[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2482-H2485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         RETURNING DECISIONMAKING TO THE STATES AND LOCALITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Waldholtz). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Ehrlich] is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague from California. Madam Speaker, cliches are very popular in 
politics as we all know, particularly in election years. Everyone is 
pro-small business, everyone loves the family, everyone is tough on 
crime, everyone likes the middle class, cares about the middle class, 
wants to support the middle class.
  The problem, Madam Speaker, is that right here in the House of 
Representatives is where the rubber meets the road, and cliches are 
know longer good enough. This is where the votes occur, this is where 
the lines are drawn in the sand and this is where positions are taken 
that we must defend come every other November.
  Right now the tough votes with respect to regulatory reform are being 
taken every day in this House. It is part of the Contract With America, 
it is a very important part of the Contract With America, but it is 
also what the people want.
  [[Page H2483]] I direct a comment to my colleague from California. I 
was amazed, Madam Speaker, that in the course of our campaign we 
targeted the small business community, we went around top strip 
shopping malls and would ask owners what is the number one issue for 
you ma'am, or sir. And I thought the answer I would receive would 
concern itself with the legal environment in the State of Maryland, or 
the availability of capital, or employee problems. But, Madam Speaker, 
by far and away the No. 1 problem that the small business community in 
the second district has is the regulatory burden that government at all 
levels has placed upon it. And this was surprising to me.
  And I direct a question to my colleague from California. Did he also 
find this to be the case in his campaign?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may, if the gentleman will yield, I would like 
to tell the audience a bit of a story that happened in my district with 
regard to small business. There was a killer in my district. My name is 
George Radanovich from the San Joaquin Valley in California. A little 
to the south of me, not necessarily in my district but very close, 
there was a killer on the loose and the Federal Government swooped down 
on this person one day and came down on this killer as he was disking 
his farm there in Kern County, CA and arrested the man. He was, as I 
said, out on a tractor disking his field as he was preparing it for the 
crop he was hoping to harvest a few months later. This man was the 
killer. They arrested him and they took the weapon at the scene of the 
crime. And the weapon itself was a tractor and in disking what he had 
done was he had killed five rats, and this was under the Endangered 
Species regulation. Actually, he is in court right now facing I believe 
a 6-year sentence and a $100,000 fine, and what he did was he killed 
five rats while he was trying to go about the business of farming on 
the ground that he owned.
  This is the kind of legislation, Madam Speaker, that we are running 
into in our districts, and it is not so much, granted you know the way 
that they are dealing with this issue is a real problem, but the whole 
point of the problems in endangered species legislation or any 
regulation is where it is coming from.
  And I think we heard plenty today and over the past few weeks when we 
are trying to get rid of some of the regulations that come out of this 
body, what we are trying to do is send it to the local level so that at 
the local level those regulations will begin to make a little bit of 
sense. When the far-reaching arm of Washington reaches down from 3,000 
miles away and abducts a farmer for disking his own field or killing 
rats, it is a pretty good indication of the fact that regulation from 
Washington does not work very well. Food programs from Washington do 
not work very well, crime programs from Washington do not work very 
well in Fresno.
  What we need to do and I hope what we are doing by block granting is 
getting those funds into the district and placing them into the proper 
hands for people to take care of the problem locally, because I do not 
know, nobody in this body knows how to take care of crime better in 
Fresno than my mayor, Jim Patterson, and my police chief, Ed Winchester 
and my sheriff, Steve Magarian. Those guys know it the best, and that 
is the problem I have with regulation coming out of this floor out of 
Washington, DC.
  My colleague from Maryland has some similar examples as well, and I 
am sure he would like to be able to relate them. I have a whole list of 
these too.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I know you know, but I only have all night. Actually we 
do not have all night, and I thank the gentleman from California.
  I think the American people are finding out that one of the themes 
behind the Contract With America was this devolution of power back from 
the Federal Government to the States, to the local, because as the 
gentleman so eloquently stated, the locals know better. They know what 
best to do with the money that the taxpayers generate. And in this way 
we can cut out the middle-man and in fact send them the same amount of 
money and get better service, and that is what this whole thing is all 
about.
  I know the gentleman is familiar with some of the more dramatic 
numbers, Madam Speaker, that have been generated over the last few 
years. The number of pages in the Federal Register reached 64,914 in 
1994, the most since 1980. Federal regulatory agencies currently employ 
131,412 people at an annual cost of $11.9 billion, both record numbers.
  The Clinton regulatory plan released last
   November, which I know the gentleman is familiar with, shows that 
the administration plans to pursue 43,000 additional regulatory actions 
after FY 1995 and beyond. In the last 6 months of FY 1994 alone, the 
Federal Government completed 767 rules and regulations. The Clinton 
Administration's National Performance Review stated that the compliance 
costs imposed by Federal regulations on the private sector alone were 
``at least $430 billion per year or 9 percent of our gross domestic 
product,'' and as the gentleman knows, one of the frustrating parts of 
this debate is the fact that we have not focused in on the job loss. We 
zero in on costs, we talk about anecdotes, we have our anecdotes, the 
other side has their anecdotes, but we do not quantify. And I am not 
sure it is quantifiable, the extent to which overregulation costs us 
jobs in this economy.

