[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H345-H370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 5.

                              {time}  1244


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on 
States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government 
pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain 
requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide 
information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to manage that time. I also ask unanimous consent 
that the committees be recognized in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, ask unanimous consent that I be 
able to yield 5 minutes of our Committee on Rules time to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit], and that he be able to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, some years ago a serial killer whose name I forget, 
there are so many these days, left a scribbled note at the scene of one 
of his murders which said, ``Stop me before I kill again.'' In effect, 
he was saying, ``I know what I am doing is wrong, but I am powerless to 
stop doing it.''
  Mr. Chairman, so it is with unfunded mandates. Most of us in this 
House know what we are doing is wrong, that we are putting an 
increasingly intolerable burden on States and local governments in the 
private sector, but we seem incapable of stopping it. H.R. 5 is our way 
of saying, ``Stop us before we mandate again.''
  In fact, this bill will not actually stop us from imposing additional 
unfunded mandates, but it will certainly slow the process, and will 
force each of us to go on record if we want to mandate action by State 
and local governments without providing the resources with which to pay 
for it.
  It does not go nearly as far as some of us would like. No money, no 
mandate, would be our preference, but H.R. 5 is a reasonable compromise 
between divergent views, and one which has the support of the President 
and bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

  This bill begins to restore to State and local governments some 
measure of control and direction over their own affairs, control which 
the Federal Government has increasingly arrogated to itself over recent 
decades. [[Page H346]] 
  Here is what H.R. 5 will do. Title I establishes a 1-year commission 
to reevaluate existing mandates and to make recommendations to Congress 
and to the President as to whether some or all should be changed to 
ensure that they still make sense.
  Title II requires Federal agencies to consult with State and local 
elected officials and to prepare statements on agency actions that will 
cost State and local governments or the private sector in excess of 
$100 million.
  Title III applies to us. It ensures Congress is informed and 
accountable when it comes to considering an unfunded mandate in pending 
legislation. It requires that CBO score the cost of State and local 
governments as well as the private sector of any mandates in new 
legislation prior to floor consideration. Then, this title establishes 
a point of order on the floor against consideration of legislation 
imposing unfunded mandates over $50 million unless there is funding.
  Here are some of the things this bill will not do, despite the rising 
chorus of naysayers who see the erosion of environmental and safety 
protections, if not the dissolution of the entire nation, with passage 
of this bill.
  It will not have any effect on existing mandates designed to protect 
the environment, worker or consumer safety, or any other existing 
Federally mandated requirements. It has no, repeat no, retroactive 
effect. It will not, per se, create competitive inequities between 
public and private enterprise.
  It will not preclude, and in fact is designed to ensure, an up-or-
down vote on whether to impose an unfunded mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that there are some in this body, a 
small minority, I believe, who strongly oppose any limitation on the 
power of the Federal Government to dictate to States and to local 
governments. Their view is based on the well-intentioned but in my 
opinion misguided belief that only the Federal Government can maintain 
essential standards and that permitting flexibility to States or local 
governments will erode services and the overall quality of life in the 
Nation as a whole.
  There is an implicit assumption in this position that States and 
local governments cannot be trusted to protect the welfare of their 
citizens, despite the fact that the governments closest to their 
constituents are likely to be more responsive, not less, to 
environmental safety and other concerns.
  The truth is that it has often been the Federal Government that has 
frustrated State and local efforts to deal with problems of all sorts.
  Too often the Federal Government has mandated an inflexible solution 
and made the situation worse rather than better. The cumulative effect 
of these requirements, Mr. Chairman, is that communities and States 
have been forced to increase the burden on their citizens to pay for 
them, whether the mandates make sense or not.

                              {time}  1250

  H.R. 5 will force us to think twice and vote twice before passing a 
mandate that someone else has to fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. Chairman, we take a lot of things for granted in this country. We 
take for granted that our drinking water will be free from germs and 
free from dirt. We take for granted the air we breathe will be 
reasonably clean. We take for granted that the food we buy in the 
supermarket meets certain quality standards. But once this unfunded 
mandate bill passes, we may have to stop taking these things for 
granted, at least on a Federal level.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of my district know about dirty water and 
high water rates. We live next to the single largest water treatment 
project in the country, the Boston Harbor cleanup. Let me tell you, it 
is one thing to live next door to the harbor, but it would be another 
thing altogether to have dirty water coming out of our faucets all over 
the country.
  I am concerned that families who want clean water and the workers who 
want to know that the places they work will be as safe as they possibly 
can be made.
  Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in this country from the days 
of contaminated drinking water and sweatshops. Let us not undo all the 
good we have done just because we are in a hurry to pass an unfunded 
mandate bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by complimenting the 
sponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Messrs. Clinger, Portman, 
Condit, and Davis have done a superb job. The four of them have worked 
diligently to produce a balanced bill that addresses the need to make 
Congress accountable when enacting unfunded mandates without unduly 
hamstringing the legislative process.
  During a markup last Thursday the Committee on Rules adopted 
amendments to clarify that H.R. 5 does not apply to straight 
reauthorization bills, and to streamline the process when a point of 
order is made on the floor with respect to unfunded mandates.
  H.R. 5 does not explicitly prohibit the enactment of future unfunded 
mandates. But it does make enacting such mandates procedurally 
challenging. That is because, for too long, Congress has been casually 
passing the buck by imposing enforceable mandates on State and local 
governments without commensurate funding to carry out those duties.
  Frankly, I would like to see the bill go further by rolling back some 
existing unfunded mandates, such as the motor voter bill. Enforcement 
of that law will cost my State of California more than $35 million 
annually.
  In addition, a number of Federal environmental laws and regulations 
imposed on local governments are paid for by taxes on homeowners in the 
form of impact fees. In California, these fees exceed $20,000 per new 
house. For every $1,000 added to the price of a home as a result of 
these mandates, 20,000 middle-income families are priced out of the 
market.
  However, H.R. 5 is not the proper vehicle to retroactively resolve 
these onerous mandate problems. Congress will have the opportunity to 
modify or repeal existing unfunded mandates when the commission which 
is established under H.R. 5 conducts a thorough study and reports its 
findings to Congress early next year.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling for 
more time to study this mandate relief bill, arguing that the measure 
is complicated and could hamstring the legislative process. That is the 
point of the legislation. As long as committees do not report bills 
containing unfunded mandates, H.R. 5 makes no changes in existing 
legislative procedures.
  The bill is the result of years of negotiations with State and local 
government officials who have been calling for mandate relief since the 
early days of the Reagan administration.

  Yet while Democrats were in control of Congress, their leadership 
chose to ignore the problem. In fact, in the 1980's, as Ronald Reagan 
sought to deny liberals in Congress carte blanche access to the tax 
code to finance their spending binge, they began instead to use State 
and local governments as unreimbursed instruments of their social 
welfare agenda.
  Between 1980 and 1992, according to the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations, Congress enacted at least 63 Federal laws 
that contained mandates that affect State and local governments. These 
laws do not include the so-called motor-voter law and the Family 
Medical Leave Act, both enacted in 1993.
  An October 1993 study by Price Waterhouse for the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors found that compliance with just 10 unfunded mandates cost the 
cities $6.5 billion in 1993 and a total of $54 billion proposed between 
1994 and 1998.
  Undaunted by the impact of these burdens, opponents fear that H.R. 5 
will become a major obstacle to their efforts to nationalize the health 
care system, increase the minimum wage and impose new environmental 
cleanup costs on States and communities. They plan to offer amendments 
to exempt from the unfunded mandate prohibition entitlement programs 
such as welfare [[Page H347]] and measures affecting public health and 
safety. These amendments would essentially gut the bill because the 
definitions of public health and safety are vague, and most unfunded 
mandates fall in these categories.
  Nine weeks ago, the voters sent a message that they were tired of the 
unrestrained growth of governments at all levels that has occurred over 
the past decade while Congress was dragging its feet, paying lip 
service, scapegoating and passing the buck when it came to streamlining 
and reforming government.
  The reality is that the new Congress cannot act fast enough to end 
unfunded mandates and reduce the size and scope of government. H.R. 5 
takes a significant step in that direction. Combined with a balanced 
budget amendment, regulatory reform and tax cuts for working families, 
this legislation will transform Government and restore the confidence 
that the American people once had in this institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking minority 
member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, let me begin 
by noting that the issue of unfunded mandates is not a Democratic or 
Republican issue.
  It is fair to say that Members on this side of the aisle have a range 
of views on the mandates bill--from those who believe it should be 
stronger to those who would make it weaker.
  In the previous Congress, under Democratic control, but the Committee 
on Government Operations and its counterpart in the Senate passed 
bipartisan legislation dealing with mandates. At the Government 
Operations Committee the vote was 35 to 4, including the support of our 
current chairman and our previous chairman, as well as the same group 
of State and local officials that support this bill.
  Unfortunately, the bill that is before us this year is different from 
last year's bill. It is also different from the bill described in the 
Republican Contract With America. This bill was hatched in secret, with 
no public hearings. Even so, our goal during the floor consideration of 
H.R. 5 is not to kill it, but to perfect it, and it needs plenty of 
perfecting.
  I intend to discuss this bill, not in the abstract terminology of 
unfunded mandates, but in the terms of the real world. We know, for 
example, that our constituents always agree that we should cut 
entitlements, but when we use the real world terms of Social Security 
and Medicare--the two largest entitlements--they say leave it alone.
  Similarly, unfunded mandates just sound bad. However, I find that 
when we discuss examples of mandates--from cleaning up our drinking 
water to better airport security--I get a different response. 
Therefore, I think you will hear a good deal of debate about what 
should be covered by the bill, and what should not.
  The authors of the bill have made those judgments. For example, they 
believe it is alright to have an unfunded mandate to the States to pay 
for national security, so they exempted those bills. Many on our side 
feel strongly that matters such as child immunizations and cleaning our 
air and water are just as important. We believe that in their haste to 
enact this bill, the Republican majority have overlooked these 
concerns.
  We also must ask why this bill should not apply as soon as possible, 
rather than be delayed until October 1. That will be after the bills 
implementing the Republican contract, after the bills making huge 
spending reductions to the States, and after welfare reform and other 
bills have been considered. If we are serious about this legislation, 
it should apply now, not after the Republican agenda has been largely 
considered.
  We also intend to raise the issue of the treatment of private and 
public enterprises. Under this bill, private companies, such as 
utilities and pipelines, would face more stringent laws than publicly 
owned enterprises. The question is, why shouldn't a municipal landfill 
be subject to the same rules as a private landfill? Are the people who 
live next to the public landfill less deserving of protection? Should 
the private company be at a competitive disadvantage?
  None of these amendments is a killer amendment. They are, however, 
important perfecting amendments. In the end, the real debate about 
mandates is not just about their cost, but their effectiveness. Many of 
the most important mandates were supported by the States, because of 
the contribution they would make to the lives of their people. These 
were not mandates passed in the middle of the night. They were passed 
after years of hearings with the full participation of the States, and 
usually their strong support. Perhaps this is a reason why the authors 
exempted current mandates from this bill.
  I suggest that before we go overboard on this issue, we look at our 
record on matters such as clean air and clean water. Have we been 
successful? You bet. Did the Federal Government help pay the tab? We 
sure did, with hundreds of billions of dollars. Did States and 
localities chip in? Yes, they did, and I think they got their money's 
worth.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this debate under an open rule. For 
those of us on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which was 
designated the lead committee on the bill, it will be our first and 
only opportunity to truly discuss these issues.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, today marks the culmination of years of 
work by both Democrats and Republicans to put accountability back in 
Congress. I want to pay special recognition to several Members, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Geren], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], 
and the entire group that made up the Unfunded Mandate Caucus that 
worked very, very hard to find a solution to this serious problem 
facing this country.
  Our current system of mandating the cost of programs on to States and 
local governments is a good example of the abuse of power by 
Washington. Under the current system, we in Congress can pass what we 
call feel-good legislation. That is, legislation that lets us feel 
good. We get to feel good and pat ourselves on the back and say what a 
good job we have done, and at the same time we get to pass the cost on 
to State and local governments.
  Today we are taking a great step in correcting that problem. Today we 
are putting some accountability back in this Federal Government which 
simply means if it is good enough for us to debate, it is good enough 
for us to pass, it ought to be good enough for us to come up with the 
money to pay for it. That is what we are doing today, Mr. Chairman, and 
I would encourage all of the Members who think they can make this a 
better piece of legislation, it is an open rule, they can come and 
offer amendments and they should do so.
  But at the end of the next couple of days we are going to have a 
piece of legislation that we can be proud of and something that will 
help local governments and State governments across this country and we 
ought to be in support of.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Hayes].
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] deserve a great deal of special 
credit, even greater to the extent of what is now a majority in 
Congress because they fought this fight last year as a minority within 
a majority. Collectively we have on the floor today a bipartisan 
approach where the realities [[Page H348]] of the impact of decades of 
lack of accountability by the Government to its citizens has risen a 
tide whereby a majority of the majority and a majority of the minority 
in that realization are finally going on the Record to tell some of the 
folks at home, to say somebody finally is hearing some of their 
messages.
  While many would talk about the merits of mandates, I would just like 
to talk about instead the unintended consequences of legislation.
  I think Newton's third law ought to apply to legislation, that every 
act of legislation has an equal or opposite greater reaction. What has 
happened over decades is we have told towns that have a part-time mayor 
and no attorney whatsoever to figure out the most complicated 
regulations devised by a battery of lawyers within Washington, DC, and 
given a limited amount of time in which to deal with both economic 
sanctions, penalties, and indeed laws that carry criminal penalties.
  So the mayor of a small town in America knows he has a school with 
asbestos and somebody ought to do something about it, and it is him. He 
knows he has a Clean Water Act and he has never heard of a section 404 
expansion of a public building to what is in wetlands, even though it 
looks dry to him. He knows he has a Safe Drinking Water Act with a 
mandate with a $250,000 cost, which in his town is bigger than his 
entire tax base and no Federal Government to help him because whatever 
funding is available is sucked up immediately, and no Federal 
Government to even answer the question of which to do first. Is it the 
asbestos before the drinking water? Is it the drinking water before the 
cleanup on wetlands, or is it the wetlands first before asbestos? No 
one knows.
  In 2 days they expect our collective answer.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], who is a prime sponsor and 
author of this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time 
and want to congratulate him for getting the bill to the floor after 
years of effort to do so. It has been a true pleasure to work with him 
on this critical new mandate relief legislation that really initiates a 
new Federal-state-local partnership and a better understanding of the 
impact mandates have on the public and private sectors.
  The goals of H.R. 5 are really very simple. First it gives Congress 
the information on the cost of mandates. Second, Congress must have an 
informed debate on the issue of mandates. It guarantees floor debate on 
the issue, and finally accountability. No significant unfunded mandate 
can now go through Congress without Members having to vote up or down 
in the public view.
  Unbelievably, none of those three things currently apply. That is 
what this bill gives us.
  It is important to note in the debate today, Members may hear some 
say otherwise, but it is important to note this is not a partisan issue 
outside the Beltway. In fact, we are here debating H.R. 5 today 
explicitly because State and local elected officials of both parties 
have come to us. The outcry has been bipartisan.
  All Members have to do is pick up the Washington Post today and look 
at page A13. The headline reads ``Unfunded Mandates Top Cities' List of 
Problems.'' The unfunded mandate crisis is listed in the National 
League of Cities survey as the No. 1 issue ahead of crime, ahead of 
violence. The National League of Cities survey as the No. 1 issue ahead 
of crime, ahead of violence. The National League of Cities, the 
National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. 
Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, 
and individual State and local government officials all across this 
country have enthusiastically endorsed this approach.
  Governor George Voinovich from my own State of Ohio, in the most 
comprehensive and quantitative State report on burdens caused by 
mandates, put the problem this way:

       The recent explosion of unfunded Federal mandates--174 
     since the mid-1970's--tells us of a troubling dynamic that 
     distorts governmental accountability. The guardians of the 
     Federal Government have grown adept at a sort of budgetary 
     sleight-of-hand that allows Washington to exert greater 
     influence over other government subdivisions without 
     providing corresponding Federal support.

  He is right. Mandates preempt important State and local initiatives, 
stifle local innovations, force States and cities to reorder their 
budget priorities and to revamp their budgets. It has led to the total 
breakdown of the Federal-State-local relationship envisioned by the 
architect of our government.
  Toward that end, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], a 
longtime champion of that issue, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis], the Gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and myself have 
introduced H.R. 5 on the first day of this session. It is a carefully 
balanced approach. It is the result of lengthy consultations with State 
and local officials across this country, with the Congressional Budget 
Office, and yes, with the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Rules 
Committee, and with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, 
experts from the Congressional Research Service, regulators from 
Federal agencies and many, many others.

