to provide grants to the States to build and operate prisons. Half of this money will be provided on the basis of the implementation of ``truth- in-sentencing laws.'' This means that the felon must serve 85 percent of his or her sentence, more than twice the average time they currently serve. Think of it in this way: In my State of Illinois the average murderer serves less than 10 years, and I find it hard to believe there are some who believe they should serve no longer. It is also my hope that we can include language in this bill which will make funds available specifically for juvenile facilities, and shortly I will be offering an amendment for this purpose. Americans are ready for real crime-fighting legislation. The Violent Criminals Incarceration Act is just that. Not only is this crime- fighting legislation, it is an investment in our society and deserves the same kind of bipartisan initiative in the Contract With America has received. Mr. Chairman, I urge full support of H.R. 667.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am here to offer an amendment by Mr. Hastert and myself today, that would permit States to use funds from this bill to build, expand, or operate juvenile correctional facilities or pretrial detention centers. If a State can certify to the Attorney General that they are experiencing exigent circumstances, that is that they are in severe need of space, then the State may use funds received under this bill for juvenile facilities. First of all, I would like to say that I am very pleased with H.R. 667. My amendment only seeks to improve on it. It is a positive step forward from last year's social spending bill. I believe that if we are going to spend billions of dollars on stopping crime, we should spend the money wisely on prisons and police officers. By increasing police presence and adding prison space, we will send a message to criminals that violence and crime will not be tolerated. Our country is facing a crisis. We do not have enough prison space, and as a result, we continue to release criminals early. By doing so we are facilitating the revolving door policy that moves criminals in and out of the justice system. Too often criminals go free because there is not place to put them. The same problem applies to our juvenile offenders. My amendment seeks to correct this problem. This amendment would allow States to utilize funding from this legislation for the construction of juvenile correctional facilities or juvenile detention centers. The increase in recent years of crime committed by juveniles is astounding. Juveniles have committed several thousand murders a year. These youth are at risk of becoming products of the system; repeat violent offenders who are in and out of prison. In my State of Illinois, as I've learned in the case in many States, we face a severe shortage of beds in the juvenile detention system. If you disregard Cook County, there are only 351 beds for the entire State. Because there are no beds to put these juvenile offenders, they are transported all over the State--wherever a bed becomes available. If the next night, the county needs the bed for one of their own, the youth will either be transferred somewhere else in the State or released. Police officers are playing chauffeur, driving these kids back and forth across the State, when they could be using their time much more effectively patrolling the streets. Another problem we face is the mixing of severely violent youths in pretrial detention, with nonviolent youths. It is in the best interest of kids if we separate kids with a bad attitude from violent murderers and rapists. I have a letter from the sheriff of Will County, Brendan Ward, expressing great concern with prisoner overcrowding and lack of appropriate juvenile detention space. A Department of Justice study shows that more than 75 percent of the confined juvenile population were housed in facilities that violated one or more standards for detention living space. So as you can see, this is not just a local problem. There has been a significant increase in juvenile crime across the Nation. According to the same U.S. Department of Justice study, the number of delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts increased 26 percent between 1988 and 1992. During these 5 years, cases of robbery and aggravated assault grew 52 percent and 80 percent respectively. In the State of Illinois, over approximately the same time span, the number of juveniles arrested for violent offenses increased 16 percent. The rate of juvenile crime is constantly increasing. We need to take this into account when we consider the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, and make funding available for juvenile facilities. This situation is also very discouraging because we are forced to release these juveniles when there is no facility in which to put them. Kids are not dumb. They realize that there is nothing that we can do to them; they know that they can continue to get away with their actions. With the amount of crime committed by youth gangs today, it is imperative that they know that they will have to pay the price for their actions, or there is no reason for them to stop. The amount of crimes committed by juveniles is staggering. The FBI reports that in 1992, juveniles were involved in 15 percent of all murder arrests, 16 percent of all forcible rapes, 26 percent of robberies, and 23 percent of weapon and drug law violations. The recidivism rate among these types of offenders is very high. If we can show them that they will be locked up, maybe they will realize that there are consequences to their actions, and think before they commit their next crime. However, without the proper facilities, we cannot keep these kids in custody. We need to make sure that