[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    STOP US BEFORE WE MANDATE AGAIN!

                                 ______


                      HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 1994

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, last week two important groups of elected 
officials were in Washington for their annual conferences. A bipartisan 
item high on the agenda for both the National Governors' Association 
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors was persuading the Clinton 
administration and Congress to stop passing unfunded Federal mandates, 
a harmful practice requiring State and local governments to provide 
certain services or meet regulatory standards, but providing little or 
no Federal money to help pay the costs. President Clinton's 
spokesperson stated the administration policy this way, ``* * * the 
President signed an Executive order which basically said we will not 
impose unfunded mandates on the states. This is a commitment he takes 
very seriously.''
  We've heard from the President; but just how serious is Congress 
about curbing unfunded mandates? We will find out when I offer an 
amendment to help reduce the impact of unfunded mandates on State and 
local governments to H.R. 3425, legislation to elevate the 
Environmental Protection Agency to a Cabinet department.
  According to an October, 1993 survey by the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, the top ten most expensive mandates, eight of which are 
environmental, will cost cities with 30,000 or more in population over 
$50 billion in the next few years. This is just the tip of the iceberg 
because there are 14,950 smaller cities not included in this study. The 
National Association of Counties reports that counties spend about $4.8 
billion annually to comply with just 12 unfunded Federal mandates.
  The reality is that State and local governments need relief. As the 
Federal deficit has mushroomed, Congress and the executive branch 
depended on mandates as a convenient way to take credit for popular 
policies while passing the costs on to States and localities. If 
unfunded mandates continue, State and local governments will have two 
choices: one, cut back on important everyday services such as fire and 
police, public transportation, social services and others; or two, 
raise taxes.

  My amendment directs the new Department of Environmental Protection 
to implement a strategy easing the burdens imposed on State and local 
governments by the Department, consistent with environmental laws. This 
strategy must promote inexpensive yet effective alternatives for State 
and local governments struggling to comply with rigid, complex 
environmental regulations which dictate not only what they must do, but 
how they must do it.
  This amendment does not exempt States and localities from complying 
with environmental rules and regulations; it promotes a strategy to 
provide a State or local government flexibility to comply with 
mandates. The Federal Government thinks that ``one-size-fits-all'' 
compliance equals greater environmental protection, when in truth 
States and localities may achieve the same environmental goals as 
effectively for less money. This amendment directs the Department to 
execute a strategy recognizing that Washington's way is not always the 
best way.
  Important developments in Congress--such as the creation of an 89-
member anti-unfunded mandates caucus, the introduction of several 
relief bills, and congressional hearings in Washington and around the 
country describing the problem--give me reason to believe that Congress 
is ready to go on record against more unfunded mandates. Outside 
Congress, important groups such as the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors are working hard in support of my amendment.
  Those of you who oppose additional Federal burdens on State and local 
governments are urged to write your Senator and Representative in 
Washington and tell them to support the Clinger unfunded Federal 
mandate amendment to the EPA bill. It is a good, common sense way to 
begin addressing the problem Congress has created.

       TOP TEN MOST EXPENSIVE UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES FOR CITIES      
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FY94-98 
                           Mandate                             projected
                                                                costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Clean Water Act/Wetlands................................        29.3
(2) Safe Water Drinking Act.................................         8.6
(3) Solid Waste Disposal Act................................         5.5
(4) Clean Air Act...........................................         3.6
(5) Americans With Disabilities Act.........................         2.1
(6) Lead-based paint........................................         1.6
(7) Fair Labor Standards Act................................         1.1
(8) Underground storage tank regulations....................         1.0
(9) Asbestos................................................         0.7
(10) Endangered species.....................................         0.2
    Total...................................................       53.7 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Conference of Mayors.                                      



                          ____________________