                              {time}  1310

  It is the result of having carefully thought about the alternatives 
of a balanced budget.
  Again, to clarify, H.R. 5 is a good bill. I look forward to its 
passage in the next few days.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wilmington, DE [Mr. Castle], the former Governor of Delaware who 
understands full well the impact of unfunded mandates.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I congratulate everybody who had anything to do with this 
legislation, but particularly those who worked sort of in the dark a 
year ago when nobody was supporting it. You have done a wonderful job.
  If we can pass the balanced-budget amendment next week, if we can 
pass the unfunded mandate bill next week, this body will have started 
the reduction of spending and control unequaled since the beginning of 
this country.
  I know, as a Governor of a State, when I put together our budget in 
Delaware, for a number of years 20 percent of it went into unfunded 
Federal mandates, some $300 million out of a budget of $1.4 billion.
  Mayors, county executives and Governors are elected for a reason. 
They should put programs into place that will benefit their States, 
their counties and their towns, and they should not be told from here 
in Washington exactly what they should do and how it should be done. 
They should be given the choice of how to move forward.
  We have seen restrictions with Medicaid costs, we have seen it with 
welfare requirements, Clean Water Act.
  We need to get the complete picture. I believe if we can pass this 
legislation, we will have gotten there.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote no on this bill.
  Let me just say as background, before I came to Congress I spent 18 
years in the State legislature, 8 years heavily involved with putting 
State budgets together, with that primary responsibility in dealing 
with the relationship of the State to local units of government 
throughout our State. So I fully understand the impact; maybe not 
fully, I understand partially, because I do not know if any of us 
understand fully the impact of the relationship between one unit of 
government to another, and I understand there is a problem of mandates.
  But what I fear is happening here is total overreaching. I find 
unbelievable that we could start as a basic premise of law, as a 
Federal Congress, to say to someone like me from Minnesota, at the top 
of the Mississippi, that if you want to dump your sewage into the 
Mississippi at the Iowa-Wisconsin border, it is of no relevance to the 
Federal Government unless the Federal Government pays the full bill. 
That is the concept of this legislation. [[Page H349]] 
  Second, we exempt the most obnoxious things we do except conditions 
of Federal assistance. Maybe that is appropriate when it is tied to the 
financial assistance, but we regularly tie in other policy unrelated to 
that basic program, more often by conservatives than by liberals. We 
try to tell the States how to structure their sentencing, because we 
are so much smarter than the State legislatures. That is not prohibited 
by this bill.
  But I have a question to the chairman of the Government Oversight, as 
I project for us to meet the terms of the contract of a balanced budget 
amendment by 2002, the tax cut, simply freezing defense outlays, we 
will need to cut Medicare outlays by program changes by a minimum of 
$225 billion over the next 5 years, more than likely $250 to $275 
billion; Medicare at least $115 billion, more than likely $125 to $150 
billion.
  Page 25, II, how would that apply as the Congress makes those cuts 
that are going to be required under the contract?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. I have to ask the gentleman which version are you 
referring to?
  Mr. SABO. Page 25, II.
  Mr. CLINGER. This is in the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
  Mr. SABO. No; no. The copy of the bill we have. It says, ``This bill 
applies to anything that would place caps on entitlement upon or 
otherwise decrease the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding for States, local government or tribal governments under the 
program.''
  Mr. CLINGER. I will be delighted to discuss the matter with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the fighter for his district, for the laboring 
man and woman.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. In 1978 Congress killed revenue sharing, $3 billion 
that returned some taxpayers' dollars back to the cities, counties and 
the States. Members of Congress called it pork.
  Every 2 years since I have been in Congress, Congress has a new tax 
bill, and each of these new tax bills, the increases are bigger than 
the previous. Each tax increase is the biggest in American history.
  We have given hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign aid since 
1985. We have even given Russia $12 billion in foreign aid. Congress 
will bail out Mexico even though I oppose it. I can see that coming 
down the pike.
  I support this bill. It is not enough, but it is a start. Because 
what Congress has said in the past, ``Yours is not to question why,'' 
to the States and the cities and the counties, ``yours is but to do or 
die.'' Let me tell you what they have done, Congress, they have died.
  Look at our roads and bridges. Look at our cities. There are 25,000 
murdered in America and one million high school graduates who cannot 
read. Our cities, States and counties have died. They did not have a 
vote on much of this business.
  I want to commend the Republican Party for at least bringing the bill 
out with some openness so that Members of the Democrat side can offer 
at least amendments.
  But I will say this: I think it is time to start returning, in 
addition, some of the tax dollars back to our cities, our counties and 
our States. I plan to introduce a very unpopular bill. The bill will 
say that we take $5 billion from the foreign aid account and transfer 
it to a reopened revenue sharing account for our cities and our States 
and our counties on a formula basis to use as they see fit.
  Because the only choice you have given them is cut services or raise 
taxes, do or die, and they have died.
  I support this bill, and I will continue to support open rules that 
come from the Republican side, and I commend them for such.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for 
yielding me this time and to thank him for the excellent work that he 
has done on unfunded mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, for the last 4 years I have cosponsored legislation 
that has required full disclosure of the cost of Federal regulation on 
our States and our localities, and I am pleased to see that today's 
legislation that I have cosponsored has formed the basis for H.R. 5.
  For too long now, Congress and Federal regulators have imposed 
mandates on States and localities without considering the economic 
burden that goes along with these mandates.
  H.R. 5 will require that the cost and benefits of all of these bills 
brought to the floor must be identified and, as possible, quantified 
and, as necessary, paid for.
  I represent a large rural district in Virginia, and time and time 
again the towns and counties in my district have been forced to expend 
their valuable and their scarce resources to comply with mandates that 
often do not make sense and are often not designed for their smaller 
communities.

                              {time}  1320

  So I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5 recognizes and responds to 
the specific needs of small and rural towns, counties and cities.
  H.R. 5 will require Federal regulators to notify and consult with the 
officials of small towns and counties before writing regulations that 
significantly affect them. This requirement means that, at last, rural 
communities will be able to present their unique circumstances to the 
Federal Government and be assured that these circumstances will be 
heard.
  I believe H.R. 5 will help restore the needed balance in the 
relationship among the local, State, and Federal Governments.
  I urge your support for H.R. 5.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of ending the practice 
of the Federal Government placing unfunded mandates on our State and 
local governments and our businesses. Like other Members of this body, 
I have a background in State and local government. All of us who came 
here from State and local governments know first hand about the 
problems that have been created when the Federal Government issues 
orders, but no money to carry out the mandate. While serving as a 
member of the Florida Senate, I helped pass an unfunded mandate 
prohibition after considerable deliberation.
  With that I must add my sense of regret about the process under which 
this bill is being considered. This is a very, very important and 
complex piece of legislation. As a member of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, I had hoped that we would have held at least one 
hearing to examine all ramifications of H.R. 5, as we did with the 
line-item veto, but instead of hearings we proceeded directly to 
markup. While this bill is based on legislation that my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], introduced and I voted for 
during the previous Congress, there are significant changes that should 
have been discussed during this hearing.
  Even more unfortunate is the fact that during the markup I know for 
myself that we asked questions that we were asking for clarification 
and that would have given us a better understanding of what potential 
harm this bill might cause. Most important, matters were not resolved 
during the markup.
  The question of the impact of this bill on the private sector when 
the State or local entities opt out of Federal mandates remains 
unclear. Fortunately, an amendment was approved during markup to exempt 
social security from the provisions of this bill, which I supported. 
But we had some other amendments, Medicare, laws and regulations 
protecting the elderly, infants, children, pregnant women, other worker 
protection laws for workers. [[Page H350]] 
  I am also concerned about an issue raised by the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] regarding sewage treatment laws. I understand 
that he will offer an amendment to exclude from the bill laws relating 
to sewage treatment, and I intend to fully support him in his efforts.
  In closing, let me once again express my strong support for ending 
unfunded Federal mandates.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am now very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to another prime cosponsor of this legislation, one who has been a very 
active participant in the drafting of this legislation, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand on the floor of the House today to 
support passage of H.R. 5. As one of four chief sponsors of this 
legislation, I have had the privilege of working with colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that will finally require 
Congress to put a price tag on Federal programs that mandate State, 
local, and private sector action.
  I may be a new Member of this body, but I am no stranger to the 
problem of unfunded mandates. For the past 15 years I have served on 
the front lines in the struggle against unfunded Federal mandates. As 
chairman of the county board of supervisors in Fairfax for 3 years and 
as a member of that board for 12 years, I have witnessed the hardship 
caused when local taxpayers must pay for the cost of Federal 
requirements before being allowed to allocate money to hire police 
officers and teachers and other needed programs.
  Last year I testified before Congress on this issue in my capacity as 
cochairman of the National Association of Counties' unfunded mandates 
task force.
  This bill is unanimously and strongly endorsed by not only NAC but 
also groups like the National Governors' Association, U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, and the National Council of City Legislatures, Council of 
State Governments, National League of Cities, and even the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. And the list goes on and on. These organizations recognize 
that the heart and soul of government is local government and that 
local tax dollars must be used to fund local priorities, not having 
priorities set from Washington, DC. This bill is both forward-looking 
and preventive in nature. This legislation does not touch any existing 
mandate and does not reduce any existing health or safety standard.
  Further, this is not a debate about the pros or cons of any specific 
Federal mandate. Instead, this bill forces Congress to ask the 
following questions before voting for unfunded mandates: Who pays; what 
are the benefits relative to cost; what is the impact on local 
priorities; does local government have the appropriate flexibility to 
carry out mandates in the most appropriate fashion? Congress has passed 
72 unfunded mandates in the last 9 years as compared to only 19 between 
1970 and 1986.
  In my county we compiled the costs of 10 of these and found that they 
cost $30 million annually.
  The unfairness of the increasing number of Federal mandates is that 
State and local governments are left with no flexibility, they must 
either raise local taxes or cut local services like emergency medical 
care, fire fighting, education, and the like.
  This legislation can be summarized by three words: priorities, 
honesty, and accountability. H.R. 5 discourages the Federal Government 
from forcing its priorities onto local governments without allocating 
the necessary Federal funds.
  Next, this bill forces Congress to be honest with the American people 
about the programs and regulations that it creates. Taxpayers deserve 
to know the price of a program or regulation before they are forced to 
buy into it. For the first time this forces Congress to honestly 
determine the cost of mandates before imposing them on local taxpayers.
  Finally, H.R. 5 is about accountability, making Members of Congress 
stand up and cast a recorded vote on all substantial mandates with full 
knowledge of their costs. This bill allows Congress to continue to 
enact legislation with mandates, but the financial consequences of the 
mandates will be premeditated and deliberate.
  I ask support of the passage of this important and long overdue 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Monticello, IN [Mr. Buyer], a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, for far too long the Federal Government, I believe, has 
usurped the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That specific 
intent of our Founding Fathers was to recognize States rights. This 
usurpation has stifled the growth of not only the Nation's business 
because of the cost of compliance with many Federal mandates, but I am 
also very pleased that finally this body will recognize States rights 
and will insure that States and local communities are allowed to 
determine how best to resolve their problems. It must also be fully 
aware of the burdens it is placing on the business community and those 
in the public sector.
  You see, many across this Nation, elected officials, local 
responsible leaders, have been called, challenged to solve many of many 
of the local problems, create economic growth and development and 
provide necessary services at minimal cost.
  However, the Federal Government for years has been redefining the 
responsibilities of the local level as being held to comply with 
Federal regulations, forcing them to sift through the Federal 
bureaucracy to obtain grants and Federal assistance. The time is now to 
stop that. Let us pass this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Commonwealth of Virginia [Mr. Moran], formerly of the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard from our good friend from Fairfax County, 
Tom Davis, who was my neighbor. He chaired the Fairfax County Board of 
Supervisors as I was mayor of Alexandria.
  Like Tom, when I came to this Congress 4 years ago, my highest 
priority was to do something about unfunded mandates because they were 
unfair. The worst part about it was that the executive branch took a 
cookie cutter approach, one size fits all, regardless of the geography, 
demography, or cost.
  They also did not seem to be willing to talk with us, to work things 
out, to exercise judgment.
  So I authored what we call the FAIR Act, the Fiscal Accountability 
and Intergovernmental Reform.
  We worked on it for 4 years. Virtually everyone on this bill was a 
cosponsor because in the last term we had 250 cosponsors. That bill had 
the support of every one of these local organizations that we have 
mentioned today, National League of Cities, Conference of State 
Legislatures, several of the larger ones, even the support of the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and virtually every business group.

                              {time}  1330

  It should have been passed last year. It is a source of great 
frustration that it was not. The principal reason that it was not is 
that we in the Democratic Party are responsible for most of the Federal 
legislation that has been passed over the last 40 years. Of course each 
one of those pieces of legislation created their own interest group who 
want to protect their own turf, and so it was impossible to get through 
their special-interest lobbying efforts to get a reasonable bill. 
Eighty percent of that bill that had such overwhelming support is in 
this bill. But it is the 20 percent that causes the problem, and the 
biggest problem is one of unintended consequences, so that is why I do 
not speak in an accusatory way of people that are supporting and 
sponsoring this bill. But I have to share my concerns.
  The first concern is that it will completely limit the Committee on 
Appropriations from being able to exercise judgment. In fact, in the 
explanation for this bill in the National League of Cities' 
publication, which was just published, it says for any program over $50 
million it creates an entitlement to [[Page H351]] fully pay for the 
mandate. Now 75 percent of the Federal budget goes for existing 
traditional entitlements, Social Security, Medicare and the like, 
interest on the Federal debt, and Defense budgets, so we are only 
talking about 25 percent of the budget. For any new Federal program to 
get passed, it has to be fully funded by the Committee on 
Appropriations. We now have to deal with a pay-as-you-go requirement 
that there be new revenue raised to pay for any new initiative or other 
programs cut. It is exacerbated by a balanced-budget amendment that may 
very well pass within a week, and it is further exacerbated by the 
intended cuts of almost a trillion dollars over the next 7 years. So, 
we do not have the prerogatives to exercise judgment.
  The second problem is that it treats the private sector different 
than the public sector. The unintended consequences: there will be no 
more competition between the private sector and the public sector, and 
in fact all of our privatization efforts where we contract out to the 
private sector will no longer be available because the private sector 
will have to comply with laws and regulations, whereas the public 
sector will exercise the option of not complying because the reality is 
that there is no money to pay for any new initiative.
  Now we are told that no program that currently exists when it is 
reauthorized applies to this. There has never been reauthorization that 
was identical to the existing authorization. We always expanded upon 
it. Every committee puts its mark upon it. We expand its scope, and we 
expand its costs, so it means every Federal program ultimately will 
fall under this unfunded-mandate legislation. Virtually everything will 
become optional to States and localities, and the unintended 
consequence is that unfunded mandates will be eliminated. But the 
biggest problem on States and localities is going to be unfunded 
burdens, and within 5 years I guarantee my colleagues those States and 
localities will be coming back to us to relieve the burdens that 
ultimately were created by this legislation.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, we have been working on this approach for a 
long time, and my colleagues will hear and have heard a lot of rhetoric 
about what the approach will and will not do. Let me try, if I may, as 
a former member of the State legislature in Tennessee and after 
speaking with the president of the U.S. Mayors' Conference from my own 
State of Tennessee in Knoxville, Victor Ashe, let me try to say 
succinctly what this approach will do.
  This bill is about having accurate information on the costs of a 
given statutory provision being considered and encouraging the Congress 
to consult with State and local government representatives about how 
best to address the Nation's problems. My colleagues, this is not going 
to cause or prevent something good, and needed, and necessary in this 
country from happening. It will encourage the Congress to consult with 
local, and State, and Federal, and municipal officials, county 
officials, and that, after all, is what we all desire. This is a 
federation of States, this country, and I think this is a huge step in 
the right direction to fulfill the American exercise in self-
government.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the vice-chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and a very active participant in the 
drafting of this legislation.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that the Congress of the United 
States became a more responsible institution. I think we took one step 
in that direction on the first day of the 104th Congress when we 
enacted a number of very needed reforms, including making the Congress 
susceptible to the laws that it passes upon everyone else, and other 
reforms. I think we are moving towards fiscal responsibility as I 
believe, ultimately in a bipartisan basis, we move toward a balanced 
budget. This bill, H.R. 5, which I support, moves us towards regulatory 
responsibility.
  It has been pointed out already, and I am sure it will be pointed out 
further in this debate, that there are times when mandates from 
Congress that cover the Nation are necessary, and in those instances 
there is nothing in H.R. 5 that prevents the Congress from enacting 
such legislation. But this matter of imposing mandates on the States 
has gotten beyond the realm of responsibility, that without with regard 
to costs versus possible benefits, if any, almost any whim in Congress 
gets imposed upon the States because Congress has no responsibility for 
paying for that.
  Now, for example, a number of rural communities in New Mexico, where 
I come from, say that amendments to the Clean Water Act threaten to 
bankrupt them because they are required under those amendments to test 
for substances that have never been found in the waters in their areas. 
Similarly in the city of Albuquerque, where I live, which has met 
Federal clean air standards for the last several years, nevertheless 
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is going to require the 
city of Albuquerque to make expensive changes in how it tests for air 
quality and how it insures that automobiles do not exceed air quality 
standards. Now the point is, assuming the validity of Federal air 
quality standards, if any locality meets those standards, why should 
the Federal Government even further say, ``You have to do it at your 
own expense, make certain changes''?
  H.R. 5 will make the Congress accountable. H.R. 5 will require us to 
identify mandates that we are imposing on State and local governments, 
and, if they are valid, we can still pass them, but we will have to do 
so on the record recognizing the cost first.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1340