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have 
another tale of what happens in my district. I also represent grazing 
land in the Sierra National Forest. Part of my district allows, over 
the past 20 years, cattleman to do summer grazing in the Sierras by 
permit. There are people who have been up there and using the same 
ground over a 20-year period.
  Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what is happening in my district 
right now, and this is through the National Environmental Policy Act 
which requires a biological study now for everybody who goes up in 
there. Remember, these people have been up there for the past 20 years. 
And they are gearing up for their season which when the snow melts will 
start this spring. They are being told through this National 
Environmental Policy Act that they have to do a biological study. This 
requires thousands of dollars, it requires months to do. If they were 
to do it now, it would be ready in the winter of the following year. 
They could be locked out of 1 year in the Sierra Nevadas.
  My cattleman in my area are facing the fact of having to sell down 
the herds they have built up over many many years and taking capital 
gains losses over that, simply because a rule that stated that these 
people have to go through biological studies that will take months 
instead of being flexible to allow that to happen over a period of 
maybe 1 or 2 years, knowing the fact that they have been up there for 
the last hundreds of years and the Sierras are still there, that they 
cannot demonstrate any flexibility. That represents a loss of business 
and a loss of jobs, and again it is just another example of laws and 
regulations coming out of Washington that are better served coming out 
at the local level because they make more sense.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman will yield, the point is very well-
taken. When we talk about regulations sometimes we forget it is the 
American consumer in fact who actually pays the cost, not just with 
respect to job loss but also increased prices at the grocery store for 
instance, because it is at the supermarket where the impact of all of 
the regulations we have been talking about on this floor for the last 
week hit home.
  I was shocked when the Food Marketing Institute, for instance, which 
represents supermarkets and grocery wholesale ears described to me all 
of the regulations that go into the distribution of grocery products to 
consumers.
  I think the gentleman will agree we have the most efficient food 
distribution system in the world, bringing customers a wide variety of 
goods at lowest possible prices despite the best efforts of bureaucrats 
and regulators to add layers of inefficiency and costs to the process, 
but it is acronym city and that is the problem. We have the USDA, we 
have FDA, we have the FTC, we have the ICC we have the DOT, we have 
OSHA, we have EPA, we have the DOI, we have the CPSC and who knows what 
other collection of letters and acronyms that govern and 
[[Page H2484]] micromanage, in my view, the way this particular 
industry operates.
  Most of the regulations are well-intended; we all know that. I think 
we can all agree with the other side with respect to that point. Some 
are necessary. But all of them add up to a staggering amount of 
paperwork and we are going to get into that in a minute I know, and red 
tape and costs that often makes food distributors feel as though their 
primary business is satisfying government regulators and not meeting 
consumer demands. And if the gentleman would let me just have another 
20 seconds I will throw an example in here, and I know the gentleman 
has a lot of anecdotes he wants to share with the American people and I 
also want to hear them, but let us begin with the basic food group, 
fruits and vegetables.
  Does the gentleman know under PACA, the 65-year-old Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act, retailers and wholesale grocers are 
forced to pay a fee for the privilege of selling fresh and frozen 
products in their own stores? Grocers pay millions of dollars in 
license fees, and that is what they are, license fees, for this 
outdated, inefficient, and unfair program.
  Five years ago an advisory committee recommended changes to PACA. No 
changes have been implemented.
                              {time}  2300

