Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H416-H449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). 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 further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 5.

{time} 1027

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 further 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 CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
January 19, 1995, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in House Report 104-2 is considered by titles as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment. Each of the first four sections and
each title are considered as read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

H.R. 5

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
of 1995''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and States, local governments, and tribal
governments;
(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States,
local governments, and tribal governments in a manner that
may displace other essential State, local, and tribal
governmental priorities;
(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed
legislation establishing or revising Federal programs
containing Federal mandates affecting States, local
governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by--
(A) providing for the development of information about the
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to
the attention of the Senate
[[Page H417]] and House of Representatives before the Senate
and House of Representatives votes on proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance;
(5) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration
in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation
containing significant Federal mandates;
(6) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of
proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and
tribal governments, by--
(A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to
enable the elected and other officials of States, local
governments, and tribal governments to provide input when
Federal agencies are developing regulations; and
(B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider
better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations
containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments,
and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and
ensuring that small governments are given special
consideration in that process;
(7) to establish the general rule that Congress shall not
impose Federal mandates on States, local governments, and
tribal governments without providing adequate funding to
comply with such mandates; and
(8) to being consideration of methods to relieve States,
local governments, and tribal governments of unfunded
mandates imposed by Federal court interpretations of Federal
statutes and regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?

{time} 1030

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are right now working on an arrangement
under which my amendment would be withdrawn to this section. I ask
unanimous consent to take my amendment out of order at a later time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not
quite hear the gentleman's unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] asked that
his right to offer his amendment be protected. He is not quite ready
for section 2 and wishes to preserve his right to offer his amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?

amendment offered by ms. lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: In section 2(7), before
this semicolon insert the following: ``, and that congress
shall not impose any Federal mandate on a State (including a
requirement to pay matching amounts) unless the State is
prohibited under Federal law from requiring, without consent
of a local government, that the local government perform the
activities that constitute compliance with the mandate''.

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really
very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's
sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time,
en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to
find out which amendments the gentlewoman proposes to offer en bloc.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is
an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a-
vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to
section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study,
and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of
local governments.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I would really prefer that they be
offered separately because we are dealing there with three different
sections, and one of them actually, I understand, was to title III, and
we are presently dealing with section 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16
days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from
that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates.
One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to
support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote
for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted
manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs
further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who
is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering
various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be
in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am
offering are part of the effort to improve this bill.
In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did
sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served,
even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the
State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same
as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at
the Federal level.
It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the
responsibility for actually paying for what you do.
While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage
in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail.
However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded
to local governments are Federal programs.
Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a
Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties
who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and
Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not
entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county
government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has
increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The
State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county
government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to
avoid in this bill.
Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem.
In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent
of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County,
NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised
locally is available for local priorities.
Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain.
Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter
into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non-
Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs
the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And,
frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts
looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for
local governments will get much worse.
The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local
governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local
governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the
bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when
Federal matching programs are at issue.
All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most
popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for
this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the
House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council
or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is
another reason why the American people have more confidence in the
government that is closest to them.
[[Page H418]] If we are to ameliorate the terrible problems that face
our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of
communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from
Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen
right in a community with local leadership. The American people
understand this and so should we.
If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain
to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity
we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We
cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and
bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we
need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change.
The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen
the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local
governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we
will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with
local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a
disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties
need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights
along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching-
fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]
insist on his point of order?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point or order.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, just briefly I would say I certainly am sympathetic
with what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I think we have all been
frustrated with the fact that the Federal Government has sort of willy-
nilly imposed requirements, mandates on States who in turn pass them
through to State and local governments. But I do think that this is in
effect giving the States a veto power in effect over what we can do
here. I think we have extended the reach of what we are trying to do in
this legislation much further than I think the intent is, which is not
certainly to give the States veto powers in this instance.
So for that reason I would have to oppose the amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is in dealing with the coalitions
that put this together, including State governments and local
governments together, and this of course cuts right through that
coalition and breaks it up. There is a huge problem with States
mandating on localities, and a number of States in fact have moved to
rectify this over the last years, the State of Florida being one, where
by referendum the citizens there have stopped the unfunded mandate flow
to local governments.

{time} 1040

The commission is going to be able to look at this under this
legislation, come back and report to Congress, and at that point, I
think we will have a basis on which to operate.
I think although the purpose is good here, this is probably premature
at this point, and for that reason I think it should be defeated.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this
purpose in the amendment.
I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that
this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it
would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of
course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state.
It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the
local government.
So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a
misleading statement in the purposes clause.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to
do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire
committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships
between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my
point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here
to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local
government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true
partnership.
I think it would be a terrible mistake.
Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are
noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed
in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the
commission in looking at this issue.
I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with
unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level,
of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the
purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do
what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress
which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the
local governments.
I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it.
I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the
gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this
issue.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local
elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am
concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be
perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes
me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the
State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very
onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do
everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of
those constraints on local governments.
But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in
any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic
with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government
is the proper place to do that.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that
I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed
amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching
requirement is in place.
Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as
mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred
in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to
enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are
discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost,
because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as
that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share.
If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that
burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5,
which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable,
responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve
the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only
to Federal matching programs.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still
interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these
are Federal programs imposing what would
[[Page H419]] be interpreted as a mandate at the State level, and it is
for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although,
as I said, I am very sympathetic with it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the
gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in support of this. I think this amendment really highlights
one of the concerns that we have, and that is to some extent some of
the duplicity of the Governors who have come here and talked about
unfunded mandates and the burdens that the Federal Government pushes on
to the Governors, even if it is for a local purpose and a Federal
purpose, and then those very same Governors turn around, do the same to
local government in their States. They accept responsibility. Then they
decide they cannot handle the financial aspects of it, they turn around
to the counties.
In our own State of California, in this last year, we have watched
the Governor come and scoop up local revenues, take them to the State
level, and then tell the counties that they had an additional burden
for mental health and health care of individuals and for probation and
all these other programs. They said you have to take care of it, but
the money has now gone to the State. That historically has happened in
State after State after State. Yet these Governors come to the Federal
legislature somehow wanting us to believe
that they have clean hands when they come before us and suggest they
would never think of such a thing as an unfunded mandate. Yet everybody
here who has worked in local government knows it happens to you each
and every day.

In California they are so brazen, when the legislature passes an
unfunded mandate, they pass boilerplate language that says, ``Under
S.B. 90, this is not an unfunded mandate, and do it anyway.'' And that
is the situation that the gentlewoman from California is trying to get
at is that it is not good enough, if you believe in this arrangement
that you are talking about in this legislation.
All you have really done now is made things more difficult for the
most local forms of government as they continue to receive these State
unfunded mandates, if you will, as the States continue to agree with
the Federal Government about the purposes of these programs.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would urge all of my colleagues to
support this amendment, because if we are really writing this bill to
lower the costs of mandates for localities, we just have to recognize
that much of these costs are really State mandates, and when States
mandate that localities do certain kinds of services without providing
those kinds of funds, you do have the passthrough effect that just
simply does not make a lot of good sense.
If we are serious about having mandates not imposed on people that
are unfunded, then support the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

point of order

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman previously spoken on the
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to
the comments of the gentlewoman from California.
I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say
to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal
law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so
forth.
I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the
legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress,
mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and
mandating what the townships do and so on.
I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond
this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by
the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the
sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State.
It is a flat prohibition.
As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this
legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up
a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability
and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In
other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the
purpose of the legislation.
Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be
misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with
the rest of the legislation as I read it.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague,
the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments
throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them
today.
I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is
proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for
that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of
America.

{time} 1050

But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take
steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this
Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts
will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State
government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail
in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in
favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara
County.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my
friend, for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out I think this is one of the
pitfalls with the legislation that we have before us. It sort of is the
blame game in terms of one unit of government, local, the county
governments, and States blaming the other for the challenges and
unpleasantness and dilemmas that they face. I think that is one of the
problems inherent in this legislation that we have before us with
regard to mandates.
I was listening to a debate on public television which my colleague
from California was involved in, Mr. Miller, with the Governor of Ohio,
and all of the problems of taxation issues in that State were basically
left at the doorstep of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress.
Inherent in this is some of that same aspect. I think, clearly as we
deal with Federal law, as States deal with State law, as ordinances in
counties deal with the various laws that they have, the issue is there
has to be a consideration of the requirements, the expectations that we
have, realistically at all of these levels. Quite candidly, as I had
stated yesterday on the floor, I think too often the representation is
one of confrontation rather than cooperation.
Inherent in our basic documents in the form of Government that we
have is the understanding that there is cooperation between the States,
between the Federal Government, between the various counties and local
governments that make up the response and service to the people that we
represent. Unfortunately, I think that this legislation does not, as it
is now drafted, come to grips with that. I think it puts in place
unrealistic expectations and requirements that simply add layer after
layer of bureaucracy. It is as if we are now going to have, instead of
working through the local police and State police powers, we are going
to have Federal marshals reoccur in these instances. I think it offers
real problems.
I think this amendment in the purposes clause is coherent and
appropriate. I am surprised the major sponsors of this are reluctant to
accept this as one of the purposes, because one of
[[Page H420]] the purposes is, obviously, to try to develop this
cooperative attitude, to have a two-way street with regard to the type
of responsibilities and roles of local governments as they relate to
the States.
We all understand in our Constitution the unique difference between
powers reserved to the States, solely reserved to the States, and the
local governments really are not even recognized in that. They are an
artifice, in fact, of the States themselves. And, of course, they
differ from State to State.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to summarize by saying that I think that
accepting this as a purpose in terms of recognition and really the
complaint and the growth of this has been from the grassroots. It has
not--the States are late to this particular process, and I think, in
most instances, wrong when we are talking about grants in aid, talking
about entitlements, the sort of extraordinary basis. Most of those
programs are, in essence, voluntary.
In any case, I think this points up the nature of the problem. I am,
you, know stunned that there is no recognition or acceptance, at least
in the purposes of this, as a problem, and I think the gentlewoman has
a good point here, and I hope the Members would agree.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just briefly to say that the objection here is not the intent of what
the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish. It is beyond what we have in
this bill, which is a point of order would lie against this. This is an
absolute veto over the power of us to do anything in this regard. So it
is an extension.
Let me assure the gentlewoman, though, that in the proposal I think
she is going to offer later in the day relating to the same issue, I
think we could be very helpful in that regard, and I think that makes
better sense than what we are dealing with here.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out
well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand
the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and
we are going in the right direction to get the desired result.
I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going
to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this
very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having
price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are
tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the
priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the
essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on
welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and
Democrats, was unfunded mandates.
They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the
programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food
stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by
the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee.
Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and
we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman
is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money
without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used
for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better
direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do
have to have accounting for the dollars.
But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we
blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have
to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a
vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats,
vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this
process.
We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our
States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The
Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean
water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We
have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in
education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom.
Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates.
I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to
oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and
we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's
further amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded
vote will stand and be counted.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] insist on his point
of order?
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute maximum vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 267, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 22]

AYES--157

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOES--267

Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
[[Page H421]] Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--10

Archer
Ehrlich
Flake
Gibbons
Levin
Lincoln
Reynolds
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Yates

{time} 1117

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Levin for, with Mr. Ehrlich against.

Messrs. SALMON, COLEMAN, LIGHTFOOT, KLINK, McINTOSH, and PETERSON of
Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. THOMPSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs.
VISCLOSKY, McHALE, and TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1120

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Davis] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and also the
ranking member from the minority party, the gentlewoman from Illinois.
We have come to an arrangement whereby I will be withdrawing amendment
No. 12. I would like to then move amendment No. 13. That amendment has
been agreed to by all sides.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: In section 102(a), after
paragraph (1) insert the following new paragraphs (and
redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(2) investigate and review the role of unfunded State
mandates imposed on local governments, the private sector,
and individuals;
(3) investigate and review the role of unfunded local
mandates imposed on the private sector and individuals;
At the end of section 102, add the following new
subsection:
(e) State Mandate and Local Mandate Defined.--As used in
this title:
(1) State mandate.--The term ``State mandate'' means any
provision in a State statute or regulation that imposes an
enforceable duty on local governments, the private sector, or
individuals, including a condition of State assistance or a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary State program.
(2) Local mandate.--The term ``local mandate'' means any
provision in a local ordinance or regulation that imposes an
enforceable duty on the private sector or individuals,
including a condition of local assistance or a duty arising
from participation in a voluntary local program.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work in front of us so I
will not debate this.
I would like to thank the parties on both sides of the aisle for this
amendment being agreed to and would ask for its favorable
consideration.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for
offering this. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment.
This amendment will allow the Commission that is overseeing to make a
report to the Congress within 1 year, to come back and look not only at
the effect of Federal mandates on State and local governments but also
be able to look at the mandates that States can put on local
governments and local governments put on individuals. That would be
part of their overall report, as they come back to us.
This will allow that Commission the opportunity to address those
issues, which I think is very important.
Mandates that are crippling localities today do not all emanate from
the Federal Government. A lot of this is trickled down from the States
to local governments as well. This amendment really will allow the
Commission to report and give us a data base where we can proceed
accordingly.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be
opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if
we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush.
I thank the gentleman for his cooperation.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the
gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment.
But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not
believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that
and study these matters and report back to us.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made
from the gentleman from Virginia.
I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do
have constant communication with States and localities. There will be
an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as
consistent with the points that he was just making.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is consistent with the points.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is
terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that
we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and
local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we
might make some of these programs work better.
The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate
legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could
accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most
adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how
to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation,
not
[[Page H422]] to apply a cookie-cutter approach, not to be
unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in
Washington without communicating to States and localities.
If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is
bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I
think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this
legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of
federalism.

{time} 1130

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am very sympathetic
to the gentleman's concern about the Commission and the ACIR as being
the proper receptacle. There will be an amendment offered in this
regard. The Senate has already made that change. I think this will be
an addition to the bill which will be very helpful.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that.
Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up,
Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and
several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that
will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the time very briefly to
commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for his input into this
type of legislation for these good many past years. The gentleman is
recognized as a former mayor of Alexandria, who did an outstanding job
while mayor of Alexandria, and has through the years worked with these
kinds of problems and is very knowledgeable and to the impact that
Federal mandates, State mandates, and others have on local government.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for all
the work that he has done on this type of legislation.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice of the gentleman from
Missouri, and I appreciate it.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a
brief minute.
Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different
functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local
governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental
Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment
offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working
together.
In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and agree with his
comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the terms ``agency'', ``Federal financial assistance'',
``Federal private sector mandate'', ``Federal mandate''
(except as provided by section 108), ``local government'',
``private sector'', ``regulation'' or ``rule'', and ``State''
have the meaning given those terms by section 421 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(2) the term ``small government'' means any small
governmental jurisdiction as defined in section 601(5) of
title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
If there are no amendments to section 3, the Clerk will designate
section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.

This Act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal
statute or a proposed or final Federal regulation, that--
(1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
(2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status;
(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing
procedures with respect to grants or other money or property
provided by the Federal Government;
(4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the
request of any State, local government, or tribal government
or any official of such a government;
(5) is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations;
(6) the President designates as emergency legislation and
that the Congress so designates in statute; or
(7) pertains to Social Security.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
amendments offered by mr. taylor of mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and
132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr.
Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132
since last night.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: In section
4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph
(6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert
``, or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new
paragraph:
(8) provides for protection of public health through
effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section
502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1362(11)).
In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at
the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or,'', and after
paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph:
(8) provides for protection of public health through
effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section
502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1362(11)).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the
Committee on Rules and the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Clinger], for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule
so all points of view could be heard as we try to perfect this
legislation. I think that is the key word, is that we are trying to
perfect this legislation, not to defeat it, because it is a good bill.
We are here today discussing unfunded mandates because in previous
years Congress has hastily passed laws without regard to their effect
on State and local governments. Laws that we thought would help people
actually hurt them, because we did not take the time to see them
through. We appear to be doing that again today.
I offer an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995, to help prevent this mistake from recurring. This amendment will
provide for the protection of public health by including sewage
treatment regulation in the language of the bill.
Our citizens pay taxes and they want to see positive results. They
receive instant gratification when local governments pave the streets,
improve the quality of the drinking water, or increase police
protection to provide a highly visible deterrent to crime.
Mr. Chairman, wastewater is a different matter. While sinks, showers,
and commodes are draining properly, people do not care where it goes as
long as it goes away. Therein lies the problem. It does not go away. It
is discarded into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans that carry the
stench, the germs, the filth, to some other community downstream.
The Mississippi River drainage basin services 41 percent of the
mainland United States. This includes 31 States as well as two Canadian
Provinces, an area of 1.5 million square miles. It is the largest
drainage basin of the country and is inhabited by 80 million
[[Page H423]] Americans and over 2 million Canadians. This means that
any untreated waste, waterborne disease or filth which enters any body
of water in dozens of States will eventually flow past my State and
many of your States.
Mr. Chairman, surface filth flows past cruise ships and waterfront
recreational areas in towns like Natchez and Vicksburg. Waterborne
diseases end up in the drinking water of hundreds of cities who rely on
the Mississippi River for their water supply. Small towns, cities, and
even large metropolitan areas like New Orleans rely on the Mississippi
River for their drinking water.
However, closer to home, those of us who live in Alexandria, VA,
should be aware that our drinking water is one tidal cycle away from
the wastewater discharge of the city of Washington, DC. If Washington,
DC, chooses not to treat its sewage because the mandates have been
lifted, it is going in our drinking water tomorrow.
It does not stop there, Mr. Chairman. The most productive commercial
shrimping, fishing, and oystering industries in the world are found in
the Mississippi River basin. Oysters, for examples, are filter feeders.
They pump gallons of water through their bodies every day, and they
retain any pollutants in that water. The crabs and shrimp and oysters
that are harvested in front of my home town in Bay St. Louis, MS, live
in those waters, but they end up on your dinner plates.
As Members can see, there are some things that originate locally but
affect us nationally. Just as our Nation should never force its
unfunded and unsolved problems on the local communities, nor should the
local communities pass their unsolved problems on to communities
downstream, and in turn, back to our Nation.
{time} 1140

I agree that we have to get a handle on Federal mandates, but to
throw them all out makes no sense at all. After all, we could have
chosen to be city councilmen, we could have chosen to be State
senators, but we chose to be national lawmakers because there is a time
and a place for this Nation to make laws to help all of us, to see to
it that some of us do not hurt all of us.
The unfunded mandates bill is wise in that we should always know the
cost of these laws, but there is a time and a place. After all, when
you think about it, the Ten Commandments is an unfunded mandate.
My concern is that since there were no hearings on the bill, clear
and concise language needs to be included to ensure that we are not
undoing present laws.
These laws exist for a good reason. I was a city councilman when
Federal revenue sharing funds were cut back.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was a city councilman when
Federal revenue sharing funds were cut out. The biggest issue we faced
back then was upgrading the Bay St. Louis sewage treatment plant. Had
it not been for Federal mandate, that all-Democratic board would never
have voted to clean up our city's wastewater treatment. It is just that
simple. The citizens do not see the reward. The problem is passed
downstream.
It is just not fair that my city should poison any other city's
drinking water, and it is just not fair that some other city like New
York should poison New Jersey and that Connecticut should poison the
folks downstream from them.
Chicago's drinking water ends up in the Mississippi River. It goes to
Natchez, it goes to New Orleans, and when the spillway is open, it
flows in front of my house.
I have made what I think is a reasonable request of the chairman of
this committee, to see to it that when the Clean Water Act is finally
reauthorized, because it has not been reauthorized, that this somehow
does not be considered a new mandate, and because Federal funds are
going to be cut, and they will be cut when we pass the balanced budget
amendment, that the provisions of the bill that say when we cut back on
Federal fundings, that the locals no longer have to abide by the law,
do not apply to this law, because this is the kind of law that we need
to keep on the books.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I do so reluctantly, because the gentleman from Mississippi and I
have had discussion about this problem that he faces, and it is a real
one, but I think that the point needs to be made here that on many of
the items we are going to be dealing with this morning and this
afternoon asking for exemptions for various statutes from the
provisions of this legislation are all well-intentioned. In fact, many
of these are programs that clearly are very valuable programs, ones
that provide for the health, safety, and environment of the country.
But what we are saying here is we are not saying they should be exempt
from consideration as to the cost.
What is the cost of imposing a mandate, implementing this
legislation, and that is what we are asking for, an analysis of the
cost.
To exempt out an entire program, meritorious as it may be, should not
exempt it from a fair consideration of the cost involved in a mandate
involved in connection with that legislation. That I think has to be
stressed.
This is not a bill that is retroactive. It is not
going to in any way abrogate any of the provisions of the Clean
Water Act.

