[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.

                          ____________________