[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H188-H189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a critical 
issue that must be addressed as we address the balanced budget at the 
Federal level, it is very important that we also protect the taxpayer 
at the local level. So I wish to indicate my support for the unfunded 
mandates bill and the need for liberalizing the rules governing 
privatization of Federal infrastructure assets by State and local 
governments.
  Yesterday, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
completed its markup of H.R. 5 the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. 
Chairman Bill Clinger showed tremendous leadership on the first day of 
committee business by moving the bill so quickly. I strongly support 
House passage of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 is an important first step in 
right-sizing the Federal Government. The November 8 election sent 
Washington a clear message--the American people want smaller, less 
intrusive government. Unfunded Federal mandates is one costly example 
of Federal Government overreach.
  The Federal Government taxes gasoline, cigarettes, payroll for Social 
Security, and of course, income. But that is not all. Washington also 
taxes the American people through costly regulations placed on State 
and local governments and the private sector. The cost of Federal 
regulations are hidden in increased property and sales taxes, higher 
fees on services that show up in water and sewer bills, and more 
expensive goods and services. In addition, these Federal mandates 
infringe upon the freedom of communities to order their public lives. 
In short, the Federal Government compels taxpayers of both State and 
local governments and the private sector, either by force of law or the 
power of the purse, to pay for its policies. The America people want 
relief.
  The mayor of Richmond, IN, Steve Cornett has indicated that unfunded 
Federal mandates have prevented that municipality from improving vital 
public safety and infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency 
compels this community to fit its landfill with a $1 million liner, 
even though the landfill is clay and not prone to leeching. The city 
also had to use scarce resources to dig up empty storage tanks 
[[Page H189]] in a remote area near the Richmond Municipal Airport. 
According to Mayor Cornett, the opportunity costs of this Federal 
meddling is high. The city wants to update fire department equipment, 
but is strapped for the funding. Curbs, sidewalks and streets need 
repairs, but the demands of the Federal regulations come first. The 
city of Richmond is not unique in this regard. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors with the firm of Price Waterhouse assessed the cost of 10 
unfunded Federal mandates and found that they consumed 11.7 percent of 
local revenue--(August and September 1993).
  As I stated, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 is an important 
first step. To do the full work of right-sizing the Federal Government, 
this Congress must also: First, address existing unfunded mandates--
H.R. 5 directly addresses only prospective mandates; Second, level the 
playing field between public and private entities--that is to say, 
private sector entities that provide services such as utilities should 
receive the same relief from regulation as publicly held entities; and
 third, reduce barriers to privatization. With regard to the last--
privatization--I hope to introduce an amendment to H.R. 5 to reduce 
barriers to the privatization of federally financed infrastructure 
assets by State and local governments.

  State and local governments should have greater control over 
infrastructure decisions, on roads, utilities, and airports. Current 
Federal policy greatly restricts the options available to those 
governments to manage infrastructure assets with little regard to local 
priorities.
  My amendment would allow State and local governments to transfer 
Federal-aid facilities to the private sector--either by sale or long-
term lease--without repayment of Federal grants, provided the facility 
continues to be used for its original purpose. This legislation is an 
extension of Executive Order 12803 on Privatization that President Bush 
signed in 1992. It would not interfere with any contractural 
obligations agreed to by local government owners in connection with 
previous grants.
  In my home district, the Second Congressional District of Indiana, 
there are many examples of successful privatization efforts. Two in 
particular are the Muncie Youth Opportunity Center and the Anderson 
Community Hospital Pregnancy Plus Program. The Muncie Youth Opportunity 
Center is a home for disadvantaged young people privatized and 
supported by private donations under the very able leadership of Judge 
Steven Caldemeyer. The center was previously administered by Delaware 
County and since its privatization, the center has renovated its 
facilities and begun to serve more needy children in my hometown. The 
Anderson Community Hospital Pregnancy Plus Program offers prenatal care 
to women of limited means. Previously run by the Madison County 
Department of Health, since privatization, the program has nearly 
doubled the number of women who have access to prenatal care in this 
program and expanded to provide post-natal care.
  Just adjacent to my district, the city of Indianapolis is a leader in 
privatization. Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith has moved 50 public 
services into the private sector by way of competitive bidding, at a 
savings of $115 million.
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill and support for my amendment.

                          ____________________