The gentleman does point out the Clean Water Act is in limbo. It has
not been reauthorized. It is going to be reauthorized. The chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has
indicated that that is an early subject for reauthorization.
In an attempt to respond to the gentleman from Mississippi's concern,
we did adopt an amendment to the bill which we think does address the
concerns that he had, and is concern was that where you have
legislation where the authorization has expired, that there be
recognition that any mandates included in that legislation when it is
reauthorized, if there is a gap between the time it expires and the
time it is reauthorized, that any mandates included in that would not
be affected by the reauthorization, would not, in other words, be
treated as new mandates. They would be considered as a carryover from
the existing legislation.
Our intent there was to make it very clear that we are in no way
trying to look back and eliminate mandates that were imposed in
previous legislation. That was not the intent, and we hope that the
language in 425(e) which does represent that adjustment would address
the concern.
We think the gentleman's concerns are well-founded, but we do think
that this language addressed those concerns and says the Clean Water
Act and the mandate that are imposed under the Clean Water Act and will
be imposed again when the Clean Water is reauthorized in the next month
or so would continue, and the same restrictions that exist on upstream
communities now will continue and not be affected.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the
gentleman's amendment. And I must indicate that I am going to probably
oppose most of these statute-specific amendments to this bill because
again I would say most of them are very valuable pieces of legislation,
but they should not just because of that, because they are so
meritorious, be totally exempt from consideration as to the costs that
they impose on local governments. I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. If I have time, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for bringing this bill to the
floor under an open rule. That in itself is certainly a step in the
right direction.
We have had this discussion both in publicly and privately. I remain
unconvinced that the language that you inserted is clear enough to keep
a high-priced lawyer from going to the different cities and different
States and saying, ``If you fix your sewage treatment plant, you're
going to spend millions of dollars. Why don't you put me
[[Page H424]] on a retainer for $10,000 and I'll keep this tied up in
court for so long that it will be past your administration. It will be
someone else's problem until you get it fixed.''
But we all know it is not someone else's problem. It is someone
downstream's problem.
I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for the sake of
the people in this room to read the language that he thinks addresses
the problem. Because I think they are going to find it as ambiguous as
I did.
Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, the language
that we refer to and which was adopted specifically as a result of
your concerns is 425(e), which says that ``Subsection (a)2 shall not
apply,'' that is, the unfunded mandate, shall not apply to any bill,
joint resolution--I mean the point of order would not lie against ``any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that
reauthorizes appropriations for carrying out''----

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger], has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CLINGER. ``That reauthorizes appropriations for carrying out, or
that amends, any statute if enactment of the bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report--
``(1) would not result in a net increase in the aggregate amount of
direct costs of Federal intergovernmental mandates; and
``(2)(A) would not result in a net reduction or elimination of
authorizations of appropriations for Federal financial assistance that
would be provided to States, local governments, or tribal governments
for use to comply with any Federal intergovernmental mandate; or
``(B) in the case of any net reduction or elimination of
authorizations of appropriations for such Federal financial assistance
that would result from such enactment, would reduce the duties imposed
by the Federal intergovernment mandate by a corresponding amount.''
I think our intent here was clearly to make it as crystal clear as we
can that we are not intending in this way to abrogate or undercut
existing mandates in the legislation whether or not it was reauthorized
or not.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am not questioning your intent. We are a
nation of law. It is not our intentions that count.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Taylor of Mississippi and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue
to yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the
intent of the gentleman form Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] because I know
his intent is correct. But we are a nation of law and it is what is in
the law books that count. That language is ambiguous, and there will be
reductions in Federal funding in the future just as there have been in
the past.
In 1980 approximately, the Federal Government was paying 90 percent
of the cost of upgrading wastewater treatment plants locally. Today it
is 55 percent where and when those communities are lucky enough to get
it.
We are going to pass a balanced budget amendment, I will vote for it,
and we will then have to reduce the amount of money we give to the
States and cities. It is going to happen.
I think it is very important that since you have a provision in there
that says this does not count, if funds are reduced, well, then, we
know right off the bat that within a short period of time, funds will
be reduced, it will not count, and I think it is important that we have
clear and concise language on this one issue.
{time} 1150

Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, the problem is there are many
Members who want exemptions from this legislation for a variety of
reasons and they are all concerned about the implication of this act on
it. But if we exempt everybody's concerns, we will have basically
exempted the entire, all of the legislation from the impact of this
legislation.
I think none of these programs should be exempt from a consideration
of what are the costs that are being imposed. It may well be that the
concerns that the gentleman has raised rise to a level where the
mandates should indeed be passed throughout the funding, because it is
of such overwhelming concern. But I do not think we should exempt
anybody from a honest analysis of what are the costs involved.
We are not saying we are going to prohibit this; we are just saying
it needs to be considered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
The problem is not only what the gentleman from Mississippi has
raised that there really will be no more money for any new activity at
the Federal level with the balanced budget amendment, pay as you go, et
cetera, but that the Clean Water Act, which will shortly be
reauthorized, will in fact include new activities. So it will fall
under this unfunded mandate legislation.
So the provision that says that if it is simply a reauthorization,
that will not apply, and in fact I do now know of any reauthorization
that has been a strict, pure reauthorization of the existing activity.
So the likelihood is all of these new environmental laws will in fact
be applicable to unfunded mandates.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I guess we need to make clear in this
debate that what we are talking about is a point of order that could be
raised against a new mandate, a new mandate in a reauthorization bill.
This legislation does not apply retroactively, it only applies
prospectively.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, first of all I come from a city,
Albuquerque, NM, in which the Rio Grande runs right through the middle
of our city, so I understand the issues that are raised by the
gentleman from Mississippi.
But I think this amendment should be the place that we emphasize as
strongly as possible that the gentleman from Mississippi's statement
that we should not do away with all unfunded mandates is in fact not
what we do in this bill.
What we do is to allow for a point of order to be raised so that
Members of Congress can be made responsible to identify the cost, and
to vote on the record with respect to imposing any unfunded mandate on
the States, whether it is with regard to effluent into rivers or any
other subject. So there simply is nothing in this bill that prohibits
the Congress from imposing an unfunded mandate. So all of the
references to certain health protections will not take place because
there is no money to fund them and so forth, simply does not ring true.
We are just saying in this bill that Congress should justify up front
and on the record the actions that it is taking.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say it is
my view that the substitute language that we put in here basically
protects the concern the gentleman has. It will not be subject to a
consideration of the cost, and this is my view. But if that is not the
case, it still is not true that the concerns the gentleman had would
come to pass because we would then consider the cost as against the
benefit, and it very well could be that given the high degree of
importance of this legislation that we would not pass it through.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has again expired.
[[Page H425]] (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 2 more minutes.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on this very
point?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is arguing is
prospective legislation could have provisions in it that would deal
with this problem. But I do want to point out that the existing
legislation before us today says that under existing laws if EPA adopts
a regulation to enforce the law that regulation has to be pursuant to
an analysis as well, and then the agency would go forward with the
regulation, and that can be tied up in court.
So what the gentleman has argued and the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Schiff] has argued ideally does not apply to that kind of
circumstance. Under the existing clean water law, under the existing
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, whenever we have an
interstate problem, whenever we have a regulation that is promulgated
to enforce that law that is already on the books, that could be tied up
in courts by the polluter, who would then not want the regulations to
go into effect, and they would tie it up on the basis of perhaps the
analysis was not done as thoroughly as it may otherwise have been done.
They do not even have to have a lot of merit on their side to tie
something up in court for a long time, during which a great deal of
damage would be done.
Mr. CLINGER. I hear the gentleman's concerns, but what we are talking
about is no title II regulatory concern. New regulations would indeed
be subject to that provision, but looking back at existing regulations
promulgated to carry out the intent of the Clean Water Act.
Mr. WAXMAN. New regulations would not come back to this institution
on a point of order. New regulations to be issued by an agency would
follow an analysis by the budget people as to the cost, and of course
that analysis is only one sided, it is only the cost, not the benefits.
Mr. CLINGER. Regulations that have an impact of over $100 million.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have gotten into the guts of our greatest concern
over this legislation, so I would like to pursue this a bit.
I think the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] may have the most
extreme case. Being at the bottom of the Mississippi Delta and having
every other State's sludge flow into his district is of understandable
concern.
We know how responsible our Representatives are from Missouri and
Ohio, for example, but it is entirely conceivable, given the fiscal
priorities, that they may not attach as much concern to cleaning waste
water and storm water upstream as Mississippi would.
So we can understand the disparity in responsibility. But I would
like to use as an example another one that my friend from Mississippi
used of the Potomac River, because we almost all of us cross the
Potomac twice a day. Many of us drink, in fact I think everybody in the
entire Capitol Hill complex drinks water from the Potomac River.
That water is purified at the Dalecarlia plant. We would like to
privatize that plant. This legislation will preclude us from being able
to do that, because where there will be an option whether or not to
abide by Federal regulations for States and localities, in other words
the public sector, all those laws and regulations will apply to the
private sector, so it precludes our ability to privatize out that
function to a private utility.
But even more importantly, let us consider the Potomac River. I see
the gentleman from Fairfax County, VA [Mr. Davis], who I know realizes
that 10 years ago if one fell into the Potomac River they had to get an
immediate tetanus shot and probably resign themselves to some
disastrous illness, but that is no longer the case. This is an example
where clean water, Federal law and regulation worked. In fact they have
beavers; you can fish for bass there. It is relatively clean water. I
would not suggest we drink from it without it going through the water
filtration plant.
{time} 1200

But the fact is that fish and animals can live in the Potomac River.
That is a result of Federal law, Federal regulation, and an interstate
compact.
Now, under this legislation, since the Clean Water Act will authorize
new activities, there will not be enough money under any circumstances
to fully fund the cost of implementation of the Clean Water Act. It
will become optional to localities.
Now, I will address the point of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Portman] and the point of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] in
a moment.
But assuming that we abide by the intent of this legislation and we
do not impose that unfunded mandate on States and localities, then West
Virginia, and we all know how clean the water is from that, and the
senior Senator from West Virginia would be the first to tell us that,
the fact is it would not have worked if West Virginia had not fully
participated, but West Virginia had very little incentive. It was
extremely expensive for them.
It would not work for the District of Columbia unless Virginia
contributed an enormous amount of money, likewise with Maryland. It
only works if there is a Federal requirement that every jurisdiction
contribute equally according to their respective responsibility.
Now, what you are going to tell me is that do not worry about this,
that in fact knowing this, the logic, the compelling arguments will be
strong enough that we reauthorize the Clean Water Act regardless of the
fact that it is an unfunded mandate, that we, in fact, do not trigger
this option. Jurisdictions can decide whether or not they want to abide
by it.
Quite frankly, I think it is entirely likely that there will be an
effort on the part of States and localities to get Members of this body
to commit that when there is a point of order raised on an unfunded
mandate that we will vote against imposing unfunded mandates on States
and localities regardless of the issue, and we are going to get a large
number of the proportion of this body committed to do that.
We do not want to restrict ourselves in that way.
I think it is entirely appropriate, in fact, it is the only
responsible thing to do, to know what the cost is we are imposing on
States and localities as well as the private sector. We should do it
for the private sector, too.
But we should give ourselves the option of exercising the judgment we
were elected to do.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words in opposition.
Briefly addressing the concerns of my friend, the gentleman from
Virginia, first of all, the gentleman from Mississippi who offered this
amendment has been an ally generally in the unfunded mandate debate,
and I think he would understand that to begin to exempt major pieces of
legislation from this bill would, in fact, gut its purpose.
Let me be very clear as to what this bill does. With regard to
reauthorizations, existing mandates would continue to be exempt from
the bill. Only new mandates, and by that, I mean new mandates in a
reauthorization context, where there is not funding available.
Let me give you an example. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]
has spoken about the possibility of reauthorization of clean air and
inappropriate funding. You get credit for any existing funds that are
in the system. In other words, you may have a situation where there is
a 50-percent cut in funding for a specific mandate. That mandate will
only be reduced commensurate to that funding.
Let me be very clear as to what this does. More importantly, all we
are saying is that the Clean Water Act, just like every other piece of
legislation, should be subject to this same discipline of getting that
cost information, getting an informed debate, then Congress can work
its will.
The Clean Water Act is not perfect. I happen to represent 100 miles
of the Ohio River, so I am very sympathetic to the concerns described
by the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Virginia.
I see in this morning's paper, it talks about mandate overboard.
Rockville, MD, in particular, is complaining about lack of flexibility
in the Clean
[[Page H426]] Water Act and some regulations that simply do not apply
appropriately to their situation and have resulted in increased costs
which are all passed along to the State and local taxpayer.
The Clean Water Act is not perfect, nor is the Clean Air Act, nor are
other pieces of legislation.
Why not subject them all prospectively, and remember, this is all
prospective, to this same discipline? It seems to me again if we are to
open up this bill to all kinds of exemptions, Clean Water Act,
wastewater treatment, and so on, we have gutted the whole purpose of
this bill.
This is an informational bill and it is an accountability bill.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Using this example, some bodies of water we have cleaned
up. The commitment has been made by the Federal Government, the State,
and to some extent local and regional governments. Those bodies of
water were cleaned up.
You are saying it only applies to additional efforts. But we are
talking about other bodies of water that are not cleaned up.
So, in other words, there are different levels of effort being
expended by different jurisdictions.
The Clean Water Act is going to not apply to the Potomac River in the
way that the original authorization did, but it will apply to a whole
lot of other bodies of water I am not familiar with, but where there
will have to be increased levels of effort, expenditures, on the part
of States and localities to accomplish what we did for the Potomac
River, and all of that will fall under unfunded mandate legislation.
If there is not adequate funding, you do have that provision that the
executive branch can then determine what it wants to implement, but we
are giving over that power to decide what part of this legislation
should be implemented, giving it to another branch of government to
choose which priorities, which are not necessarily State and locality
priorities.
Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time briefly, this will be done, of
course, at the direction of the committees. That is another issue
perhaps for another title.
But the point is well taken. I know the gentleman is concerned about
unfunded mandates. This a classic example of where we ought to have
these mandates looked at carefully. We ought to have a cost-benefit
analysis done. We ought to have an informed debate on the floor of the
House, and, yes, we ought to have accountability. We ought to have a
vote up or down. That is all we are saying.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. I wanted to take a second here this morning, or this
afternoon now, and point out to the House and point out to the American
people that this work that has been done on this issue, the first
substantive and real substantive and meaningful effort to stop unfunded
mandates, constructed by the great gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger], my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit], who has worked tirelessly, a Democrat; I know
there are more involved on both sides of the aisle. I mean, you think
about that today we are going to pass unfunded mandates legislation
that gives that committee and the Committee on the Budget the ability
to come to this floor and stop the passing of unfunded mandates onto
State and local governments.
It is not about talk anymore. It is about doing, and we are doing it
with Republicans and Democrats.
They would be the first ones to tell you that this is a big step. We
may do more things. We may have to fix this.
But, you know what the bottom line is? We are keeping our word, and
we are delivering exactly what our Governors and mayors and the people
across the country have been calling for.
Without Clinger and Portman and Condit and Davis and Jim Moran, it
would not have gotten done.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, just trying to reflect on my own experience
of having served 8 years in local government, including one term as
mayor of a city where we grew that city from 400,000 in population to
560,000 in a 4-year period, as well as having had the privilege of
serving as chair of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in
the 103d Congress, let me at this point rise in support of the
amendment offered by our very fine colleague, the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
As the gentleman from Mississippi has already illustrated very
effectively, the impacts of water pollution know no political
boundaries, nor should the solutions to continued water pollution in
this country be limited by partisan boundaries.
We are all well aware of various situations where Members have
already talked, where sewage that is discharged into a river, lake, or
a stream adversely impacts citizens of downstream or adjacent
localities and States. For example, New York and New Jersey have
received national attention surrounding New York's sewage that shows up
on New Jersey's shores; sewage discharges from Detroit, MI, into the
Detroit River have impacted Lake Erie and residents in adjacent New
York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and discharges of sewage from combined
sewer overflows in the District of Columbia impact the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers and citizens of Maryland and Virginia.
But these are not isolated problems. Half the people in this great
country get their drinking water from surface waters, meaning rivers
and lakes. For most communities who draw their drinking water from
rivers and lakes, there are other communities upstream discharging
their sewage into that same water.
How much one community treats their sewage has a very direct impact
on many other communities.
The American people want water that is safe to drink, water that is
safe to fish in, and water that is safe to swim in, and water that will
not make them sick when the tide comes in.
The American people whose jobs depend on water want that water to be
of a quality that will continue to support their jobs. H.R. 5, without
the Taylor amendment, would limit the Government's ability to continue
protecting public health through ensuring adequate wastewater
treatment.
{time} 1210

