[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H460-H462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT WE WILL ACCOMPLISH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the American people have seen 
over the last 2 weeks is a Congress that has made some promises and has 
kept those promises. In the first day this institution instituted many 
reforms that have been talked about for a number of years but have 
never been acted on. I always said, ``Actions speak louder than 
words.'' I think the American people are starting to see some actions, 
and I am going to talk a little bit today and with some of my 
colleagues about the unfunded-mandates legislation before this House, 
but I think it is important that we go back and look back over the last 
couple of weeks and see what we already have accomplished together.
  The reforms of this institution, the first day, included forcing 
Congress to live under the same laws that everybody else lives under. 
This is something that has been talked about in the previous Congress 
but the Shays Act has now been passed by both bodies and sent to the 
President for signature, and for the first time Congress and its 
employees are going to live under the same laws: OSHA, the Americans 
With Disabilities Act, and a number of other laws that we had 
specifically exempted ourselves from in the past. So, we have 
accomplished this. We have cut the committee staffs, as we promised, by 
one-third. We have opened up committee meetings to the general public. 
No longer are meetings going to be held in private, behind closed 
doors, where appropriations are going to be zeroed out, where tax bills 
are going to be marked up, without the full view of the American public 
and the press. Now there are going to be opened up to the people. Proxy 
voting is now abolished, so from now on Members are going to have to be 
there listening to the debate and the arguments before they cast their 
vote in committee, a recommendation that have been made in the past 
that has never been brought to fruition until we did this changing our 
rules in the first day of the Congress.
  Over the coming weeks many issues that the American people want 
considered, but for so long have been blocked from even coming to the 
floor in many cases, are going to be considered and open to debate
 in this body:

  A balanced budget amendment hopefully will be coming before this body 
next week with many different amendments and options, open for Members 
to debate and vote on before we vote on it here and send it to the 
other body; line-item veto, something that the administration endorses, 
and many of us in Congress want to work with the administration to 
being this needed change about, and for once the executive will have 
the opportunity to look at items of pork and appropriation bills and 
line those out, and I think this will be a needed check on spending and 
some of the excessive spending that has actually originated in this 
body in the past. We will see a real crime bill come before this body, 
something the American people badly want. Legal reforms are going to be 
coming before this body in the next couple of months, and congressional 
term limits, something that we have never brought to the floor of the 
House before for a recorded vote, will be coming here in several 
different versions of that.
  But today and next week this body, in conjunction with actions in the 
other body, are considering H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. 
This bill is simply a modest effort to cost out the effects of 
decisions that we make here in Congress, in Washington, 
[[Page H461]] that mandate that State and local governments carry out, 
force those State and local governments to use local dollars to cost 
out and spend on our Federal priorities.
  Now the opposition has responded with numerous horror stories, scare 
tactics, and inaccuracies in an effort to portray this legislation as 
an assault on environmental and health legislation. In point of fact it 
is nothing of the kind. This bill does not eliminate one current 
Federal program, but it will force Congress to assess the costs of such 
programs before we impose them on State and local governments. Many 
local governments today have to raise their real estate taxes, have to 
cut their local police, have to cut their school and education funding 
to comply with mandates that we are putting upon them, priorities that 
are set in Washington. The last Congress refused to act on this 
legislation, which is bipartisan once you get beyond the halls of 
Congress. The groups from the Governors' Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, 
where I am chairman of their unfunded-mandates task force, but my 
cochairman, Yvonne Burke, a former Member of this body and a supervisor 
in Los Angeles County, was just as strong for this legislation when we 
argued and testified in hearings last year before both bodies of 
Congress. The National League of Cities, National Conference of Mayors, 
even the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses [NFIB] have all come together to endorse this legislation 
which is now before Congress and will be--we have acted today in 
enacting some amendments, defeating others, and we will be doing this 
Monday afternoon and evening and Tuesday and, hopefully, wrap this up 
next week, and the Senate--excuse me, the other body--will be working 
on this at the same time, will go to conference, and hopefully have 
this out in the next month or so.
  At this point I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] I 
think who has some remarks to make on this.
  Mr. COOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. Speaker, in light of the many amendments that have been offered 
to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I rise at the request of my 
colleagues to quickly explain my amendments prior to their 
consideration next week. Briefly I would be offering two amendments 
that will strengthen this worthy legislation.
  My first amendment would strike the mandated grandfather provision, 
and my second amendment would afford the private sector the same 
protection States will be given subsequent to intergovernmental 
mandates that are considered. The grandfather provision, found in 
section 2425(a), was added during the consideration of the Committee on 
Rules of the bill to protect all past mandates as long as they do not 
increase the mandate or decrease the resource allocated to fund it.
                              {time}  1640