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak as a former county chair of my 
board of supervisors and know the fact how unfunded mandates are indeed 
impacting the rural counties. But I think as we who may consider this 
bill need to raise some question, therefore we should not be blind 
supporters of a bill that may undergird the very things we think we 
support.
  Therefore, I ask, Mr. Chairman, that safety in the workplace has been 
a priority of the Federal Government for more than half a century, 
since the enactment of the Fair Labors Standard Act of 1938. In 1970 
the issue was treated squarely with the passage of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act.
  The Unfunded Mandate Act tends to threaten this. If indeed what you 
say is true, then I think you will indeed support my amendment when it 
comes forward to make sure that you say to the American people that you 
want to in fact protect children, you want to protect women.
  I raise this issue because in North Carolina, some may remember there 
was a very serious fire, which in fact claimed the lives of more than 
25 persons. Is the intent of this legislation to say that the Federal 
Government no longer has an interest in the safety of people? Is the 
intent of this legislation to say that the Federal Government is 
removing its responsibility in cooperation with States?
  I would say to you that the cost to the State of meeting the minimum 
standards imposed by the Federal Government is really not that severe. 
They only pay for inspectors. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask as we 
consider this, this is not a matter that should be rushed into unless 
we ensure to protect the American people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Why would our colleagues Gary Condit  and Mr. Geren and Mr. Moran, 
Mr. Clinger, Mr. Portman, and this [[Page H352]] Member, and 100 
Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle, join together in a 
posse, if you will, and indicate that they would work very hard for 
some kind of bipartisan bill to deal with unfunded mandates and call 
ourselves the Unfunded Mandates Caucus?
  I credit them in regards to their leadership, more especially Mr. 
Condit, who has persevered on this issue, and now we are about to 
achieve something that I think will be real progress.
  I will tell you why: The cost of Federal regulations today is more 
than $400 billion annually. That is more than the deficit. The Federal 
Government now has 122,000 regulatory personnel. The Federal Register 
has grown from 55,000 pages to 70,000. And in 105 counties in Kansas, 
every county board meeting that meets, every time during their budget 
considerations half of their expenditures must go to some form of 
Federal mandate. Some may be needed, many more are not. And many are 
silly and counterproductive and destroy the one element, the one issue, 
that is most important of all, and that is the faith and confidence of 
the American people in their Government.
  There are some that say we need more hearings. My word, we have had 
hearings for 3 years. Mr. Condit and I wrote the then majority 
leadership of the appropriate committee, asked for hearings, were 
denied, had a hearing, had a bill reported, does not do enough. This 
bill does.
  I will tell you why hearings have been held. Every school board, 
every county board, every city council, every country commission, every 
cooperative board, every business up and down Main Street, every Member 
in this Congress has had to go to bat on behalf of a community or a 
county or an individual or a business.
  Those hearings have been held. Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] who is the House of Representatives' at-
large Ambassador to Korea.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to remind Members that we need 
to protect the ability of this body to respond to problems and crises 
that come up unexpectedly in our society. We cannot be bound by some 
bureaucrat who looks in his crystal ball and thinks he sees an unfunded 
mandate. For this institution to be bound that way is not only 
ridiculous but even blurs the separation of powers.
  I appreciate the need to address the problems of unfunded mandates. 
But we have not been given the time to think through all the possible 
impacts of this legislation. In the past when we had problems in our 
meat-packing industry, we responded with appropriate regulations to 
make sure that minimum safety standards to protect both the workers and 
the public were created. Will we be able to do the same after this 
legislation?
  When it became known that small children were being forced to work 12 
to 14 hours a day in terrible conditions, Congress and the Federal 
Government responded with appropriate child labor laws to ensure that 
our children would not be treated like animals. Will we still be able 
to take this kind of action or will we be stopped by some bureaucrat.
  When the public became alarmed about mine safety and subhuman working 
conditions for miners, Congress and the Federal Government responded 
with the Mine Safety Act. What would we do now?
  Ironically, at a time when we are talking about less bureaucracy here 
in Washington, we are creating more to try to identify unfunded 
mandates not only for government but for the private sector. 
Bureaucrats doing lengthy analyses of whether there is an unfunded 
mandate in an amendment or a bill. With this expanded bureaucratic 
structure, we may not be able to overcome gag rules imposed by the 
imperfect foresight of a bureaucrat.
  I hope our friends from the other side of the aisle will return our 
process for considering legislation to what it should be--a full and 
careful reading of the intended and unintended consequences of passing 
a bill.
  Legislating should not be a guessing game. In the future weighing the 
merits of a bill could easily be reduced to a guessing game. Is there 
an unfunded mandate or isn't there? In many cases, we will be left to 
guessing because there will not be time to do much else.
  I do not think that is what the American people want. They want an 
active voice in their Government. They want safeguards on drinking 
water and against pollution in the air, on the land, and in the water, 
if those are needed. Congress must be able to respond to the will of 
the people and not be gagged by a bureaucrat or anyone else. We do not 
want to be left in the embarrassing position of explaining to 
constituents how Members of Congress gave up their abilities to 
represent them to bureaucrats. I can assure you that is not what the 
American public wants.
  Mr. Chairman, we agree that the Federal Government should be more 
accountable for the laws it passes. The Republicans are pushing a bill 
that says, in effect: if the Federal Government requires States to do 
something, it also has to pay for them to do it. That's not necessarily 
a bad thing. The Federal Government should be more accountable for its 
laws and regulations.
  The little guy gets hurt. But the requirements we're talking about 
are things like clean air and clean water--crucial environmental 
protections. And in their rush they are completely ignoring who gets 
hurt--the little guy. The families who don't want polluted drinking 
water. The children who would have to breathe polluted air, because 
some think that a vague idea of ``States rights'' is more important.
  Make no mistake: if this bill passes, we could be forced to 
completely abandon all efforts at clean air, clean water, safe foods, 
and so forth. The bill says: If the Federal Government doesn't pay 100 
percent of the cost of some crucial protection, then we can't have that 
protection at all. That would mean the end of many of the most 
important Federal safety and environmental standards.
  By rushing this legislation through without thinking it through, we 
could have unintended consequences that are devastating to families and 
children. How can we just ram through a bill that touches on all of the 
most important air, and water, and workplace safety, and even crime 
protection laws without taking a closer more careful look?
  Democrats are fishing for amendments that will exempt the most 
important family safety protections from the ``Uncle Sam pays for 
everything'' provision. We're not going to allow struggling families to 
lose the clean air and clean water and environmental safety they demand 
and deserve, just to serve a handful of large companies. To rush this 
through without improving it is a grave mistake.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and ask unanimous consent that 
he may further yield the time as he so chooses.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his leadership on my side of the aisle on this issue and to the 
chairman and to his party for allowing this issue to come to a vote.
  I would like to speak briefly on the issue of accountability. It has 
been said that ignorance is bliss. Perhaps so, but for too long the 
bliss of this body has fostered the chaos of others. With the passage 
of this legislation, Congress will no longer have the excuse nor the 
luxury of irresponsibility, both of which are the handmaidens of 
ignorance. We will know what our legislation will cost and who will be 
expected to pay that cost.
  This bill will not prevent needed legislation from passing, but it 
will require that the full effect of legislation, including the cost, 
be acknowledged by this body. No longer will Congress have the luxury 
of going to the candy store and sampling the wares and expecting 
somebody else to pay for our visit.
  It may signal the end of an era of bliss based on ignorance and the 
beginning of a time of responsibility and accountability based on 
facts. All of us should welcome this new era.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations. [[Page H353]] 
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I commend the sponsors of the 
legislation, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], who serves as chairman of our Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, for their efforts in bringing this important measure to 
the floor.
  I support H.R. 5 because it effectively addresses congressional 
accountability. This body will no longer be able to casually approve 
legislation in Washington and send the bill home in the form of future 
increases in State and local taxes. This legislation will enable 
Members to more fully analyze the possible future consequences of new 
mandates by requiring the Congressional Budget Office to prepare cost 
estimates of proposed mandates in pending legislation. By approving 
this bill we will demonstrate to our Governors, mayors, and city 
officials that we will consider the budgetary burdens they face when 
they struggle to alter their budgets to respond to the cost of any 
additional Federal mandates.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to forge a fairer 
partnership with our State and local governments by supporting this 
important measure.
  Mr. Chairman, we must be acutely aware that many of these Federal 
mandates override existing State programs, thereby unintentionally 
tying the hands of State and local officials. The Federal Government 
must give deference and allow State and local bodies to use their 
unique knowledge of the specific local problems they face to formulate 
their own specific solutions. When this deference is not given, a well-
intended piece of legislation can impose a burdensome requirement that 
mandates a less effective or more costly solution than measures 
previously instituted by State and local authorities.
  For example, the General Accounting Office reported in April 1994, 
that in Alexandria, VA, local officials had instituted a program that 
used local taxicab companies to transport disabled persons door to door 
at city expense. However, after implementing a mandated requirement to 
modify local buses to permit access for the disabled, the city could no 
longer afford to provide the taxicab service. As a result, wheelchair 
bound residents now have to provide their own means of transport from 
bus stops that can be at a lengthy distance form their homes.
  H.R. 5 will allow this body to avoid unintended ramifications of 
Federal legislation, similar to those consequences that adversely 
affected the handicapped residents of Alexandria, VA. To this end, I 
encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed measure.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose H.R. 5, because 
I think that its basic purpose is sound and important. Gone are the 
days when Congress can heap miles of mandates upon State and local 
governments without regard to what these requirements cost.
  Let there be no mistake, I support unfunded mandates reform 
legislation. Last year, I proudly voted for a well-crafted bill in 
Congress. But this bill has many serious problems.
  My first problem is one of process. It is ironic that the very first 
bill to be reported out of the newly renamed Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight was forced through the committee in a very heavy-
handed way without a public hearing, even though this bill has the 
potential of affecting the basic environmental, health, and safety 
regulations afforded the American people. That is not Government 
reform, Mr. Chairman. It is simply a partisan power play.
  But this debate should not be one about process. It should be about 
progress. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the bill before us, however 
well-intentioned, will roll back the progress that the Federal 
Government has made in protecting the fundamental rights of the 
American people, the right to breathe clean air, drink pure water, eat 
healthy food, work in a safe workplace.
  I am sympathetic to the need of States and localities to know how 
much they are required to pay to meet Federal mandates, but I cannot 
support a bill which would effectively remove the Federal Government as 
the safety net of last resort for the average American and one that was 
pushed through the process in a way that would have made Huey Long very 
proud.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, this is not a routine or simple bill. This 
is a bill of vast significance.
  The unfunded mandate bill, taken together with the balanced budget 
amendment, if both are passed and signed into law, will call for a 
significant reordering of priorities in government between Federal, 
State, and local branches.
  Now, I do not at this point suggest that we will prevail on the 
minority side, but I hope that some of the amendments we offer will be 
considered by our friends in the Republican majority.
  This bill, the unfunded mandate bill, is a basic and sound, good 
concept. I was happy to cosponsor legislation by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] addressing the same subject last year. But in this 
session of Congress, the Republicans have gone too far, too fast, and 
their approach is too extreme.
  This bill comes to the floor without a public hearing. Consider the 
significance of this bill and the fact that we have not invited those 
who will deal with it to talk about its consequences.
  As a result, in their haste to pass the bill, the Republicans have 
ignored many real health and safety problems they are going to create. 
The unfunded mandate bill in many ways puts the health and safety of 
our families at risk. This bill is about the water that flows in our 
streams and rivers. It is about the water our children drink and 
whether or not that water is going to be pure and safe. It is that 
basic. It is that simple.
  By exempting State and local governments from so-called Federal 
mandates for clean drinking water, for clean water and clean air, we 
are, in fact, involved in a gamble, a gamble that States and localities 
will do the right thing.
  My district is on the Mississippi River. We have virtually a third of 
the continental United States pouring into that river. States upstream 
and localities which decide that they are no longer bound by Federal 
standards may or may not live by those standards. If they do not, my 
constituents in Illinois will pay for that decision.
  I think each and every one of us wants to go to bed at night 
confident that basic issues about safe drinking water, about nuclear 
waste disposal, about the safety of landfills, are consistent 
nationwide. If someone moves from one State to the next, they should 
have confidence that their family is still safe. Unfunded mandates can 
also hurt private business, holding them to higher standards than their 
government competitors. Now, is it not ironic, the first action of the 
new House under the Contract With America was to pass a rule applying 
all the laws that we have enacted to ourselves as they would apply to 
private citizens. And now the second act of Congress, with this 
legislation, is to enact a principle that State and local governments 
should be exempt from those same laws. I think that is fundamentally 
inconsistent. I would suggest to the Members of the House that this 
bill deserves thorough scrutiny before we give it our approval and 
passage on the floor.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Knoxville, TN [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and urge its 
passage. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important 
legislation. Every year since I have been in Washington, our outgoing 
Governor from Tennessee, [[Page H354]] Governor McWherter, has visited 
with members of the Tennessee delegation and has said, Please, no more 
unfunded mandates.
  Governor McWherter is a Democrat and a good friend of mine, but this 
is not a partisan issue. This legislation has broad bipartisan support.
  Unfunded mandates are costing our State and local governments 
billions of dollars every year. In fact, a recent Price Waterhouse 
study for the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that just 10 selected 
mandates will cost our Nation's cities $54 billion over just the next 5 
years.
  My own hometown of Knoxville currently spends millions of its budget 
complying with Federal mandates, many millions. Mayor Daley of Chicago 
held a press conference about a year ago which was reported in the 
Washington Post and the lead paragraph estimated that unfunded mandates 
were costing State and local governments hundreds of billions of 
dollars a year and Mayor Daley said that unfunded mandates were costing 
his city of Chicago alone $160 million a year.
  The State of California is forced to spend $8 billion a year annually 
as a result of unfunded Federal mandates.
  In the meantime, local priorities like education and fighting crime 
are being forced to take a back seat to this other legislation. And 
local taxes are going up to pay for the cost of these mandates.
  According to the Republican Governors Association, Congress has 
passed a total of 72 unfunded or insufficiently funded mandates just 
since 1986. At the same time overall Federal aid to States has declined 
from $47 billion in 1980 to $19.8 billion in 1990.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  (Mr. PARKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5. It is not the 
intent of unfunded mandates reform to eliminate or scale back good 
programs that help people. The intent is simply to require the Federal 
Government to pay for the mandates it imposes on the States and 
municipalities.
  This is not a difficult concept. It is totally logical. As 
individuals or a government it is irresponsible to attempt to do 
everything that may be good and helpful without regard to 
affordability. The fact is, individuals don't have such a luxury. Only 
government can do good works and let somebody else pay the cost.
  Forcing cities and towns to raise local taxes to pay for federally 
imposed mandates to the point that taxpayers move away from the town is 
not helpful. Making local budget decisions in Washington by setting 
local spending priorities through the Federal regulatory process is 
absurd.
  By the same token, forcing small businesses to close because they 
cannot afford the cost of compliance is equally pointless. While we are 
not addressing the private sector problem with mandates in this 
legislation, I hope we eventually will do so.
  These are the issues at stake in unfunded mandate reform legislation. 
We need to insert reason into our legislative process and get back to 
reality.
  I support many of the laws that the opponents of H.R. 5 say are at 
risk if a prohibition on unfunded mandates is passed. However, that 
support does not preclude my belief that we must be willing to pay for 
what we believe in. If Washington cannot afford to pay for these grand 
ideas that we come up with and consider to be so right, why do we think 
that States and municipalities can?
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word to the dads, the fathers out there 
who, like me, have daughters in college or in school at some level. In 
the late 1970s a mandate law, an unfunded mandate called Title IX, came 
into effect, and probably every Member of this Congress at that time 
heard from their colleges saying, ``Don't do it,'' their universities 
saying, ``It will cost too much.'' I heard from Montanans, particularly 
the male jocks, saying ``This is a terrible idea. Don't do it'', but we 
did it.
  Today my daughters are on the playing fields in organized sports in 
the colleges of Montana, and our daughters are playing basketball, and 
our daughters are playing tennis, and our schools have to spend the 
kind of money on our daughters, at least to some degree, that they have 
to spend on our sons.
  Mr. Chairman, I have read this carefully. Given the political 
pressure that came to us in the late seventies, Title IX, if this bill 
had been law, Title IX could never have passed this House, would never 
have gone into effect.
  I like the fact that my daughter plays basketball. I like the fact 
that that was a mandate from the Federal Government, and no, I do not 
believe that the taxpayers of this country should be subsidizing the 
University of Montana just so my kid can play basketball. I think that 
is up to the taxpayers of the University of Montana.
  Please, my colleagues, please be a little more thoughtful. Please go 
carefully with this. There are such things as basic rights, and if the 
States and the schools of this country cannot do it, the public, 
through their Federal Government, has a right to say under the 
Constitution of the United States ``You must do it and you must pay for 
it''.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a very valued Member and chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during the 103d Congress I had the 
opportunity to serve on the House subcommittee that considered unfunded 
mandate legislation. Our subcommittee held hearings both in Washington 
and field hearings throughout the country. We heard local officials 
testify in Pennsylvania, for example, that it would be cheaper to 
deliver bottled water to local residents rather than comply with 
proposed new Federal mandates.
  We heard that most local governments operate under restrictive 
mileage or tax caps, and are also required, unlike Congress, to balance 
their budgets. We clearly heard that Congress, through unfunded 
mandates, has pushed them to their financial limits.
  In my congressional district, our subcommittee heard our Orlando 
mayor explain how Federal mandates required needlessly taking naturally 
occurring substances out of our drinking water at one point in the 
treatment process and then replacing them at another point, at a very 
high cost. Unfunded Federal mandates have now become the greatest 
single source of increases in local taxes.
  The problem today, Mr. Chairman, is little different from the problem 
in 1776: taxation without the consent of local representation. Think 
about it. Today Congress has replaced the distant parliament passing 
edicts from afar. Today King William has replaced King George, signing 
off on more laws and rules and edicts. Today our State and local 
governments have replaced the former colonies. Today they are now mere 
puppets, with Washington pulling the strings and choreographing a 
costly dance.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, some people in Washington like it that 
way. They would like to keep it that way. They still believe that 
Washington knows best. They want to keep central control, and they 
cannot believe that people beyond the beltway can actually think and 
act responsibly on their own.
  For those and other reasons I urge the passage of this historic 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, although some people here just don't get it, the people 
have rebelled.
  Without firing a shot, they're thrown the old ways overboard. Why? 
Because Americans have been over-mandated, over-regulated, and over-
taxed from Washington. They have clearly said they are ``mad-as-the-
dickens'' and they're not going to take it anymore. That is clearly why 
we have this legislation before us.
  For too long our Federal elected representatives have passed good-
sounding and well-intended mandates to State and local governments.
  Unfortunately, these ``edicts from on high'' have reached a new low. 
[[Page H355]] 
  Over 170 laws have been passed in the last two decades that have 
imposed billions upon billions of dollars in unfunded Federal mandates.
  While this legislation may not stop all unfunded Federal mandates it 
will create speed bumps and stop signs for halting the enactment of 
unnecessary Washington edicts in the future.
  To those who say this legislation will prohibit the Federal 
Government from mandating protection of our environment, public health 
or safety, I believe the term used ``out West'' would be appropriate 
here: ``That's a lot of Hefferdust.'' If a mandate is important enough 
for Congress to pass, then it is essential for Congress to fund.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller]
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this legislation strikes at 
the very heart of the body of laws that bind us together as a 
progressive society, and with the highest standard of living in the 
world, the body of law that ensures that no matter where you live in 
this country, you can enjoy clean water; that no matter where you live 
in this country, local government and the private sector are working 
every day to improve the air that you breathe, so we no longer have to 
send our children indoors because it is too smoggy out. We no longer 
have to tell our senior citizens they cannot go out for a walk because 
the air quality is too bad, or we cannot drive to work because they do 
not want the automobiles on the road.
  These are the laws that accomplished those successes. These are laws 
that said ``Yes, if you take money from the Federal Government, we are 
going to put onto you an obligation to educate the handicapped children 
of this Nation,'' because before that was the law, the handicapped 
children of this Nation could not get an education in the public school 
systems run by the States and localities that we now say are so ready 
to do the job.
  But for that law, tens of thousands of handicapped children, because 
they have cerebral palsy, because they have Downs syndrome, would not 
be allowed in our public schools, but that is a Federal mandate. Yes, 
we pay part of the freight, but this law would say ``Unless the Federal 
Government presents 100 percent of it, no school district would be 
required to educate that handicapped child. Unless the Federal 
Government spends 100 percent of the money to clean up the local water 
supply, the local sewage treatment, the city would have no 
obligation.''
  What happens along the Mississippi River in Indiana or Minnesota if 
they choose, or in Ohio, if they choose not to clean up the municipal 
sewage because the Federal Government will not pay 100 percent? That 
means the people in Mississippi and Louisiana have to inherit that 
sewage.
  An unfunded mandate upstream is untreated sewage downstream. What 
does that mean to the fishermen, to the commercial enterprises, and to 
the tourist industry in those States? It means they suffer. That is why 
we have national laws.
  When I was a young man you could smell San Francisco Bay before you 
could see it, but now we require all of the cities, not just the town 
that I live in, not just the oil industry, not just the chemical 
industry, but the cities upstream and downstream. Some of them, we had 
to take them to court to tell them to clean it up. Today San Francisco 
Bay is a tourist attraction. Commercial fishing is back. People can use 
it for recreation.
  That is what these mandates have done. Yes, we have not paid 100 
percent, but we have put billions and billions and billions of dollars 
into helping local communities make airports safe so they could become 
international airports, so people would have confidence in going to 
those cities. We have cleaned up their water and air. We have made it 
safe to drink. That is what this legislation is an assault on.
  Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this legislation would have us 
believe this is a simple and straightforward initiative: Congress 
should mandate the States and local governments to do nothing that 
Congress is not willing to pay for in its entirety.
  In fact, this legislation strikes at the very heart of the entire 
concept on which our Government is based. Government does have the 
responsibility to require that those in our societies--private 
individuals, businesses, and State and local governments--meet certain 
responsibilities.
  Even the drafters of this legislation recognize that some mandates 
need not be paid for. They are ideologues of convenience. They do not 
require we pay for compliance with civil rights and disability laws. 
But they would compel funding for actions relating to public health and 
safety, protection of the environment, education of children, medical 
services to our elderly, safeguards to our workers.
  And they would require that we pay only when that burden is imposed 
on entities of government. Private industry, many of which compete with 
State and local government in the provision of services, is accorded no 
relief. And those who work for Government, performing exactly the same 
services as those in the private sector, are potentially denied such 
basic protections as minimum wages, worker right to know about 
hazardous substances, and OSHA protections.
  Never mind that the same State and local governments to whose aid we 
are rushing impose precisely the same unfunded mandates on lower levels 
of government.
  So, I think this clearly demonstrates what is going on here: this is 
not about unfunded mandates: It is about undermining this Nation's 
environmental, education, health and labor laws, and wrapping the 
attack in the flag of unfunded mandates.
  The last time we tried this deceptive tactic--cutting away at the 
basic role of Government in the name of cost savings--we tripled the 
national debt in 8 years.
  But let me take issue with the very name of this concept--unfunded 
mandates.
  Unfunded? Really?
  We have spent tens of billions of dollars helping States and local 
communities meet these mandates by improving water systems, upgrading 
drinking water supplies, building and improving transportation systems, 
improving education programs, and on and on.
  Have we funded every mandate fully? No. Should the Federal Government 
have to pay States and local communities to protect their employees, 
their environment and their public health and safety? Because let's 
remember: A lot of them were not protecting those people and those 
resources before the Federal mandates came along.
  No, we haven't funded every dollar. But have we covered 50, 75, 90 
percent of the cost of many of these projects? Time and time again.
  And have we provided these same State and local governments with 
hundreds of billions of dollars to build, expand and improve highways, 
rapid transit and harbors and to respond to disasters--even when there 
was no Federal responsibility to provide a dollar? Have we provided 
money to assure that communities are safe from nuclear power plants and 
hazardous waste sites? Have we provided money to educate the 
handicapped, to train the jobless, and to house tens of millions of 
Americans?
  I have little doubt that those who champion this legislation fully 
expect that its passage would have no effect on our willingness to fund 
their future actions in these areas. They are very wrong. Every State 
and community should be aware that the appetite of the Congress for 
funding local projects and programs that fail to meet a Federal 
standard of quality and protection and performance is going to be very 
minimal, particularly in light of the coming effort for a balanced 
budget amendment that would slash Federal spending radically.