For example, even though H.R. 5 is not intended to apply to current
laws, by all accounts it would apply to new requirements. So, for
example, it would apply to new requirements on municipal discharges
that are necessary to protect downstream residents against significant
health impact.
If we have a new outbreak of problems such as the cryptosporidium in
Milwaukee, which caused over 100 deaths, we would find it more
difficult to respond and to respond quickly.
Now, the Taylor amendment would help preserve the benefits that the
American public has realized under the Clean Water Act as a result of
more than 20 years of hard work and commitment to improving the quality
of our lives through cleaning up the Nation's waters and would allow
the country to continue to move forward.
This amendment also points out a fundamental flaw in the reasoning
behind this bill. This bill is based on the idea that all so-called
mandates, including provisions that impose minimum national standards
to protect public health, are bad things for State and local
governments. Notwithstanding the lengthy new analyses required by this
bill, title III does not provide that the benefits to local governments
from mandates should be considered.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for an
additional minute.
Mr. MINETA. Many Members on the other side have to talk in other
contexts about how we should always fully
[[Page H427]] consider the cost versus the benefits before we proceed.
But in this bill they would require an analysis of everything except
the benefits.
Now, Mr. Taylor's amendment is a case in point on how mandates often
create enormous benefits for local government. A requirement that my
city threat its sewage may be a burden, but the fact that the 400
cities upstream also have to treat their sewage is an enormous benefit
to my city and to my citizens, and their bill ignores that benefit.
So from my perspective, I have to protect both our cities and our
citizens from those who would discharge sewage upstream. I urge all of
my colleagues to vote for the Taylor amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, clean water is a noble purpose, and the current act and
its current regulations are grandfathered under this bill. The
reauthorization will be grandfathered.
To the extent that the level of funding in the reauthorization or new
mandates come in that exceed $50,000,000, they would be subject to the
provisions of this act.
Now should that be covered, though, I want to remind my colleagues we
still have the flexibility to pass that legislation. We have the
flexibility to pass those unfunded mandates.
Nobody is taking away that authority from this Congress. However, we
would do this, first, knowing what the costs are going to be, and,
second, taking responsibility for sending those costs back down to the
States and localities. That is what this act does. But we do not lose
the flexibility, the right to do that at all. It is just simply going
to be costed out.
It seems to me we will still have the authority to pass the
legislation that the gentleman from Mississippi spoke about, but we
will know the costs first. More importantly, the cities and the towns
in the gentleman's district, my district and other Members' districts
are also going to have a preview of what these costs are going to be on
them.
Before we shift the burden of paying for these mandates from the
Federal Government to local property taxes, we need to understand what
those costs are.
What is wrong with making the State and local governments part of the
dialogue as we move through this; that is, they look at their
respective costs as well?
That is what this does. We do not lose any flexibility to move ahead.
We pass the bill traditionally, and then we pass the buck. There is
nothing wrong with any one or two of these mandates taking effect, but
what has happened, as the Vice President's National Performance Review
showed, in 1992 over 172 unfunded mandates have been taken down to the
States and localities.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand the unfunded mandates proposal, the
existing Clean Water Act to protect the public will not be diminished
in any way, and the fact that this bill is only prospective in nature,
if we come back to have any more expenses in this Congress, whether it
is clean water or other items that we come back here, this would not
diminish in any way the existing strong laws that we have.
Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, would either of the gentlemen be willing to pay the
cost incurred to the Federal Government out of their pocket, should
this be brought to the court by some city that does not want to fulfill
its obligation to clean up its own mess? Do the gentlemen feel that
strongly about the bill? Will the gentlemen tell the American public
right now that they personally will incur those costs rather than the
taxpayers of the United States? If the gentlemen feel that confident
about it, I will not offer my amendment, but I do not feel that the
gentlemen feel that confident about it. I certainly do not feel that
confident about it.
I am trying to protect the people of this country from facing
enormous legal expenses that the loopholes in this bill will create.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, can we retake the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] controls the
time.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may we----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia controls the time.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The fact of the matter is every Member of this Congress, Mr.
Chairman, wants to make sure we have clean drinking water, and the fact
is we have strong clean drinking water laws in the United States that
all of us want to see protected. The fact also is that the American
citizens do not want us to continue putting onto the States and local
governments mandates of great things that we want to do without paying
for it. All we are saying, under this new law that is being proposed,
is if we are going to have stronger drinking laws that require funding,
and some of them do not, we want to make sure that we come back to the
Congress and vote on them so the States and localities will not have it
passed on to their backs.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CONDIT. I thank the gentleman for yielding in order to clarify a
point one of my colleagues from California made, trying to be
presumptuous enough to tell us what the bill does, that this bill
eliminates all unfunded mandates.
Let me assure you this bill does not eliminate all unfunded mandates.
What this bill does is it requires us to have some accountability,
for us to have the courage to come to the floor and to waive a point of
order if we think it is important enough to do. It also requires us to
attach a cost to this stuff.
So you could have an unfunded mandate, you have just got to take some
accountability for it. When EPA says something, you have to take the
responsibility back home that you passed it. That is what this bill
does.
You can have some unfunded mandates if we think it is a national
priority, and we probably should. But for someone to tell us that this
absolutely says that all unfunded mandates are bad is incorrect and it
is a betrayal of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Davis was allowed to proceed for an
additional 30 seconds.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] is correct,
this does not eliminate, in fact, one unfunded mandate. In point of
fact, we are simply getting the costs before us. We are once again
starting a dialog with the people, the State and local governments, the
local taxpayers who are paying for these through local property taxes,
which are much more regressive than the Federal income tax when it
comes to paying this. We will have that in mind, we will have that on
the record before we proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has
expired.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by
the
[[Page H428]] gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. Mr. Taylor is a
fine member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and he
has given considerable investigation to this matter. He has looked into
it, he has done studies that reach all across this Nation. As a matter
of fact, he has discovered, as we all have, that wastewater treatment
is fast becoming one of the most important issues facing every State in
this country.
In its most recent survey, EPA estimated that the needs of States for
wastewater treatment funding have increased from $83.4 billion in 1990
to $137.1 billion in 1992.
{time} 1220

This is an increase of $53 billion over just a 2-year period. This
increase is due to population changes, deterioration of old sewers, and
better water-quality standards.
I ask my colleagues, ``Do any of you realistically believe that, with
a balanced-budget amendment looming over us, that Congress will be able
to continue funding for wastewater treatment at this current level?''
The answer is absolutely no. Unfortunately the States are going to have
to pick up an increasing share of these very expensive costs.
H.R. 5 in its current form will mean that Congress will be unable to
require States to absorb almost any part of this increasing cost for
wastewater treatment. We do not have to be rocket scientists, or any of
us, to figure out what this means. It means that people at every
district will be helpless to do anything at all about wastewater that
is generated by these States.
This bill effectively ties the hands of Congress to do anything about
this very, very serious problem. The polluting States will have no
incentive to improve the wastewater treatment because Congress will not
be able to mandate improvements in wastewater treatment without full
funding. This is an absolute outrage.
The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] will
solve this problem by exempting wastewater treatment and other
limitations on this bill. I say to my colleagues, ``If we can't clean
up our watewater, why are we here?''
I think that everybody ought to support the amendment of the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, to give a specific example, and the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] is the last to raise the point, so
let me direct it at him, and he is particularly familiar with the
situation that affects all of us in this body because he represented a
lot of constituents last year when we had a boiled-water alert. We
could not use the drinking water in this area. The Members of Congress
that were here last year remember we had to get bottled water. Well,
that is because we had excess turbidity in the water.
That problem was not adequately covered by the existing Clean Water
Act. It has to be covered by the new authorization. It was due to a
runoff upstream, not in the District of Columbia that was affected, not
in Fairfax County, who had to drink the water, and it was the District
of Columbia and Fairfax and Arlington who had to drink the water, but
the problem was in another jurisdiction that really has no particular
vested interest in spending the money to prevent that runoff. But that
runoff meant that we could not use drinking water in this jurisdiction.
That is the problem, and it was not adequately addressed by the Clean
Water Act. It has to fall under the new unfunded-mandates legislation
because it is new activity, and we do not have the money to fully fund
it. That is what we are trying to get at.
I do not argue with the need for unfunded mandates, and the one
argument that we keep hearing is, ``Don't worry. When you have a
situation like this, the Congress is going to do the responsible thing.
We're going to ignore this legislation. There will be a point of order,
but don't worry. We'll all vote against the point of order because you
can trust us.''
We do not want to set up a situation where the American people have
to accept that. Trust us. Let us pass this legislation, and then we
will ignore it when it is important, when the legislation applies to
important things that are in our best interests. We are trying to avoid
that situation.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran], my friend and colleague, that there is nothing in
this that will prohibit us from going ahead, going ahead with the
authorization just discussed, but we are going to know those costs
ahead of time, and there is nothing wrong with that. The local match on
that, we will know what that is ahead of time. There is nothing wrong.
I think that really is basically adding some truth and some sunlight to
the way we do business before the people who pay these bills down the
stream get sent the bill, which we so often do.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], my good friend.
This amendment would create a huge loophole in the bill's protections
against unfunded mandates.
I support the Clean Water Act. As chairman of the authorizing
committee I can tell my colleagues it has been a very successful
Federal environmental program. But we should not exempt the Clean Water
Act from this important legislation. In fact, the Clean Water Act is
one of the prime examples of unfunded Federal mandates.
The Conference of Mayors tells us that the mandates in place will
cost over $29 billion over the next several years, and the Association
of Counties says another $6.5 billion will be levied upon them.
Let me make it very clear that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure is moving a clean water authorization bill in the coming
months. We will have that bill on the floor. That will be the place to
have this kind of a debate, and it is very important to emphasize that
we may well decide in our deliberations in the committee that there are
additional mandates required, and we may well bring those additional
mandates to this floor.
But what this legislation today will do for us is it will say that we
have got to have a vote. We simply cannot impose upon the American
people other unfunded mandates without a vote, and so if in the
committee we decide that something is so important that we need an
additional mandate, it will be our responsibility to come to this floor
and to make that case, and, if we can make that case, then there will
be an unfunded mandate, and, if we cannot make that case, we deservedly
will be defeated.
So, it is very important that we defeat this amendment, and it is
also very important to emphasize that we are only talking in this
legislation before us today about future mandates. We are not reaching
back and dealing with the mandates that are already on the book. Now
some of us think maybe we should be doing that, too, but we are not,
and it is very clear to emphasize that we are only talking about future
mandates, and indeed there can be future mandates, but only if this
House votes in favor of them.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman,
``Mr. Shuster, you are a gentleman, and I know that you would in no way
ever intentionally mislead anyone. The amendment that I offered does
not use the words `Clean Water Act' because I also am not totally in
favor of everything that's in the Clean Water Act. That's why I didn't
use the words. I used the words `effluent limitation.' I made it very
specific because there are some things in the Clean Water Act that I
would love to see taken out. So when you say''----
Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good
friend that----
[[Page H429]] Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I hope you would stand
corrected on this.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would say to my good friend, ``That is that the
effluent limitation; those terms are terms that are established under
the Clean Water Act. Therefore, while you may not use the words `Clean
Water Act' in your amendment, by the very definition of effluent terms
this will bring the Clean Water Act under this.''
That is what the experts tell me, and, therefore, we should be very
careful that we do not put this further unfunded mandate on the
American people without a vote of this House at the time we bring
clean-water legislation to the Congress.

{time} 1230

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. That is not correct, I will say to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would tell my good friend that we then have a
disagreement here.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. No. As a matter of fact, with the
amendment----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] controls
the time. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will say further that my staff on the
floor here is indicating that--and these are the experts on clean
water, this is the staff that advised us when we wrote the clean water
legislation--these experts are confirming to me right now that if this
amendment were to pass, then the clean water bill would indeed come
under it, and for that reason we should defeat this well-intentioned
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Shuster was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me make this perfectly
clear. I do not want this done in a confrontational manner. You are a
gentleman. But I do believe some of the things you said would mislead
the Members of this body, and I know you would never intentionally do
it. So I would like to point out to the body that as very clearly
stated in the amendment, we refer to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and this is only a very narrow portion of that, which was
also sent to every Member's office, so that no one could be misled into
thinking that this is the entire Clean Water Act.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that I thank him for the respect he gives me, and I give him
that same respect. He certainly would not intentionally want to mislead
anybody either.
I can only report that the experts on our staff, the ones who have
advised us as we have written this legislation, because it is the
legislation that came from our committee, have advised us that the
Clean Water Act would come under this amendment. So I must rely on the
advice from those experts, and I very much respect my friend, the
gentleman from Mississippi. We
simply have a disagreement here.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. We have a disagreement, and I think those
experts also would not accept any challenge, too, where they would
personally incur the costs from the flood of lawsuits that the lack of
this language would cause.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my staff points out to
me that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which the gentleman
referred to, is the Clean Water Act.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the commensurate number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
One of the reasons I think we are having this debate on the floor
today is the haste with which this legislation was written. Although
Mr. Kasich came to the floor and indicated this bill would not be here
except for the movement of this committee, I do not know, but I think
the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]
in previous Congresses have worked to provide for some coverage of
unfunded mandates. I think most of the membership on the minority side
of the aisle agree that we should do something on unfunded mandates.
What I think is happening here is because of the drafting of this
bill, we in the minority are trying to call the majority's attention to
the fact that the loose drafting of this could work havoc on existing
and future legislation that is unrealized or unrealizable at this time.
One of the elements we are all talking about--and this is why it is
important--first of all, let me say that this is not a bill that just
hands out a procedural rule of the House here to make a point of order.
If that is what we are doing, we could have amended the rules to
accomplish that.
We are passing a statute into the laws of the United States, one of
which affects regulatory accountability and reform, as contained on
page 16 of the bill. That provides certain mechanisms that can be
undertaken by the public sector and the private sector if they feel the
standards we are requiring in this bill have not been met by the
Federal regulatory agencies. If we are dealing with the EPA or the
Clean Water Act, any individual or any governmental entity can hire an
attorney and ask for a Federal injunction and argue the case that they
have not met the standards required under the statements that have to
be laid out in the promulgation of rules and regulations which affect
all types of legislation from clean water to clean air.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, in one moment I will yield to the gentleman when
I have finished.
We tried in committee to strike out the idea that we would not have
judicial review. We have an amendment coming up on that. If we knew
that we were going to have a denial of judicial review here and we were
not going to make it the Lawyers' Relief Act of 1995, we would be a lot
saner and satisfied on this side because we were not going to work
havoc on the American regulatory system. Unfortunately, we do not have
that assurance that that amendment will pass. We have not had the
cooperation with the majority that they will address judicial review,
and as I understand it from a simple reading of this statute, if there
is a regulatory agency involved charged under this law to put out
statements as to the cost factor, regardless of whether they are
absolutely and meticulously correct in meeting that standard, anyone
can go to court and ask for injunctive relief dealing with that issue.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I certainly will yield.
Mr. PORTMAN. Personally, I would say that speaking for the majority I
am absolutely sure we are going to address that issue, and I am
confident that when we get to title II, the gentleman and others will
raise that issue, and we look forward to that debate on judicial
review. This is probably not the time for it. But let me say also, to
make it very clear, that judicial review is of the agency requirement
here. It is a very limited requirement. It is for regulations after
enactment of the legislation, over $100 million, and it asks for a
written statement on costs and benefits.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the city of
Philadelphia is mandated to put in a waterworks or cleaning system
under existing law and in the future a law is passed that would require
the standards to be used by the regulatory agency in the enforcement of
that order, and it did or did not comply with the standard, it would
allow any corporation or any municipality affected by more than $100
million to move into the Federal court system to bring an injunction.
We are faced with the problem over here of trying to find out how large
an effect this would have and what the ramifications are.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I asked the
gentleman to yield earlier.
[[Page H430]] Mr. KANJORSKI. I will take a very quick question,
because I promised the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] I would
yield to him.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree that the cost-
benefit analysis is a good idea for the agency?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Absolutely. There is no question about it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a further
question?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of the fact that
the current executive order issued by President Clinton would require
even more agency information to be provided and that information is not
regularly provided?
Mr. KANJORSKI. We have no problem with forming intelligence and
factual information to be good legislators or good regulators. Our
problem is that we do not want to establish the Lawyers' Relief Act of
1995 by giving any American an opportunity to go to this section of the
statute and then go and apply it to environmental law or any other law
that would require the application of the statute.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield now?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania
makes a very good point with respect to the existing laws as opposed to
the prospective application of this particular amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kanjorski was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think he
makes a very good point about what happens to existing law. It is one
thing for the executive to revise the rules and regulations process. It
is another thing to put this into the law. That is exactly what is
being proposed here, 11 or 12. or 13 separate steps in terms of
intergovernmental mandates and some 13 or 14 steps with regard to the
private sector.
I might say that I do not see dollar limits with regard to the
intergovernmental mandates that are in this section that my colleague,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is pointing out. So these rules and
regulations as they apply to the Clean Water Act or the other title
that my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, points out are that we
are constantly modifying those. Microcryptosporidium may not have been
a problem at one point, but regulations are constantly evolving. In
fact, of course, the regulations are the very basis on which the
executive implements the laws. Without them, you cannot implement the
laws. That is the charge of the administration and the executive
branch. As a matter of fact, of course, we are constantly modifying
laws.
To suggest that existing laws and existing precepts will be held in
place is, I think, either a misunderstanding or misleading to what the
effect of what this law and what the effect of this new process is that
you are setting up. If this were merely a study--the gentleman has to
continue to stand, and I appreciate his yielding--if you were just
dealing with existing law and it was static, that would be one thing,
but they are constantly evolving, because we do not have perfect
knowledge. I think most of us who have worked on this bill have noted
that we do not have perfect knowledge.
So in effect you are really setting in place a new framework, and I
might say we do not know how it will work. I do not know how CBO is
going to fulfill this particular requirement. I think it is extended. I
think it needs to be revised, but I do not think it is at all clear
that the system you are putting in place is going to develop the type
of information effectively.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when we have an interstate pollution problem, it is a
uniquely Federal responsibility. You cannot ask a government-owned
water system, a government-owned incinerator system, or a government-
owned powerplant to want to impose more costs on themselves if the
pollution is not going to affect them that affects somebody in another
State.

{time} 1240

They are not going to want to spend that money. Therefore, as a
National Government we have to establish the rules. We establish that
through legislation, and if legislation places this burden to install
pollution control devices of one sort or another, or take measures to
reduce pollution, that will require the expenditure to do so. And if it
is government-owned, then they have to spend the money and it is called
an unfunded mandate, because this legislation deals with government-
owned enterprises.
Well, what does that mean in terms of legislation? We have had a lot
of discussion about that. CBO will have to go through an evaluation of
the costs. That evaluation, by the way, is all one-sided. It is an
evaluation of the costs, but not the benefits. They will have to look
at anticipated costs to the States, the effect on the national economy,
the effect on productivity, the effect on economic growth, the effect
on full employment, the effect on creation of productive jobs, the
effect on international competitiveness of the United States, future
costs of the Federal mandate, disproportionate budgetary effects on
particular regions of the country, disproportionate budgetary effects
on urban or rural or other types of communities, and disproportionate
budgetary effects on particular segments of the private sector.
That is a hell of an analysis. That is an extensive obligation by
CBO, which the head of CBO has already indicated to us they do not
think they can accomplish.
Well, they will do the best they can. And if it is legislation,
someone can make a point of order, and the argument has been well, we
can always overturn that point of order by a majority vote. The reality
is it is going to require spending money or overturn it by a majority
vote, and a lot of people are not going to want to vote for any
overturning of the points of order to impose an unfunded mandate, even
though it is a clear Federal responsibility because we have an
interstate pollution problem.
This same analysis has to be done if it is a regulation to enforce
the law. Agencies have to do this instead of CBO. Agencies will not be
able to do this adequately. In some way or other they are going to do
something improper, or somebody can claim it is improper. And if it is
an entity that does not want to control the pollution because they do
not want to spend the money, they will hire a lawyer to go into court,
and they will say this agency regulation, even though they have done
this analysis, is pursuant to an analysis that is not rigorous enough,
extensive enough.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] made an excellent
point, if you allow judicial review to question the analysis of the
agency, they can be tied up for years, maybe to the point where all the
pollution will continue across interstate boundaries.
My point is, whether it is through legislation or through a
regulation of existing law, to require that what is an interstate
pollution problem be covered by this bill does not make sense. The
proposal before us deals with the Water Act alone, and that would
exclude anything in terms of effluents affecting one State versus
another. That ought to be exempted from both the requirement that it be
considered an unfunded mandate if it is new legislation, or through
regulation, especially if we are going to have this ability of
regulations to be tied up in court.
At least if it is legislation you can argue, I think a weak one, but
an argument, that the House can overturn it by a majority vote. If a
regulation is adopted by an agency, there is no majority vote anywhere.
That is going to be up to the courts, where we are inviting litigation
on any agency regulation as long as there is judicial review.
The best way to deal with these problems, which are uniquely Federal
responsibilities because we have interstate pollution problems, is to
exclude it. Exclude it from being considered an unfunded mandate.
I think it was an interesting argument that we heard a while ago
from
[[Page H431]] the gentleman from Virginia. Many people would argue why
should Government agencies and entities be running powerplants? Why
should they be running drinking water systems? Let that be privatized.
There is not going to be an incentive to privatize them if the rules
are going to be if it is a government-run enterprise the government
will have to pay for the costs for that enterprise to reduce pollution.
So I urge support of this amendment. And to keep this in perspective,
this should not be covered the way that we would look at other unfunded
mandates.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, either this bill is not on
the level, or we desperately need the amendment of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. Because the suggestion is, somehow, when we
bump up against the hard question of whether or not we are going to
regulate and bring in as a matter of national policy, that effluent be
cleaned up from our rivers and our waterways, we will simply overrule
the point of order and go on with a majority vote and we will go on
about our way, because we recognize national important issues when we
see them.
Well, then you cannot have all of the rhetoric about stopping
unfunded mandates. Because, in fact, the process that we go through
today, the way that we arrived at the Clean Water Act and the 10 years
we spent in the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act, is exactly that
process. We went through 10 years of hearings, 10 years of combat, 10
years of acrimony, 10 years of scientific studies by the National
League of Cities, by the great city mayors, by rural America, by the
League of Counties or Organization of Counties. All of these
organizations came in and said this is what it is going to cost, you
are only paying a part of this, not all of this, back and forth.
But we also knew something else: None of those cities could do it by
themselves, and none of them were willing to do it without Federal
money. And they also wanted protection from being sued by their
neighbor if they could not do it immediately.
So when you look at the Sacramento River or look at San Francisco Bay
or the immense problems of the Mississippi, it would make little
difference if my hometown of Martinez decided to clean up its sewage
before it discharged it into the bay, if the city of Sacramento was not
doing that or a huge city like San Francisco was not doing it.
So we wanted to know that if we made this effort, we would benefit
from the effort, we would end up with a cleaner bay, as opposed to a
cleaner effluent into the bay.
That is why we have national laws that bind us together for this
obligation. But we knew and the mayors knew and the county people and
the State knew that this was never about the Federal Government paying
100 percent. This was about the Federal Government collecting the
taxpayers' money to help these cities meet what was a political
problem, an environmental problem in their localities, to clean up
the rivers and waterways. And had not the Federal Government provided
both the catalyst in terms of the mandate and the catalyst in terms of
grants for wastewater cleanup or development block grants that provided
additional money or the earmarks in Federal legislation, the rivers and
the waterways of this country simply would not have been cleaned up
because they were not prepared to go to their local taxpayer and say
``We will pick up 100 percent of the cost.''