some of the $10.5 billion dollars in this bill are used for juvenile detention centers. I urge your full support for this very important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] my colleague from the great State of the Land of Lincoln, and I ask the Members for their full support for this very important amendment. amendment offered by mr. doggett to the amendment offered by mr. weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor former President Ronald Reagan. I am proud to have this opportunity to speak about our 40th president who was born 84 years ago, in my home State of Illinois. At the age of 9 his family moved from Topica and settled in Dixon, IL where he played football and basketball, ran track, served as president of the student body, and first performed as an actor. Continuing his education in Illinois, Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College in 1932 with a degree in economics and sociology. From humble beginnings, Ronald Wilson Reagan went on to become a sportscaster, actor, governor of California, and President of the United States. Sworn in at the age of 69, Ronald Reagan was the oldest President ever elected. As one of America's most popular Presidents, Reagan presided over a period of great fiscal growth as he revitalized the American economy. Through his efforts, the American people enjoyed great prosperity, while he steered the country through the delicate times of the cold war. Mr. Speaker, the state of Illinois is proud to have Ronald Wilson Reagan as a native Illinoisan. It is for this reason and all of his great services to the United States of America, that efforts are being made by the Illinois Senate to have Interstate Route 57 designated as the Ronald Reagan Highway. Stretching from the great city of Chicago, through the fields of middle America, to the beautiful scenic land of southern Illinois the Interstate offers a view of both the Land of Lincoln and the birthplace and early home of Ronald Reagan. I urge my former colleagues of the Illinois State House to pass the legislation honoring Ronald Reagan and name Interstate Highway 57 after him.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote to add one more disciplinary tool to the budget and appropriations process, the line- item veto. Along with the balanced budget amendment, which we passed 2 weeks ago, the line-item veto will help bring fiscal sanity to Congress' out-of-control spend-a-thon over the last 40 years. Former President Ronald Reagan used to say the line-item veto was not a partisan issue but a good-government issue. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress refused, refused to put aside partisan differences to pass this important legislation. But today we will finally throw aside partisan politics. We will pass this good- government measure. Happy birthday, Ronald Reagan. The line-item veto is an idea whose time has come. It is too bad we could not President.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, Christmas might come just once a year to most people in the country, but up here in Washington, land of plenty, the legislative Christmas tree shines all year long. Why? Because Congress for years has been practicing pork barrel politics. In the past, Members have been able to hang their own little ornaments on appropriation bills, best known as Christmas trees which resulted in huge payoffs to someone back in their district. Unfortunately these ornaments cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars while only benefiting a select few. But with the passage of a line-item veto, we are finally going to give the President of the United States the same power to remove these costly ornaments. Line-item veto will allow the President to enjoy the same authority as 43 Governors including my own Governor in Illinois, already practice. With line-item veto, we will end the long reign of pork barrel politics. This bill is long overdue.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, last night this Chamber was treated to quite a speech. At times it sounded as though the President had finally heard the message that the American people sent last November. Americans want smaller government and less taxes. In fact, there were times I was expecting the President to pull out his copy of the Contract With America and put his signature on it. But, Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. If the President is truly serious about reducing the burden and size of the Federal Government, I challenge him to join with the new Republican majority and help pass the balanced budget amendment. Only with a balanced budget amendment will Congress have the backbone and discipline to end the irresponsible and wasteful spending that has engaged this body in the last 2\1/2\ decades.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], my good friend from Long Island. I want to commend you for your leadership in organizing tonight's discussion of the tax-limitation, balanced budget amendment. I just came from my office, and I have been receiving phone calls tonight from taxpayers in my congressional district which, of course, is the south suburbs of Chicago, rural areas, industrial communities, probably the most diverse district in the State of Illinois, and I have received a good number of phone calls. I am glad I answered the phone. Because they were calling in support of the tax-limitation, balanced budget amendment and from those calls, and every one of them were from middle-class average working men and women. They are concerned about the massive deficit and its impact on the future and their children's future, and they point out, or I had three of them point out, they are aware that the average cost today for every man, woman, and child in