  In other words, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Immigration Act, 
and Endangered Species Act, to name a few, are all protected from the 
procedural strictures this bill imposes on future mandates.
  Quite simply, this is a mistake. The very reason we are addressing 
this issue is because the pain inflicted by unfunded mandates upon the 
States has reached critical mass. The support for the GOP Contract With 
America is a clear sign that, among other things, the people are tired 
of mandates, especially unfunded ones.
  We have other matters to attend to, but passing a stronger version of 
this bill will send a clear message that this is an active Congress 
that is attentive to the will of the people and the needs of the 
States.
  If we as a Congress do not address the problem of current unfunded 
mandates, we will be negligent in our duty. Compliance with just 12 of 
the most well-known unfunded intergovernmental mandates will cost the 
States $34 billion over the next 5 years and will continue to strangle 
nearly every aspect of our economy.
  Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I would just 
note in my own county of Fairfax, we costs out just 10 of those 
mandates and are paying over $30 million annually in local taxes, that 
is 6 cents in our local tax rate, and if you total that up, that is 
over $100 a house just to comply with just those mandates you 
mentioned. In addition to that, there are over 100 other unfunded 
mandates from the Federal Government that apply to local governments.
  It is exactly this kind of problem, these unfunded trickle down taxes 
that emanate from Congress, but are foisted, that have to be paid by 
people at the local level, taxpayers at the local level, that Congress 
has not fessed up to its responsbility in that.
  I think it is important that we take responsibility for that. There 
is certainly going to be actions, there is certainly priorities that 
need to be set from the Congress of the United States, and the costs 
are going to be passed down. But we should have an accounting of that, 
we should be aware of these, and we should affirmatively say we think 
this is important enough that we are going to put this mandate on State 
and local governments. We are not doing that now. It is hidden from 
view right now. This will be full accountability.
  Mr. COOLEY. Thank you for your comments. I would like to say 
something other than what I prepared to tell you just about how bad 
this has become in my State of Oregon. I have a small community on the 
east side by the name of Haines. It has about 120 residents in that 
community, and it was founded over 150 years ago.
  They have had their water checked, and it is clean and has been 
forever. And yet under the Federal mandate, Clean Water Act, they are 
going to be compelled to put in a $40,000 system for 120 residents. The 
people of Haines cannot afford it. Most of the people there live on 
less than $1,000 a month.
  The Mayor of Haines came to the Oregon State Legislature, in which I 
served as a senator, and told the legislature, come and take the city. 
We will will you the city. We will deed the property back to the State, 
and you fill out these Federal mandates.
  Of course, the State backed off immediately. But the thing is that 
this puts a hardship on small communities that they just financially 
can't afford.
  I offer this amendment so that Congress will be forced to address the 
crucial questions that surround unfunded mandates. When we attempt to 
achieve the goals of clean air, clean water, a society accessible to 
the handicapped, and a just immigration policy, we have forgotten to 
ask ``at what cost?''
  Like any commodity or service we purchase, the benefits that are 
derived from the unfunded mandates are subject to the principle of 
diminishing marginal returns. In other words, the more we receive of a 
particular item, whether it be clean water or protection of endangered 
species, the less valuable that final degree of cleanliness or 
protection becomes.
  We can have too much of a good thing.
  If you don't believe me, imagine this: Someone offers you a plate of 
your favorite food. You eat and they give you another. This continues 
and, depending on your girth and metabolism, sooner or later you are 
ill.
  Water can be clean and safe and still not be pure H2O--yet 
certain policies demand prevention and purity where they are neither 
necessary nor possible. I can't see the rationale and neither can the 
American people.
  It is important to note that laws affecting civil and constitutional 
rights will remain unaffected by my amendment. Additionally, my 
amendment will not make the bill retroactive--Congress will address 
each reauthorization as it comes up for consideration.
  Removing the grandfather clause will ensure that as mandates are 
reauthorized, Congress will reevaluate the real questions that must be 
answered. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider what I have said 
and support this and all measures that force Congress to consider the 
wisdom or folly or our predecessors.
  My second amendment is aimed at protecting private industry and the 
heart of our economy, small businesses.
  As written, the bill will subject new intergovernmental mandates to 
points of order here in the House when those mandates exceed $50 
million. While a point of order is not an insurmountable 
[[Page H462]] hurdle, it gives the House a moment to pause and consider 
the magnitude of its actions.
  In fact, the point of order may be raised, voted upon, and passed by 
a comfortable margin without Congress turning aside from its 
consideration of such a sizable mandate. The heart of the matter, 
though, is that our bias will be against mandates. More importantly, we 
will indicate our intention by incorporating this into our procedures.
  I seek the same protection for the private sector. If my amendment 
passes, private sector mandates that exceed $100 million will be 
subject to this same point of order. We will then be forced to stop and 
consider our actions in light of the fairness we are trying to impart 
to the States by passing this bill.
  We pride ourselves as a nation on our fairness. When I offer my 
amendment, I ask that you carefully consider the fairness of the bill 
as written. Will we erect a double standard or will we protect the 
private sector as well?
  We started this process with the resolve to end unfunded mandates. 
Let us not lose that resolve by hesitating to protect the private 
sector in the same manner.
  I thank the Speaker and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me just ask the gentleman one 
question if I may. Is it not a fact that the same individuals that 
elect local and State officials are the same ones who elect us? Is that 
not correct?
  Mr. COOLEY. That is correct.
  Mr. DAVIS. Basically they are looking to us to fill different levels 
of government to work together in the most efficient way to try to take 
care of their concerns and their problems. And one of the problems it 
seems to me with the unfunded mandates is we have it all backward. The 
priorities are set from a group that are not paying for those 
priorities. That leads to a whole different and inefficient way of 
doing business than if you are setting the priorities and paying for 
them. Do you agree?
  Mr. COOLEY. We have both served in legislature and in government 
prior to coming to Congress, and as State legislators and a State 
senator, we mandated many things which we were forced to pass on to the 
small communities which we were forced to pass on to the small 
communities which we knew would not be able to financially afford them. 
But we had to pass those down. Because in that process, if we didn't, 
the Federal Government, as you know through the mandate process, has a 
compromise system, and if you do not follow mandates, sometimes you are 
penalized by not receiving other returns on Federal funding. So the 
system is more a system I would say of blackmail than it is of 
cooperation and spirit, and it should be done in cooperation and 
spirit, and not in the system that forces people to do it when they 
really truly want to, but maybe financially cannot, nor is it 
necessary.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank my distinguished colleague for those remarks. I 
just would at this point like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, people across the country sent this institution a 
message last November. They said we are sick and tired of big 
Government telling us how to run our lives. I believe the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act is a vital step toward showing we heard what the 
people had to say and that we are doing something about it.
  If we are serious about reducing the size and intrusiveness of the 
Federal Government, we should pass this bill. We have to stop passing 
the cost of our big ideas back to our State and local governments. I 
don't doubt that many of the unfunded mandates passed by this 
institution were well-intended.
  The American people do need and they do deserve clean air, clean 
water, and a healthy environment. But it is well past time the Federal 
Government begins to get a little more honest about the cost of the 
laws we pass. Our mayors, our county judge executives, our Governors, 
have been pleading with us to quit passing the buck for many years now.