What they were prepared to say to the taxpayer was if you will put up
some money, we got a way to get some Federal money. You used to call it
free, free Federal dollars for wastewater. What we found out is, they
are not free. They are coming out of the same taxpayer's pocket. But
let us not suggest there is some attempt here to erase history. This is
the process. This is the legislative agenda. This is how it works.
We weighed these competing interests, we balanced them out, and in
the case of clean air, in the case of clean water, we determined that
it was in the national interest to embark upon a program over several
decades to clean up our waterways, to keep them clean, and to be able
to respond to advantages in technology and knowledge and threats to the
safety of our air supply and our water supply.
Now, under this legislation, the suggestion is you could not really
do that by regulation, that that would be an unfunded mandate or
certainly be challenged such that you would be back in court. The
overruling of the point of order only helps you with respect to the
legislation. But that is the process.
What you are telling us is you are going to go through that same
process, because you are going to weigh that, have the competing
studies, have the reports from the agencies, we will put it all on the
table, and we will still make a determination.
So the legislation, what the legislation does is dramatically drag
out the process and make it far more complicated rather than stopping
unfunded mandates.
Now, the other possible thing to do is simply return it all, add up
what we spent, the $60 or $70 billion, give it back to the taxpayers
over the next 10 years, and let the mayors and city governments make
their own decisions about whether or not they think they should do it.
But that is obviously unacceptable to them, and it is unacceptable to
the Nation as a matter of national policy.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
{time} 1250

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to point
out that 30 years ago or so, when the Federal Government came to this
issue of dealing with clean water and clean air and some of the other
issues, we had had 200 years of history of States not coming together
as compacts in terms of dealing with these issues. Not just that they
needed the Federal Government to tell them what to do, but they need us
as a framework around which to build the solutions to these particular
problems.
As I said yesterday, so often, and again today, so often this is
referred to as confrontation as opposed to cooperation. It very much is
that. If there was another way to solve this, we are not looking out
here, and I do not think this Congress, in the past, has looked for
problems that do not exist. They are there. The river, the lake area
was on fire. There are problems with the Mississippi River, I know, at
the headwaters of it. Even there, there are problems that needed to be
dealt with and built around this Federal framework.
What you are doing in this particular legislation is putting special
impediments in place. I would further point out that there are numerous
exceptions already in this legislation that you find necessary for
national security, for accounting purposes. There are seven of them in
there, some sort of exclusion for Social Security, whatever that means.
But the fact is, actually presenting this when there is a real
history of problems here I think is consistent. I certainly would
support the Taylor amendment and thank my friend for his statement and
for yielding.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with the supposition on behalf of the
Taylor amendment is that it is a supposition that the subject matter is
reducing effluent into rivers and streams; therefore, it is
automatically good legislation and good policy and not subject to any
kind of practical, including financial, review.
As I have indicated, the Rio Grande runs through the middle of
Albuquerque. I am entirely sympathetic to what the gentleman from
Mississippi is raising, but there have even been other experiences with
our location.
Several years ago the Congress of the United States gave native
American tribes in pueblos the power essentially
[[Page H432]] to enact the water standards for water that passes along
their shores to be enforced by the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency. A pueblo just south of Albuquerque said the standard they
wanted for the Rio Grande was drinking water standards that you ought
to be able to drink the water right out of the Rio Grande, and it ought
to be healthy and safe.
According to experts I have talked to, the water in the Rio Grande
has never been up to that standard, even before any kind of
industrialization or buildup in the area occurred, there would be
natural contaminants in the river that would make it unsafe, unsafe to
drink raw right out of the river. Nevertheless, the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, based upon its understanding of the
law that Congress passed, was prepared to enforce that kind of standard
on everybody upstream from the pueblo.
What this comes down to is that this is not a subject, because it is
an important issue still does not make it a subject that ought to be
beyond the scrutiny of Congress, what is being proposed here, what will
be gained and what will the cost be.
If the Congress determines in the area of reducing effluents into
rivers, a very important subject, that the Congress ought to move here,
it is still free to do so, but only after Congress has been made
properly responsible and accountable on the issue.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] today, and I do share his
concerns about the effects on the sewage-flow laws.
While he talks about the one-third of the continental United States
flowing through the home State of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Taylor], by way of the Mississippi River, I have to tell you, my home
State of Florida is the southernmost State in the continental United
States. So like Mississippi, we depend heavily on its natural resources
to support our tourism, which is our State's No. 1 industry.
Let me give my colleagues an example of some concerns that I have
that potentially has an effect on us in this area. In the Big Bend
region, the Suwannee River, which flows south into Florida, is the life
source for this region's fish nurseries and any kind of degradation
would result in the loss of some of Florida's most important areas of
salt water fishing, oysters, which many of us enjoy and like, and are
known for, as well as, I might add, our water supply. In fact, some of
the counties to the south of me are now even looking at the Suwannee
River as a source for their water supply.
I would like to just suggest to my colleagues that I think this
debate has been a very good debate, and I think we all realize that
this is an issue that the Federal Government needs to make sure that we
protect ourselves and our citizens. Even though I still would like to
reiterate my support for ending unfunded Federal mandates on our State
and local governments, but I am acutely aware of what this does, but
there are just some responsibilities that we all must share.
There are some mandates that each State should follow to protect
every citizen. And by passing this amendment, we will provide an
important safeguard for our American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding to me. I, too, stand in strong support of the Taylor
amendment. I think this is logic. This is the real world.
Virtually every community in the United States is downstream from
somebody. And we in Florida are downstream from virtually everybody.
And it has cost the State of Florida a great deal. In fact, we have
funded for many years, through the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of
the Committee on Appropriations, a very special project called the Tri
Rivers project, in which we are trying to accommodate the problems that
exist within three States, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, as it applies
to three major rivers that ultimately end in Florida, into a very
pristine ecosystem that would in fact destroy a large part of north
Florida in this case, if we do not find some solutions to this.
The problem is thus, the city of Atlanta is essentially wishing to
draw off more water off the Apalachicola River than will allow the
sustaining of that ecosystem. So we have to look at this from the
standpoint of making sure that we do not end up with a huge judicial
problem with the courts loaded up with problems between the various
states fighting out who is in charge.
I think this amendment takes us into a solution to that, and we have
got to spend some time in making sure that this is heard, that all the
questions are answered and that we do not end with something that we
cannot change ultimately.
I want to make a point though. This is the problem with a lot of
water questions. These are not systems that are being worked on without
Federal money. A great deal of Federal money is being used to correct
the problems we have in the water problems of the United States in
general. In fact, what it takes us to is the pertinent setup of
partnerships, local, State, and Federal Government working together to
solve a national problem. That is what my friend from Mississippi is
really focusing on.
We have to, I think, in the process of being Representatives of the
United States, to look after the needs and the welfare of the entire
United States and not just one small constituency.
So I say to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], I applaud
the gentleman for spending his time on this, and I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]
has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by
complementing our chairman pro tempore on his extremely judicious use
of his authority today. It really was refreshing to have a bill come to
the floor under an open rule and let Members talk about it. I am saying
that as a Democrat.
I am asking my colleagues to judiciously use their authority. This is
not an attempt to kill the bill. I am going to vote for the bill. This
is an attempt to perfect it, an attempt to perfect it that I made in
committee, an attempt to perfect it that I have made privately with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], an attempt to perfect it in
conversations I had with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], and in
conversations with the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
{time} 1300

It is important, Mr. Chairman, that no one community poisons another
community. That is the only point we are trying to make.
The point is that the Clean Water Act was not reauthorized. Because
it was not reauthorized, it will have to be reauthorized. When it does,
it becomes new language. It there creates, in my mind and in a lot of
people's minds, the question: Does that mean the wastewater effluent
standards for our Nation go out the window, a very fair question to
ask.
All we want to do is put language in the bill that says, ``Yes, they
will still apply, and all you lawyers out there who would love to sue
the Federal Government and get into the taxpayers' pockets by suing
them and holding us up in court forever, do not even apply for the
funds, because we have made a statement of intent that as far as
wastewater is concerned, we will continue to live by the same standards
that we have had for about a decade now,'' a very good standard, a
standard that has cleaned up the water in front of my home, in front of
the home of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson], and in front of
homes all across the country.
Wastewater is something that starts locally but affects us
nationally, and therefore it is a national issue. It is something that
we need to point out. I have brought to the attention of reasonable
people a problem that reasonable people should solve before it costs us
a heck of a lot of money.
[[Page H433]] Mr. Chairman, I am asking that the chairman will accept
this amendment. I hope he will. Should he not do so, I will ask for a
recorded vote.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the point being made by the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] is that reasonable people must
sit down and find reasonable solutions, but we must also be very clear
in answering all the questions associated with this. I am very
concerned with the rapidity with which we are trying to move something
as important as this bill through this body. I do not think we are
giving this the due process which the American people desire and
deserve.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will speak briefly, and then I will yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], hopefully to
close out this argument.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. His amendment is a good one, one which should
not be accepted, but I congratulate him for initiating one of the
greatest arguments on federalism I have heard on the floor in the time
I have been here or seen anyplace.
Mr. Chairman, there is a basic fairness doctrine and issue that I
think we have to address as we look at this particular amendment, and
as we look at a succession of amendments which are going to deal with
the environment, which are going to deal with health care, which are
going to deal with a variety of issues which people are going to try to
exempt from an unfunded mandate statute and say this should not have
gone through it because of the importance of the subject, because it is
interstate, or whatever it may be.
The bottom line is that this Congress for many, many years,
particularly in the last 25 or 30 years, has used the methodology of
unfunded mandates to hand back to the State governments in particular,
sometimes other governments, certain responsibilities without sharing
the burden of paying for them or only sharing it in part. The local
governments have said, A, we cannot afford it, and B, in some instances
it does not apply where we are.
State governments are responsible, too. They have handed it back to
the counties and municipalities as well, and they also have to deal
with this particular issue.
The bottom line is this has been going on for far too long. We could
argue the exception of any one of these issues if we wished, but we
really need to start addressing it in this particular piece of
legislation, which essentially is information and accounting which will
put before us and the public, and particularly the Governors and the
county executives and mayors and those who are concerned about it, what
the costs are and what the issues are. Then we can decide do we move
forward in that direction or do we come back and say perhaps we cannot
afford to fund this, and it is an unfunded mandate, and we should not
go forward, and the public would be better served if we did not.
It makes it a fair argument. It is basically fairness and soundness
in government. That is what it is all about.
Unfortunately, an amendment like this, which is extremely well
intended, which has some good functions, cannot fall any differently
than any other aspects of this. Everything should fall into the same
category of being examined.
Therefore, no matter how beneficial the arguments are, no matter how
strong and compelling the so-called logic may be, we really need to
address unfunded mandates in the Congress of the United States. It is
my hope that this amendment would be defeated, and any subsequent
amendments would as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] indicated
he hoped I would accept this amendment. Unfortunately, I am unable to
do so. This, I think, is a serious gutting, frankly, of what we are
trying to do here.
It has already been indicated if this amendment were to pass we would
then move on to consider all pollution, all interstate pollution. It
would open a floodgate that I think we would be very wrong to do. This
is a prospective only bill. It will not affect anything on the books
now.
Second, we dealt with the reauthorization problem. We may disagree on
whether that answers the gentleman's problem. I think it does.
Third, this act in no way is going to prevent important national laws
from being enacted. They will be enacted. We may well pass on some of
the mandates without funding, but there will be an analysis of the cost
and the benefits that are involved in that.
Finally, I would just say our partners in this effort, the big seven,
the National Governors Association, the Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities, all of these agencies strongly would oppose
this amendment, so I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

legislative program

(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey], the distinguished majority leader, to inquire about the
schedule for next week.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, we will try to rise today at 3 o'clock. I know Members
are anxious to get home to their districts.
On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour. Business
will begin at 2 o'clock. Any votes ordered on Monday will be postponed
until 5 o'clock.
At 5 o'clock the House will resume consideration of amendments to
H.R. 5, unfunded mandates legislation. Members should be aware that the
House will work late into the night on Monday night.
On Tuesday the House will meet at 9:30 a.m. for morning hour. At 11
a.m. the House will resume consideration of amendments to H.R. 5, and
will hopefully complete consideration of the legislation. We will
recess at 6 o'clock on Tuesday and reconvene at 9 o'clock for the
President's State of the Union Message.
On Wednesday the House will convene at 11 o'clock and we will begin
consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget
amendment, subject to a rule being adopted.
Mr. Chairman, on Thursday and Friday, if necessary, the House will
meet at 10 o'clock in the morning to continue consideration of the
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would first ask whether or not the gentleman believes
there will be votes on Friday. I heard the gentleman say that the
balanced budget consideration would go into Friday. If it does not go
into Friday, if we are able to finish on Thursday, would there be other
legislation that would be brought up on Friday?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if we finish the
BBA on Thursday, we would expect to go pro forma on Friday, with the
possible exception of what is currently unexpected emergency
legislation that could come up. I think we need to hold that
possibility out. However, at this point we would expect that if we
complete on Thursday, we would be pro forma on Friday.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Another question, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman with
regard to the loan guaranty on Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman tell me if that is scheduled for
next week, or if not, when it might be scheduled? Is there any general
idea?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, as
the gentleman knows, this is a very sensitive legislative issue. There
are ongoing negotiations where we are trying to arrive at the language
that would make it possible for us to act on that. We have not brought
these to the point where we can make an announcement at this time. We
will, of course, let Members know as soon as we know something.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, two additional questions on the balanced
budget amendment.
On the balanced budget amendment, could the gentleman let us know the
majority's intention with regard to
[[Page H434]] making amendments in order on the balanced budget
amendment?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, again,
as the gentleman knows, tonight is the deadline for filing. The
Committee on Rules intends to meet Monday morning, I believe, and draft
a rule. It is our intention, certainly, to grant a rule that is more
open and fair than any we have seen on this subject for a long time,
but the details of the rule, of course, could not be completed until
the Committee on Rules has every request to consider on Monday.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the last couple of days the
1-minute speeches have been limited at the beginning of the day. Does
the gentleman expect this to continue, or can he tell us if there is a
policy?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that is, of course, something important to the Members. It is something
we are reluctant to do. Our only interest in ever limiting them is only
in the interest of getting us quickly to the legislative schedule for
the day's work, in the interest of getting Members out as soon as
possible. So only when we think it is necessary to facilitate the
movement of the day's work for the Members' convenience would we make
such a limitation.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, it was not clear from the statement of the
majority leader concerning whether we would be taking amendments on
H.R. 5 starting at 2 or shortly thereafter. I think he spoke and said 5
p.m. that he was going to take amendments on H.R. 2. We are not clear
on that. I would like clarification. I thank the Democratic leader for
yielding to me.
{time} 1310

Mr. ARMEY. As the gentleman knows, you cannot postpone or delay votes
when you are in Committee of the Whole. If in fact we can work out some
understanding regarding the acceptability of amendments that might be
offered between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m., we could proceed with that work.
But in the interest of our Members who will be traveling on Monday,
we cannot take under consideration an amendment that would require a
vote before 5 p.m.
Mr. GEPHARDT. One additional question. Could the gentleman make a
prediction on whether or not there might be late votes on Wednesday and
Thursday into the evening, or do you know that at this point?
Mr. ARMEY. We will expect to adjourn at a normal hour. I understand
there are important time conflicts. I see no reason for us to have any
expectation other than a normal adjournment at around 6 p.m. on both
those evenings.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the minority leader yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. If I may address a question to the majority leader, you
indicated that you anticipate that we would be in pro forma session on
Friday. In the hopefully unlikely event that we have not concluded
action on H.R. 5, would there be any possibility that we would return
to H.R. 5 on Friday?
Mr. ARMEY. It is our intention to conclude H.R. 5 before we go to
BBA. As we see, there are a great many amendments offered. There are
enormous amounts of time being used on each amendment. We stretch out
the hours of the working day wherever we can to try to accommodate
that.
With the cooperation of the Members, though, it is still our hope and
our belief that we can get this matter concluded in a timely fashion,
so that it will not postpone our days for consideration of House Joint
Resolution 1.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the minority leader yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just like to point out to the membership that the Committee
on Rules will be starting the hearing on the balanced budget amendment
at 1 p.m. on Monday. I will just point out that already there are more
than two dozen substitutes that have been prefiled with the Clerk. That
means the hearings are going to last for quite some time. We intend to
finish the hearing on the balance budget amendment on Monday, even if
we go until midnight.
I would just forewarn the Members about that, because we intend to
take up the rule on the balanced budget amendment on Tuesday.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Does the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules have any idea at this point of how the rule will be structured,
or is that left to the committee?
Mr. SOLOMON. As the Speaker has, I think, confided to you, we want to
be as open and as fair as we possibly can. There are almost, I think,
two dozen Democrat substitutes. There are six or seven Republican, I
believe, and certainly we would like to take you into consultation and
determine what would be a fair rule for the House. We would expect
cooperation on both sides.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Taylor amendment.
I was listening very closely to my colleague from Pennsylvania. He
has not assured me of the concerns that I have on some very important
environmental issues affecting my State.
One issue that has been particularly important to the people of this
region has been the work that we have done in trying to reclaim the
Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay has been the work of many States.
The State of Pennsylvania, the State of Virginia, the State of
Maryland, and the District of Columbia have all been involved in
efforts to try to reclaim the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. It
has involved local governments, it has involved the private sector.
There is a lot of cooperation.
But with this legislation, we run the risk of stepping backwards in
our efforts to reclaim the bay and all of the work that we have done.
Let me just give an example. The nutrient level in the bay is one of
our major problems. Water treatment facility plants directly affect the
nutrient level in the bay. The Susquehanna River is a major tributary
to the Chesapeake Bay.
Unless we have controls on water treatment that affect the
Susquehanna, the work that is done by Maryland could be negated. It is
only reasonable that we have certain national standards as it relates
to multiple jurisdictional waters, such as the bay.
The bay is absolutely critical to the economic life of my State of
Maryland, and it is extremely important to the quality of life of the
people who live in this region.
I would hope that my colleagues would not want to do anything that
would jeopardize the progress that we have made through sacrificing on
land use, on fishing in the bay in order to try and bring back the
quality of the bay.
Let us not make a mistake. Let us support the Taylor amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support and emphasize as a representative
from the State of Texas the value of some very serious efforts that we
have made in our community in Houston, TX, dealing with the broader
viewpoint of safe water as well as the ability to maintain a healthy
condition as relates to wastewater and sewage.
It is not a popular effort for local government to engage in the
monumental task of dealing with the repair and rebuilding and the
correcting of sewage or sewer problems. It is not something that our
constituents care to hear about. But it impacts greatly the broad view
of public health and public safety.
We in the broader community of Houston-Harris County have faced the
constant need to clean our water and to provide a kind of system that
allows for the treatment of sewage and to provide the adequate
wastewater system.
I support an effort to avoid unfunded mandates. I have seen firsthand
the burdens on towns and cities and county government. But each time
that I have spoken to constituents as it relates to
[[Page H435]] the question of public safety and the wastewater efforts
that have been made on behalf of citizens, it is one that they support
and advocate, for it clearly is an investment in the long-range
improvement of local government and that physical structure.
I would ask the support of excluding those particular needs relating
to wastewater, relating to sewage treatment which tend to go unattended
to, not because local governments do not care about it because of the
multitude of burdens that we have to face, but yet can have long-range
negative impact if you have a situation of a violent overrun of sewage
in a very poor and improper wastewater system.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to recognize that what we do
in this House is long lasting. It remains in place. Let us support
being responsive to the issue of unfunded mandates. Let us recognize
that there are clear issues that need our special interest and concern.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
This amendment is badly needed and will make this bill work much
better.
It is absolutely essential that we give consideration to the damage
that can be caused by pollution of the Nation's waters.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi would make
sure that the health of our Nation's citizens is protected from water
pollution.
The health of our citizens is not an issue that should be snarled in
legislative wrangling and parliamentary debates.
Instead of subjecting water pollution laws to additional points of
order, we should be directing our efforts to make sure that the health
of all of our citizens is protected to the greatest extent possible.
Protection from pollution is a basic function of government--all
levels of government.
The gentleman from Mississippi deserves congratulations for moving to
protect our Nation's citizens from health problems associated with
water pollution.
This is an important amendment that has a widespread national impact.
If we fail to adopt this amendment, we will have restricted the
ability of Congress--our national legislature--to take action on water
pollution. I do not believe the American people want less protection
from water pollution.
The Clean Water Act has successfully controlled pollution and cleaned
up many of our waterways during the past two decades. We should not be
attempting to roll back the clock to the days when many of our Nation's
major waterways were dying from pollution.
This amendment means we won't be reducing the protection that has
been given to the health of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment of the gentleman from
Mississippi.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a strict 17-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 249, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 23]

AYES--173

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOES--249

Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--12

Archer
Callahan
de la Garza
Dicks
Johnston
Lincoln
Livingston
McCollum
Reynolds
Stokes
Walsh
Yates

{time} 1334

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. McCollum against.