the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, as throughout this country, is $18,000 for every man, woman, and child. The average taxpayer is aware of these things. Congress for far too long has thought that the average taxpayer just did not know. Well, the taxpayers are better informed today. You know, in the past Congress has said, ``Trust us, we will balance the budget. We have got the discipline. We will do it.'' Well, they have never kept their promise, and they have failed. One call tonight from a working man from the city of Joliet, an industrial community of about 100,000 in the heart of my congressional district, was frustrated. He is a man who drives a long distance to work, works in industry, and he was frustrated by last year's tax hike which, of course, the administration and the liberal majority in the previous Congress proposed as their solution and imposed it upon the people and the taxpayers in my district as well as yours, and they were aware that that tax increase last year cost the taxpayers in my district $410 million, $60 million in higher gasoline taxes which drives up costs for average working middle-class families, just to go to work or go to the store, and $90 the senior citizens in my district alone. Well, that family, as well as others, they have seen their taxes go up, and they have not seen any results in reduction of the deficit or long-term discipline over controlling Congress' historic ability to overspend. They want to be able to afford to go to work and take care of their families' needs, and they want to be able to live comfortably in retirement. They want Congress, they told me tonight, to have Congress to have the discipline and the confidence to cut spending and to oppose higher taxes and, at the same time, protect Social Security. Today with the passage of the Flanagan resolution, this Congress is on record saying that Social Security is off the table.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is important that today we shed light on the scare tactics that are being used by some in the political arena to frighten America's senior citizens. Broadcasting false cuts in Social Security, these fearmongers are needlessly scaring our society's most vulnerable citizens by tying Congress' efforts of balancing the budget to alleged efforts to cheat seniors out of their hard-earned Social Security. This is inaccurate information purposely being delivered to the elderly in an attempt to conjure up false images of bone-chilling results at the cost of our American senior citizens. These individuals who are painting the dark, inaccurate picture are doing so in an attempt to confuse and scare America's senior citizens of the reality, the true changes, that are taking place here on Capitol Hill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the balanced budget amendment and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], of the Land of Lincoln, the State of Illinois, for his initiative to put everyone's name with an ``aye'' or a ``nay'' and put us all on the record in saying whether or not we want to protect Social Security. Republicans have made it clear that Social Security msut not be touched as we work to balance the budget. I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with us in our commitment to America's senior citizens by voting to adopt the Flanagan resolution to protect Social Security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. You are absolutely right. You know, there is nothing I value more than hearing from the folks that I have the privilege of representing, and when I know that I get 10 phone calls from the taxpayers in my district, I recognize that they probably represent a total of 100 voters who agree with them and just did not take the time to make the telephone call. So those telephone calls, I know, are extremely important and, you know, one of the questions that a caller told me tonight is that they say, you know, the Republicans are in the majority now. It is going to be an easy sell. You are going to be able to pass that, are you not? I said, ``Well, you realize it takes a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment like this.'' We need a bipartisan vote. We need, if every Republican votes for this, we need over 60 Democrats to support us, and I said, ``You know, if you have friends that know Democratic Members of Congress that they should call them and support the balanced budget amendment.'' It is so very important that they make calls, and I certainly made that point, and again, I want to thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. It is so important that we give Congress the discipline, the backbone to balance the budget and to resist the temptation to go back to the old ways which is always to raise taxes. I served in the legislature for the last 6 years in Illinois. We were fortunate to have a balanced budget provision in the State constitution. That was effective in giving those of us who wanted to balance the books the backbone, the discipline, to get the job done before we went home. However, my State is one of those that unfortunately does not have what we call the tax accountability amendment, and we are still trying to do that in Illinois, which would require a three-fifths vote. We know if you require a three-fifths vote to pass a tax increase, those who would like to push a tax increase know it is going to be much more difficult, and the obvious solution is to cut spending. Congress needs that discipline. I am proud to cosponsor the Barton amendment, the tax-limitation balanced budget amendment, in the Contract with America, and I certainly am proud to join with you tonight and participate in tonight's discussion on this important initiative which frankly is a historic change on how Washington works.

