[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H906-H954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

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

                              {time}  1208
                     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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, January 
30, 1995, the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] had been disposed of and title I was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title I?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I do so, Mr. Chairman, to sort of review where we are and where we 
hope to go, where we hope to be by the end of this day and the next 
couple of days. The good news is that we have over the last 6 days 
disposed of about 24 amendments and mercifully we have now completed 
action on section 4 of the bill.
  I would say that I express my appreciation to Members on both sides 
of the aisle for the spirit in which the debate was conducted 
yesterday. I think we moved expeditiously through the amendments in a 
very orderly way and I was very indebted to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] for her support as we went through the process 
yesterday.

                              {time}  1230

  The bad news, however, is that we have about 130 or so amendments to 
go. All of the what I consider to be weakening amendments that were 
offered in terms of exemptions to the bill were defeated, not because 
the programs sought to be exempted by those amendments were not worthy 
and meritorious and had great value, because I think many of them did 
and do, but frankly because H.R. 5 poses absolutely no threat to the 
present administration, the present way those programs are being 
implemented, and really only asks us to be accountable to any 
additional mandates that may be imposed as a result of those provisions 
in the future.
  So, I think those amendments have been defeated now, we have now 
moved on. Today we are going to take up title I to the bill, which is 
an attempt to look at what may be duplicative and redundant in the 
existing mandates. It is my hope that we can complete expeditiously 
title I to the bill. I think there are not too many areas in dispute in 
that, and I have discussed this with the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins] and I think she agrees we can move rather expeditiously 
through title I. And it is my hope we can do that, and it is my intent, 
Mr. Chairman, to complete title I and II before we rise tonight.
  Let me stress it is not my intent to limit consideration of any and 
all amendments. This is an open rule, and we are respecting that. I 
think that every Member should have an opportunity to offer their 
amendment and have it considered.
  Nor do I, Mr. Chairman, want to limit debate on the amendments that 
will be offered, and I will only seek to do so, and I hope I would not 
have to seek to do so, if it becomes clear that we are frankly beating 
amendments to death. I do not think that is going to 
[[Page H907]] happen. I really sense we are moving toward an orderly 
resolution of the remaining titles.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I look forward to the 
discussion of today. I think we do have some interesting issues in 
title II that deserve a full airing today. As I say, I hope we can move 
fairly rapidly through title I.
  But, in closing, I would just say that there is a bipartisan, I 
think, majority of this House that is here and has been here for the 
last 7 days trying to do what President Clinton himself has requested. 
I would repeat what I read into the Record yesterday at this time when 
the President spoke to the National Governors.

       We are strongly supporting the move to get unfunded 
     mandates legislation passed in the Congress and are 
     encouraged by the work that was done in the United States 
     Senate where, as I remember, the bill passed 86 to 10 last 
     week. After a really open and honest discussion of all 
     appropriate amendments, the legislation is now moving through 
     the House--I think there are about 100 amendments pending--
     but I think they will move through it in a fairly expeditious 
     way, just as the Senate did.

  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage Members on both sides to comply with 
what the President has requested as we move into day 7.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. 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. Schiff:
       Amend title I to read as follows:

              TITLE I--REVIEW OF UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES

     SEC. 101. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Advisory Commission shall in 
     accordance with this section--
       (1) investigate and review the role of unfunded Federal 
     mandates in intergovernmental relations and their impact on 
     State, local, tribal, and Federal Government objectives and 
     responsibilities, and their impact on the competitive balance 
     between States, local and tribal governments, and the private 
     sector; and
       (2) make recommendations to the President and the Congress 
     regarding--
       (A) allowing flexibility for State, local, and tribal 
     governments in complying with specific unfunded Federal 
     mandates for which terms of compliance are unnecessarily 
     rigid or complex;
       (B) reconciling any 2 or more unfunded Federal mandates 
     which impose contradictory or inconsistent requirements;
       (C) terminating unfunded Federal mandates which are 
     duplicative, obsolete, or lacking in practical utility;
       (D) suspending, on a temporary basis, unfunded Federal 
     mandates which are not vital to public health and safety and 
     which compound the fiscal difficulties of State, local, and 
     tribal governments, including recommendations for triggering 
     such suspension;
       (E) consolidating or simplifying unfunded Federal mandates, 
     or the planning or reporting requirements of such mandates, 
     in order to reduce duplication and facilitate compliance by 
     State, local, and tribal governments with those mandates;
       (F) establishing common Federal definitions or standards to 
     be used by State, local, and tribal governments in complying 
     with unfunded Federal mandates that use different definitions 
     or standards for the same terms or principles; and
       (G) establishing procedures to ensure that, in cases in 
     which a Federal private sector mandate applies to private 
     sector entities which are competing directly or indirectly 
     with States, local governments, or tribal governments for the 
     purpose of providing substantially similar goods or services 
     to the public, any relief from unfunded Federal mandates is 
     applied in the same manner and to the same extent to the 
     private sector entities as it is to the States, local 
     governments, and tribal governments with which they compete.