Mr. BARCIA and Mr. BALDACCI changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. LaFALCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1340

amendments offered by mr. towns

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, Nos. 133 and 134, as
printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that they be
considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
[[Page H436]] Amendments offered by Mr. Towns: In section
4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph
(6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert
``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new
paragraph:
(8) regulates the conduct of States, local governments, or
tribal governments with respect to matters that significantly
impact the health or safety of residents of other States,
local governments, or tribal governments, respectively.
In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at
the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'', and after
paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph:
(8) regulates the conduct of States, local governments, or
tribal governments with respect to matters that significantly
impact the health or safety of residents of other States,
local governments, or tribal governments, respectively.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York that the amendments be considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOWNS. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first commending Chairman Clinger, the
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and all of
those who have been involved in this issue. And of course we were
involved in this issue last year. But I would like to first point out
that what we are doing this time is very different than what we did
last year. So what I would like to do is to offer the amendments that I
think strengthen the bill because I am trying to find a way to support
the bill.
This en bloc amendment is designed to remedy a serious flaw. It would
exempt from the coverage of this bill any Federal law or regulation
that regulates States and local governments regarding interstate
matters that significantly impact the health or safety of the residents
of other States or local governments.
The problem is very simple. Suppose one State is dumping raw sewage
from a treatment plant into a water supply that is endangering the
health of the residents of an adjoining State. Under this bill, if the
Federal Government ordered the polluting State to stop dumping the
sewage into the water and orders the polluting State to clean up the
mess it created, if the cost of the cleanup was a billion dollars, the
polluting State would not have to fully clean up the water unless
Congress gave them a billion dollars. This is outrageous.
This is not the kind of law that we should be identified with or
sending out to other States or municipalities. If the State is
deliberately endangering the health of the residents of another State,
why should the Federal Government have to pay for that? Why should not
it be the responsibility of the polluting State to pay for the mess it
created?
As currently written, this bill contains a perverse incentive for the
polluting State not to pay for the pollution and health and safety
hazards it creates.
It is a disincentive. I think that is the last thing that we should
try to create. We highlighted this problem last year. It is not a
hypothetical situation. It is real. Interstate health and safety
problems exist now, today, all over this country.
In fact, in Oklahoma they had to get a Supreme Court ruling to
protect its water standards against downstream pollution from Arkansas.
Just a few years ago, New Jersey residents rightfully expressed
concern about New York's hospital wastes washing up on New Jersey's
shores. There is also a problem with incinerators blowing toxic smoke
across State lines and adversely affecting the health of citizens in
adjoining jurisdictions. States like New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island are constantly complaining that their air
quality is negatively affected by air pollutants from New York and
Philadelphia.
In conclusion, the State that should be held accountable for the
creation of the burden is relieved of their responsibilities. They
should have the responsibility and should not be allowed to walk away
from it. We should not reward States for wrongdoing.
This amendment would prevent an interstate catastrophe. I would urge
its adoption.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment.
First of all, I would indicate to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Towns] that we have discussed this amendment, we are very cognizant of
the problems the gentleman is raising.
Mr. Chairman, we come back to what we were discussing on the previous
amendment. That is that this would represent an exception, a broader
exception, frankly, than the one we were discussing in the last
amendment, because this basically, as I understand it, would apply to
any legislation, any existing statute or any new statute that affected
the public health and safety. That is a broader exemption than would
have been contained in the previous Taylor amendment.
I just would make the same points again.
This does not represent in any way an invasion or abrogation or
undercutting of existing legislation having to do with public health,
safety, environment, or anything else. It is strictly prospective in
application.
Second, it is clear that the sort of unique situations that the
gentleman from New York talks about could well be the justification for
an exception when the matter is debated.
I would come back to what the core of this is; the core of this is to
try to establish a new relationship, a new partnership, if you will,
between Federal, State, and local governments. There is no intent here
in any way to undermine existing health or environmental or safety
legislation. There is a provision where a point of order lies against a
mandate that does not provide funding. That does not preclude Congress
from passing that mandate through to the local governments, but it
would require a debate on that, something we never have had before.
In the earlier debate, this does not take into account any of the
benefits that might be derived from the mandate. I suggest at this
point the only thing we do take into consideration at this point, what
the benefits might be; we do not take into account what the costs on
local and State governments have been. What this will do is require the
costs to be a part of that mixture.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would simply like to associate myself with the remarks of the
distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee
and say what we are creating here in fact is accountability. In the
past we have seen the Congress regularly slip provisions into all kinds
of legislation, which has imposed a very detrimental--had a very
detrimental impact on State and local governments; we in the Congress
have no longer been accountable.
As the gentleman says, it is quite possible that this could happen
again, but the difference is that we have to say whether we are for it
or against it, we have to go on record so that we as an institution and
as individuals are accountable to the American people.
I thank my friend for yielding, and I am very supportive of his
remarks.
Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just heard a statement that when one State dumps
pollution into another State, the polluting State would not have to
clean up unless Congress gave them a billion dollars. That is not
accurate, is it, under this legislation?
Mr. CLINGER. That would clearly be an overstatement of what might
happen.
Mr. DAVIS. It could happen.
Mr. CLINGER. It could.
Mr. DAVIS. That could happen now, could it not?
Mr. CLINGER. Indeed.
Mr. DAVIS. Even without this act.
Mr. CLINGER. Exactly.
Mr. DAVIS. All we are doing here is accounting and that the
individuals,
[[Page H437]] whether they be States or localities, would have to pay
and we would know what the costs are.
Mr. CLINGER. Yes; that does not come into the equation now. We do not
have any requirement under existing law to enter into--to have any
consideration of the costs. I would stress this is not about the merits
or demerits of any program that we are talking about. The programs that
the gentleman is addressing on this matter are all meritorious
programs.
{time} 1350

All we are saying is they should not be exempt from, or excluded
from, a consideration of what the cost is, and that may well be that
the benefits will be so persuasively presented by those that are
promoting it that we would, in fact, pass the mandate through without
the funding, but it would require us to be--in a judicious way to look
at these proposals and make a determination up or down.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TOWNS. I ask, ``Didn't this bill say that full funding, in terms
of from Congress, in terms of the mandate, is supposed to be full
funding? So, if it's full funding, then a State could very easily say,
`I will not move to clean this up unless the Federal Government gives
me the money.'''
I think that is what the bill actually says, so my amendment would
help to correct that, to say, ``If you are killing people in another
State, then it becomes the responsibility of you to stop doing that,''
and I think that is what we are talking about.
There are a lot of situations out there like that, so it is not just
one isolated situation. We are talking about situations all over this
Nation where this exists, and this bill would prevent that from being
dealt with.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Portman].
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the gentleman from New
York I appreciate all the input he has made to this issue. We would not
be here today on the floor if it was not for the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Towns]. Chairman Towns last year in his subcommittee held
three hearings on this subject, two field hearings, one in
Pennsylvania, one in Florida, and a hearing here in Washington, and in
those hearings we flushed out a lot of the issues we are now
discussing.
Just addressing quickly the notion of full funding. It is true that
if there is not full funding, it is subject to a point of order on the
floor. Congress can always waive that point of order by a majority
vote, and Congress can work its will in that way and give partial
funding, or even no funding, to an important national priority.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield one more time?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TOWNS. I say to my colleague, ``You know, what you're saying, and
I think that we are talking about a health issue here, and I think
that's the reason why I become very sensitive; you are saying, `Trust
us.' But you know I don't think we can go totally on `Trust us,'
because if you have a State that's doing harm to people that reside in
another State, you know there is no real incentive for them to do
anything about it.''
So, I think that is the situation we are talking about. So, yes, we
would like to trust, but we are talking about people dying, and that is
what this issue is all about.
So I would like for the gentleman to think very seriously about
adding this amendment because I think it strengthens the bill. I would
like to vote for this, but I cannot vote for it knowing that we have
this issue out there that could affect a lot of lives if we do not
correct it here now.
Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman. I would say to the gentleman
that, as the gentleman from Ohio indicated, there is flexibility in the
application of this point of order. And I think that the sorts of
situations the gentleman talks about could very well be unique
situations that would require us to make the kind of decision at the
Federal level that he indicates. But at least it would require us, as
we are not required to do now, to really look at what we are doing,
what the costs are going to be.
That is all we are saying. This is an information vehicle more than
anything else.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words
Mr. Chairman, the Constitution assigns to Congress a unique
responsibility for regulating affairs among the States. The Founding
Fathers correctly anticipated that without a singular Federal power to
regulate commerce, travel, and other interstate affairs, this country
could not exist as a united nation.
That rational was the genesis of the commerce clause and the
supremacy clause in the Constitution. It is also the underpinnings of
this amendment. Once Congress abandons its responsibility to protect
the health and safety our residents the integrity of our Federal system
is jeopardized.
This is why I vigorously support the amendment of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Towns]. Under this bill a point of order can be raised
against intergovernmental mandates that are not fully paid for by
Congress. Thus, a premise behind H.R. 5 is that it is the Federal
Government's responsibility to pay States not to pollute.
Under this bill, no State would pay for new requirements mandating it
to clean up the air, the water or the environment unless Federal
taxpayers foot the entire cost of the cleanup. This turns federalism on
its head.
Let me give you a personal observation: The health of my constituents
in the seventh district in Chicago was severely effected recently
because the city of Hammond, IN, was polluting Lake Michigan, and that
polluted water was filtering into the Chicago water supply. If this
bill were law,
the city of Hammond and the State of Indiana would have no incentive
to assist in cleaning up Lake Michigan because sooner or later the
Federal Government would mandate a cleanup, requiring full Federal
funding.

I for one will not go back to my constituents in Chicago and tell
them that I voted to remove my ability to protect them against the
polluted water in Lake Michigan.
The supporters of this bill are fond of saying that there is no need
to worry about health, safety, and environmental issues since existing
mandates on State and local government will not be covered by this
bill, but that is only, partially, true. If Congress decides to change
essential parts of say our Superfund law to make environmental cleanup
more effective, my reading of this bill is that these changes could
trigger the bills coverage. The States could then refuse to comply with
these changes until Congress pays them to do so.
Let us look at another matter of grave concern in our society. The
breast cancer rates in certain cities and areas around the Long Island
Sound are some of the highest in the Nation. Studies are now underway
to determine the cause. If it turns out, as many believe, that these
increases in breast cancer are caused by the deliberate dumping of
toxic waste by municipal governments, this bill will severely limit our
ability to provide a meaningful remedy. How can we tell women that our
hands are tied and cannot help because the Federal Government cannot
foot the entire cost of the cleanup. How do we tell pregnant women,
like those living at Love Canal, who are still concerned that their
unborn children may have birth defects caused by the intentional
dumping of toxic waste, that we have legislated away our ability to
remedy their problem?
H.R. 5 says that this bill will not apply to laws that are necessary
for the ratification of international treaties. Implicitly, this bill
says that interstate pollution is less important than treaty
ratification. I defy anyone in this House to argue that the
ratification of international treaties is more important to the
American people than laws designed to protect them from the deliberate
dumping of toxic waste from neighboring States.
[[Page H438]] H.R. 5 exempts from this bill laws that require
compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to
grants or other money or property. What insane values are we imparting
to our children when we say that auditing standards are more important
to us than the health or safety of our constituents?
For those of my colleagues who are trying to decide whether to
support this amendment, ask yourself this simple question: ``Would your
constituents want Congress to stop a neighborhood State from
deliberately endangering their health?'' If the answer is yes, then
they should support this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of scary stories told here that
really do not apply to this legislation, if my colleagues take a look
at what we are asking here. First of all, what this legislation is
about is it forces Congress to finally be honest with the American
people about the programs and the regulations it creates. Taxpayers
deserve to know the price of a program or a regulation before they are
forced to buy into it. This bill for the first time ever will force us
to honestly determine the cost of mandates before we push them off onto
local taxpayers.
Also this bill is about accountability. What are we afraid of here?
Are we afraid to cost out what these new mandates are going to cost our
State and local governments? Are we afraid of being accountable for the
costs that then go on in terms of local taxes, raises in property taxes
that we end up mandating? This bill for the first time is going to hold
us accountable for the decisions we make, but we still have the
flexibility, and I think we will exercise it in many of the cases
proscribed by the other side of the aisle in terms of these interstate
problems that are going to need some kind of Federal direction, some
kind of Federal mandate, but at that point we will have the costs in
front of us. The individuals are going to be able to pay for this
downstream, are going to be aware of this and be part of the dialog.
This is really true federalism.
Finally, this bill is about accountability and making Members of
Congress stand up and cast recorded votes on substantial mandates with
the full mileage of their costs by requiring extensive, extensive
information on the costs of these mandates. This legislation is going
to make us accountable for what we are too often explained as
unintended consequences downstream of these actions.
Taxpayers in my jurisdiction are sick and tired of routinely paying
for unintended consequences that should easily be foreseeable by
Federal lawmakers. These will put this up front, and we will have the
flexibility then to make the right decisions in a more cost-accountant
manner.

{time} 1400

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a part of a pattern which is
rapidly becoming clear to all. We are hearing now on the floor
legislation which has not been properly considered in the committees,
because of an extraordinary level of haste on the part of all who are
together in bringing these matters to the floor.
The amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. Towns] deserves support. The bill as it is drawn, again upon which
no hearings have been held, would simply require that the Federal
Government would pay States and municipal units of government for
cleaning up their pollution which flowed across the boundary lines of
States or municipalities into other States.
For example, California. California would be paid under this for
cleaning up its pollution which affects people in Arizona, New Mexico,
in Oregon, and other adjacent States.
In New York, New York has been complaining for a long time about the
fact that they are affected by acid rain and sulfur emissions from
States in the Midwest.
Pennsylvania, from which enormous amounts of pollutants flow into the
State of New Jersey, would be paid under this because of Federal
requirements compelling it to clean up.
The amendment which we have here simply recognizes a number of
important facts. The first is that the Governors of the several States
over the years have suggested and insisted to the Congress that this be
the practice under which we handled our environmental laws, that we set
up Federal standards, and then allow and require the States to apply
those standards. Nothing is wrong with that. And indeed all we are
compelling is the States and the local units of government to do that
which the ordinary duties of citizenship require.
We have prevented the bidding of one State against another for
industry and jobs and opportunity by cutting corners on environment, by
establishing Federal standards.
This amendment says that you do not have to have the Federal
Government pay a State for doing that which it should. I have a letter
which I will insert later into my remarks from the Governor of
Wisconsin pointing out this same problem. I would remind my colleagues
that the problem continues to exist today, that the western part of
Michigan, a clean air area, is afflicted by the pollution which is
coming from Gary and Chicago and from Wisconsin, from States just
across the lake.
This amendment says that the Federal Government may protect the
afflicted, may address the problems of the transfer across State
borders of pollutants to water, groundwater, to air, or to the
environment from one State to another.
I believe that is good policy. Failure to adopt this amendment
assures that we will have to readdress this amendment again under the
same kinds of irresponsible pressure that we confront today; that we
will have to try to undo something which has totally rent the fabric of
cooperation which we have built since the 1950's on clean air and clean
water; and the protections we have had for the environmental
protections of the people of this country.
It is not too much to expect that States will clean up their mess
without being paid by the Federal Government. We do not require that
the Federal Government compensate industry for that kind of action. Why
is it that we would then say a State may set up a municipal waste dump,
a hazardous waste dump, an electrical utility generating system, or a
nuclear
facility, without requiring the Federal Government to pay for them to
take the steps that they should take simply as good citizens, and as we
would impose on any ordinary person, or as we would impose upon any
corporation?

I see over there on that side of the aisle many who were supporters
of the Clean Air Act in times past. They would come to me and say
``Dingel, why don't you support a stronger piece of legislation in the
Committee on Energy and Commerce?'' I said because I want to be careful
about how we proceed. I want to be sure as we go through this
legislation, that we are not going to impose excessive or unwise
burdens that are going to impair the competitiveness or the well-being
of this country or its industries. But to take the opposite step and
say now we are going to compel the Federal Government to pay for this
kind of irresponsible conduct on cleanup, is unwise, unnecessary, and
establishes a dangerous precedent.