                              {time}  1650

  Yet the House of Representatives, the people's House, has all too 
often refused to listen. We need to remember that our actions have an 
impact on the folks back home. New laws and regulations cost money, and 
it is not our money we are spending. It is the people's money. And if 
we are going to spend the people's money, they deserve to know what it 
is for and why.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to clean up our act. If we need to pass new 
laws and regulations, let us be honest about their cost. Let us provide 
the money so that folks back home do not pay higher taxes and user 
fees. Let us show the leadership that the people sent us here to 
provide. Let us listen to the people.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I could, just sum up for a minute. 
Mr. Speaker, I just note that one of the issues that came up today 
during the course of the debate, Members were saying, well, if one 
State dumped pollution into another State, the polluting State would 
not have to clean up unless Congress gave them a billion dollars and 
funded the mandate. That just is not so.
  All we are asking for is a cost accounting to find out what the costs 
are of imposing these mandates onto the State and local government. 
Then we can get a clear picture, enter into a dialog with Senate and 
local governments so that we can act appropriately to make sure that 
the will of the people is carried out.
  The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, 
included a provision requiring that highway asphalt in federally funded 
projects contain a certain percentage of recycled tire rubber, starting 
with 5 percent in 1994 and increasing incrementally to 20 percent by 
1997 and beyond. Governors note that not a single State transportation 
department, nor the Federal Department of Transportation, nor any 
engineering trade association endorsed the rubberized asphalt provision 
when it was proposed here in this body.
  They further point out that the requirement had no supportive 
evidence of any ostensible environmental benefits and potentially 
disrupts a common State practice of recycling asphalt by introducing an 
additive without testing its effects on the reclamation process and 
imposes a requirement that is terribly costly and inefficient.
  That came from the Congress. The cost impact is most easily measured. 
States with effective tire-disposing programs found that disposing of 
used tires and asphalt was the most expensive method of disposal. The 
Ohio Department of Transportation, which normally pays $38 per cubic 
yard of asphalt, discovered that the average cost per cubic yard of 
rubberized asphalt is $108, almost three times the cost.
  The Governor estimates that a 20-percent crumb rubber requirement 
will cost the State $50 million annually.
  My question to my colleagues during this debate has been, what are we 
afraid of? Are we afraid to cost out these new mandates, to be 
accountable for the costs that we allocate to State and local 
governments and they, in turn, pass on to their taxpayers at the local 
level? Or are we willing to stand up and say, there are going to be 
measures, many of them environmental measures, that in point of fact 
call for Federal interference and mandating these costs. But we are not 
too afraid to face up to these costs up front, to have a dialog with 
the localities that are being asked to pay for this and then work in 
the most efficient way we can possibly to clean up the environment and 
to do whatever health and safety or whatever mandate we feel is so 
required.
  I think that is the issue that is going to be before this body over 
the next week. I look forward to continued dialog with my colleagues on 
this, and I think the American people are waiting for action.


                          ____________________