[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 19953

                               speech of

                     HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 20, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss H.R., 5, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act and share with the House the observations of San 
Diego Mayor Susan Golding. Recently, I had the pleasure to meet with 
Mayor Golding to discuss this bill and other issues before the 
Congress.
  Mayor Golding provided me with a partial list of current Federal 
mandates placed on the city of San Diego. She said that besides the up-
front costs, each mandate contains a hidden burden of paperwork, record 
keeping, and reporting. Each of these mandates has some Federal agency 
reviewing compliance. Moreover, most of these mandates carry penalties 
for noncompliance.
  The most egregious example involves the requirements imposed by the 
Environmental Protection Agency that the city of San Diego move toward 
secondary treatment of wastewater. The problem is that the regulations 
were designed to protect rivers and lakes--fresh water. San Diego, 
however, has a deep discharge into the Pacific Ocean. The world 
renowned Scripps Institute of Oceanography has concluded that secondary 
treatment is unneeded in San Diego. Yet the Federal Government still 
insists that the city of San Diego expend some $1.4 billion to upgrade 
to secondary treatment, no matter what the best scientists say. After 
years of litigation, the stalemate continues.
  The list of mandates ranges from the obvious to the obscure. To 
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city must spend 
$100,000. Swimming pool operator training costs $1,500. The level of 
sand in sandboxes at city-run tot centers is monitored by the U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, costing San Diego taxpayers $75,000 
a year. Reporting requirements for the CDBG program add $20,000 in 
costs. Monitoring of groundwater at city landfills costs $130,000 
annually; gas monitoring adds another $34,000.
  No one questions that some Federal regulations are needed. Federal 
standards for health and safety have saved lives and improved the 
quality of life for all Americans. If an issue is important enough to 
demand action by the Congress, then by definition, it ought to be 
important enough to be funded by the Congress.
  The city would meet many of these health and safety standards anyway. 
The problem arises when the Federal Government issues these mandates, 
burdening the city with record keeping, paperwork, and the potential 
for litigation and fines.
  We know that H.R. 5 won't solve the problem of existing mandates 
alone. But it is still vital that Congress pass this legislation. The 
commission established by H.R. 5 will be chartered to review existing 
mandates and report recommendations for change to Congress. Further, 
this bill sends a clear message to our beleaguered cities, counties, 
and States that this Congress will no longer conduct business as usual.
  The experience of San Diego is typical. I know from my discussions 
with other mayors and local officials that they also shoulder these 
burdens. In some cases, smaller communities are hit even harder than 
cities, as they lack the resources and staff to comply with Federal 
mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the bill. I urge prompt 
passage of H.R. 5. This bill does nothing to threaten the health and 
safety of the American people. It is a significant step toward 
reforming our attitude here in Washington.


                          ____________________