Mr. WELLER. Well, you know, thank you. I would like very much to thank the gentleman from Texas for your hard-fought long effort historically to bring this initiative to the floor of the House for debate, and you have worked long and hard to bring a tax-limitation balanced budget amendment, and I just want you to know the phone calls that I have been receiving in my office here in Washington tonight from the taxpayers in my district, they are calling. I had six calls tonight.

Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman would yield, that is certainly Illinois math. I apologize. It is the end of the evening I guess.

Mr. WELLER. I say to my colleagues, ``Thank you, thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity to respond to the gentleman from Arizona's question.'' As I pointed out in my little brief conversation with my colleagues a few minutes ago, Illinois is a State, of course a great State, and I am proud to represent the State of Illinois, and we have a balanced budget provision in the Illinois constitution. However it only requires a simple majority to pass tax increases, and I served in the Illinois legislature for 6 years, and during that period of time I was actually involved in the appropriations process where I was involved in the spending end of the State legislature, handling the human service appropriations portion of the State budget. It is about half the State budget. We have a State budget of $34 billion, 10 percent of what would be called the gross State product, which is a big chunk of the Illinois economy, and we wrestled every year. Of course we have a balanced budget provision which requires we have to balance our books, and all too often at--towards the end of session or at the beginning of session, if we had a hole in the budget where we knew we were short of dollars, all too often particularly certain special interests, and always representing those who want to spend money, would always say to the legislature, ``You know, we really need to do the right thing, and you know the right thing is to raise taxes.'' Well, they knew that the so-called right thing to raise taxes, which they always argued for, is the easier way out because I guess, if we look at the history of this Congress, it has always been easier for Congress to raise taxes than it has been to cut spending, and I saw how those pressures worked in the State legislature, and rather than cutting spending the special interests would always say, ``Why don't you just raise taxes,'' because, as the gentleman from Arizona pointed out, the taxpayers are not in the room, and that three-fifths provision is the silent partner that the taxpayers need to have in this room when we debate whether or not we should raise taxes. And let me tell my colleagues, if we have a three-fifths majority in the Constitution as a requirement to pass a tax increase, there has to be a lot of public support, there has to be a real justification, to get those 290 votes to pass the tax increase, and, had we had that provision in Illinois, I can think--during the period of time that I was in the legislature I can think of about half a dozen tax increases that would not have been passed on the taxpayers of my State. I think it is so important that we include the tax limitation provision because not only does it protect the taxpayers' interest, act as a silent partner, but it is a reality check. It is going to require a supermajority. The special interests are going to realize that Congress is going to think twice before they raise taxes. It is time to protect the taxpayers' pocketbooks.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, soon the House of Representatives will wrap up debate and vote on H.R. 5. But since debate on the floor began, it is clear the bill's opponents just do not get it. The supporters of unfunded mandates continue to argue that if there was no big brother, a Federal big brother, America's children would be subjected to all sorts of horrible things. They seem to be saying Washington cannot trust the State Governors and legislators with these responsibilities. Well, the taxpayers know better. It is time to change that same mentality that has governed this town for the last 40 years. State Governors and elected officials were chosen, and the taxpayers are being belittled by Members of this body for those choices. Apparently, the only people who know how to clean the water or take care of the children are those whose credentials are backed by the Federal bureaucracy. How unthoughtful to those State and local officials and to the voters who decided to change to a new way of thinking at both the State and Federal levels. It is time to give local officials a little credit and adopt the unfunded mandates legislation.