Governor Tommy G. Thompson,

State of Wisconsin,

December 15, 1989.
Hon. John Dingell,
Chair, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dingell: I strongly support Congress'
efforts to pass Amendments to the Clean Air Act which will
improve air quality throughout the nation. However, I have
some concerns about the impact of some of the proposed Clean
Air Act provisions currently before Congress on Wisconsin.
Achieving equity and fair treatment for Wisconsin is my
primary concern. This underlies many of the concerns I have
with H.R. 3030. For example:
1. Proposals regarding measures to attain ambient air
standards do not take into account ozone and volatile organic
compound transported into Wisconsin from out of state;
2. Toxic substances provisions would, in effect,
``penalize'' our state for moving ahead with state-mandated
control strategies; and
3. Acid rain reduction proposals do not consider
Wisconsin's early, independent and substantial acid rain
controls.
[[Page H439]] In addition, I have enclosed a report
prepared by the Wisconsin Inter-Agency Clean Air Act Working
Group which more fully describes my concerns, the potential
impacts of these provisions on Wisconsin, and recommendations
for changes. They are as follows:

i. attainment of ambient air standards

1. Congress should formally establish a Lake Michigan
Airshed Interstate Transport Commission and require EPA to
abide by strategies unanimously agreed by Interstate
Transport Commissions.
2. Congress should make EPA promulgation of Federal
Implementation Plans mandatory when a state fails in its
state plan development and delete the provisions from HR 3030
which would render all previous Federal Implementation Plan
agreements moot.
3. Congress should make allowances in mandated ozone
reduction requirements for downwind nonattainment areas, such
as Southeastern Wisconsin, which are being impacted by
transport from more severe upwind areas, such as Illinois.
4. Congress should adopt the Senate version of the volatile
organic compound reduction requirements through the year
2001. Congress should also discontinue the annual percent
reduction requirements after the year 2001. Instead, based on
specific area needs, they should establish emission reduction
requirements through the state implementation process.
5. Congress should adopt the Waxman/Dingell compromise
language which sets up a two phase tailpipe standard and
provides for a 2003 revision based on technical and economic
reasonableness. Congress should also adopt provisions for
full useful-life emissions control equipment warranties and
strengthened new vehicle certification test procedures for
evaporative emissions.

ii. toxics provisions

1. HR 3030 should be amended to expand the access to
alternate emission limits to sources previously required to
reduce hazardous emissions under state or local mandate as
well as those who voluntarily reduce emissions.
2. HR 3030 should be consistent with the Council of Great
Lakes governors Substances Control Agreement. In particular,
the listing criteria should be expanded to include the
impacts of pollutants on plant and animal life, in addition
to human health impacts.

iii. acid rain provisions

1. Congress should not adopt provisions which would require
cost-sharing or emission taxes by all states to finance clean
up in some states.
2. HR 3030 needs to recognize and make allowances for those
utilities which had reduced SO2 emissions far below 1.2
pounds SO2 per MMBTU (British Thermal Unit) by 1985. The
White House has indicated they are considering changes to
address this issue, while maintaining a permanent emissions
cap.
3. Provisions on repowering should be broadened to include
non-pulverized coal boilers (e.g., cyclone boilers). The
White House has indicated they will seek to correct this
error before enactment.
4. Language should be added to HR 3030 to provide
incentives, including emission allowances, or use of
alternate fuels (such as wood), energy conservation, and
renewable energy sources as methods to reduce sulfur dioxide
and other air emissions, as long as they do not result in a
permanent increase in allowable emissions.
5. HR 3030 should clearly delineate the extent to which
industrial sources, independent power producers and co-
generators are included. Emission restrictions for non-
utility sources (if any) should only be considered if cost-
effective as compared to other reduction alternatives.
If you have any questions or would like additional
information, please contact any of the state agency personnel
listed in the enclosed report or fee free to contact Mary
Sheehy in my Washington office at 202/624-5870.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Tommy G. Thompson,
Governor.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to applaud the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Chairman Clinger, and the members of the committee for
the great work they have done in bringing this important bill to the
floor. And I want to pay special tribute to a couple of Ohioans who
have played a critical role in bringing the issue of unfunded mandates
to the attention of the American people, our great Governor, George
Voinovich, and my colleague and very good friend, the gentleman from
Cincinnati, Mr. Portman. With his usual skill, insight and diligence,
Rob Portman has made this crucial reform possible.
As a former city councilman and county commissioner, I can tell you
that for far too long the Federal Government has imposed its regulatory
whims on the State and local governments. Like it or not, fiscally
battered or not, our State and local governments have been forced to
comply.
Let us be frank: Federal politicians have loved unfunded mandates
because they are a way of putting huge new regulatory programs in place
while secretly passing the tab along to the States and local
governments. They have been taxing and spending while keeping the
taxing part hidden.
Local officials know the story all too well. Too often they find that
they must reprioritize local spending needs because Washington has
given them another mandate that they just cannot afford.
Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 5, the party is over. Congress finally takes
a giant step in the right direction. Congress finally takes
responsibility for its actions and begins to treat State and local
governments like partners, not like subordinates.
If we are going to impose new costs, we ought to at least be honest
about it, and we ought to be on the record, and usually we ought not to
do it at all.
I urge adoption of the legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my friend from
Cincinnati for his excellent remarks and to say as we listen to a
number of people talk about the Clean Air Act, there is a sense that we
are going to be doing absolutely nothing here. That is baloney. Between
now and 1988 we are going to be spending $3.6 billion dealing with
this, and this level of spending is obviously going to be proceeding.
So the sense we are ignoring it is way off base. What we are trying to
do is increase the level of accountability.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Towns amendment, which
I believe will preserve the proper Federal role in regulating actions
by one State that harm another State. Like so many of my colleagues, I
strongly believe that the Federal Government should not impose
unnecessary mandates or burdens on State and local governments without
clear benefits, but the Federal Government should set standards in
areas such as health and in safety and environmental protection that
prevent one State from doing harm to another State. Without some
national standards we would be helpless to prevent powerplants from
dirtying the air of States downstream or to prevent polluters in
upstream States from contaminating downstream waters.
I know the critical role that the Federal Government plays in meeting
interstate environmental challenges from my work to protect the Long
Island Sound. For years so many communities along the sound could not
afford the modern sewage treatment plants that they needed to stop
polluting the sound. With the Clean Water Act, and especially the
National Estuaries Program, the Federal Government shared the cost for
cleanup efforts with local communities, and we began to get the job
done. That is a partnership, that is not a mandate.
But under this bill there is no room for partnership. Either the
Federal Government picks up the whole tab, or the Federal Government
stays out and lets local communities fend for themselves, even if it
means that they keep polluting the air and water, they cannot afford to
clean up alone.

{time} 1410

Under this bill, the communities along the Long Island Sound would
still be waiting to build the sewer plants that they needed. We ought
to be expanding opportunities for partnership, as the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey] and I have tried to do with our wastewater
protection program. As we learned, these partnerships do much more than
help to protect our environment and our quality of life. It is not only
the environment. They also help communities to expand local economies,
to create jobs. That is an investment and not a mandate.
Yes, we need to reduce unnecessary Federal burdens, but we also need
to expand the opportunities for Federal, State, and local partnerships
and investment.
The Towns amendment will do just that. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H440]] Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent an area of the
world that has been impacted by pollution for over 14 years. My
constituents have lived with the impact of pollution from foreign
countries. I do have a problem with the position that somehow the
Federal Government has protected the citizens of this country from
pollution. It exists today and continues to exist with the oversight of
the Federal Government.
I oppose the amendment and support the chairman's position for a lot
of reasons. One reason, Mr. Chairman, is because I have served as a
member of the State Air Resources Board for the State of California, a
small intimate group of 32 million people, and have also served as a
member supervising the environmental laws pertaining to hazardous waste
for 2.5 million people.
Let me tell you, the biggest problem in protecting the public's
health out in the real world, out there in America, is not the fact
that we do not have enough Federal mandates but the mandates that are
placed down are not based on protecting the public health. Many times
the mandates care more about the procedure than the protection.
If my colleagues who have raised this issue that the Clean Water Act
has done such great things, frankly, if they think the Clean Water Act
is a perfect document, I would debate that to the end. We today have
pollution that is flowing, that is federally allowed. I think that one
of the things I would ask you to look at is that all we are asking for
is we look at the cost-effectiveness, we look at the benefits the
public is either getting or not getting and that the well-intentioned
and misguided strategies of the past need to be put under the light,
the light of reason, to be able to see if they really did do what you
mean them to do. Did they accomplish the protection and would the
dollars being spent on these programs be better spent on programs that
could truly help the public and protect the public health?
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for the
important amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
I compliment the gentleman from New York for recognizing the serious
problems that could result if we restrict the Federal Government's
ability to take action on pollution that crosses interstate lines.
This issue goes to the very heart of what a national government
should stand for.
The Federal Government must have the ability to take positive action
to prevent the residents of one State from being devastated by the
pollution from another State.
There are numerous and repeated examples of disputes between States
about the discharge of pollutants into the water and into the air.
If the Federal Government is stripped of the ability to step into the
fray, the result will be total chaos.
Without adoption of the Towns amendment, there will be a strong
incentive for upstream States to take every action they can to avoid
reducing pollution.
They can save their money on pollution control that does not affect
their own residents but hits directly at the residents of downstream
States.
My own State of Pennsylvania has been a leader in reducing the
nonpoint run-off that has degraded the Chesapeake Bay.
Without passage of the Towns amendment, there is absolutely no
incentive for the other bordering States to join us in this effort.
In another well-known case, it was only through the continued
enforcement of Federal environmental laws that the beaches of New
Jersey were protected from sewage discharged in New York.
These are well-known examples but these problems exist throughout the
country--in the Mississippi Valley, in the South, in the West.
If we fail to adopt the Towns amendment, we will be setting State
against State. We will be inviting chaos and conflict.
Worst of all, we will be sacrificing the need to protect our
environment and all of our citizens from the ravages of pollution.
Mr. Chairman. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Towns amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in passionate support of the Towns amendment. I
think everybody ought to be for this amendment, if they believe that
water flows and wind blows.
Now, no one has proved to me that water does not flow and wind does
not blow. And I do not know anywhere where it honors State boundaries.
And I must say, for Members saying, oh, wow, but we would not want the
big heavy Federal Government to come in and tell States and localities
what to do, let us just think about that in another context.
States and localities are all citizens together under this great
republic. That flag behind me has a star for each of those States. And
I hope that star means each State is trying to be a good citizen.
Now, if we turned it and put it into a family context and we said,
this country is also made up of many families and some families do not
want to take care of their families, we would not want to have a
Federal mandate to do that. What are we talking about? Everybody is
supposed to be a good citizen. And this bill is saying, look, we are
not going to give excuses to States and localities to pollute.
And then what happens is, someone says, well it just costs too much
to clean it all up. You throw up your hands. It would be like child
support enforcement. We tell people they ought to pay their child
support, but if they do not, we will pay it, the Federal Government
will pay it, because we would not want to have an unfunded mandate on a
runaway. Oh, no. Why? What do you mean? This is their responsibility.
The responsibility of the States and local governments represented by
the stars on that flag are that they be good citizens. That is what
this whole republic is built on.
I think we all have horror story after horror story. The only Members
I can see that vote against this amendment are Members who are at
headwaters so they can pollute everybody else and then just say, hey,
this is great, have a nice day. Or Members whose wind, they are at the
top. They never are downwind. Anybody who is ever downwind of anyone
else or downstream of anyone else is crazy not to insist that all of
the States sharing either the air or the water behave themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes a very
important point. We are now the recipients of a vast amount of
knowledge that is imparted to use because of the advances in
photography and in the satellite monitoring. And obviously what we see
and what we show our schoolchildren and our families and others and the
citizens of this country is the ramifications of local actions that
spread far beyond the borders. The areas of Arizona and Colorado and
New Mexico receive most of their pollution out of the southern
California air basin. The people who travel and spend their hard-earned
money to go visit the Grand Canyon cannot see across the rim not
because of what happened in Arizona or in the Grand Canyon but what
happened hundreds of miles away in southern California.
If you look at the satellite photos and you see the pollution that
comes out of Alabama, out of Georgia, moves down to the Florida Bay,
moves around into the Florida Keys, and up the other side of Florida,
and if it is not treated. And what this legislation says, if those same
mayors and those same Governors that do not like unfunded mandates, do
not like the cost, do not like timetables and do not like standards
prevail, then everybody goes their own way. You put in the pollution at
the top of the Ohio River or you put it in in the Mississippi River and
then other people who want to try to clean up their water, either
because they want to use it or they are responsible in putting it back
into the river, find that it is far more expensive for them to do that.
[[Page H441]] That simply is unacceptable. That is not a nation.
That is not a united nation. That is not about citizenship. That is
about making individual, little decisions about how you can push it off
onto somebody else. Because as we advance, as we find out more about
air pollution and water pollution, then if we do not, as a Federal
Government, agree to pay that and they can prevail on the point of
order, and we do not waive that, I understand the mechanism here.
I also understand this is a democracy. If they prevail on the point
of order, then we simply lose the ability to put that technology out
there for the benefit.
{time} 1420

Let us look at what we have achieved in this country. Under this
great burden we have achieved the highest standard of living in the
world. We have achieved the cleanest air and the cleanest water in the
world.
The point is that those are the ramifications of when 220 million
people try to live together. We can look everywhere else in the world
and see the ramifications.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Schroeder was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, just as we do not allow
families or members of families to be dysfunctional, we cannot allow
cities, States and counties to choose not to do what is socially
responsible for the good of the people of this Nation. We have had
these basic fights.
We have had the people of New England fight against the people in the
Ohio Valley about scrubbers on coal plants and obligations and fuels to
be burned. We have had the struggles between the automobile companies
and the manufacturers of gasoline in cities, and in the city of Denver
the gentlewoman has been through this.
Why do we do this? Because it is our social responsibility. I thank
the gentlewoman for raising this point.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from California for pointing
this out, because this amendment is about good citizenship. I think
what we should be doing here is encouraging good citizenship in this
Republic. This goes right to the core of this; not ``Ha, ha, we are
upwind, we can do this to you,'' or ``We are upstream, we can do this
to you.''
There is nothing that makes us angrier in my State of Colorado, where
we think we are the lungs of the Nation, to get off the plane and be
coughing frantically because stuff is blown in from another State that
we cannot do anything about. Now that we know environmentally how
interconnected we are, we all must work together through our local
governments and through the Federal Government to figure out how to do
it. No one can pay for all of it.
We all have to do our fair part. There is blame that goes everywhere
for having gotten where we are, but there is also some blame-sharing
and some payment-sharing we are going to have to do, because we just do
not have the money to clean it up.
Just to say to the American public ``So go buy bottled water, so go
get an air mask,'' that is not a good excuse.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
altering his statement regarding the point of order.
I think the point needs to be made, because there were some
misleading statements earlier, both by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] that somehow we could never have national
standards again after this bill was passed.
As we know, it does not apply retroactively, only prospectively. Then
it simply requires that Congress, through a considered judgment, with
information we do not currently have, make a judgment with a 51 percent
vote, a constitutional majority. The gentleman talked about----
Mr. Miller of California. That is the current law.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is the current law.
Mr. PORTMAN. That is not the current law.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, coming from a small
State, we know how rapidly one could get rolled in this body. If the
Members remember, we assign each State the number of Representatives by
their population. When we get dirty water from larger States or when we
have people taking stuff away from us, or they are blowing air in on
us, they could have many more numbers and say ``We do not want to spend
the money to clean it up, thank you very much.''
What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman is putting another
barrier in and really not encouraging good citizenship.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say again, to reiterate the point that has
been made several times in these debates over potential exemptions to
this legislation, this is not a debate about the merits of individual
mandates. This is a debate about whether we have the cost information
that we do not currently have.
I would disagree with my colleague from California as to the costs of
legislation. This forces CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to do a
detailed accounting of what the costs are.
The committees, incidentally, also have to do a detailed analysis of
costs and benefits of the legislation. That legislation then comes to
the floor.
We have something in this legislation that is not currently
guaranteed, which is a debate, an informed debate on the issue. Can the
Members imagine that, in the U.S. Congress actually debating the
unfunded mandate issue, and then someone can raise a point of order and
that point of order can be waived by a majority vote.
The gentlewomen from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] may some day be in the
other body, and in that case the smaller State would be more
represented, but in our current situation, of course, we each represent
the same number of constituents, and by majority we constantly enact
legislation.
We enacted the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act could be enacted
again, or similar legislation. All we are asking is that that be an
informed decision. That information is not currently available.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on his
statement, and then just underscore, my friend, the gentleman from
Martinez, CA [Mr. Miller], talked about the great advances that we have
been through environmental legislation which has emanated from this
institution.
However, what we are saying is, ``Hey, he may be right in some areas,
but let us be accountable, and let us make sure that we know exactly
what the cost will be to those items as we look toward improving
environmental standards and a wide range of other areas,'' rather than
having these things surreptitiously stuck into legislation and then as
amazing cost burden passed on to State and local governments.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems, again, coming from
a smaller State where we have often received the dregs of what other
States did not want, one of the groups that I can think of that would
be against this amendment would be a group like Mutants for Radioactive
Waste, because if you look at Nevada and Colorado and New Mexico, that
is
[[Page H442]] where everybody wants to dump radioactive waste. That is
where everybody is perfectly willing to dump dirty water or salt water.
We have trouble with salinization of water.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that if we take the State of California and
the State of Nevada, how much money do Members think the State of
California is going to be willing to spend to clean up air for the
State of Nevada.
Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to
the gentlewoman that the situation has not changed from the current
situation. We passed a Clean Air Act. It affected some States more than
others. We did it by constitutional majority. We could do the same
thing with regard to the unfunded mandate legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not change that. That is a
reality in this body, and should be a reality in this body. I would say
also that it was interesting listening to the analogies made earlier.
Our State and local government partners were being termed to be part of
our family, but they were the children. And somehow we had to tell our
children what to do and what not to do.
I think we should view them as our true partners. That is the whole
idea of this. Let us give them the benefit of having an informed debate
on the costs and the benefits of legislation, and the costs and
benefits of whether a mandate makes sense. That is all this legislation
asks for. It is a very reasonable, balanced approach.
Many people had talked last year and many people had cosponsored
legislation that would have banned all unfunded mandates. That is not
what this legislation is about. That point has been made several times
during the debate over the last 3 or 4 hours. Basically, we have had
the same debate.
It needs to be made clear to the people who are watching and other
Members of this body, this is about providing cost information. It is
about having a debate on the issue and then, yes, accountability,
having a vote up-or-down on the issue of the unfunded Federal mandate.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have much time, but I yield to
the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in my part of the country, partners pay their fair
share. They cannot say, ``Let us be partners, and then you pay.'' That
is not a partnership. Actually what we are talking about, if we do not
pass this amendment, is denying that equal partnership where we all sit
down and all have the same star in the flag, carrying our same load.
Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that is a
debatable point. I would say our partners in local and State government
feel they are paying far more than their share.
I would say that the citizens of the United States who are paying
hidden taxes, where we take the credit for imposing mandates on State
and local government, they pay the taxes, whether it is property taxes
at the local level, State income taxes, or State sales taxes, that is
not a fair system. That is the current system. I think more than their
fair share is being paid at that level.
We need to have an informed debate on the issue. That is all this
legislation does. Whether it is health and safety, whether it is
environmental issues, we are just asking for the information and a
debate on the issue.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been supportive of this type of legislation. I
have voted for it when I was in the State legislature. I have been
supportive since I have been in Congress.
What is in front of us right now, though, is specifically the Towns
amendment, and what it deals with in terms of interstate pollution.
Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out previously, for Members here
who are from upwind States or upriver States, it is not quite the same
type of intensity that it has in States like Florida. Florida in many
ways is the ultimate downriver state. As far as I am aware, we have no
rivers that flow into other States. We are the repository of downstream
pollution from other States, whether it be Georgia or Alabama or
Mississippi.
In a State like Florida, and in a district like my own, which is the
downstream end of the downstream State representing the south end, the
tip of the State, Florida Bay and the Everglades area, where it is the
downstream end of the downstream State, we have very little control
over what occurs upstream.
Specifically, again, Mr. Chairman, if we focus on what this amendment
is about, in parts of this country like Florida, without this amendment
passing a very well-intentioned bill and a very good bill will have
some exceptionally bad results.
Just as we see progress being made, particularly again, in my State,
in my district in Florida Bay, some of that progress, and the law is
changing on it, and the regulations are changing on a yearly basis,
some of that progress will clearly be a detriment.
There are other areas in the country that have similar concerns.

{time} 1430

There are other areas in the country that have similar concerns, and
what I would hope is that Members on the other side of the aisle who
are in communities and in districts and in States that have these
unique type problems focus on their district concerns more than their
leadership concerns in the vote when it comes up this afternoon.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I know that our debate has been moving along and we are
trying to get to a vote before our time runs out, but I want to make a
point. In listening to the debate from those who are opposing this
piece of legislation, I do not believe that disclosure is against the
public interest. That is what this bill is all about. It is about
disclosure. When we bring this information forward so Members
understand what they are voting for, the cost, how much it is going to
cost and how that is going to be allocated among the States, I do not
think it is bad. In fact, I think it benefits the public interest.
I come from a State legislature where, when legislation came before
us, we understood what that piece of legislation was going to cost
because we had some estimates before us. We not only understood how it
was going to affect our State general fund, but we understood how it
was going to impact potentially the special districts that were within
the State, to understand what it was going to cost the cities and the
school districts. When we became better informed, we began to
understand how best to apply the piece of legislation.
In some instances where it may have become too expensive for small
communities, then we would provide an exemption. When we looked at what
the benefits were to be accrued and what it was going to cost a small
community, then we could begin to apply the knowledge to come up with a
better piece of legislation.
I am standing here today to support this piece of legislation because
I happen to believe that disclosure benefits the public interest. That
is what this bill is all about.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Towns amendment. The
flaw in this legislation which he is attempting to correct is at the
heart of our Federal system of government. There are responsibilities
that clearly must be directed by the Federal Government and which, to
be effective, must be complied with by State and local governments as
well as the private sector.
We should not forget that our Constitution, including the interstate
commerce clause, was written in the context of the shortcomings of the
Articles of Confederation. Turning to the words of Alexander Hamilton
in the Federalist Papers:

Not to confer in each case a degree of power, commensurate
to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of
prudence and propriety, an improvidently to trust the great
interests of the Nation to hands, which are disabled from
managing them with vigor and success.
[[Page H443]] We should not create today, more than 200 years later,
the same disability to effectively address compelling interstate
problems that the framers of the Constitution intentionally worked to
avoid.
In discussing this point, Madison referred to the case of one State
disrupting the shipment of goods destined for another State and rightly
pointed to the need for the Federal Government to have authority over
such matters. Today, the same need exists in many instances where the
actions of one State or locality impact on residents of another State.
We can all think of instances in our own communities where it only
makes sense that Federal policy must be implemented to protect the
citizens of our own State against the harmful acts outside our own
State's borders.
I have talked before during this debate about the problems
confronting the Long Island Sound. The deterioration of that body of
water has had a clear harmful effect on the people of New York. The
degradation has hurt our economy, costing jobs. It has destroyed a
valuable recreational resource. It has undermined property values. And
that deterioration has been caused not only by New York, but by
activities in Connecticut, Massachusetts and beyond.
If this Congress does not have the authority to require State and
local governments in all of those
States to bear shared responsibility to address this problem, we will
have no choice but to abdicate our constitutional responsibility to
achieve a remedy. This is certainly not the answer those I represent
would want.