  So I think we should proceed with some caution here. If the States 
and local communities don't want the mandates, don't expect the Federal 
dollars either.
  I find it somewhat ironic that in my own State of California, for 
example, the Governor has failed to come up with his promise of 
matching funds for the $5 billion in Federal disaster aid following 
last year's Northridge earthquake. Now he wants more Federal money for 
earthquake assistance; and he will want more still for the flooding, 
and he'll probably throw in a few billion dollars' worth of dams and 
other infrastructure from Federal taxpayers.
  Yet he is one of the biggest proponents of this unfunded mandates 
legislation--and the same time that he forces unfunded mandates down 
the throat of every county and city in California.
  We see that kind of hypocrisy in the legislation before us today.
  In case you didn't read the fine print, this mandate ban neglects to 
include the dozens of new unfunded Federal mandates contained in the 
Republicans' Contract With America. Just the mandates in the welfare 
bill alone could bring the States to their knees. But all those new 
mandates are exempted, even though none of them have yet been enacted 
into law. So much for being honest with the American 
people. [[Page H356]] 
  Let's be very clear what this legislation is going to do to some of 
the most important laws this Congress has passed and has spent billions 
of dollars helping States and local communities implement.
  Safe drinking water. We have upgraded the water supply across this 
Nation, virtually eliminating disease, contamination and danger. Much 
of that has been paid for by Federal dollars. Which local community 
would like to have taken on that task without Federal assistance? Which 
Americans want to put the future and the consistency of our safe 
drinking water at risk through this legislation?
  Clean water. You used to be able to smell San Francisco Bay before 
you could see it. You used to need a battery of shots if you stuck your 
toe in the Potomac River. The sewage and waste water of 80 million 
Americans from a score of States flows out of the mouth of the 
Mississippi River, and for years contaminated the commercial fishing 
areas. A few years before the Clean Water Act was passed, the Cuyohoga 
River in Cleveland was burning. Want to go back to those days? You tell 
me which financially strapped city and State will take on that burden 
without Federal assistance?
  Nuclear safety. Should nuclear power plants and generators of 
radioactive wastes--which exist in every large city and many small 
ones--be able to ignore Federal safety standards for operations and 
waste disposal?
  Deadbeat parents. We are collecting hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year from parents who have ignored their financial responsibilities to 
their children, thanks to Federal law. Should we just abandon that 
program?
  The list of inequities goes on and on. What happens to 
reauthorizations of existing laws? What if those reauthorizations are 
delayed for years by obstructive tactics in Congress. The answer is: We 
don't know. And the reason we are legislating in the dark here is 
because this complex bill, which would fundamentally alter the entire 
nature of Federal-State relations, was drafted in haste, denied public 
comment and public hearings, and marked up in a haphazard and 
manipulated process that made thoughtful review all but impossible.
  Of course we should examine whether Federal funding of mandates has 
been adequate? In fact, that process was begun last year by Democratic 
members of the House.
  But let us not rush to pass a deeply flawed, confusing, and deceptive 
bill, drafted behind closed doors and without adequate public review, a 
bill that misrepresents not only the need for mandates, but ignores the 
billions of dollars we have given to State and communities to help meet 
those mandates.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the privilege of 
rising in support of this bill that would put an end to unfunded 
mandates in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this crucial first item in 
the Contract With America--the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  After taking office just 2 short weeks ago, the Republican majority 
is bringing a bill to the floor to provide relief to our States and 
towns suffering from crippling unfunded mandates.
  This bill will provide the first step in changing how we think about 
governing. The truth is Washington does not know best. Many of the 
towns and villages in upstate New York are nothing like large 
metropolitan areas. The uniform mandates imposed on these communities 
are the source of great resentment in my district.
  The bill before us will make it extremely difficult for any Congress 
or any President to force, by rule, regulation or law, unfunded 
mandates that exceed $50 million on the public sector, and $100 million 
on the private sector.
  The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act before us encourages the entire 
Federal structure to listen to State and local officials rather than 
turning a deaf ear and bludgeoning them with new mandates.
  H.R. 5 will largely impact the procedures of Government--but what the 
bill represents is far more significant.
  What it does represent is a fundamental shift of power in this 
country from Washington, DC, to the States--a ``new federalism'' of the 
sort described by Ronald Reagan.
  As that great President once said, ``Today, federalism is one check 
that is out of balance as the diversity of the States has given way to 
the uniformity of Washington. Our task is to restore the constitutional 
symmetry between the central Government and the States and to 
reestablish the freedom and variety of federalism.''
  Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan was right then. And it is even more right 
today. This unfunded mandates bill will restart the Reagan revolution 
by shrinking the size and power of the Federal Government, getting the 
Government off the backs and out of the pockets of the American people 
and allowing our country to prosper.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from El 
Cajon, CA [Mr. Hunter].

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, so many of those who are against H.R. 5 have talked 
about regulatory empires as we in Washington would like them to be. I 
want to tell you about our regulatory empires as they really are.
  I have an irrigation district in my district in southern California 
which waters about 500,000 acres of the Imperial Valley. The EPA 
discovered it a couple of years ago and they told our irrigation 
district that although less than one-half of 1 percent of their water 
goes to domestic users, and those are little ranch houses out in the 
boondocks, that they were going to have to build between $5,000 and 
$10,000 systems, filtration systems, for each and every one of those 
houses or spend up to $100 million building filtration plants in the 
surrounding communities.
  We ultimately had to go to court and the court of appeals in 
California found that the EPA does not even have jurisdiction in this 
case.
  Our regulatory kingdoms, following human nature, have tried to 
acquire power, and I would say that the regulations we see today are 
more about power than they are about safety. Let's pass H.R. 5.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 5.
  As a member of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus and a supporter of 
Representative Condit's bill in the last Congress, I rise today in 
opposition to unfunded Federal mandates and in support of H.R. 5, the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This bill is not perfect but it is 
a good start. Personally, I feel it should be tougher and should 
completely eliminate the practice of unfunded Federal mandates. Every 
dollar spent on a Federal mandate is $1 less in local budgets to fight 
crime, improve education, or provide public services. Just ask the city 
of Moorhead in my district who was mandated to spend tens of thousands 
of dollars building sheds to protect sand and road salt from the ice 
and snow; and spent hundreds of dollars to lower a public urinal less 
than 1 inch. Mr. Speaker, these are blatantly wasteful mandates my 
communities have been told to comply with.
  We all want clean air, clean water, safe food, and a safe working 
place; but let's achieve these goals in a sensible way and give our 
States and communities a voice in the process. Support H.R. 5 and put 
an end to unfunded Federal mandates.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank my friend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] who has put in so many hours and 
so much time as one of our chief leaders in this effort to end unfunded 
mandates in this Congress and in this land.
  It is important to know what this bill does and what it does not do. 
Let's talk about what it does not do first.
  This bill does not end the responsibility of this Congress to pass 
mandates when they are important for the public health and safety or 
for other valid public policy reasons in this country. If it is a 
critical need in this country to stop pollutants from entering the 
Mississippi River, we have an obligation to pass mandates that that 
practice end, so that those of us who live at the bottom end are not 
infected with someone else's garbage. If it is an important and 
critical item in this Nation's agenda that every schoolchild with a 
handicap is specially educated in this country, we ought to make that a 
mandate in this country. [[Page H357]] 
  What this bill does not do is prevent us from doing those things. It 
simply says that when we here in Washington think we know better than 
the folks back home, so that we are going to mandate those things upon 
the Nation, we ought to have the courage of our beliefs. We ought to 
raise the money and we ought to pay for the mandates we produce.
  Let me tell you what the bill also does not do contrary to some of 
the things you have heard up here today. It does not prevent us here in 
Washington from putting together programs to incentivize the States and 
localities to do good things that we do not necessarily think ought to 
be mandated.
  We can, for example, put together programs that say if you want to 
share in a government program at a 50-50 level, a 90-10 level, a 70-30 
level, we have got a program here you can participate in if you want 
to, and these are the conditions of participation. You can do that. We 
can continue to do that even with this bill passed.
  What we cannot do after this bill passes is to say that you must 
participate, you must do it, and the only way for you to do it is to 
come up with a 30-percent match or 10-percent match. This bill ought to 
pass. We ought to have the courage of backing up what we believe with 
the money to carry it out. That is what ending unfunded mandates will 
do for America.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff], a very valued member of the committee 
and chairman of our Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs and Criminal Justice.
  Mr. ZELIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I too would like to congratulate Members on both sides 
of the aisle on this effort.
  I support this important legislation to prevent Congress and the 
Federal bureaucracy from imposing unfunded Federal mandates on both 
States and local governments.
  Unfunded mandates have been a sore point for years with States and 
local governments. States like New Hampshire have been left saddled 
with huge costs to carry out Washington's orders or grand ideas.
  New Hampshire has 17 Superfund sites, 14 of which are in my district. 
The average cost is $30 million per site.
  The Motor-Voter Act has placed a tremendous financial impact on our 
State which incidentally has a higher voting percentage than most 
States in the Nation.
  The auto emissions mandate is causing untold misery and creating a 
financial burden on the people of New Hampshire.
  My own State has put its money where its mouth is. It passed a 
constitutional amendment banning the State from passing unfunded State 
mandates onto our local towns and communities.
  It is time for the Federal Government to follow New Hampshire's 
example and put its money where its mouth is. It is called 
accountability, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government must take 
responsibility for its actions. We can no longer pass the program and 
keep the bucks.
  What this legislation really does, Mr. Chairman, is to say to us that 
if we want to pass the program, we must also pass along the bucks to 
pay for the program.
  I urge support of H.R. 5 and hope to see its passage.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the 
gentleman from Alfalfa, OR [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an advocate of the States, 
my district, and all Americans who have experienced the heavy hand of 
Federal Government mandates too long.
  In the next 5 years alone, unfunded mandates will cost our Nation's 
counties 12.3 percent of their revenues and nearly $34 billion.
  Today, however, we are attempting to turn back the tide of offering 
legislation that says no more to unfunded mandates.
  While I support this bill wholeheartedly, I believe that this is only 
the first step in a long and trying process of rolling back supposed 
benefits that the Federal Government has imposed upon the States.
  Tomorrow I will be offering amendments intended to strengthen H.R. 5. 
We all want clean water and we all want clean air and access to the 
handicapped and so on. However, we must have the responsibility to ask 
the question, ``At what cost?''
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider and support my amendments. 
Let's pass this bill and take an important step forward in freeing the 
States and the people from the heavy hand of the Federal Government.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, for purposes of 
debate only, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
and let me tell you the reasons why.
  First, this bill does fundamental damage to the way the Constitution 
has designed our government. A mandate is a law. Congress was organized 
to pass laws dealing with national priorities. A no money/no mandate 
law would handcuff this Congress from doing what it was set up to do.
  Second, there are many mandates where it is absolutely appropriate to 
impose costs on States and cities to meet national priorities. Health 
and environmental laws are the best example.
  Since the governors and the majors are good at telling mandate horror 
stories, I well share one, too.
  Several years ago in my region, the unhealthful, dangerous medical 
waste from one State was landing on the swimming beaches of the other.
  The Congress passed a law to deal with this problem that said to one 
State, ``You must stop, you must desist, you must clean it up.'' Costs 
were imposed on the States and this was the right thing to do. The 
problem was cured. Mandates do work.
  Third, it is flat wrong to say that the Federal Government does not 
pay its share. For Philadelphia, my city, using the calculation 
developed by the very League of Cities which so vigorously embraces 
this bill, the Federal Government sends in $18 for every dollar for 
Federal mandates. That is a pretty good ratio, even in these hard 
budget times. Thus, we do pay for mandates.

