Q&A Interview                                                              

An interview with Speaker Lee A. Daniels

New ties with Washington,
a new agenda for Illinois

By JENNIFER HALPERIN

Rep. Lee A. Daniels became speaker of the Illinois House on January 11. The Elmhurst Republican, who was first elected representative in 1974, spent 12 years as that chamber's minority leader.

Throughout his state legislative career Daniels was active on a wider stage. In 1984, the National Republican Legislators Association recognized him as one of the country's 10 outstanding legislators. ^n 1990, he served as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Reflecting on the GOP capture of the Statehouse and Congress in the November election, Daniels discussed what the partisan shift could mean for relations between the states and the federal government.

Q: How would you characterize Illinois' relations with the federal government since you've been in the state legislature?

A: Well, I don't think the relations have gotten any better. What we're finding is some very strong mandates and requirements for us to do things without the appropriate assistance from the federal government. A prime example here is Medicaid. They just don't seem to understand on the federal level that when they pass additional requirements on to us and don't send the funding, it literally causes us to be in a borderline bankruptcy situation. Every state in this union is facing severe problems because of the Medicaid requirements of the federal government and their unwillingness to allow us to create some of our own programs to deal with Medicaid.

Q: What are other examples?

A: The Clean Air Act, environmental regulations — every issue you talk about has good intentions, but then you have to balance this off against what states can reasonably be expected to do within the time frame you're talking about. I know that in the case of the federal EPA, states have had a tremendous problem getting them to move in and take over some of their responsibilities, whether it's under the Superfund, assisting in the clean-up of contaminated water sites or other things. They seem to want to say, "Do this," and then they back off when they are required to accept some kind of responsibility for it.

Q: Have states become more aggressive in fighting this thinking?

Rep. Lee A. Daniels spent 12 years in the minority in the Illinois House. Republicans took control of the chamber in the November election.

A: Well, we have and we hope that finally we'll be heard — at least that's what we understand will start occurring [in a Republican-controlled Congress]. On the [National Conference of State Legislatures] level, we made a very strong pitch to the federal government to understand what they're doing to us. When we have the "compromise" that then-President Bush agreed to in an effort to reduce some of the deficit with the Congressional colleagues on the Democrat side, much of that balancing was done on the backs of the states. They utilized traditional state revenue sources in order to try to address the deficit. We knew at that time it wasn't going to work. History now tells us it did not work. All that it did do was to drive into some of the traditional state revenues and give us fewer dollars to work with to solve our own problems.

Q: Do you worry about a balanced budget amendment if one is enacted?

A: I think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea because I think it brings to the federal government the discipline that the states have had since our creation. I think that when they have to address this, they'll be required to make tougher decisions. I do not think states are going to let them get away with just passing costs on to us and trying to say, "Well, we solved the problem." I think that there is a greater awareness, there certainly is a lot more talk on the federal level of tending to states' problems with unfunded mandates. And I can tell you that as speaker of the Illinois General Assembly I intend to make sure that our views are heard regularly by not only our national organization — the NCSL — but also right to the White House and working with our Illinois congressional delegation. I have a lot of friends there whom I served with in the General Assembly and have worked with in the past.

Q: Will this be enough to protect states?

A: I'm not so starry-eyed that I think that alone will do it. I think it's going to require some of our congressmen and

30/February 1995/Illinois Issues

Rep. Daniels launched his term as speaker with Dwight David Elsenhower's D-Day message to the troops: "OK, let's go." The Elmhurst Republican said his party will pass an agenda for Illinois within the first 60 days of the legislative session, including business and welfare reforms.

women to keep their word when they talked about unfunded mandates. I think they're going to have to look at new ways of solving Medicaid problems, like giving us additional ability to deal with them as states. I think we can do a better job than they've done on the federal level.

Q: What are the benefits of Republican-Republican leadership of state and federal levels?

A: I think the best thing would be the opportunities it creates. I don't think we should hold out wild expectations that we can't meet. I think what we ought to do is say, "There are tremendous opportunities for us to work together that didn't exist before." There is a new day in Washington, D.C., just like in Illinois there is a new day. Now we have the opportunities, and it is incumbent upon us to seize the moment and to make sure that we address the issues that people are concerned with.

Q: What are the negatives?

A: I think people have the right to develop high expectations. I think at the same time we should all understand that change does take time, but we are going to make sure that on the state level we're going to address changes immediately as well.

Q: How?

A: I think it is a big agenda. But people didn't send me back to Springfield, or elect a Republican majority, to take things easy. We're going to get down to work. We have an unprecedented schedule in Illinois. We're going to work starting on the 24th of January, hold committee hearings, making sure we address fast-track legislation in the first 60 days. Each one of the five items has its own complicated nature. Education reform, property tax caps for Cook County, welfare reform, business reforms to improve the business climate and criminal justice.

I do not think states are going to let the federal government get away with passing costs on to us

Q: As House minority leader you were in a frustrating role and were often labeled as ineffective. What did you learn from the experience?

A: One of the things you leam is that there are opportunities to build a consensus. And that's what you have to do in the minority: You have to attract other people to an idea, to a concept, because you the minority did that on a range of issues, from care for the developmentally disabled to the temporary tax increase in 1983, in which we stopped a permanent tax increase, to our mark on Build Illinois. These all came with tremendous battles. What we've learned is that if we can develop a consensus there's very little that we can't do as a state.

But it requires help on both sides; you can't just do it on one side. I have reached out to the Democrats: I have visited [House Minority Leader Michael Madigan], I have visited the mayor of Chicago, I have visited the leaders of the Democrat Party, and I intend to continue to reach out to them. But nobody should misunderstand. We intend to accomplish change and make a difference in this state with or without assistance from the other party. We would prefer that we had their assistance. I'm not suggesting it will be easy; I'm suggesting we have a responsibility to find that middle ground.

Q: In light of your goals on the state level, what direction would you like to see federal-state relations move?

A: They should be more receptive to our ideas in the states, like with Medicaid waivers. Instead of standing in our way, they should be our partners in helping us find solutions instead of some bureaucrat sitting in Washington,D.C., saying "Oh, that's not going to work." Why don't they come out on the front lines, where we have to do the work — on the state level — where we're delivering the services? We can come up with ideas that do a better job because we're closer to it.

It can't be one standard, like for welfare, applied to all states because different states have different needs. Just like it's not going to be one standard applied to the whole state of Illinois. In every instance we have to fine-tune to different areas. *