Some of my colleagues might say that this legislation will not stop
us from addressing such problems, but will simply require the Federal
Government to cover the costs of our mandated policies. But I ask my
colleagues, does that indeed make sense? A simplistic answer might be
yes, but on reflection we can all see that clean water requirements not
only have interstate benefits but also have important and valuable
local benefits. In light of that, while Federal help is totally
appropriate, a local contribution is justified as well.
As this amendment is considered, I urge my colleagues to reflect on
the words of our Founding Fathers about the shortcomings of the
Articles of Confederation and to think about problems facing their own
constituents. As we work to address legitimate concerns about
intergovernmental relationships, the experiences of our Nation's early
experience with the Articles of Confederation should not be ignored.
As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, reforms are needed to bring
about an end to the senseless unfunded mandates which we all know exist
and which can be cleared away. But we should not destroy our
Government's ability to effectively fulfill its responsibilities to
protect the citizens of one State from harm caused by unwise policies
in another State.
As the Articles of Confederation prove, these interstate issues can
only be sensible, effectively and fairly resolved at the Federal level.
I urge my colleagues to support the Towns amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those ``I had not intended on making a
speech'' speech. But it seems to me as I listened to the debate between
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentlewoman from Colorado,
and the gentleman from California in regard to this partnership effort
that we have in trying to establish safeguards for clean water and
clean air and all of the things that we must do to ensure our country
have the cleanup and the safety of every consumer and every citizen.
I think the remark was made about a partnership effort in children as
being part of the family. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] touched
on this just for a moment, but I think it bears some amplification,
more especially as it applies to this amendment.
An example I would like to bring is that of a small community in
Kansas in my district by the name of Pretty Prairie. Now, Pretty
Prairie has under 1,000 people. It has been in a growing dispute with
the EPA for the last 4 or 5 years.
The EPA in their infinite wisdom has reduced the level of nitrates in
regard to what is safe and not safe from 20 parts per million to 10.
And all of a sudden the EPA through the State agency informed this
small community that they were out of compliance.
Some 600 to 800 people were forced to try to come up with some kind
of a plan to address the EPA dictate, or the mandate. We are talking
nearly a million bucks. A million bucks to develop a new waterworks or
face all sorts of fines and problems.
This community asked the EPA whether or not bottled water would
substitute. Now, why do we have a change in the nitrate level moving
from 20 parts per million to 10? That is to prevent the blue baby
syndrome. Except there is one problem here that nobody seems to
understand from the EPA. Nobody was sick. No child was sick. There has
never been a case in Kansas in regard to the blue baby syndrome.
But all of a sudden here is Pretty Prairie having to come up with a
million bucks to change their entire waterworks.
{time} 1440

So the community said, fine, we will use bottled water, but that does
not suit the EPA. We are still in discussion after 4 or 5 years with
this mandate that is about to put this town out of business.
That is the kind of parent-child relationship it seems to me is what
is wrong about this. This has happened all over my district. I can give
case after case after case where there is a growing rebellion in regard
to the partnership effort that should be established with all of the
alphabet soup agencies that come down with these mandates. In Kansas
today in 105 counties, all of the county commissioners have to spend at
least half of the budget on these mandates, and in many cases they are
counterproductive, they do not apply and they are just downright silly.
Let me give one other example I am worried about in regard to the
Towns amendment. I have great admiration of the gentleman. But in St.
Francis, KS many senior citizens came to me and signed a petition and
said why are you increasing our trash fee three or four times as much
as the current fee. These are senior citizens who are now living on
fixed income. And the EPA there, through the landfill regulations and
through the State agency, said from date certain last October you are
going to have to have all of your trash hauled to a regional landfill.
There are two problems. One, there was no regional landfill, and there
were not any trucks to haul the trash.
There was a suggestion made that we would go to Denver, but Denver
did not want it. That would simply go across the State line. The Towns
amendment obviously would simply prevent us from really trying to focus
on that kind of a mandate.
So here are the senior citizens on fixed income in St. Francis, KS
saying to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller], why are we paying for this mandate. I will tell my colleagues
what will happen. Every senior citizen there will get the neighbor boy
to come and take the trash and put it in a pickup truck and they will
dump it in a ditch, and we will have trash blowing all over the Great
Plains as a result of this damn fool mandate, and it is interstate.
Let me give one other example if I might. Some time ago the EPA
proposed 65 mandates to help clean up all of rural and small-town
America.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has
expired.
(Mr. Roberts asked and was given permission to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in number 16 or 17
in that list. It was an effort by the EPA to control something called
rural fugitive dust, rural fugitive dust. So we called down to the EPA
and said what on Earth are we talking about and we could not get an
answer. It was one of those things where you call one person after
another person after another person. Obviously, with the interstate
amendment that the gentleman has proposed, rural fugitive dust would go
from one State to another.
[[Page H444]] We finally reached somebody who was able to explain it
to me, and I said what is the problem. She indicated to me, ``Well,
Congressman, you've got a lot of rural dust out there and it is
dangerous to your health.'' I said, ``You're telling me that and I am
from western Kansas.'' She said, ``Yes, sir.'' I said, ``Well, what do
you plan on doing about it?'' ``Well, we can simply mandate that water
trucks go out in the morning and afternoon and spray the country roads,
and then you won't have the rural fugitive dust.''
This person was serious. If Members do not think that that mandate
was a little specious or a little silly, we have mandates like that.
What on Earth would the Towns amendment do in regards to preventing us
from exposing this kind of ridiculous mandate to force many of our
communities to get in water trucks and spray every rural road in
Kansas? That is ridiculous.
If in fact this whole entire effort is vague according to the other
side who is opposed to this, my word, the gentleman's amendment is as
vague and as wide as a barn door.
I urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. We should proceed. We
should not pass this exemption. This is a killer amendment, and in case
if in fact there is any State that is worried about a very pristine and
marvelous lake or area or whatever we are trying to protect, all we
have to do is come to the floor like we are doing today, debate the
issue, waive the point of order, and protect it. All we are asking for
is a debate.
So, in that regard I respect the gentleman. I think his amendment
should be defeated, and I think we should proceed, especially at this
late hour.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Towns'
amendment.
I believe that this amendment addresses a glaring flaw in H.R. 5 as
it is now written. The flaw is that the bill, without the Towns
amendment, could deprive our constituents of the protection they may
need against significant impacts on their health and safety which
emanates beyond their borders, and therefore is beyond the control of
their State and local governments.
H.R. 5 could strip from our constituents these basic protections, by
making it more difficult for the Federal Government to perform its
fundamental function of protecting the health and safety of our
citizens.
While there is room for legitimate difference of opinion as to the
appropriate functions of the Federal, State, and local governments in
many arenas, I believe that with respect to at least one matter this
issue is well settled:
That the Federal Government does have a role in protecting citizens
downstream States from serious health impacts caused by pollution from
upstream States and localities.
Water pollution knows no political boundaries.
Without the provisions of the Clean Water Act that place obligations
on States and local governments, many downstream States would never
have the possibility of clean water.
We have all heard of situations where pollution from one State or
locality adversely impacts citizens in downstream or adjacent States.
Many of these examples involve discharges of sewage by municipal
governments. For example:
Residents of New York and Connecticut are familiar with interstate
pollution of the Long Island Sound caused by discharges of sewage.
Residents of Mississippi and Louisiana have seen the effects of being
downstream from dischargers of inadequately treated sewage.
The conditions that gave rise to the boil water advisory in the
District of Columbia a little over a year ago were in part the result
of conditions in upstream States.
Lakes in upstate New York such as Lake Champlain are being impacted
by pollution from Vermont as well as New York.
Even though H.R. 5 is not intended to apply to current laws, it still
would make it more difficult and more cumbersome for the Federal
Government to fulfill its duty to protect the citizenry from
significant health and safety consequences of transborder pollution.
It could do so by limiting the Government's ability to add new
requirements where necessary to protect human health, and reducing or
excusing those requirements where Federal funding is reduced.
I noted earlier that we should call H.R. 5 The Law of Unintended
Consequences. The Towns amendment provides a perfect example of what I
can only assume was an unintended consequence of H.R. 5--that the bill
restricts the Federal Government's ability to protect downstream
citizens from significant health and safety impacts that their State
and local governments may be powerless to prevent.
A vote against the Towns amendment is a vote to make it harder to
protect the citizens of your State against significant health and
safety impacts from upstream State and municipal sources.
I urge my colleagues to support the Towns amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINETA. I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, what I understand from all this debate and
the Towns amendment and also the one that preceded it by the gentleman
from Mississippi especially is that it appears to me that this
legislation, although well-intended, and having a good goal and a good
purpose, still has, like the gentleman says, unintended consequences
potentially within it. That concerns me, that there has not been really
sufficient development in this legislation.
What I mean by development is I would like to ask the gentleman what
various agencies of the Federal Government or of any State government
came and testified on this legislation.

{time} 1450

Mr. MINETA. On this legislation specifically, as a member of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and now the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, we have held no hearings on this
issue.
Mr. VOLKMER. There have been none whatsoever. And, therefore, we do
not have any idea of the possible impact except for those who are
proponents of the legislation, what it may actually do.
Mr. MINETA. My good friend from Missouri is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. But as far as those people who are working with it day
in and day out and have done so for years, there has been no input
whatsoever?
Mr. MINETA. My good friend from Missouri is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. I have one other question I would like to ask to me that
is something I have thought about ever since this legislation. I am one
of those again who believes in States' rights. I do not believe in
unfunded mandates necessarily.
But I see consequences of what this legislation may do.
Let us assume that instead of this Congress having this legislation,
that 30 years ago another Congress had passed this legislation, what
would we have today with our streams and our cities as far as pollution
and water and all of these other type of things?
I can remember back when, and I am sure there are other Members in
this body who can remember back before we had wastewater treatment
facilities and a lot of raw sewage was going right into the streams.
Now, if the Federal Government had been required to go out and pay the
total amount for all of those and not have the present law, but we had
to pay for the total amount of all of those, I question whether that
would have been done. The same thing with all of the antipollution that
went on.
But was it the Federal Government that caused the pollution? Was it
the Federal Government that was causing all of the raw sewage to go
into the streams, was causing the chemicals to go into the streams, was
it the Federal Government that was causing all of the pollution to go
into the air? I do not believe so. I do not believe so, that the
Federal Government----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta
was
[[Page H445]] allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. So what we are saying is that the Federal Government
should pay for what other people, whether it is private industry,
whether it is communities, should pay to do what they should have done
anyway, what they should have done on their own without the Federal
Government telling them what to do, unless proponents of this bill
really believe that we should not do anything on safety, health, as far
as pollution itself, and that we should just let the local communities
do what they want to do, and if they or the industries, they want to
pollute, they can go ahead and pollute, and it is only when the Federal
Government says, ``We will pay for what you should not do anyway,''
that it is going to be cleaned up.
So I think this legislation needs a heck of a lot more time than it
is getting.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate that you raised the incident affecting every Member, the
water crisis here in the District of Columbia as an example of
interstate problems created by this bill.
The Towns amendment, in a real sense, gives us the best case for an
exception, because it cures a federalist defect in this bill, and that
is interstate wrongdoing.
In a real sense, it is why we created the Federal Government in the
first place. The Articles of Confederation left us with no way to deal
in an equitable fashion among the States, and we created this
federalist system.
I want to say a word about motivation here, because all day we have
heard that the point of this bill is information only. Well, let me
remind my colleagues that we have had to fix this bill so that there
was more than a point of order, so that there will be a point of order
vote.
I really wonder why that was not in the bill to begin with, if the
point was to provide Members with information before they voted--when
you did not even provide a way to vote in the first place. If it was
for information only, then why is it not the case that the information
would come out in debate, my colleagues?
Are people so afraid of mandates, which they should be, then the kind
of debate we are having here today would surely have been enough to
deter Members from voting to put mandates on their own people in the
States and cities.
I will tell you that you are disguising, and not very well, the real
motivation of this bill. You want to now force to have a vote, to have
an isolated vote, on costs, because you know that that is the heart
of----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
has again expired.
(At the request of Ms. Norton and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. NORTON. Because you know that that is the most difficult vote;
having been forced now to vote, you want to have an isolated cost vote,
a vote that will force debate on cost alone when we could have had the
kind of debate we had here anyway highlighting cost and getting the
same result, if that is all you want.
Moreover, the fact is that you are forcing a vote on full funding.
You have got a full funding standard in this bill. The fact is that in
the federalist system, we have always been about shared funding. We
always think that if there is dirty water or dirty air that the State
or the city ought to take some part of that cost.
Why have you not put a provision for shared funding in the bill, if
that is, in fact, what you mean? You put full funding in the bill,
because, again, you want to make it almost impossible to support new
bills, and some of you have said as much, have said you want these
bills repealed.
This is an interstate compact, my friends. By ignoring or opposing
the Towns amendments, you are giving a direct incentive for the States
to commit wrongdoing, one against the other. You are creating disputes
among the States that will carry them into the courts. You are wiping
out a central feature of federalism.
You ought to own up to it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 252, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 24]

AYES--153

Abercrombie
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOES--252

Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
[[Page H446]] Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--29

Archer
Barton
Bliley
Burton
Collins (MI)
de la Garza
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Fowler
Frost
Gephardt
Houghton
Johnston
Lincoln
McCollum
McCrery
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Neal
Ortiz
Quillen
Reynolds
Seastrand
Tauzin
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Yates

{time} 1511
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Quillen against.

Mr. FOGLIETTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about unfunded mandates, and one of the
mandates that we have in our country is to educate all of our children
who wish to attend public schools. This mandate includes the children
of military personnel living on military bases all around our country.
Their children, like all other children, are entitled to attend local
public schools.
The difficulty is that their parents pay no taxes to support those
schools, and we have had since 1950 in our law provisions under a
program called Impact Aid that provides direct Federal payment in
support of local schools that provide and meet the educational mandate
for children on military bases. This is a mandate, Mr. Chairman, that
has been vastly underfunded. This, to me, is an obligation of the
Federal Government, very much like a contractual obligation that the
Federal Government must pay to insure that it is paying a fair share of
the costs of educating these children.
Mr. Chairman, we have people in my own party who are suggesting that
Impact Aid be zeroed out, and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that if Impact
Aid were zeroed out, it would create a huge unfunded mandate, and it
seems to me that would be totally inconsistent with our policy of not
putting unfunded mandates on State and local government. The cost of
this unfunded mandate would approach a billion dollars, and I can say
to my colleagues in the House that even today, under the Impact Aid
program that we have, there are schools in the United States, and those
in my own district, that are going bankrupt because we do not provide
sufficient support for the education of children of military families.
Outside of the Great Lakes Naval Training Facility in north Chicago,
IL, in the 10th Congressional District, School District 187 struggles
to provide education to children there. Forty-five percent of them come
from families at Great Lakes, and the Federal Government provides only
27 percent of the cost of educating each of those children, leaving 73
percent for the local tax base. The difficulty is the local tax
assessment base cannot support that mandate.

{time} 1520

So we already have an underfunded mandate, not only in that school,
but in schools like it all around the country. I can assure my
colleagues that if we were to zero out Impact Aid and have the Federal
Government walk away from its obligation to help at least to pay for
those children, we would be having school districts going bankrupt
everywhere in this country. We would have lawsuits filed against the
Federal Government everywhere in this country.
My school district went bankrupt last year, and luckily the State of
Illinois came through with funds to help. But if this happens, if we
stop funding Impact Aid or reduce our support for Impact Aid, we will
have created the greatest unfunded mandate around, and it will lead to
chaos in our public education systems in cities and towns all around
this country.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that people understand that there are
programs that are ongoing, that there are mandates that already exist,
which if they are not fully and responsibly funded, will create the
greatest unfunded mandates you have ever seen.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the new chairman of the
committee that I chaired and served on so well, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and to also congratulate the ranking
minority member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
Mr. Chairman, the so-called unfunded mandates legislation before us
today offers no real protection to the States or local units of
government in the event a balanced budget constitutional amendment is
adopted. Evidently, this is why the Republican leadership has resisted
the efforts by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the
House to provide an explicit statement about unfunded mandates in the
text of any proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget. By
keeping the constitutional amendment and the unfunded mandates statute
on separate tracks, we have reached the height of obfuscation of true
intent very early, indeed, in the new Congress.
The balanced budget amendment approved by the Judiciary Committee
last week places State and local taxpayers at severe risk by allowing
State and local governments to bear the brunt of the costs of balancing
the Nation's budget through increases in unfunded mandates. Further
Congresses would find it much easier to simply override the legislation
being considered today and increase unfunded mandates rather than to
make painful cuts or increase taxes, the latter of which would require
a three-fifths vote of Congress.
It is because of these concerns that the National League of Cities
testified in opposition to the balanced budget amendment at hearings
last week. Mayor Jeffrey N. Wennberg of Rutland, VT, testified that
``any balanced budget amendment would almost certainly increased
unfunded mandates on cities and towns as well as decrease what little
Federal assistance currently remains to fund existing mandates.'' He
also noted that the ``pressure to order State and local spending will
grow geometrically under a balanced budget amendment unless an equally
powerful restriction on [unfunded] mandates is enacted [in the
Constitution].'' Mayor Wennberg's concerns have been echoed by
representative Karen McCarthy, past president of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and Vermont Governor Howard Dean,
chairman of the National Governor's Association.
The projected impact of the balanced budget amendment on the States
would indeed be staggering. A recent Treasury Department study
concludes that in order to balance the budget by the year 2002,
``Federal grants to States would be cut by a total of $97.8 billion in
fiscal 2002.'' Other Federal spending that directly benefits State
residents would be cut by $242.2 billion in fiscal year 2002. My own
State of Michigan would face a loss of $2.5 billion in Federal funding,
which would require more than a 13-percent increase in State taxes.
The only way to protect the State and local governments from the
threat of increased unfunded mandates would have been to include a
constitutional prohibition in the text of House Joint Resolution 1.
Representative Frank sought to do precisely this at the committee
markup, but his amendment was defeated by the Republicans in a 15 to 20
party-line vote.
The Governors, the mayors, the police and other local officials
should not be misled. Unfunded mandates legislation will not protect
them when the Federal Government is forced to make draconian budget
cuts to balance the budget. The only real safeguard would be to include
such a prohibition in a constitutional amendment to balance the budget,
because then, the States would have such a promise before them in
determining whether to ratify such an amendment. But so far, that
option has been blocked by the new Republican majority. While a clever
ploy, that sleight-of-hand has already been seen for what it really is:
A failure of resolve to descend from soaring rhetoric to making a real
promise to the States and the American people.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, since late in 1993, State and local
government officials have trumpeted a call for Congress to enact
legislation to curb the imposition of so-called unfunded mandates on
State and local governments, and to ensure that Federal taxpayer funds
pay the costs of complying with such mandates, both large and small.
It is worth reviewing some history and some examples.
In the 1970's, there was a considerable public outcry by buyers of
used motor vehicles that odometer readings, which consumers use
[[Page H447]] as an index of the condition and value of the car, did
not reflect the true mileage. Unscrupulous sellers often turned the
odometer back by thousands of miles and States did not uniformly police
this fraud. Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, the Congress
enacted odometer fraud legislation that imposed duties on the States in
the transfer of vehicle titles. Most States complied immediately,
though California only recently complied. But all recognized that there
was a national need the States were not filing.
Similarly, in the late sixties and early seventies, the public was
outraged by oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara, CA, and
by the pollution of our great and small waterways, such as the Great
Lakes, the Hudson, the Potomac, the Mississippi, and many more. One
waterway in Ohio caught fire from pollution. Again, it was recognized
that this was an interstate problem. National standards were needed so
as not to create pollution havens in some States, to the detriment of
others. Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which
included mandates on State and local governments, some of which were
unfunded. The result has been positive, and clearly the public is now
enjoying cleaner waterways.
Last year, as part of the crime bill, Congress heard the concerns of
women who were being stalked because of easy access to motor vehicle
records that reveal the addresses of threatened women. To address this
problem, Congress enacted the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994,
patterned after the odometer law with duties imposed on the States. It
too is an unfunded mandate. It was needed because all the States were
not adequately addressing this serious threat to women.