                              {time}  1420

  Fifth, I can think of no better example of an overreaching unfunded 
mandate than the Contract on America. The proposals to balance the 
budget and gut Federal aid to families with dependent children will 
send huge mandates back to the States--with no way to pay for them 
other than by huge State and city tax increases. Maybe that's why this 
law won't take effect until October, after we have completed 
considering this Contract on America.
  Finally, I wanted to comment on some of the hypocrisy that surrounds 
so much of this debate. An example comes from one Governor who, with 
one breath, lectures us on the need for a balanced budget and on the 
other hand wants to cut taxes in his own State.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is important legislation. It is time we passed it. 
Local governments that have limited tax bases have a right to resent it 
when they are imposed upon with mandates that are handed down to them 
from above, whether by State legislatures or from Congress. I know, I 
was a county attorney for 12 years before I came here.
  The Members who originated this bill, and the reason it is here in 
the well as the second piece of legislation we consider in this 
Congress, are the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who came from local government 
backgrounds and they know what it is all about.
  A core concept of this bill, the Moran bill, is the idea of fiscal 
impact statements as a heads-up to all of us, including local and State 
government, when we are about to pass a bill and pass the buck, to make 
us think twice about what it is going to cost State and local 
governments before we pass it, and to [[Page H358]] give them all a 
chance to object, demur, and raise questions about it.
  Unfortunately, this bill is a different bill from the Moran bill 
which passed last year and our committee reported and would have 
brought to the floor soon in this session. It is a different bill, and 
we have not had time to peruse it, to read it closely. We did not have 
time because we did not have hearings in our committee.
  If Members just peruse the bill they will find there are a lot of 
questions. Indeed the bill comes here because of railroading it to the 
floor, studded with question marks and caution flags.
  For example, there will be a lot of Members out here as we move into 
the amendments raising questions not about the core concept, not 
resisting the bill, who will probably vote for passage like me, raising 
questions like public-private parity. My State, the State of South 
Carolina, generates electricity. It is a big power generator. Does this 
mean that in the future when we pass a renewal of the Clean Air Act 
that we cannot impose additional emission standards on the States, the 
generators of electricity, without paying for the scrubbers? And if it 
does mean that, it will not be long before private utilities will come 
to South Carolina and say hey, let us transfer to you this operation, 
you take title to it, we can then avoid these additional requirements.
  These are the questions we will be raising to perfect the bill, make 
it workable legislation, not to defeat it.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for his leadership on this issue 
now for almost 4 years. He has taken the strong lead in eliminating 
unfunded mandates.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
  As a former State legislator in Oklahoma, I know first hand the 
devastating effects unfunded Federal mandates have upon State and local 
governments. Many times when I was in the State legislature, we had to 
come up with additional funding to pay for these mandates.
  Most often, we would have to cut critical funding from education and 
other State programs to pay for these passed-down Federal regulations.
  Not only did we have to pay for these mandates, but we had limited, 
if any, input into the development of these regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to pass down to our States and local 
governments the cost of compliance with Federal mandates. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for relief to our State and local governments by 
voting for H.R. 5.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
fellow Pennsylvanian, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], 
the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I too am glad to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Jacobus, PA, chairman of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank Chairman 
W.F. Clinger from Pennsylvania, for using his large hands to carry this 
bill to the floor of the House today. This is a bill I have waited for 
for a long time and worked for a long time. It is very, very similar to 
the fair bill which was the Goodling-Moran bill 2 years ago with many, 
many signatures.
  Let me tell Members how I got involved in this. When I came to the 
Congress of the United States I came as a former superintendent of 
schools. Congress had just sent us legislation were they said you will 
follow 100 percent of our mandates in relationship to special education 
of youngsters and we will send you 40 percent of the money. The 
unfortunate part about it was they did not send 40 percent of the 
money, they sent 8 percent of the money, which meant I had to come up 
with from all of the other departments all of the other money to handle 
this issue.
  When I arrived here, the first bill that came to us in my committee 
was an asbestos removal. If that was the wrong way to construct 
schools, surely we should be doing something about it. But I said at 
the time, be sure to allow the school districts to take 1 percent of 
their Federal funds to do this job, or otherwise they will have no 
money to do it. And they said no, we will get appropriations. We did 
not get appropriations, we did not get appropriations for many years, 
and then got a few pennies later on.
  The next bill that then came before us was we should do something 
about lead. Again, that is something that is very, very important and I 
said be sure that we send funds for them to do it, because they are now 
paying for the redoing of the asbestos, because it was done incorrectly 
the first time. And, no, they said we will get appropriations. 
Fortunately we were able to slow that process down.
  Let me remind Members about two things in this bill. First of all, do 
not let anyone remove judicial review. If we remove judicial review we 
then have destroyed the bill. We are just smoke and mirrors, we are 
just kidding people out there.
  Second, I hope my colleague on the committee from California was not 
saying that somehow or other we were going to do something about the 
youngsters who are covered under ADA and the youngsters who are covered 
under IDEA. This bill exempts ADA and IDEA. So do not let anybody sell 
that issue to you that somehow or other we are going to hurt 
handicapped and disadvantaged youngsters. That is positively false.
  So I ask for Members' support of a bill that is overdue for a long, 
long time in the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate 
Reform Act of 1995. This legislation is similar to fair legislation 
Congressman Jim Moran and I introduced in the 103d Congress.
  H.R. 5 is a truly bipartisan bill that would make the U.S. Congress 
more accountable for its actions by curtailing the passage of unfunded 
Federal mandates.
  The mandate madness and the arrogance of some in this institution 
over the past 20 years has caused States like Pennsylvania and local 
governments like the city of York, the boroughs of Gettysburg, and 
Carlisle and townships like Springettsbury in Pennsylvania increased 
headaches as they try to assess their obligations based upon their 
incoming tax revenues. Furthermore, unfunded mandates have had a 
dramatic effect on the private sector.
  The idea behind this legislation is simple, the U.S. Congress must 
become more accountable for its actions which, in some cases, have an 
adverse effect on States, local governments, and small business.
  For example, as a Member of the House Education and Labor Committee, 
I consistently fought against legislation that would impose burdensome 
mandates on States, local governments, and small businesses. As 
chairman of the new Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, I will continue to do the same.
  In years past, my committee had jurisdiction over legislation to 
remove lead paint from the Nation's schools. I agreed with the sponsors 
that this is a high priority and that it should be done. However, the 
bill did not include provisions to pay for this legislation. It was 
understood that this legislation would be paid for through the 
appropriations process. I disagreed with this because I remember not 
too long ago that we proposed the same for asbestos removal and passed 
legislation providing for asbestos removal, but did not pass the 
dollars with the legislation.
  I must stress the idea behind H.R. 5 is not to impede legislation, 
rather it is to force the Congress to seriously consider the impact of 
any new legislation before the legislation is passed. It is a policy 
that the Congress must adopt to stop giving lip service to the idea of 
true reform.
  This legislation will improve the legislative process by requiring 
the CBO to study the impact on State, local governments, and the 
private sector of legislation reported out of committee for action on 
the House floor. This legislation would also require agencies, prior to 
the implementation of any rule or any other major Federal action 
affecting the economy, to perform an assessment of the economic impact 
of the proposed rule or action and seek public comment on the 
assessment. I understand there may be amendments to remove 
[[Page H359]] this provision from the bill. If this bill is weakened by 
removing judicial review, Members will only be kidding the American 
public by telling them we are reforming the regulatory process. Without 
judicial review the regulatory process will not change.
  This new requirement is one of the most important changes. Yes, 
Members of Congress have to become accountable, but so do the 
regulators. It is important that the regulators who decide how a law 
would be carried out consider the impacts of their decisions. They too 
should be fully accountable. Title II would modify the Administrative 
Procedure Act so that the regulators would have to assess the impacts 
of their actions on State, local governments, and the private sector. 
If they choose not to, their actions would be subject to judicial 
review.
  I want to clarify that H.R. 5 has no effect on two important 
disability laws, the individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] 
and the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. In recent weeks, many 
Members have received phone calls from worried parents that had been 
told that H.R. 5 would force the repeal of the IDEA and possibly, the 
ADA. As I described in a ``Dear Colleague'' that I had distributed, 
these phone calls were based on inaccurate information disseminated by 
a disability advocacy organization. I would urge Members to read the 
language of the bill pertaining to exemptions. As the CRS law division 
has confirmed, both IDEA and the ADA are exempted from coverage under 
this bill.
  I believe this legislation has the key ingredients for passage. It 
sends the proper signal, and ideal good government mission which makes 
the Congress more accountable for its actions by studying the impacts 
of legislation before it is passed. This legislation has bipartisan 
support of Members in the House. I also believe this bill would signal 
an end to closed door agency policy decisions which hurt many States, 
local governments, and the private sector.
  I would like to commend House Government Reform and Oversight 
Chairman Bill Clinger, Congressman Condit, Congressman Portman, and 
Congressman Davis for all their efforts in putting this legislation 
together. I believe this truly bipartisan legislation is long overdue 
and will work to see this legislation signed by the President.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Frederick, MD [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 5. This bill is a good start, it is not the full journey, but it 
is a good start.
  The vigorous debate opposing this bill is more than a little 
interesting since this Congress has for many years exempted itself from 
essentially all of these mandates. As Members know, the cost of these 
unfunded Federal mandates is exorbitantly expensive, costing the 
American taxpayer all of his income between Tax free day, which last 
year was May 27, and Government free day, which last year was July 10. 
That is about 6 weeks of his time.
  Just one other point I would like to make and that is that the only 
conscience in this country does not reside here in Washington. States 
and local jurisdictions are perfectly capable of regulating themselves 
in terms of their environment, their health and their welfare. They do 
not need Big Brother here dictating to them.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield half a minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, in so many areas this bill would make it 
harder for citizens and property owners to be protected from damaging 
acts by others. This is a bill which will make it harder, slower, and 
more costly for all of us to respond in the future to new threats to 
the public health and safety, no matter how great the consensus that we 
need to have.
  Frankly, from my perspective, this is the wrong direction.
  The idea that we should be concerned about unfunded mandates is not 
wrong. There is a temptation that the Federal Government will deal with 
its own budget problems by directing other levels of government to meet 
the public needs the Federal Government no longer can afford to meet.
  Yet, we must also look carefully at how this problem has been 
misrepresented, and how the proposed fix often does not do what it is 
intended to do.
  Many of the mandates we impose are essential to the public health and 
safety. We require cities to treat the sewage they dump in the river, 
and we do that for the protection of those who live downstream. We 
require local government which operate dumps to protect their neighbors 
from the toxins they allowed to be dumped at their site.
  The Constitution itself is an unfunded mandate: we require States to 
respect the civil rights of our citizens without regard to whether the 
Federal Government pays the States for the costs they incur in 
complying with the Constitution.
  The issue before us is how we can best respond to the issue of 
unfunded mandates. Many of us believe that where a mandate is justified 
to protect the public, we should often take more seriously than we have 
our Federal responsibility to contribute funding to costs of State and 
local government in meeting the needs of Americans who are, after all, 
citizens of State, local and Federal Government.
  I have, for example, been a constant advocate for dramatically 
increased Federal funding for the costs cities bear in meeting Federal 
standards for treating the sewage they discharge into our rivers.
  But what has happened instead is that many of those who now profess 
to be most concerned about unfunded mandates were those who most sought 
to reduce the funding to State and local governments to comply with 
these mandates, such as the sewage treatment requirements of the Clean 
Water Act.
  They now argue that, having succeeded in drastically cutting the 
funding, we should now cut the mandate on the grounds that not enough 
funding is being provided.
  Unfortunately, the end purpose of this exercise is not to treat our 
cities and States better, but to treat our citizens worse. Cutting the 
funding and then cutting the mandate is just a clever way to do what 
they wanted to do all along, which is remove requirements which protect 
people and their property from the effects of pollution by others.
  As a former mayor myself, I regret that so many of my former 
colleagues now appear to be making a pact with the devil. Once this 
bill passes, the next step will be to cut much of the Federal funding 
which State and local governments get which is not tied to any Federal 
mandate--the unmandated funding such as the highway program, the 
transit program, the economic development program, and so on. In the 
end, cities and States will be worse off for having joined their 
tormentors.
  The specific bill before us today has a number of very significant 
defects.
  Most importantly, it has not been considered in a way which allows 
for the public to know what it does, to comment on it, and to have 
their views taken into account. The bill was rammed through the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee with no hearings and no 
subcommittee consideration. The Budget Committee was discharged to 
prevent it from holding public hearings. The Rules Committee held one 
brief hearing.
  The best way to assure that a bill contains mistakes and unintended 
consequences is to ram it through without opportunity for public 
scrutiny or comment.
  The title of this bill should be changed to ``The Law of Unintended 
Consequences.'' After it is enacted, we will be discovering for years 
to come what it really does, and many of those surprises will not be 
pleasant.
  For example, the way this bill is written, it would not only create a 
point of order against any bill which creates a new requirement on 
State or local government to protect the public if the costs of 
complying are not paid by the Federal Government, it would also create 
a point of order against most bills getting Government out of 
regulating the marketplace of most industries. This bill is described 
as reducing the intrusiveness of Government--but in the key area of 
economic regulation it would have the unintended consequence of doing 
exactly the opposite: making it more difficult to pass bills which 
reduce the intrusiveness of Government into the marketplace. If H.R. 5 
had been law, a point of order would have been sustained against the 
Intrastate Trucking Deregulation Act we passed last year, against the 
railroad deregulation provisions of the 4R Act, and against pipeline 
deregulation legislation.
  That is not what anyone intended this bill to do, but nevertheless 
that is exactly what the bill does. It is a mistake, and I will offer 
an amendment to correct that mistake.
  This bill would make it far more cumbersome and time-consuming to put 
new airline safety and security measures in place. That is a mistake 
and it should be corrected.
  In so many areas, this bill would make it harder for citizens and 
property owners to be protected from damaging acts by others.
  The bottom line is, this bill would do two things.
  First it would make government not leaner and more efficient, but 
slow and clumsy and inefficient, much more tied up in bureaucracy 
[[Page H360]] as thousands of decisions, no matter how obvious, get 
wound up in piles of new bureaucratic analysis and reanalysis, whether 
needed or not. The bill increases spending on bureaucracy by $4.5 
million per year, just to handle the increased paperwork which will 
result at the Congressional Budget Office. And the increased paperwork 
at CBO will be a drop in the bucket compared to the increased paperwork 
in the rest of Government. This bill should be called the Red-Tape and 
Bloated Government Act.
  Second, it will make it more difficult for Congress to respond to 
real public needs in the future. A few years ago we lost an airliner 
over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the terrorism threat soared, both at home 
and abroad. We acted in Congress with a bill to require Federal 
agencies, airlines, and airports to promptly strengthen security. That 
bill, the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, would be counted 
by H.R. 5 as creating an unfunded mandate. As a result, the 1990 
Security Act would have been subject to a point of order, it would have 
been subjected to additional floor procedures, and it would have been 
subject to considerable delay while CBO and other congressional staffs 
prepared elaborate new analyses and estimates, even though we would all 
know that the bill needed to be passed.
  This is a bill which will make it harder, slower, and more costly for 
us to respond in the future to new threats to the public health and 
safety, no matter how great the consensus that we need to act.
  This is the wrong direction.
  We ought to be transforming Government with the idea of making it as 
small as possible while still being able to address the public's real 
needs. Instead, we are making it bigger, slower, and clumsier, while 
also making it less able to meet the public's real needs. We've got it 
backwards.
  This is the classic case of those who argue that Government can't 
work making sure that it won't work.
  We may adopt amendments which make this bill a little better, or 
amendments which make it a little worse. But what we should be doing is 
starting over, thinking more carefully about the problem of unfunded 
mandates, how we got here, what needs fixing and how best to fix it, 
give all those involved a chance to come in and be heard, and then we 
should proceed with the greater certainty that we know what we are 
doing.
  Instead, we are running blindly down the wrong path.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in strong opposition to 
this legislation.
  I think it is predicated on a false assumption, and that is one of 
confrontation rather than cooperation.
  So often I think that the Federal Government, specifically the 
Congress, has become really criticized in a sense unfairly for the 
advancement of Federal and national policies that are in the public 
interest. I look at the suggested unfunded mandates and the cooperation 
that has occurred. So often, I think we are doing this to eliminate 
bureaucracy duplication.
  The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, indeed, carries out the 
responsibilities of the EPA within our State. It is more often a 
cooperative relationship rather than one of confrontation.
  But the advocates of this have worked themselves into, I think, a 
false assumption and results. The upshot of this, I guess, looking at 
what the costs are of policies we passed, I thought was always 
something we were supposed to do. I have no objection or no criticism 
of that. I think we ought to look at it.
  Very often, though, looking at the legislation and the application of 
it makes this policy far worse. For instance, very often the dollars 
that we pass are grants in aid. That is what the highway programs are. 
That is what many of our programs are, grants in aid. They are grants 
that carry along a specific type of Federal requirement. If you do not 
want the dollars, you do not take the grant.
  The legislation is not clear how that would apply in terms of the 
mandates. I understand some of the mandates, where there is not the 
choice, we are talking about civil rights, we are talking about human 
rights and other issues, of course, there is the implication here that 
is not covered. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me and to many other 
Members of the House today.
  I think it is a good idea probably to do the assessment. It is not 
clear what the impact of this legislation would be.
  An an example, most of the Governors Association have been running 
around complaining about the crumb rubber problem. The crumb rubber 
problem, we used to have a solution to that in the Midwest. Someone had 
a dump of tires. They had a gallon of fuel oil and a match, and they 
solved the problem rather than putting it into roads.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, over the last several decades it has 
become far too easy for the Federal Government to take credit for 
programs without having to foot the bill. Although many of these 
programs have had worthy goals, it has been irresponsible for us to set 
the priorities and expect State and local governments, school boards, 
and private businesses to raise their taxes or curtail their services 
to pay for programs we impose, particularly when our mandates have not 
made sense.
  Now, the people are speaking, and today we have the opportunity by 
passing H.R. 5 to say we are hearing you.
  I can think of no better example of what I am talking about than 
Brownwood, TX, a community in my district. When the people of Brownwood 
received their water and sewer bills, the exact amount of the bill 
which is due to Federal unfunded mandates is noted. In the copies that 
I insert in the Record today, that amount typically is 40 percent of 
the total: $264.91, $103.31 unfunded Federal mandates; $46.54, $18.15 
unfunded mandates. And then when you have a note, ``Please understand 
this is killing the little people''; people living on fixed incomes who 
have to pay what their local leaders are saying do not make sense is 
what this is all about today.
  I can list Mineral Wells, TX, $300,000 the school board had to pay 
for purposes of removing asbestos from the school when the best science 
available was telling us you are going to make the problem worse not 
better.
  These are the reasons why we are here today.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the full committee.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as example of bad procedure, we are asked 
to consider a bill that nobody in this Chamber knows, those 
consequences cannot be prophesied, because no hearings have been held.
  What is this bill going to affect? It is going to affect the clean 
air laws, going to affect the clean water laws, going to affect the 
drinking water laws, going to affect every environmental statute, going 
to affect all the health and welfare statutes of this country.
  Now, everybody would think that these poor unfortunate State and 
local governments have not gotten any money from the Federal 
Government. Look at the amount of money that the Federal Government 
gives to State and local units of government, something like $750 
billion a year. We give them that.
  Now, what is this going to do? It is going to make it harder to have 
real meaningful standards on clean air, on drinking water.
  I sent to my good friend, the gentleman from California, as he knows, 
a copy of his remarks on the Clean Air Act in which he urged that we 
pass that legislation. I warned him it went too far. It is the law now.
  It protects people in one State from the behavior of people in 
another, and the Drinking Water Act, if you live in New Orleans and 
somebody flushes the toilet in Minneapolis or Kansas City or in Sioux 
City or any other place upstream, they are going to enjoy what you had 
for dinner last night within a matter of a few weeks.
  That is the reason we have a Federal law to deal with these problems 
that cannot be dealt with by the States.
  Now, beyond that, there are a few other little concerns we ought to 
have here. States cannot protect their constituents and their citizens 
from the [[Page H361]] misbehavior in other States. That is again why 
we pass these laws.
  The Governors demanded it years ago when we first considered the 
Clean Air Act and we first considered the Clean Water Act, that we 
passed Federal standards and allow the States to enforce them, and the 
money to enforce those programs was canceled by the administration of 
Mr. Reagan, the patrol saint of this side of the aisle.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
very good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who did in 
fact include a statement that I made on May 24, in support of the Clean 
Air Act.
  Nothing in this legislation dealing with unfunded mandates would 
repeal any of those items to which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] has referred.
  The fact of the matter is we are simply saying there should be 
accountability, and we should know what these things are going to cost. 
We do not have a goal of eliminating clean air standards. What we want 
to do is we want to be accountable for the cost of making sure that 
they happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Peterborough, NH [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago this year the New Hampshire Constitutional 
Convention passed a resolution which, in effect, prohibited unfunded 
State mandates. The people of New Hampshire approved that resolution in 
the fall of 1984.
  It reads as follows, ``The State shall not mandate or assign any new, 
expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political 
subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local 
expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or 
responsibilities are fully funded by the State or unless such programs 
or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local 
legislative body or political subdivision.''
  Mr. Chairman, what this resolution did was to impose for the first 
time in New Hampshire history real discipline on the legislature. It is 
high time that we impose that type of discipline here in Congress.
  I urge support for H.R. 5.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 5, this 
Member is pleased to see this important legislation receive such prompt 
consideration on the House Floor.
  This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for their 
introduction of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in recent decades Congress has dramatically increased 
the number of mandates it has imposed on States and local governments 
without providing adequate funding to fulfill the requirements. In 
other words, while Congress has passed the buck, it hasn't forwarded 
the bucks.
  When I was first the community affairs director, Federal-State 
relations coordinator, and then State planning director for my home 
State in the late 1960's, on a daily basis I saw vivid examples of the 
senselessness and cost of a great many unfunded mandates visited upon 
local and State government, and I did what I could to push for reforms 
and changes. Since then the number of mandates and their costs and 
negative impacts have only increased, both by actions of an unheeding 
Congress and by the inflexibility and policymaking excesses of Federal 
bureaucrats.
  Although there are numerous examples of burdensome unfunded mandates, 
this Member would like to highlight one that is particularly onerous 
for States and communities across the Nation. The statutory language of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act creates a one-size-fits-all national 
approach to testing and treating drinking water without taking local 
conditions into consideration.
  Many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act testing and treatment 
requirements result in prohibitive costs without any real health 
benefit or increase in water quality. As a result, there is a growing 
financial crisis for small communities that becomes more evident each 
year as new testing and treatment deadlines are imposed. Some small 
communities expect to spend a third or even half of their budgets to 
comply with water testing requirements. It is clear that States and 
communities must be allowed to identify and focus on those contaminants 
which present an actual health risk in a particular area.
  Without question, the safety of this nation's drinking water must be 
vigorously protected. However, it is essential that Congress allow 
States and local governments to achieve this goal in effective and 
efficient manner.
  In addition to the growing problem with unfunded mandates. this 
Member also wishes to express his long-standing and continuing concern 
about the related issue of attaching strings to money to States from 
Federal trust funds, such as the highway trust fund. For instance, the 
surface transportation bill, which was signed into law in 1991, 
requires a State to spend a percentage of its Federal highway funds for 
highway safety programs if it, for example, has not enacted both a 
motorcycle helmet law and a safety belt use law.
  Worthy objectives aside, this Member strongly opposes this mandate 
approach in limiting the States' ability to use their highway trust 
funds--paid for at the gasoline pumps by their citizens and by all 
Americans--as they choose for authorized activities and in accordance 
with legitimate standards, criteria, or regulations. Highway users in 
each State have paid into this fund through gas taxes and this Member 
believes that States should be allocated money from the highway trust 
funds without conditionally being applied for any legislative or 
bureaucratic objectives--be they noble or misguided.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 forces Congress to consider the consequences of 
its actions and take greater responsibility for the laws it passes. 
This Member urges his colleagues to support this legislation as a 
necessary response to the menacing trend toward imposing unfunded 
mandates on States and local governments and the types of regulations 
we are levying on our localities.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of unfunded Federal mandates is one that 
needs to be addressed, and the Republican leadership deserves credit 
for making this issue a priority. President Clinton, too, deserves 
credit for addressing this issue. He issued an Executive order 2 years 
ago, shortly after taking office, that required Federal agencies to 
consult with State and local officials to assess the effects of 
regulations, including the cost of implementing them.
  I am sure that most of us are in agreement with the fundamental 
objectives of this bill, which are to be better informed about and be 
more accountable for the costs that we are imposing on State and local 
governments as well as on the private sector when we act on legislation 
that has that effect. We are all aware that such unfunded Federal 
mandates have become a real and a serious problem for these 
governments, and we are eager to respond to that concern.
  So I say again the Republican leadership is to be commended for 
giving this issue the attention it deserves here in the Congress. 
Frankly, our own party leadership in the last Congress was remiss, in 
my opinion and in the opinion of some of our colleagues on the 
Democratic side, in not moving legislation on this issue. Many of us 
regret that that was the case.
  This legislation proposes several very constructive ways of focusing 
attention on the burden of unfunded mandates. I shall not enumerate 
them at this point.
  Unfortunately, the bill does much more. Among those things is that it 
establishes a new rule which prohibits the House from considering 
legislation that contains an unfunded mandate on State and local 
governments of over $50 million annually. That is an average of only $1 
million per State, and obviously could affect a very large number 
[[Page H362]] of bills that would come before Congress in the very near 
future.
  In effect, the bill could, in fact, stop Congress from considering 
any number of environmental, health, and safety bills, the Federal 
activities that appear to be the principal target or concern of this 
legislation, despite the fact that legislation in these areas, such as 
antipollution laws and employee safety and benefit laws, are 
overwhelmingly supported by most Americans.
  Many of us are concerned that similar legislation would be extremely 
difficult to enact in the future if this bill becomes law.
  We are concerned that passage of this legislation will result in 
requiring the Federal Government to shoulder the full cost of 
addressing State and local pollution, health, or safety problems. We 
are concerned that sensible and equitable cost-sharing will be 
impossible to enact in the future. We are concerned this bill does not 
include the value of the benefits of a proposed mandate in determining 
the cost of an unfunded mandate. A drinking water standard, for 
example, may lead to a reduction of mortality and morbidity that saves 
lives and reduces medical costs. Looking only at the cost side of the 
equation ignores the one reason Government has for existing--to produce 
benefits for its citizens.
  Finally, we are concerned that H.R. 5 also ignores the direct 
economic benefits mentioned just a moment or two ago by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] which are enjoyed by local governments and 
the private sector from Federal spending and activities. Federal 
resources, including land, are often provided to businesses and 
governments at rates below full market value. Furthermore, both 
governments and the private sector benefit from tax expenditures under 
existing law. Any unfunded mandates legislation should take these 
benefits into account when we estimate the overall burden of Federal 
mandates.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, this legislation is well intended. 
It is also at this point very imperfect. It needs a lot of work before 
it should be passed, and I hope very seriously that Members will take 
seriously the amendments proposed before us in the next few days, and 
not vote for this legislation unless we, in effect, make it very much 
better than it currently is.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.
  The issue of unfunded Federal mandates is one that needs to be 
addressed, and the Republican leadership deserves credit for making 
this issue a priority. President Clinton, too, deserves credit for 
addressing this issue; he issued an Executive order 2 years ago--
shortly after taking office--requiring Federal agencies to consult with 
State and local officials to assess the effects of regulations, 
including the cost of implementing them.
  I am sure that most of us are in agreement with the fundamental 
objective of this bill, which is to be better informed about, and more 
accountable for, the costs we are imposing on State and local 
governments, as well as the private sector, when we act on legislation 
that has that effect. We are all aware that such unfunded Federal 
mandates have become a real and serious problem for State and local 
governments, and we are eager to respond to that concern.
  So, the Republican leadership is to be commended for giving the issue 
of unfunded Federal mandates the attention it deserves here in 
Congress. Frankly, our own party leadership in the last Congress was 
remiss in its responsibilities, by not moving legislation on this 
issue, and many of us regret that was the case.
  This legislation proposes several very constructive ways of focusing 
attention on the burden of unfunded mandates: by requiring Federal 
agencies to prepare cost/benefit analyses of regulations expected to 
have a cost to states or the private sector of $100 million or more; by 
requiring agencies to consult with State and local officials in the 
development of significant regulatory proposals; by establishing a 
commission to study and report on existing Federal mandates; and by 
requiring the Congressional Budget Office to produce cost estimates on 
authorizing bills which contain mandates with an annual impact of at 
least $50 million on State and local governments or $100 million on the 
private sector, and by requiring that information to be contained in 
committee reports.
  All of those provisions will help achieve a goal I believe we all 
share, to be better informed about the impact on State and local 
governments, as well as the private sector, of laws Congress enacted in 
the past, and of legislation we will be considering.
  These provisions will help make us a more responsible and responsive 
legislative body, help ease the impact of national laws on other levels 
of government, and strengthen and improve the relationship between the 
Federal Government and our counterparts at the State and local level.
  Unfortunately, however, this bill does much more than simply provide 
us with information about the costs of actions on State and local 
governments. It establishes a new rule which prohibits the House from 
considering legislation that contains an unfunded mandate on State and 
local governments of over $50 million annually. That is an average of 
only $1 million per State and, obviously, could affect a very large 
number of bills that will come before Congress in the near future.
  In effect, the bill could stop Congress from considering any number 
of environmental, health, and safety bills--the Federal activities that 
appear to be the principal target, or concern, of this legislation--
despite the fact that legislation in these areas, such as antipollution 
laws and employee safety and benefit laws, are overwhelmingly supported 
by most Americans.
  Many of us are concerned that similar legislation will be extremely 
difficult to enact in the future, if this bill becomes law. We are 
concerned that passage of this legislation will result in requiring the 
Federal Government to shoulder the full cost of addressing State, and 
local pollution, health, or safety problems. We are concerned that 
sensible and equitable cost-sharing will be impossible to enact in the 
future. We are concerned that H.R. 5 does not include the value of the 
benefits of a proposed mandate in determining the cost of an unfunded 
mandate. A drinking water standard, for example, may lead to a 
reduction of mortality and morbidity that saves lives and reduces 
medical costs. Looking only at the cost side of the equation ignores 
the only reason government has for existing--to produce benefits for 
citizens.
  And, we are concerned that H.R. 5 also ignores the direct economic 
benefits enjoyed by local governments and the private sector from 
Federal spending and activity. Federal resources, including land, are 
often provided to businesses and governments at rates below full market 
value. Furthermore, both governments and the private sector benefit 
from tax expenditures under existing law. Any unfunded mandates 
legislation should take these benefits into account when estimating the 
overall burden of Federal mandates.
  Although it is true that the prohibition could be waived by a 
majority vote, a majority has to agree to break the House's rules to 
consider the bill. Since most of us take our rules seriously, it will 
be an uphill battle to persuade a majority to waive the rule against 
considering legislation containing an unfunded mandate, whatever the 
merit of the bill. It will make it harder to pass legislation to 
address problems we face now, as well as those that will emerge in the 
future. That, clearly, is the intent of some of the supporters of the 
bill.
  Had this rule been in effect during the last 20 or 30 years, it seems 
unlikely that we would have been able to pass laws which have cleaned 
up our lakes, rivers, and coasts; made our drinking water safe; 
protected our air from more serious pollution; reduced the exposure of 
children to asbestos and lead, or any number of other laws which have 
vastly improved life for Americans, but which we tend to take for 
granted.
  Moreover, because of the unusual procedure in which the waiver of 
this rule is provided for, a waiver could be debated and voted on 
before Members know whether in fact an unfunded mandate exists and, if 
so, how much it costs. Those two matters would not be ruled upon by the 
presiding officer until the House decided whether it wanted to waive 
its rules or not. How are Members to decide whether or not they want to 
allow an unfunded mandate if they do not know that it is such, or what 
it will cost?
  This is a procedure which will unnecessarily tie up the legislative 
process and impinge upon our ability to act in response to national 
needs and concerns. The authors of the legislation have acknowledged 
this themselves by exempting from coverage several categories of laws 
which could be considered unfunded mandates: those which protect civil 
and Constitutional rights; which are used to determine whether States 
and local governments are using Federal money as intended; which 
provide for emergency assistance, or which are necessary for national 
security. They have also exempted appropriations bills, fearing that 
such a requirement will delay action on those bills, and they have 
postponed the effective date until October 1, well after action on the 
Contract With America bills is expected to be completed.