  I have in my hand, in fact, a letter from a constituent in Maryland. 
He owns a small chain of grocery stores right around the corner from 
where I live with my wife. PACA costs his four stores alone $1,600 a 
year; his contribution, one grocer in Maryland's contribution, to the 
$500 billion annual cost of Federal regulation in the grocery industry 
alone.
  It gets crazier.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have 
another story.
  I think in my district an article was written recently in our local 
paper that talked about the hand ``Biting the Hand that Feeds Us'' was 
the name of this article in Fresno, and it talked about how we are 
biting the hand of big Government that is feeding my valley to the tune 
of about $4.6 billion a year, and the article went on to say that it 
covers the various benefits, quote unquote benefits, that come from 
Washington into the district to the tune of about $4.6 billion. That 
includes everything, pensions, AFDC, farm subsidies, the whole bit. You 
name it. Four point six billion dollars in there.
  And the tone of the article, which is quite interesting, was the fact 
that we are--you know, can the valley survive a hit of $4.6 billion, 
and went on to say how, no, we cannot, we cannot survive without the 
help of the Federal Government. In a small sentence at the end of the 
article it did say, however, that $5.3 billion left the valley to come 
to Washington, and so the point that was never made was that $5.3 
billion was paid in taxes from my district. My district got $4.6 
billion less. Now there is a discrepancy there of about $700 million, 
and I would like to make the case that if that, those dollars, never 
left Fresno, solving the same problems, they would have $700 million 
more to deal with on the local level, and, my colleagues, that is what 
I think we are trying to get at here in Washington when we are talking 
about regulatory control.
  No. 1, the regulations do not make sense from Washington. No. 2, you 
give the money back to the States and let them deal with their own 
problems. They got more money to begin with, and they are going to be 
much more reasonable in their regulation.
  It boils down to me, too, of trusting other people.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I know many 
people on our side have thousands of anecdotes we would love to share 
with the American people. We have all been doing that on talk radio, C-
Span, in newspapers, in town meetings with our constituents.
  Just a short one for you:
  What about the cardboard boxes that contain grocery products that we 
all buy? The Department of Labor has fined grocers literally millions 
of dollars, and they are still doing it because a 1954 regulation named 
the Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12 prohibits 16- and 17-year-olds 
from even tossing a cardboard box into a baler. Has the administration 
revised the law to keep up with the safety design standards found in 
all modern balers? No. Does the administration have any data to justify 
its unrelenting enforcement? No.
  Last year, before we got here, 72 Members of Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, asked the administration to address this issue. 
Still no action, and that goes back to the earlier point, the job loss. 
We need to focus in on that in the course of our debate over this whole 
issue of regulatory
 reform in our country.

  Do you agree?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I agree with you, and I have got another tale to 
tell:
  Madam Speaker, water is an important commodity in our district. We 
have a network of dams that supply agricultural water and also water to 
our cities. Under a different majority in 1992 we had what is called 
the CVPIA, which is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. During 
that time there was a study to be initiated on one of the major streams 
in my district that was dammed, and the study would require $5 million 
allocated for that study as well to study the establishment, 
reestablishment, of a fishery, and what the study was intended to show 
in 1996 was a way that we could take water from agriculture and 
reestablish a fishery that had disappeared with the establishment of 
the dam in the 1960's. The study was supposed to say that any project 
that came up with that, those results, had to be reasonable, prudent 
and feasible, and so since 1992 they began their study, and just the 
mere consideration of this study, which everybody knew would bankrupt 
agriculture in the valley for the amount of water that would have to be 
taken from agriculture to replenish this stream, my farmers were facing 
decrease in land values. They were not getting loans at the bank simply 
because of the mere thought of doing something like this. Everybody 
knew that it was going to take so much water that it would literally 
destroy agriculture in my valley.
  Thank God the other day we were able to stop this study, but it is 
just another example of somebody's idea of, yes, it would be very nice 
to have fish back in the San Joaquin River. You put a price tag to that 
with these ideas that come out of Washington. You can quickly find that 
they are neither reasonable, prudent and feasible, and you do not have 
to spend $5 million finding that out.
  And the list goes on, and again I think that it drives home the point 
that we in Washington and these Members of Congress on both sides of 
the aisle are going to have to realize that America can trust not only 
us, but every other elected official all the way down to dog catcher in 
Main Street USA to successfully deal with problems and allow them to do 
that. I think that is what the evolution is all about, and I think that 
is what block granting is all about. It is by Members of Congress 
admitting that they do not know, they do not know every detail of the 
problems in every little town and downtown America.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that 
point, just a short question.
  All the horror stories that we hear, regardless of the issue, 
welfare, crime, regulation, at the very foundation of these horror 
stories, or these alleged horror stories, or these fear-mongering 
stories, it seems to me is implicit distrust of the State governments 
in this country, of local governments in this country, and concomitant 
with that is the thought that only the Federal Government can do it 
right, and we cannot trust in this country any other level of 
government.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. In the recent crime bill, which is interesting 
because it illustrates this point, during the debate on the crime bill 
which were block granting funds down to the State level, and hopefully 
to the local level and back into the jurisdictions where they can solve 
their problems, a comment was made by someone on the other side of the 
aisle saying the very same thing, that we cannot trust. What we cannot 
do is trust the people on the local level to
 properly implement those funds.