Another law cited as an unfunded Federal mandate is the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Congress passed that law in October 1990, by a vote of 401-25 with
the support of such prominent Republicans as the Speaker, the Rules
Committee chairman, the Appropriations Committee chairman, and many
others.
The 1990 amendments culminated a struggle started in 1981 by the
Reagan administration. Many of the provisions were recommended by the
State and local air administrators with the support of the National
Governors Association, mayors, and other local officials. In fact, on
December 15, 1989, the Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy G. Thompson, wrote
to me saying:

I strongly support Congress' efforts to pass Amendments to
the Clean Air Act which will improve air quality throughout
the Nation.

Governor Thompson made several recommendations for change, but he
never mentioned a concern about the bill's mandate. In fact, he said:

Congress should make EPA promulgation of Federal
Implementation Plans mandatory when a State fails in its
State plan development and delete the provisions from H.R.
3030 which would render all previous Federal Implementation
Plan agreements moot.

The Governor noted that Wisconsin had turned to the courts to force a
cleanup in Illinois and Indiana and feared that without this authority,
these States would shirk their duty.
Congressman Kim has introduced H.R. 304, along with Congressman
Dreier, to prohibit EPA from promulgating a Federal implementation plan
in California. In 1989, it was good Republican policy, according to
President Bush and Governor Thompson, to impose Federal mandates on
State and local governments and on the business sector.
Today, the Republican policy is to reverse the Bush-Thompson policy
of 1989 for State and local governments, but not the private sector.
Today, they want to curb Federal mandates for State and local
officials, so, as reported a few days ago, by the Washington Post, the
Governors, like Governor Wilson of California, can give tax breaks to
their citizens.
However, in the case of private business, which generates jobs for
taxpayers, they merely want to provide information on the cost of
Federal mandates on the private sector.
In 1989, the Republican Governors did not want to offend
environmentalists. They supported all kinds of mandates, whether funded
or not. They wanted to be green and closed their eyes to the costs.
Today, they think the public is no longer on the green side. They
champion reduced costs and tax reductions, not environmental quality.
However, their concern does not extend equally to the private sector.
Nor do they explain how environmental quality will be improved--or even
just maintained--if mandates only extend to the business community.
H.R. 5 is hastily conceived and unfair. It is a political document,
not sound public policy. Sure, we must cut costs. Sure, there are
mandates that may not be wise, but they affect the private sector as
well as State and local governments. We should take more time, hold
hearings, fashion a more equitable and sounder bill. Remember, in the
case of clean air, State and local governments operate--directly or
indirectly--landfills, tunnels, powerplants, airports, vehicles,
incinerators, and many other activities that pollute. If they are freed
of mandates, who will pick up their slack? Competing private
businesses, of course.
Now, H.R. 5 ignores these important considerations. Mr. Speaker, its
only focus is on costs to State and local governments. It sets up a
legislative hurdle to navigate around if future Congresses are to
address the national problems I described, without even considering the
reasons for a mandate or its need to be implemented. It is, in essence,
designed to give States and local governments veto power over
congressional action in either House. The only criterion is costs to
these governments. The needs of the consumer or general taxpayer, and
the benefits to society, are subsumed.
Those who favor H.R. 5 are apparently oblivious to the very negative
consequences of trying this important legislation to a partisan
document. Congress owes every government, every business, and every
taxpayer a better piece of legislation than a political plank which
cannot easily, or quickly, be translated into the public interest.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this is a day for which we have long
waited. Those of us who have served at the local level of government
have held out hope that one day Congress would awaken to the damage
done by unfunded mandates. That day is today.
When I first began public service as a member of a county planning
commission, I carried into office what turned out to be a naive notion.
I thought that our community's elected officials were free to do what
they best believed served the citizenry.
In some respect, that was--and is--the case. However, what I failed
to factor was Uncle Sam's ability to determine what's best and to make
us pay for it--like it or not. Imposing obligations on local government
from distant beltway bureaucracies, but without Federal dollars to pay
for them is wrong, wrong, wrong. H.R. 5 will right it.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a county supervisor. My chief of staff here
on the Hill, John McCamman, has been the chief administrative officer
of two California counties. My constituents and former county
government colleagues urge us on every day to end the mandate madness.
Here is what my friend, Garry Parker, chairman of the Board of
supervisors of Mariposa County, CA, says:

One of our most pressing needs in getting to the point that
our government structure makes sense to the public is in the
area of unfunded mandates. It is very difficult to explain
and justify to our constituents that the County cannot afford
a service for which there is a well established local need,
because we are obliged instead to provide funding for a much
lower local priority, simply because it is a federal or state
unfunded mandate. We view ourselves as partners with our
state and federal counterparts and we need to operate on a
much more equal footing. We need to establish sufficient
trust between us that some of the more egregious oversight
and overkill is eliminated, so that we can move more
collaboratively ahead on our common agendas.

I am grateful to another friend, Mike Coffield, county administrative
officer of my home and native county of Mariposa for providing my
office with Chairman Parker's expression.
From the California State Association of Counties, Steve Keil, its
legislative representative, writes from Sacramento:

It is vital that this legislation pass at once. As you
know, the increasing costs of unfunded Federal mandates have
imposed an enormous drain on our limited resources. If relief
is not granted soon by enacting strong legislation, we fear
at some point we will not be able to provide adequate vital
services such as fighting crime and illegal drugs, education,
jails and corrections, health care and social services for
children and the elderly.

In 1993, Price Waterhouse conducted a survey of unfunded mandates
affecting county governments. Based upon that study, 1993 costs for
counties for just 12 mandates are $4.8 billion. For the 5-year period
1994-98, $33.7 billion of county costs for unfunded Federal mandates
will be incurred. Just the 12 surveyed mandates consume an average of
12.3 percent of locally raised revenues.
Unfunded mandates are, in reality, a hidden burden on taxpayers.
Whether it is water testing, architectural accommodation, sewage
treatment, soil contamination, wetlands regulation, petroleum problems,
or farm chemicals, when the Federal Government reaches out, it doesn't
touch--it tyrannizes.
Lest we forget, the Founders fought to rid themselves of royal agents
who would tax them while denying them any electoral say as to the who
and where of that levy.
Today we are considering a reform of the Federalist system itself; a
return to a relationship between the Federal Government, and the
various State and local governments that reflects a partnership in the
activity of governing. A relief from additional Federal mandates
[[Page H448]] on State and local government will take a long stride
toward correcting the imbalance of this relationship and conform our
system of governance to the system outlined in the Federalist Papers
and in the Constitution itself.
It becomes again our opportunity to continue the reform begun when
this 104th Congress convened. Our opening day showed the way as we
changed rule after rule improving the way the House does business. Now,
by lifting the burden of unfunded mandates, we are changing the
business Congress does.
The Contract With America continues to be performed, as we keep faith
with the 10th amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, reserving
to the States and the people all those public powers except those
delegated to the Federal Government.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I am proud to be a member of the
Congressional Caucus on Unfunded Mandates, and thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit] for his leadership.
My legislative background prior to coming to Congress was 4 years of
service in the Illinois State Senate. Before that, I was the
administrator for educational programs across a multicounty area in
southern and central Illinois. I think I have a pretty good idea of why
it's necessary to have standards and regulations which govern the use
of our tax dollars. But I also have first-hand experience with being
told to do something but not being given the resources to follow
through.
That is what we seek to correct through this legislation. We
recognize that there are legitimate reasons for making States and local
governments carry out certain obligations. And, in turn, we say that if
it's a program of priority nature, then we have to come up with the way
to pay for it.
I represent a large, mostly rural district, dotted by small villages
and communities of a couple hundred people each. Their ability to raise
funds on a local level to comply with the growing number of regulations
which are being imposed is severely limited. This bill will help ease
those burdens.
I have letters in my files from Decatur, Herrin, Flora, Coles County,
Shelby County, and units of government across my district in support of
this effort. This is a bipartisan effort which I strongly support.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Jacksonville City
Council for 7 years, I saw first hand the impact of unfunded Federal
mandates and regulations. There are many here today in Congress who
bring similar past experiences to the floor. The House membership
contains former mayors, county supervisors, State senators and
representatives, and other elected officials in both county and State
government. In those roles, we all saw first hand the impact of
unfunded Federal mandates on the State and local governments.
One of the underlying premises of the Contract With America is that
less Federal Government is better. In carrying out that premise, it is
necessary to reduce the burden of unfunded Federal mandates on the
States and localities. We simply cannot expect our hometown and State
officials to bear the burden of Federal laws and regulations without
providing the necessary funding to implement them. The legislation we
are considering here today, H.R. 5 enforces that view.
One of the worst examples I know of an unfunded mandate occurred in
the town of Neptune Beach in my district. Neptune Beach is a small town
with a population of 6,500 people. This small town had saved and
scrimped to put together the funds necessary to make corrections to
their water system. Unfortunately, an EPA safe drinking water fine was
handed down and has cost the city $100,000.
The gist of this problem is that the city still has the need for
improvements to the water system but cannot afford the cost due to the
Federal fine penalizing them for not fixing the problem. This simply
makes no sense. Instead of fixing the problem and providing the
necessary cure, the Federal Government is actually exacerbating the
problem.
Mr. Chairman, as Federal legislators, we can do a lot of good.
Unfortunately, as a former local official, I know that the enactment of
unfunded Federal mandates can do more harm than good. We cannot
continue to pass laws and mandates on to the people back home and
refuse to back them up with the necessary resources to get the job
done. I strongly support this bill and the beneficial effects it will
have on our constituents back home.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, many Democrats favor the
concept of treading carefully in placing additional responsibilities on
States and localities without providing full funding. In fact, in the
103d Congress, the Committee on Government Operations reported a bill
on unfunded mandates by a vote of 35 to 4. It was developed in a
bipartisan fashion with the support of both the chairman and ranking
member of that committee, and every major organization representing
State and local government.
The process by which the bill was considered in this Congress was the
antithesis of last year's efforts. There were no public hearings on the
bill. The bill was drafted in secret with no consultation with the
minority. It was introduced on Wednesday, January 4, and available in
print on Friday, January 6. The markup was held 4 days later.
The haste in which this bill was considered left a number of
substantive issues unaddressed, which even the authors conceded at
markup that they would like to address on the floor. The minority views
contained in the report on H.R. 5 detail the procedural faults that
took place during the markup, and I encourage all Members to read these
views before the bill is on the floor later this week.
Before detailing the substantive issues raised at the markup, we want
to establish a few points about unfunded mandates. First, we are keenly
sensitive to the issue of unfunded mandates. Governors and mayors are
rightfully concerned that efforts such as a balanced budget amendment
and other more immediate efforts to reduce Government spending not be a
disguised effort to shift the costs of Government programs to States
and localities. We concur.
At the same time, we do not necessarily agree that many previously
enacted laws that may be characterized as unfunded mandates are
necessarily wrong. Indeed, the authors of the bill insist their
legislation is intended to be prospective only--although we have
concerns that the objective has not been achieved by the statutory
language.
Many previously enacted statutes that do impose costs on States and
localities were passed only after years of consideration with the broad
support of those governmental bodies. Support was based on several
concepts. First, many States wanted to do their share, but needed the
Federal Government to insure that their neighbors did theirs.
Environmental laws dealing with air, water, and sewage, for example,
were designed to protect States from potential damage caused by their
neighbors.
Second, States were often prepared to assist in solving problems such
as developing national databases of child molesters or doing background
checks on child care center operators. The benefits from these programs
far outweighed any burdens.
Third, in return for certain unfunded mandates, States also received
large financial benefits. Cleanups of harbors, construction of bridges,
roads, and sewage treatment facilities were largely funded with Federal
dollars and greatly improved the lives of American citizens.
Fourth, many of the unfunded mandates placed on localities and the
private sector were enacted by State governments. Localities have also
imposed unfunded mandates on the private sector. Like Congress, both
States and localities have found mandates a convenient way to achieve
important goals with limited funds. Thus, resolution of the unfunded
mandated dilemma can only be achieved with the cooperation of State and
local governments.
While Congress should carefully scrutinize any unfunded mandate, and
must be required to evaluate both the costs and benefits of such laws,
we must not totally hamstring our ability to pass laws that need to be
passed. Unfortunately, the bill as drafted may do just that.
Why shouldn't the bill be made effective upon date of enactment? The
bill's effective date is October 1, 1995. Over the coming months, the
Congress is likely to consider numerous bills which could drastically
cut funds available to States and localities to pay for various Federal
programs. These bills, which could likely be considered unfunded
mandates, could have exactly the consequences that the bill's authors
are attempting to avoid. We can find no explanation for the delay in
the effective date.
Why did the sponsors exclude certain mandates, such as national
security, but not others? Section 4 of the bill, and the new section
422, of the Budget Act of 1974 list certain mandates, such as those
necessary for the national security, as excluded from the application
from the bill. Yet during the course of consideration of the bill, only
an amendment to exclude Social Security was adopted. Among the
amendments that were not adopted were:
An amendment by Representative Maloney to exclude laws protecting the
health of infants, children, pregnant women, and the elderly;
Amendments by Representative Kanjorski to exclude laws relating to
securities regulations, such as the sale of derivatives, and laws
establishing data bases that identify child molesters, child abusers,
persons convicted of sex crimes, persons under restraining orders, or
persons who fail to pay child support;
An amendment by Representative Taylor to exclude laws relating to
sewage treatment;
[[Page H449]] An amendment by Representative Sanders on laws relating
to minimum standards for labor protections;
An amendment by ranking member Collins of Illinois to exclude laws
relating to airport security;
Amendments by Representative Spratt to exclude laws relating to
Medicare and nuclear regulation; and
An amendment by Representative Barrett to exclude sentencing
guidelines.
It is difficult to see the logic in excluding laws which would seek
to transfer the burden for our national defense to the States from the
application of the bill, but not exclude laws which are designed to
protect all Americans such as those described above. During the course
of debate, it was contended the law merely requires an affirmative vote
for unfunded mandates, but as the discussion above indicates, unless
the law is amended, protections of average Americans, children,
seniors, pregnant mothers, and others could be jeopardized.
Extending the bill's provisions to laws of general applicability to
the private sector could lead to undesired consequences. The definition
of an intergovernmental mandate is so broad that many laws directed at
the private sector could be thwarted because of their indirect effect
upon the public sector. In addition, in cases which the private sector
competes with the public sector in enterprises such as power
generation, the private sector enterprises could be placed at a
competitive disadvantage.
Some examples of these laws were brought up at the hearing. An
increase in the minimum wage law could be defeated by a point of order
if funds were not provided to pay for the increased costs for State and
local employees, unless the law exempted State and local employees.
Laws designed to protect investors in derivatives could be thwarted
if they were made applicable to municipal purchasers if it could be
found to be an unfunded mandate.
Laws which establish various protections for workplace safety would
either have to fund State or local government costs of compliance or
exempt those governments from compliance.
These results seem directly contrary to two principles that have
broad support in the Congress. First, the House approved H.R. 1, the
Congressional Accountability Act to make a variety of private sector
laws applicable to Congress. Why are we now passing a law that would
provide one set of protections to private sector workers and fewer
protections to public sector workers?
Second, why are we giving public sector enterprises, such as power
generators, natural gas pipelines, and waste treatment facilities a
competitive advantage over private sector enterprises? If this unequal
treatment is not resolved, it is foreseeable that private sector
enterprises will over time be converted to public sector enterprises.
Mandates designed to protect States from harmful effects caused by
neighboring States should be excluded from this act. An amendment by
ranking member Collins of Illinois was defeated that would exclude from
the application of the bill laws that regulated the conduct of States,
local governments, or tribal governments with respect to matters that
significantly impact the health or safety of residents of other States,
local governments, or tribal governments, respectively.
Certain Federal laws that place costs on governments are designed to
protect residents of neighboring States. For example, as Representative
Taylor of Mississippi described during the markup, the people of his
district located at the base of the Mississippi River are deeply
affected by the ways in which States along the Mississippi treat their
sewage. Unless the Federal Government was willing to pay the polluting
States for the cost of their waste treatment, the Federal Government
could not protect the victims of this pollution in neighboring States.
Why shouldn't the polluter pay? Why should this be the responsibility
of the victimized State's residents?
This is not a hypothetical situation. All over the country, there is
dumping of raw sewage and hospital wastes. Incinerators are blowing
toxic smoke over State lines. Unless the Federal Government can act to
protect citizens from the pollution caused by their neighboring States,
the health and safety of the American people will be jeopardized.
Why are appropriations acts excluded from the application of the
bill? One of the more likely examples of an unfunded mandate is an
appropriations bill that fails to fully fund a Federal mandate. Yet the
bill excludes appropriations acts from the applicability of the
legislation.
It is unclear why we would want to exempt this broad category of
laws. To the contrary, Members should receive a full accounting from
the Appropriations Committee and the Congressional Budget Office
concerning the level to which the appropriations fail to adequately
fund mandates on State and local governments.
Why should we create a new Federal bureaucracy to study unfunded
mandates? Title I of the bill establishes an entirely new commission
with funding of $1 million to study the costs of unfunded mandates.
Americans have expressed an interest in less Government, not more
Government, yet the first bill that our committee reports establishes
another new Government body.
After an amendment by Representative Meek to eliminate this new
commission was defeated, she offered a second amendment to transfer the
functions to the already existing Advisory Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations. At the request of Chairman Clinger,
Representative Meek withdrew this amendment.
The new commission would also establish a troubling precedent. The
bill calls for the Speaker and Senate majority leader to each appoint
three members of the commission, after consultation with the minority
leaders. An amendment offered by Representative Waxman to have the
Speaker and Senate majority leader each appoint three members, and the
minority leaders to each appoint one member, as current laws operate,
was defeated.

summary

As described above, many Democrats favor increased scrutiny of
unfunded mandates. Particularly at a time, when the Federal Government
is seeking to reduce its deficits, the lure of cost shifting to the
States must be resisted.
However, in fashioning a responsible bill on mandates, there are
important details that have not been carefully addressed. It must be
understood that Americans do not wish to see many programs that are
designed to protect their health and safety dismantled because they
have now been labeled an unfunded mandate.
In the end the advisability of passing any law cannot be solely
determined by a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. Not
only are such estimates difficult to make, as the Director of CBO has
pointed out, but the other side of the equation must be addressed:
namely, the benefits that the legislation will yield.
We must legislate responsibly, particularly in this field. We, not
the Director of CBO, must ultimately take responsibility for our
actions. While we should require as much information as possible in
making our decisions, legislation on this subject must be carefully
drafted to avoid unanticipated consequences.
One of the purposes of H.R. 5 is ``to promote informed and deliberate
decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance.'' Unfortunately, in their haste to enact
provisions of the Contract With America, the majority has precluded the
kind of informed and deliberate decisionmaking process it professes to
promote.
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.
Linder) 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 cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________