  The prohibition on unfunded mandates could well have unintended 
consequences. It is unlikely that the sponsors wanted to give public-
sector transit companies or waste-disposal agencies a competitive 
advantage over [[Page H363]] their private-sector counterparts, but 
this legislation could lead to exempting public operations from laws 
which cover private operations. Should that happen, it might well 
hinder efforts to privatize Government operations that could be run 
more efficiently by the private sector.
  The rule also creates a very difficult situation for the House by 
putting us in a position where we may not be able to obtain the 
information we need to make a determination about whether we are 
violating a House rule. There is no clear definition of an unfunded 
Federal mandate, and we do not have a system in place to determine a 
mandate's cost.
  We have a very capable Congressional Budget Office which will be 
charged with determining the cost of an unfunded mandate, but that 
agency currently has neither the resources nor the methodology they 
need to make accurate assessments about the cost of a unfunded mandate 
to State and local governments--and to the private sector, which they 
must also figure out how to do. The process of determining these costs 
is very complicated and time-consuming, and is based on a lot of 
guesswork. CBO ought to have some experience producing the estimates we 
want on unfunded mandates before we prohibit legislation on the basis 
of those estimates.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some valuable provisions in this legislation, 
and I think that with a little more work and a little bit of 
compromise, we could come together in a bipartisan way on a bill which 
fulfills the objective we all want: more information and accountability 
on the impact of existing and future unfunded Federal mandates. I 
regret that we are not able to do that.
  Unfortunately, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, and because 
of all the many, and important, questions being raised about this 
legislation for which there are no satisfactory answers, I oppose this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], who is one of the leaders in this effort.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, over the next 10 days this House will consider and, I 
believe will pass, two of the most significant legislative initiatives 
to come before Congress in decades, two initiatives that will radically 
alter for the better the way Washington conducts it business: the 
balanced budget amendment; and the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, H.R. 5.
  Before us now is H.R. 5, the mandate bill, historic legislation that 
will put a halt to unfunded mandates that Washington dictates to State 
and local governments all across America.
  Through these mandates, Washington is substituting its overbearing 
will for the rights and decisions of cities and local governments in 
their struggle to meet local challenges.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no issue that better illustrates the arrogance 
and disconnect of Washington than does the proliferation of unfunded 
mandates. This must stop, and H.R. 5 will do that.
  In simple terms, by adopting H.R. 5, we are saying that if a mandate 
is important enough to pass, it is important enough to pay for.
  Despite what you will hear in the next few days, H.R. 5 will not 
block government from protecting the health and welfare of the American 
people. That is simply not true. This bill merely tells Congress, ``Put 
your money where your mouth is.'' More importantly, this bill reaffirms 
our respect for one of the founding principles of our country, the 
principle that the true genius of this country lies at the grassroots, 
in the diverse heartland of America, among 260 million freedom-loving 
Americans, and not in Washington, DC.
  In closing, let me give credit where credit is due. ``Defeat is an 
orphan, while victory has a thousand fathers.'' Many people worked very 
hard on this issue, and without them we would not be here today. But 
the efforts of one person stands above all others, those of Congressman 
Gary Condit.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old country song that goes, ``I was country 
when country wasn't cool,'' Well, Gary Condit was fighting for unfunded 
mandates when it wasn't cool an when no one else was. For that, we and 
the American people all owe Mr. Condit a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. Chairman, Washington holds no monopoly on courage, on wisdom, or 
on conscience. I urge all my colleagues to demonstrate their faith in 
the American people and support H.R. 5.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
senior and very valued member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have waited 7 years to have the opportunity to vote 
and to speak on an unfunded mandate bill. I just have to thank the 
authors of this legislation, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Portman, Mr. Condit, for 
their work over a number of years. Mr. Davis, who was here earlier. I 
thank them for the opportunity to vote on this bill, one I really 
believe in.
  Mr. Chairman, why is it that Republican and Democrat governors 
throughout the country want this bill? Why is it that Republican and 
Democrat mayors want this bill? Why is it that our county executives 
throughout this country, Republicans and Democrat, want this bill? And 
a few in this Chamber do not? I do not understand it.
  To me, it is extraordinarily fair.
  My concept of an unfunded mandate bill did not reach the status of 
Mr. Condit, I thought. I thought at least knowledge to the private 
sector of what it was going to cost, knowledge to the public sector of 
what is was going to cost, was tremendously important for us to know 
when we voted out a bill; something that we have not had in the past. 
Mr. Condit wanted the most extreme deal, and you could make an argument 
for it. If you do not come up with the money, you do not have the 
mandate. This to me is a logical compromise between the two positions. 
Obviously, there are times for health reasons, for environmental 
reasons, that we have to mandate. But when we do, we had better be very 
conscious of that mandate. We need to know the cost, and we should come 
up with the money if we have a mandate, unless there are reasons not 
to.
  If those cases, a point of order can come up if there is not the 
money or is not the disclosure. A Member can stand up and say, ``I make 
a motion to override the point of order,'' with a simple majority. Now, 
why would I want that here? For some of the reasons I am hearing on 
this side. It would be a conscious effort and an important one. I do 
not want New York City to pollute Long Island Sound. I do not have the 
ability in Connecticut to tell New York simply to stop. I do have the 
ability to come to the Federal Government and ask the Federal 
Government to tell New York to stop--no offense made to New York. 
Obviously, if New Jersey is polluting the air that comes into 
Connecticut, I want the ability under those cases, extraordinary cases, 
to override the point of order.