  And I am sitting here thinking I have got prime problems in Fresno, 
CA. That is the heart of my district. It is a wonderful place, but it 
has got a problem with crime, and I am sitting here 
[[Page H2485]] thinking I am going to trust this person on the other 
side of the aisle who has never been to Fresno, I guarantee it, to know 
how to solve problems in my community. By the way, midnight basketball 
would not work there--and not trust the people, the good people that 
are really on the frontlines trying to solve the problems, and to trust 
them to do it, and I mean I do not even know enough about how to solve 
crime in Fresno.
  What I do is I rely on the people that the citizens of those 
communities elected to solve those problems and give them every 
resource that I can unencumbered, and it is this basic mistrust that is 
why I wanted to give that argument. It is that basic mistrust of local 
and State officials is what the problem the other side of the aisle 
has.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Let alone the private sector; G-d forbid we would trust 
the private sector.
  In fact, and I do not think the gentleman from California saw this, 
just the roofers in my district, just one small industry in the Second 
Congressional District in Maryland, sent to me 50 pages of petitions 
asking me to support House Bill 450. Can you imagine if we magnify, if 
we multiply, this times all the small business people in this country 
who are crying out for help who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to 
represent them in an administrative action or a legal proceeding or 
cannot afford the plane fare to come here in Washington and plead their 
case?
  I know the gentleman from California wants to comment on this, but it 
seems to me that we need House Bill 450. We need the moratorium. Let us 
inventory all these regulations. We are not saying they are all bad; 
some are absolutely required. We have built in emergency exceptions, as 
the gentleman will recall from the debate last week. We need cost-
benefit analysis and risk assessment. Since when did this become such a 
radical thought? When did looking at the relative costs and looking at 
the relative benefits, in addition to the absolute risk that a 
particular regulation brings into question, when did that become such a 
radical thought in this government?

                              {time}  2310

  I think the gentleman will also agree that the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, House Bill 926 we debated today with respect to judicial review, 
is an idea whose time has come; paperwork reduction on the floor last 
week, is an idea whose time has come, making it stronger; and, of 
course, private property protection. Since when did the idea that 
government should pay for infringing on your right, your constitutional 
right, to enjoy your own private property, when did that become a 
radical thought in this country, I would ask the gentleman?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman will yield, I guess I want to 
respond by saying that we on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Maryland and I, are both freshmen, we are new here, but everybody on 
this side of the aisle has been accused of hating mom and kids and 
apple pie and dogs and everything else. The
 point that we are trying to get across to the American people is that 
we have more resources to solve problems if they depend less on 435 
elected officials and begin to depend more on the thousands of elected 
officials all across the land. That is when we will start getting 
regulation that makes sense, and people will begin respecting this body 
once we begin to respect other elected officials on the local level to 
do the right thing. Because I have no question, I am here to do the 
right thing, and I do not question any other Member of this House to 
say that they are not doing the right thing, because I believe they 
are. But the fact of the matter is we have got to begin to trust in the 
elected system and that the people that sent us here also sent other 
people to other posts and we can allow them to have the responsibility 
to do their jobs, and keeping tax dollars in districts.

  Mr. EHRLICH. I think the gentleman makes a good point. No one 
questions motive.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I get tired of hearing I hate apple pie, mom, and 
kids.
  Mr. EHRLICH. It is fear mongering. you see it played out time and 
time again in the national politics everyday that we have the Contract 
With America on the floor of this House. Because the problem is, and I 
think some people either do not want to admit this, they still deny it, 
they do not want to confront it, is that the American people voted for 
fundamental change in this country on November 8th. And we are here, me 
and you, we are a tangible result of that change. And it is not a 
partisan issue, but it is a conservative issue. The people that the 
American people sent to this House this time are willing to challenge 
the fundamental assumptions that this Government and this House in fact 
has operated under for the last 40 years. We are ready to return power 
to the states, we are ready to return power to the local governments, 
and we are ready to return power to the people. That is what we 
campaigned on, and that is what we intend to deliver, Madam Speaker. I 
know the gentleman from California has a lot of anecdotes he would like 
to share.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I think I got my point across. I just needed to say 
that. I think American needs to hear the fact we are here trying to do 
some good, and I think we are. But until we start relying on other 
people in this country, you know, it is going to get worse.
  Mr. EHRLICH. It is that concept of personal responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity to talk about this issue 
tonight, and we will at this point yield back the remainder of our 
time.


                          ____________________