                              {time}  1450

  This is a very fair proposal. It is logical. I do not understand the 
objection to this legislation because of its fairness. I salute 
Democrats and Republicans for writing an extraordinarily fine bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Springfield, OH [Mr. Hobson].
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Congratulations to all the sponsors of this most needed 
piece of legislation. The budgets of State and local governments have 
long been devastated by regulations and laws handed down from Congress 
without the funds to pay for them.
  As a former State senator, I experienced firsthand the impact of 
these unfunded mandates when the priorities of Congress have superseded 
the budget priorities of Ohio. By 1998, cities and counties throughout 
my State will face even greater burdens when unfunded mandates consume 
one-quarter of all local revenues.
  Governor Voinovich of Ohio has dedicated the last 2 years to passing 
comprehensive mandate relief legislation as the National Governors 
Association's lead governor on federalism. His study of the impact of 
unfunded mandates concluded that mandates will cost Ohio $1.7 billion 
over 3 years.
  Finally, to the great relief of States across the country, the new 
Republican leadership in Congress is determined to abolish these 
mandates with their friends on the other side of the aisle. As part of 
the Contract With America, [[Page H364]] the Unfunded Federal Mandate 
Reform Act will make Members of Congress accountable for supporting 
mandates. The passage of this legislation will be the first step to 
dramatically altering the relationship between Washington and local 
officials. More importantly, it will be a step toward honoring the 
tenth amendment of the constitution. Essentially power should be given 
back to where it belongs, to the people and their State governments.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I just want to 
speak in support of this legislation as a check on Congress as it 
conducts its business. It will provide reassurances to States and 
municipalities that, as we continue to make the difficult decisions 
required to get the Federal fiscal house in order, we will not do so by 
shifting those costs to States and municipalities. The American people 
should know that this legislation will not result in the rolling back 
of important laws and regulations that have made the air cleaner and 
the water to drink clearer, and I would just like to add my support to 
this particular legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former city councilor, State legislator and most 
importantly, as a small businessperson, I am concerned about the way in 
which the Federal Government has historically handled its fiscal 
responsibilities. Our staggering national debt and enormous annual 
deficits are alarming to me, and should be to all Americans. I think it 
is obvious that the Federal Government must get its fiscal house in 
order, and that process must begin today. As a new Member of Congress, 
I am determined to help ensure that this happens.
  For more than 20 years, I have helped to manage my family's 
restaurant in Bangor, ME. I know how hard it is to make ends meet and 
to produce a balanced budget. For 4 years, I served on the Bangor City 
Council. Each year, we were the recipients of unfunded mandates. But 
each year, we were required to adopt a balanced budget. This was never 
an easy task, and difficult decisions had to be made. For 12 years, I 
served in the Maine State Senate. Again, every year we faced unfunded 
Federal mandates, but were required to adopt a balanced budget. Again, 
it was not an easy task and difficult decisions had to be made.
  The American people have watched their State and local officials make 
tough choices and balance budgets. They are now demanding--and rightly 
so--that their Federal representatives do the same thing.
  The question, of course, is how to achieve this goal. Many solutions 
have been proposed, some serious, some gimmicks. I am committed to 
supporting and working to enact proposals that cut Federal spending in 
a sensible way, without shifting those spending burdens to other 
segments of our society.
  My support for cutting spending without shifting burdens to other 
segments of society is also why I support unfunded mandates reform. For 
too long, the Federal Government has enacted legislation setting 
standards that State and local governments must meet, without providing 
the money to achieve those standards.
  This practice is partially responsible for the high State and local 
taxes many Americans now pay, and for the lack of funding available to 
pay for local priorities. This practice is irresponsible, and it must 
stop. If the Federal Government ceases passing off costs to States and 
municipalities, States and municipalities in turn will be able to slow 
the upward spiral of tax rates. Perhaps more importantly, these levels 
of government will be able to redirect resources that have been used to 
answer Federal mandates to instead address local priorities.
  As a State legislator in Maine, I lived with a similar law. Article 
IX, section 21 of the Maine Constitution prohibits the State from 
imposing unfunded mandates on localities unless members of each house 
of the legislature voted to do so. That provision, like the legislation 
we are considering today, does not prohibit an unfunded mandate from 
being enacted. Rather, it requires informed consideration and making an 
explicit decision to pass costs along to another segment of society. It 
brings with it accountability.
  Historically, the Federal Government has not considered in an 
organized, honest way the costs associated with various regulatory and 
legislative mandates that have been imposed on the States. Unfunded 
mandates reform will force us to do that. It will ensure that all 
Members have the opportunity to examine the fiscal implications 
legislation has for States and localities. It will ensure that we do 
not unwittingly, or covertly, pass along significant costs because it 
will require a point of order against legislation that does so.
  It is only fair that Congress take responsibility in this way. I have 
seen this concept work at the State level, and I believe it can work at 
the Federal level as well.
  I want to emphasize what it is that I do not support. Let me be 
clear: I do not favor the wholesale elimination of Federal laws. Many 
issues are national in scope, and will require attention and action at 
the Federal level. I simply believe that the Federal Government should 
stop passing off costs to other governmental entities.
  Many of the laws about which the loudest complaints are heard are 
based on sound and just policy. We need to protect our environment and 
our precious natural resources. We need to protect the health and 
safety of America's workers. We need to provide safety nets for our 
Nation's neediest citizens and access to all aspects of life for 
persons with disabilities.
  These are all important national objectives that have been previously 
addressed at the Federal level, and I will oppose any effort to 
eliminate these programs or to roll back the progress we have made in 
these areas.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that national 
goals are met by providing a much larger share of the resources 
necessary to do the job. To do so and, at the same time, to balance the 
Federal budget--paying down our national debt--requires making tough 
choices.
  We must reduce Federal spending. But we must do so in a rational, 
carefully considered way. Our cause is not advanced by recklessly 
eliminating valuable Federal programs simply for the sake of slashing 
spending.
  The legislation that is before us today is far from perfect. As we 
consider amendments over the next several days, I will support those 
that I believe clarify the bill's essential purposes: to establish the 
general rule that Congress should not impose Federal mandates without 
providing adequate funds to comply with such mandates.
  This legislation will serve as a check on the Congress as it conducts 
it business. It will provide reassurance to States and municipalities 
that as we begin to make the difficult decisions required to get the 
Federal fiscal house in order, we won't do so by simply shifting costs 
to other levels of government. And the American people should know that 
this legislation will not result in the rolling back of important laws 
and regulations that have made the air they breathe cleaner; the water 
they drink clearer; their work environment safer; or their local 
library more accessible.
  For more than 20 years, as a small businessman and a public servant, 
I have helped to craft and have supported balanced budgets. I am 
prepared to make the difficult--and sometimes unpopular--decisions 
required to balance the Federal budget. I am prepared to spend the next 
2 years fighting to make sure that Maine people are well-served by an 
efficient, compassionate and stream-lined Federal Government that does 
not adopt policies that raise our income taxes; by a Federal Government 
that has its fiscal house in order.
  The people of Maine have entrusted me with their confidence, and I 
intend to live up to their expectations. We face many challenges ahead, 
but working together I know we shall succeed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Lewisville, TX [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 days ago we passed the Congressional Accountability 
Act making Congress obey the same laws it imposes on everyone else. 
Next week we will pass, in a bipartisan fashion, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, which will effectively make Congress pay for the laws it 
imposes on everyone else. Together these two bills express the goals 
that inspire our entire Contract With America, the goals of reform, 
respect, and renewal; reform of this institution and of the way we 
conduct the people's business, respect for the people who sent us here, 
and renewal of the Federal system of government bequeathed to us by our 
Founding Fathers. For too long Congress behaved as if it was booted and 
spurred to run roughshod over States and private citizens. Well, if our 
Contract With America was about anything, it is about teaching 
government, in the memorable words of President Reagan, to work with 
us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back.
  Think of it. If we pass this bill, we will be doing the most 
surprising thing imaginable, limiting our own power. I ask my 
colleagues, ``How often do you read a headline that says, `Congress 
denied itself today'? Or `Our lawmakers [[Page H365]] exercised self-
control?''' True leadership is knowing when to say no to yourself for 
the common good.
  No matter how appealing the cause, no matter how tempting the 
mandate, we must be willing to exercise our legislative authority only 
when we are willing to pay the costs. Now we can make some reasonable 
exceptions of course for emergencies, for national security, for 
constitutional rights. These are proper exceptions to the rule. But 
these exceptions only prove the soundness of the rule, and that rule is 
Federal requirements should be paid for with Federal dollars.
  This is not just good government. It is the right thing to do. It 
reflects a sound, moral principle the Founding Fathers took for 
granted.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that all of us that are blessed to serve in 
this historic building raise our right hands and solemnly proclaim:
  ``Henceforth we shall burden the States with unfunded mandates no 
more forever.''
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  (Mr. LAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 5, the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  Having entered Congress a little over 2 years ago from a background 
as a county legislator, the issue of unfunded mandates is something 
with which I am very familiar.
  Many of my constituents, however, might not realize the adverse 
effect unfunded mandates have had on their pocketbooks. Considering 
they pay some of the highest taxes in the county, they should know that 
their tax burden is not entirely the fault of State and local 
governments. Much of it can be blamed on past action by Congress.
  Passage of H.R. 5 will force Congress to be responsible in its 
actions. It will force us to make judgments on legislation with full 
knowledge of the burden it will place on State and local governments. 
Introducing honesty and full disclosure will then require us to ask the 
question: Will we pay for out mandates, or will we continue to burden 
others with the costs?
  This is a historic day in the House. At a time when we are asking 
everyone to make do with less from the Federal Government, we should 
not mandate them to do more. H.R. 5 will change the way we do business. 
It will make Congress accountable for the legislation it passes and 
require honesty when we legislate. This is what the people want, and 
the country will be better because of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill we are 
debating today--H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  Having entered Congress 2 years ago from a background as a county 
legislator, the issue of unfunded mandates is something with which I am 
very familiar. Little did I know that a mere 2 years into my tenure, I 
could offer genuine relief to my former colleagues. I think the 
Unfunded Mandates Caucus can be proud of what we have accomplished in 
our short 2-year history.
  Passage of H.R. 5 will force Congress to be responsible in its 
actions. It will force us to make judgments on legislation with full 
knowledge of the burden it will place on State and local governments. 
Introducing honesty and full disclosure will require us to ask the 
question: Will we pay for our mandates, or will we continue to burden 
others with the costs?
  H.R. 5 will not mean the end to environmental legislation, it will 
not mean the end to civil rights legislation, and it will not mean the 
end to legislation to protect seniors and children. H.R. 5 will still 
allow us to pass these initiatives. However, we will just have to stop 
and consider all of the consequences before we pass them. Then, and 
only then will we be held fully accountable for our actions.
  Many of my constituents on Long Island might not realize the adverse 
effect unfunded mandates have had on their pocketbooks. However, 
considering they pay some of the highest taxes in the country, they 
should know that their tax burden is not entirely the fault of State 
and local governments. Much of it can be blamed on past action by 
Congress.
  Here is a good example of an unfunded mandate that the people of my 
district should know about. The Board of Elections in Suffolk County, 
our home county, is going to face a budgetary nightmare next year, all 
because of one bill recently passed by Congress--the infamous motor-
voter bill.
  The Suffolk County Board of Elections has been a model agency in 
recent years. It has cut costs, operated over the past 7 years without 
an increase in their operating budget, and was ready to operate in 1995 
with $100,000 less than in 1994. Then, in 1993, the motor-voter bill 
was passed. It will cost the county $500,000 to implement in 1995, 
effectively wiping out their $100,000 savings, and it will cost over 
$1.5 million in 1996.
  The people of Suffolk County are already plagued by high taxes. They 
are not ready to be further burdened by the motor-voter bill.
  Many Federal mandates involve important programs that many of us 
might support in concept. But, if we are going to ask others to pay for 
them, we should give them more of a say in developing them, we should 
level with them about who is going to pay for them, and we should be 
ready to defend the costs.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day in the House. At a time when we 
are asking everyone to make do with less from the Federal Government, 
we should not mandate them to do more. H.R. 5 will drastically change 
the way we do business. It will make Congress accountable for the 
legislation it passes and require honesty when we legislate. This is 
what the people want, and the country will be better because of it.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Houston, TX [Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns] for allowing me to address the House.
  Mr. Chairman, as a 20-year member of the Texas Legislature, both in 
the House and Senate, I know about unfunded mandates, and I also oppose 
them, but I also know that the State mandates on the counties and 
cities and the counties and the cities mandate on their citizens 
without providing their funds to those citizens, even our schools 
mandate on their citizens without providing it, and my children went to 
public school, and they were mandated to buy a workbook even through we 
pay property taxes and State taxes, but they could not come to school 
if they did not pay for that workbook or the folder. So there are 
mandates from the Federal Government, from the State government, and 
from the local government, and this concept needs to go forward if it 
is going to pass here, too.
  I support the concept of restricting unfunded mandates, but I am also 
concerned in hearing my other colleague from Texas talk about respect 
for this institution. How can we have respect for this institution when 
this bill did not have a public hearing during this session of 
Congress? I think we need to learn the full impact it will have on air 
pollution, nuclear wastes, and so I expect we will have a lot of 
amendments to try and clarify it.
  I hope we have clean water in New York when I come to visit the 
gentleman because that way I would like to drink it, but I would also 
like to make sure we do not become a Divided States and continue to be 
a United States.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, DC [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, no district needs an unfunded mandate bill 
more than mine. We are close to insolvency in part because of mandates. 
Thoughtless mandates are a regressive tax. But we deserve better than 
this blunderbuss bill that throws out the baby with the bath water and 
then throws in the tub for good measure.
  It is irresponsible to try to fix all mandates with one bill. This 
bill applies to everything from Medicaid, which is 80 percent funded, 
to crime bill measures like sexual predator, which are completely 
unfunded.
  Yet the critical vote on every bill will be on costs. This bill is 
brimming with unintended consequences. It is not about mandates. The 
real subject has not been discussed here, and that is the appropriate 
role of Federalism in the 21st century. We need an unfunded mandate 
bill, but in the vernacular of the streets, this ain't it.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez]. [[Page H366]] 
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before the Republican Party began 
rewriting history, it was widely thought that the people had entrusted 
the Federal Government with a number of basic responsibilities. First 
among them was the protection of its citizens and residents. The 
Framers of the Constitution listed the promotion of the general welfare 
as a fundamental duty of the Federal Government.
  I am proud to be a member of the party that bore that responsibility 
in the 40 years that it controlled this House. It introduced landmark 
legislation to promote the common good, such as the Clean Water Act, 
the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Lead Abatement 
Act.
  I am frankly amazed that laws such as these are now singled out as 
evidence of a runaway government. Am I to understand that the American 
people are outraged that their children now drink cleaner water and 
breathe fresher air? Are my colleagues who support this measure being 
flooded by constituent mail because their kids no longer eat lead-based 
paint chips?
  I urge my colleagues to uphold our constitutional duty to uphold the 
general welfare.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very 
hard-working friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. It takes a giant step toward 
relieving the burdens that we have unduly placed on cities and States 
around this country. It is a great step in the right director.
  There is, however, one part of the bill that I think needs 
addressing, and toward that end the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], and myself have 
an amendment we are going to propose tomorrow which we think is very 
important. We want to make sure when we stop these unfunded mandates, 
that we do not give an advantage to the public sector over the private 
sector. So wherever there is an undue advantage given to the public 
sector because of this legislation over a private business that is in 
competition with the public business or public utility, we ought to 
make sure there is parity. We are going to propose this amendment 
tomorrow. We think it addresses this problem. If we do not get it 
passed tomorrow, I implore the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Operations to look at this legislation which we will introduce later on 
in the session.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope you will take a hard look at that.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is an issue that I have been 
involved in now for some time, and I have a lot of respect for the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger].
  We worked hard in the last Congress on H.R. 5128. But the bill that 
is before us is not the same bill that we proposed in the last 
Congress. It is a different bill.
  The bill the last time, we had hearings all over. We had hearings in 
Pennsylvania, we had hearings in Florida, we had hearings here in 
Washington, DC, to get input coming from people that are involved in 
government. We had State elected officials coming, we had county 
elected officials coming. We had providers of service coming and 
talking to us about their concerns.
  Now, that is the way that we should be involved. We should not all of 
a sudden go to bed one night and wake up one morning and say we are 
going to now put forth a bill, we are not going to talk to anybody, and 
we are going to push it, not knowing exactly what we are doing.
  I do not think that is the Contract With America. I think they want 
to have input, they want to talk, and they want to make certain what we 
are doing is moving this country in the right direction. That is the 
view and that is the feeling I am getting.
  As I try now to call around and get input and feelings from people 
that are going to be affected by what we are doing here, we do not have 
enough time to do it. The only way to do that would be to have 
hearings.
  Now, I am just listening in terms of the fact that first of all, the 
dumping part. We should take some time and address that, to find out 
just what are we really doing here. We do not have to do this this way. 
This is not good government. We have too many unanswered questions here 
to move forward.
  Now, I have been a supporter of this legislation all along. But I 
will be honest with you, what is before us now I cannot support, 
because to me it is not moving in the direction that I feel that the 
American people want us to move in. They do not want unfunded mandates, 
but they want to make certain what we are doing is not going to make 
the situation worse.
  I am not sure. I have not had enough time to go over it. I have not 
had enough time to talk to people involved in terms of administering 
this program once we order it. There is a lot of questions here that 
nobody has been able to answer. And I think the only way you answer 
them is to talk to people.
  We need to talk to experts out there. We have not talked to them. 
This is the kind of legislation that the magnitude of it requires a 
discussion. And I am disappointed over the fact that the people that 
are moving it forward, as I look now, 50 percent of the people that are 
on the committee this year were not on the committee last year.
  It is a different bill. So I am hoping that tomorrow they would allow 
us to fix this bill. And if we cannot add amendments to fix it, I have 
to vote against it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Omaha, NE [Mr. Christensen], a new Member of the House, 
from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to day in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This bill represents a bipartisan effort to 
address a very serious problem. For too many years the Federal 
Government has imposed a hidden tax on State and local governments in 
the form of unfunded mandates.
  Unfunded mandates are Federal laws and regulations that impose costly 
duties on State and local governments, and without providing the money 
to pay for it.
  In the past 10 years alone, Congress has passed 72 unfunded mandates, 
including mandates on clean air and water, toxic waste cleanup, 
asbestos and lead paint removal, and public access for the disabled. 
While there are no comprehensive estimates of the total cost of all 
unfunded mandates, one study estimates that just 10 of these 72 
mandates cost over $72 billion a year.
  H.R. 5 would put an end to Congress blindly imposing unfunded 
mandates on the States without regard to their cost. Specifically, H.R. 
5 establishes a point of order against any future mandate which does 
not have a CBO cost estimate and creates a second point of order 
against any future mandate if Congress does not provide a way for 
paying for it.
  Congress can by a majority vote waive these points of order. However, 
H.R. 5 will for the first time guarantee that Congress does not impose 
additional mandates on the States without a full and open debate on the 
cost and impact of these mandates.
  In short, H.R. 5 is about responsibility and accountability. As 
Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to take action and to 
make sure this proposal passes so that the American people can once 
again have their representation speak for them in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say a word of thanks to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing me the time that 
they did and for allowing us to speak in favor of H.R. 5. And for my 
colleagues who were here today to speak in favor of it, they would also 
like to give a word of appreciation to both sides of the aisle for 
that.
  I look forward to the next couple days when we will debate the 
amendments to H.R. 5. I think that will be a positive and constructive 
thing for us to have that debate. [[Page H367]] 
  We will talk about what we have heard today, the threat to public 
health. Let me just make a quick comment. This bill is no threat to 
public health. This just simply says that if we think it is good enough 
to be a national policy, then it is good enough to fund. It does not 
remove the clean air standards. It does not remove clean water 
standards. It simply says that if we think it is good enough to 
legislate and mandate across the country, it is good enough to pay for.
  The private sector thing, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
said he has an amendment, we should consider that amendment. But I hope 
those Members who brought up the private sector section will help us 
when we get to risk assessment and cost analysis. Risk assessment will 
correct the private sector problem, and we look forward to that support 
and help on this side of the aisle.
  The unfortunate result of this whole process is that State and local 
governments must devote locally raised revenues or reduce local 
services in order to pay for the unfunded mandates that we impose on 
them.
  H.R. 5 gets at the fundamental unfairness of this process and thus 
ushers in a new era in the Federal, State, local partnership. I 
emphasize partnership because State and local governments are not some 
ordinary special interest group as some in this body allege. They are, 
instead, individuals who are elected and held accountable by the very 
same citizens who have sent us here to do the public's business.
  Contrary to what some have alleged, H.R. 5 is not about the merits or 
demerits of individual mandates. We all want clean air, clean and safe 
drinking water, and safe working conditions. There is not a single 
mayor, county supervisor, or Governor in this country who is not in 
favor of these goals.
  Instead, H.R. 5 is about putting some control into a process that is 
out of control.
  Under H.R. 5, we will, for the first time, get accurate and reliable 
information on the cost of unfunded mandates.
  H.R. 5 will encourage Congress and the Federal Government to consult 
and work with State and local governments on how best to address the 
Nation's problems.
  And finally, H.R. 5 is about accountability. H.R. 5 does not prohibit 
unfunded mandates from ever being passed by Congress. It merely says 
that if you are not going to pay for a new mandate, then come down to 
the floor and go on record for doing so.
  Today, you will hear a lot of horror stories about how H.R. 5 will 
take us back to the dark days when we did not have adequate safeguards 
on environmental, health, and safety issues. Nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  First, it is important to note that H.R. 5 is not retroactive. I 
stress that point--the bill is not retroactive. Therefore, it will not 
undercut or diminish existing health or safety standards.
  Second, H.R. 5 will not apply to reauthorizations unless the 
reauthorizations include new mandates and then only the new mandates 
would be subject to the bill.
  Third, H.R. 5 will not prohibit us from ever passing new unfunded 
mandates. Under the bill, a majority of the House or Senate can waive 
the point of order enforcing the funding requirements and impose a new 
unfunded mandate.
  Fourth, H.R. 5 will not unfairly disadvantage the private sector at 
the expense of the public sector. I might add that the Chamber of 
Commerce, NFIB, the Homebuilders, and the National Association of 
Realtors enthusiastically support this bill.
  In closing, I ask that all Members keep these points in mind. I 
welcome the healthy debate that I am sure will follow when we get to 
the proposed amendments. However, I would hope that all Members debate 
this bill on the merits and resist from using hyperbole and outright 
mischaracterizations in order to denigrate and distort this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we close this general debate before we proceed to 
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I 
would like to add one very important point to that that was raised by 
my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  As we look at this overall issue, it not only says that we have to 
make the decisions here that we are going to fund it, but it also says 
that we are going to be accountable.
  What has happened in the past, tragically, is that the Congress has 
regularly snuck in these little provisions which have imposed an 
extraordinarily onerous regulatory burden on State and local 
governments and the private sector without providing any kind of 
funding. And none of us have been accountable because it has been snuck 
in there. So all this legislation says is, we have to make tough 
decisions and we have got to stand up, when those decisions are facing 
us, and say yea or nay. That is really what this legislation does.
  If my colleagues look at State and local governments, they all the 
way across the board support this. Our Contract With America basically 
states that we want to reduce the size and scope of government and we 
want to move back to the State and local levels decisionmaking rather 
than having it centered inside the beltway.
  That is exactly what this legislation will ultimately do, because I 
am convinced that our new majority will decide, when faced with these 
tough decisions, that unfunded mandates are not the way to go. It is 
not the way to be responsive to the American people. And I will 
strongly support H.R. 5 and congratulate all my friends who have worked 
so hard on this legislation.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I express my thanks to all who have participated in 
this debate. I think we have had a very wide-ranging debate and a 
number of issues have been raised. I look forward to the amendment 
process that will begin tomorrow.
  I think there have been a number of perhaps misconceptions talked 
about here today that I would just briefly touch on. And it really has 
to be stressed. This is not a retroactive bill. It is not going to 
affect mandates that are on the books now. It will require a commission 
to look at existing mandates and determine if some of them have 
outlived their usefulness, but it in no way is going to abrogate any 
mandate that is on the books at the present time. Now is it going to 
prevent us or make it impossible for us to impose other mandates that 
we deem in our judgment to be necessary to pass without providing the 
necessary funds. But it does require us to at least consider the cost.
  I think that has been the problem too often in the past. The fact 
that we now have 176 Federal mandates, we have never really been 
required to consider what is the cost that we are imposing on State and 
local governments.
  There have been a couple of things that were raised here today that I 
think need to be corrected. It was suggested that perhaps the title IX 
requiring equality for women in sports programs, under title IX would 
have been affected. That is a civil rights bill. That is exempt under 
this bill. Another suggestion was that we would not be able to impose 
conditions on grants. That is clearly exempt. Any conditions of a grant 
of Federal funding is also exempt from this bill.
  So that what we have, Mr. Chairman, I think, is a bill that clearly 
needs to be addressed. We will address it. I would agree that we have 
had a very full and wide-ranging debate here today. But it is not 
retroactive. It is only prospective in view and it really is only 
saying, let us consider what we are doing. What have we wrought, what 
have we imposed upon State and local governments that has made all of 
them universally crying for this legislation at the soonest possible 
moment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, former Senator John Sharp 
Williams, an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, once noted that: ``My reading 
of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too 
much government.'' This is exactly the problem that we are attempting 
to address in today's debate.
  When I first began working for my father's small business many years 
ago, the onslaught of Federal mandates on our local communities had 
only just begun. Later, as a Washington State legislator, I saw first 
hand how destructive Federal mandates could be. Today, the Federal 
Government has used the mandate loophole to radically expand the scope 
of Federal intrusion into the lives of all Americans. Our constituents 
have paid the price in an ever-increasing State and local tax burden, 
and in unnecessary restrictions on our struggling regional economies.
  The U.S. Constitution set up a clear delineation in powers between 
the State and Federal governments. The Founding Fathers wanted to make 
certain that the Federal Government would have limited power to 
infringe upon States rights, or to raid State coffers. But like an 
octopus, the Nation's bureaucracy has slowly but surely extended its 
power and influence, and in so doing has eroded many of the 
Constitution's fundamental provisions. [[Page H368]] 
  Let me give you a few examples.
  Federal regulations are forcing one country in my home State of 
Washington to spend $142,000 to convert their traffic signs to the 
metric system. Never mind that almost none of my constituents have any 
interest in making the conversion. Never mind that the money might be 
better used to improve our schools, refurbish our infrastructure, or 
reduce our constituents' taxes. Never mind that the regulation defies 
common sense. My constituents are forced by the bureaucrats to comply 
with this unfunded mandate.
  The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--passed by 
Congress in 1991--has forced my State to include recycled rubber in 
asphalt laid by federally funded highway construction projects. Never 
mind that engineers are divided on the wisdom of this program. And 
never mind that this Federal provision may well cost Washington State 
tens of millions of dollars. My constituents are forced to comply with 
this unfunded Federal mandate.
  Unfunded mandates impose enormous costs on cities in my district as 
well. One, Kennewick--a city of approximately 40,000 residents--
estimates that Federal mandates cost it more than $4 million a year. 
And nationwide, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the 
cost of complying with Federal mandates has gown to almost $600 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of this Nation spoke with one voice this 
past November. They want less Government, less regulation, and lower 
taxes. They also want a Government that is more responsive to local 
concerns.
  They're exactly right. And the best way for us to combat the mandate 
plague is to make it more difficult for Congress to usurp the 
constitutional prerogatives of our State and local leaders. That is 
what this legislation would accomplish, and as a result, I urge an 
``aye'' vote on this measure.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  Eight years ago, Gov. George Voinovich of the State of Ohio spelled 
out exactly why this legislation is so necessary. He said:

       Over the past 20 years, we have seen the expansion of the 
     Federal Government into new, nontraditional domestic policy 
     areas. We have experienced a tremendous increase in the 
     proclivity of Washington both to preempt State and local 
     authority and to mandate actions on State and local 
     governments. The cumulative effect of a series of actions by 
     the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the U.S. Supreme 
     Court have caused some legal scholars to observe that while 
     constitutional federalism is alive in scholarly treaties, it 
     has expired as a practical political reality.

  I support H.R. 5, Mr. Chairman, because it restores balance to the 
Federal, State, and local relationship envisioned by the Framers of the 
10th amendment.
  Under the current system of mandating, State and local leaders are 
forced to cut vital services and raise taxes. But worse yet, mandates 
deprive citizens and their elected representatives of one of the most 
fundamental responsibilities of good government: the ability to 
prioritize government services. The public is not well-served when 
Congress arrogantly passes on new mandates that force mayors to think 
twice about putting new police officers on the street or Governors to 
delay implementing needed reforms in education.
  Without effective relief from unfunded mandates, Washington will soon 
bankrupt State and local governments. The State of Ohio has estimated 
that unfunded Federal mandates will cost the State more than $1.74 
billion between 1992 and 1995. The city of Columbus, in my district, 
estimated that its total spending on 14 major mandates would be $1.6 
billion between 1991 and the year 2000. By the year 2000, each Columbus 
family's share would be $850 per year.
  These costs have a tremendous impact. In the past 5 years, education 
in Ohio has declined as a share of State spending nationally at a time 
when improving education is one of this country's highest priorities.
  While many mandates are well-intentioned, they can also do more harm 
than good and have unintended results. A good example is the most 
recent Federal highway law which forces States to use scrap tires in 
highway pavement. No State transportation agency supported this idea, 
and many experts have serious concerns about the potentially harmful 
environmental effects of using scrap tires in pavement, but that did 
not deter Congress from passing the mandate.
  The legislation before us reminds us of the two basic questions for 
all public officials: What should government do, and what level of 
government should do it?
  Since no level of government--Federal, State, or local--has the 
luxury of unlimited financial resources, we should not judge public 
officials by how much they spend on solving a problem. They should be 
judged on their initiative and resourcefulness, and on what they can 
accomplish within their means.
  H.R. 5 is a long overdue step toward correcting an abuse of power by 
Big Government in Washington and revitalizing the Federal-State-local 
partnership which forms the basis of our society. As a cosponsor of the 
bill, I urge its adoption without any weakening amendments.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as the recent elections have proven, the 
Washington-knows-best attitude can be no more. For too long the Federal 
Government has usurped the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the 
specific intent of our Founding Fathers. It has also stifled the growth 
of our Nation's businesses because of the cost of compliance with 
Federal mandates. It is time this body recognized States' rights and 
ensure States and local communities are allowed to determine how best 
to resolve their own problems. And, it must also be fully aware of 
burdens it is placing on the business community.
  The people of my district have elected several ingenuitive and 
responsible leaders in cities like Plymouth, Lowell, DeMotte, Warsaw, 
Knox, Peru, Kokomo, and Marion, as well as others. These elected 
officials have been challenged to solve local problems, create economic 
growth and development, and provide necessary services at minimal 
costs. However, recently, the Federal Government has redefined their 
responsibilities into being able to comply with Federal regulations, 
sift through the Federal bureaucracy to obtain grants and financial 
assistance, and practice budgetary wizardry to fund these mandates 
along with all of the necessary local programs. By shifting costs to 
local communities and setting its agenda, unfunded Federal mandates 
breach the underlying principles of federalism which assume a working 
partnership and shared responsibilities between the Federal, State, and 
local governments.
  Over the past few years, State and local officials in my district 
have continually pleaded for relief. Business leaders have explained 
that they are being forced to make decisions based on Federal 
regulations rather than the market economy. The Federal Government has 
not only tied the hands of these officials and business leaders, but, 
through mandates, it has determined the agenda and has set the 
priorities at all levels of government. In fact, both Cedar Lake and 
Monticello, cities in my district, have had to bear the cost of 
additional loans to address much needed sewer projects, which had been 
deferred due to the costs of compliance with Federal mandates.
  Last week, I spent the day talking and listening with the members of 
the Indiana General Assembly. They want to work with the Federal 
Government, but they know all too well the Federal Government's help 
too often means more burdens, requirements, and budget outlays--the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Motor Voter Act, and 
last year's crime bill to name a few. They explained that instead of 
being able to address the concerns and needs of their communities, they 
have become administrative servants of the Federal Government. They are 
constantly compelled to comply with mandates, rules, and regulations, 
which demand too much time and too many resources.
  Business leaders have told me the same thing. They are forced to 
devote their time and additional employees to make sure they comply 
with Federal rules and regulations, rather than assisting customers and 
promoting growth and development. Some businesses have closed plants 
and eliminated jobs because of the cost of compliance with certain 
mandates. These Federal regulations have forced many producers to rely, 
in part, on foreign sources, rather than their own.
  A small businessman in my district confessed to me that even though 
the growth of his business is such that he would be able to hire 
additional employees, he will manage with his current 46 employees. He 
explained that the Family and Medical Leave Act, which affects business 
of greater than 50 employees, would place too many costs and burdens on 
his business, even though he has already instituted a policy allowing 
for employee leave.
  We have set an ambitious agenda to meet the demands of the American 
people. However, we would only be fooling ourselves and conducting more 
business-as-usual if we were to pass the balanced budget amendment, 
increase defense spending, grant family and business tax cuts, and 
enact another crime bill without also passing the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
  Congress, by passing this legislation, will finally show it is 
committed to not only limiting the heavy Federal arm, but also to being 
better informed in its decisionmaking and accountability, including 
being aware of the costs State and local governments and businesses 
would bear. This Congress should require cost estimates on mandates, 
funding to be identified in the legislation, agencies to do cost/
benefit analyses of regulations, and, most importantly, input from 
those who would be affected by mandating legislation. This opportunity 
[[Page H369]] must be seized without further delay or weakening 
amendments.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this piece of 
legislation. I want to make it clear from the outset that I believe the 
Federal Government must assist State and local governments in meeting 
financial obligations associated with legislation passed by Congress. I 
have been a consistent supporter of directing Federal resources to the 
local level to assist them in complying with Federal statutes. At the 
same time, I firmly believe that the Federal Government has an 
overriding obligation to protect the health, safety, and well-being of 
every American. This bill will greatly undermine the Federal 
Government's ability to provide equal protection to our citizens and 
will compromise 25 years of progress in environmental protection, civil 
rights, and many other areas.
  I have several concerns about this bill. First, it establishes a new 
Federal advisory committee to conduct a review of all Federal 
requirements. For many years, my Republican colleagues have been 
arguing that we should not establish any new advisory committees and 
that we should eliminate many we already have. I would suggest that the 
existing Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] is 
ideally suited to conduct such a review. A majority of its members are 
representatives of State, local and county governments and it also 
includes Members of Congress and executive branch officials. For the 
past 20 years the Commission has been studying the mandate issue and 
the interaction between various levels of government. Just last week 
ACIR released two reports addressing how to accurately calculate the 
costs of Federal requirements and how to define Federal mandates. I 
believe the Commission has the personnel and the expertise to examine 
the mandate issue. As a result, I will offer an amendment with the Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Moran, and Ms. Meek to require the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations to conduct the review required by the bill. 
This is a common sense amendment that I urge my colleagues to support.
  Second, the regulatory review requirements contained in title II of 
the bill are already required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12875 which 
President Clinton issued in the fall of 1993. In fact, the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB] is currently developing a process to 
evaluate the effects of mandates and gather input from State and local 
governments. Title II merely duplicates requirements which already 
exist. Therefore, it is unnecessary.
  Third, it is ironic that a bill seeking to reduce mandates on one 
entity would impose dramatic new mandates on others. This legislation 
requires the Director of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] to 
review every bill or joint resolution reported by a committee. This 
review must determine whether the mandate will cost State and local 
governments more than $50 million or the private sector more than $100 
million in any given fiscal year as well as determine whether 
additional Federal funds are provided to cover those costs. While the 
CBO is required to review certain legislation under current law, this 
particular measure places a massive new burden on this agency.

  While I am concerned about the above, my main opposition to this bill 
stems from the effects it will have on the health, safety, welfare, and 
economic security of every American. Under this legislation, bills 
imposing certain requirements on States and local governments would be 
ruled out of order if they are projected to cost more than $50 million. 
Legislation exceeding this limit would only be protected from a point 
of order if it authorized funding to cover the full costs of the 
requirement or provided a mechanism for Federal agencies to reduce 
State compliance to some level equal to the funding contained in the 
bill. Moreover, in spite of assurances by supporters of this measure 
that it will only apply to future legislation, I remain very concerned 
that attempts could be made to use this bill to undermine existing 
legislation when it is reauthorized or amended. Furthermore, while the 
bill seeks to provide relief to local governments, it will disadvantage 
private sector enterprises which provide services similar to local 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying logic of this bill is deeply flawed. In 
essence, it assumes that State and local governments would not take 
steps to treat sewage or provide clean drinking water to their citizens 
or work to ensure access to public buildings for handicapped citizens 
in the absence of Federal standards. In addition, it argues that the 
Federal Government must pay the full costs of every action which 
results, even in some remote way, from a Federal requirement in order 
for States and localities to comply. I believe the shortcomings in this 
reasoning are transparent.
  Obviously, States and municipalities will take, and do take, steps to 
protect the health and welfare of their citizens. Federal requirements, 
such as those set forth in the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 
Acts, are designed to ensure a minimum degree of protection for every 
American because all States do not invest equally in addressing 
problems. What proponents also fail to recognize is that many problems 
are regional or national in scope and the Federal Government is the 
only entity which can set standards or devise a course of action to 
address them. I believe the Clean Air Act and Civil Rights statutes are 
perfect examples of this reality.
  Under these laws, and many others, the Federal Government has 
provided funding to assist the States in complying with the minimum 
standards. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated nearly $3 billion 
to assist States in upgrading their water treatment infrastructure to 
help to ensure that every American, regardless of which State they live 
in, will have pure drinking water. These two statutes are only one 
example of Federal support flowing to the States. In fact, budget 
figures show that in fiscal year 1993 Federal outlays for grants to 
State and local governments totaled $155 billion and that figure was 
projected to increase to more than $169 billion in fiscal 1994. These 
transfers represent more than 3 percent of our gross domestic product 
[GDP].

  If we apply H.R. 5 to the above example, States would not have to 
upgrade water treatment facilities if the total costs exceed the 
Federal contribution. This bill does not take into account the inherent 
responsibility of a State to carry out this activity or make any 
allowances for emergencies or vitally important projects. It merely 
sets up an arbitrary cutoff point that lets states off the hook if the 
Federal Government does not pay the full costs of what most would agree 
are shared responsibilities. Moreover, this bill rewards States that 
have not taken the initiative to address certain problems and penalizes 
those which have been leaders. H.R. 5 works to bring everyone down to 
the lowest common denominator. I believe my colleagues will agree that 
this is not a goal we should be shooting for in this body.
  Finally, this bill will put many private sector businesses at a 
competitive disadvantage. While States will be exempt from Federal 
requirements if the costs are not fully covered, the same will not 
apply to businesses. This disparity could be devastating to any small 
business which provides services that local communities might also 
provide. For example, if a local government is exempt from complying 
with certain provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
[RCRA] relating to waste disposal, it could drive small waste haulers 
and private waste disposal firms out of business. The effect of this 
bill would be to establish different standards for hospitals, 
universities, and many other entities performing identical tasks based 
on whether they are owned by a State or private company. This 
distinction demonstrates how this bill works to merely shift 
responsibility to comply from the public to the private sector. 
Unfortunately, because this bill was not subject to any hearings this 
Congress, we do not fully understand the implications of this shift. 
This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that small business 
is the engine which drives economic growth in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is seriously flawed. It creates an 
unnecessary new bureaucracy and places unprecedented burdens on Federal 
agencies and the CBO. More importantly, it will work to reverse the 
progress we have made over the past 25 years in environmental 
protection, public health, worker rights, and equal protection for all 
Americans. It throws the notion of shared responsibility between the 
Federal and State governments completely out the window. In addition, 
it will place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis 
State and local governments. In the final analysis, this bill will 
degrade the quality of life for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this ill-conceived measure.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the premise behind H.R. 5, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, is fiscal responsibility.
  I cosponsored this legislation with that objective in mind and 
because I am appalled by the Federal bureaucracy's arrogance with 
respect to suggesting federally conceived one-size-fits-all solutions 
to local problems without regard to who must pay for them. If H.R. 5 
truly represents a progressive step toward the Federal Government 
setting priorities in a fiscally prudent manner, then the bill itself 
should not end up being an unfunded mandate on the American taxpayer.
  As the Chairman is well aware, title III of this bill authorizes $4.5 
million for the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] to perform critical 
economic analysis of the impact that legislative proposals will have on 
State and local governments and the business community. Although a very 
worthwhile and necessary function, authorizing funding without offering 
specific offsets merely shifts responsibility to the appropriators, and 
with our budget already stretched to limits, questions of funding 
should [[Page H370]] no longer be left to chance. Once again, 
entrenched institutional ideals will postpone the hard decisions for a 
later date. It is this type of logic that has resulted in our national 
debt ballooning to $4.5 trillion.
  House rules preclude me from offering an offsetting amendment at this 
time. Therefore, I plan on proposing an amendment to the House 
legislative branch appropriations bill which will direct a reduction in 
the official mail or ``franking'' account of $9 million. Under this 
amendment, Members of Congress would experience a further reduction in 
their free mail account to more than offset the costs authorized by 
this bill so that local and State governments and the private sector 
have all the pertinent economic information about the impact of 
proposed regulations and laws. If the 104th Congress really has the 
vision to deliver needed reforms in the way our Government does 
business, then actually providing relief from unfunded mandates as well 
as the Federal deficit is the very least we owe the American people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, our States, counties, cities, and towns have 
all experienced the frustration of unfunded Federal mandates in one 
form or another. As the first mayor of Sanibel, FL, and later as 
chairman of the Lee County Commission, I became much too familiar with 
the pressures that such one-size-fits-all mandates put on local 
budgets. It has become a very bad habit for the Federal Government to 
tell their State and local counterparts what to do, often spelling out 
how to do it, and usually doing so without consideration of the costs 
involved or the unique characteristics that make our localities differ 
from one another. I am gratified that today we are moving to reverse 
that trend and establish safeguards against such irresponsible Federal 
dictates in the future.

  The Committee on Rules has original jurisdiction over the changes and 
additions to the House Rules contained in H.R. 5. We considered title 
III, after a very thorough and informative briefing by CRS and CBO, and 
after listening to a broad array of views during an extended committee 
hearing.
  The nuts and bolts of the rules changes in this bill have been pretty 
well explained--it will be out of order for the House to consider 
legislation that creates a new unfunded mandate, above a certain, 
national trigger cost level, on States and local governments. This 
point of order can be waived by a majority vote if enough Members of 
this House feel that the need for the mandate is urgent. While this 
will not automatically stop all new mandates in their tracks, it will 
force the House to take the issue of the unfunded mandate specifically 
into consideration, casting an up or down vote, in full public view on 
the issue of whether to proceed with such a mandate or not. 
Accountability in short.
  As a strong supporter of this bill, I nonetheless did have some 
concern over the possible unintended consequences it could have on 
existing environmental and public health laws. As initially drafted, it 
was unclear whether the cost of existing programs, such as the Clean 
Water Act, would be counted toward the $50 million trigger in this bill 
when such programs came up for reauthorization. While it's clear that 
the intention of this bill's authors was never to gut the provisions of 
every piece of environmental legislation, I am pleased that we were 
able to further clarify this point in the Rules Committee through an 
amendment to title III. That amendment makes it clear that only the 
incremental costs of new mandates will count toward the $50 million 
trigger. This keeps within the spirit of H.R. 5, in looking ahead to 
future mandates while a commission reviews all existing mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, complicated by the nature of the 
subject, but well thought out. A host of talented Members, State 
officials, and staff worked long hours to bring us to this point. 
Congressional action to reverse the trend on unfunded mandates is long 
overdue and vital to the financial stability of our State and local 
governments. For more accountability, for thriftier spending, for 
better Government--I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Goodlatte] having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and 
local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs 
incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements 
under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on 
the costs of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________