     Each recommendation under paragraph (2) shall, to the extent 
     practicable, identify the specific unfunded Federal mandates 
     to which the recommendation applies.
       (b) Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall establish 
     criteria for making recommendations under subsection (a).
       (2) Issuance of proposed criteria..--The Advisory 
     Commission shall issue proposed criteria under this 
     subsection not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and thereafter provide a period of 30 
     days for submission by the public of comments on the proposed 
     criteria.
       (3) Final criteria.--Not later than 45 days after the date 
     of issuance of proposed criteria, the Advisory Commission 
     shall--
       (A) consider comments on the proposed criteria received 
     under paragraph (2);
       (B) adopt and incorporate in final criteria any 
     recommendations submitted in those comments that the Advisory 
     Commission determines will aid the Advisory Commission in 
     carrying out its duties under this section; and
       (C) issue final criteria under this subsection.
       (c) Preliminary Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Advisory Commission shall--
       (A) prepare and publish a preliminary report on its 
     activities under this title, including preliminary 
     recommendations pursuant to subsection (a);
       (B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     availability of the preliminary report; and
       (C) provide copies of the preliminary report to the public 
     upon request.
       (2) Public hearings.--The Advisory Commission shall hold 
     public hearings on the preliminary recommendations contained 
     in the preliminary report of the Advisory Commission under 
     this subsection.
       (d) Final Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date 
     of the publication of the preliminary report under subsection 
     (c), the Advisory Commission shall submit to the Congress, 
     including the Committee on government Reform and Oversight of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and to the President a 
     final report on the findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations of the Advisory Commission under this 
     section.

     SEC. 102. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--The Advisory Commission may 
     procure temporary and intermittent services of experts or 
     consultants under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Executive Director of the Advisory Commission, the head of 
     any Federal department of agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that department 
     or agency to the Advisory Commission to assist it in carrying 
     out its duties under this title.
       (c) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Advisory Commission, the Administrator of General 
     Services shall provide to the Advisory Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, the administrative support services 
     necessary for the Advisory Commission to carry out its duties 
     under this title.
       (d) Contract Authority.--The Advisory Commission may, 
     subject to appropriations, contract with and compensate 
     Government and private agencies or persons for property and 
     services used to carry out its duties under this title.

     SEC. 103. DEFINITION.

       In this title:
       (1) Advisory commission.--The term ``Advisory Commission'' 
     means the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
       (2) Federal mandate.--The term ``Federal mandate'' means 
     any provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court 
     ruling that imposes an enforceable duty upon States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments including a condition of 
     Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a 
     voluntary Federal program.
            Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to that amendment at 
the desk, and I ask that the amendment and modification be considered 
together.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Schiff:
       In the proposed section 101(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;
       In the last undesignated sentence at the end of the 
     proposed subsection 101(a), strike out ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     insert ``paragraph (4)''.
       In the proposed subsection 101(b)(3)(A) strike out 
     ``paragraph (2)'' and insert ``paragraph (4)''.
       At the end of the proposed section 101, 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. SCHIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent 
[[Page H908]] that the modification be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am pleased to say that the 
amendment that I am about to offer was put together on a bipartisan 
basis. I worked very closely with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] 
on our side, and with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], and the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek] on the Democrat side.
  This amendment makes two changes that are related to each other with 
respect to title I. The main change is that it takes out the brand-new 
commission that would have been created under title I to study the 
unfunded mandate issue further, as called for under this bill, and 
instead substitutes an existing government agency, the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, whose members are appointed 
by the Congress and by the President on a bipartisan and independent 
basis to do this task.
  Related to that change is the second change. My amendment would 
remove the $1 million authorization that is now contained in the bill 
as originally written for this purpose, and does not provide any 
authorization of additional funds.
  I want to add, Mr. Chairman, that the other body, in their bill which 
recently passed that body, made the first of these changes. They 
substituted the Advisory Commission on International Governmental 
Relations for the new commission. However, I want to point out to our 
body that in their bill they added new duties in the bill that are not 
anywhere part of the bill nor part of my amendment. And because they 
added new duties, they added an authorization for the purpose of 
accomplishing the new duties.
  It would be my recommendation to the House that assuming our bill 
passes in conference, we take up their additions and their proposed 
authorization as a matter of conference between the two Houses.
  However, my particular amendment does not contain new duties and does 
not contain any authorization. So the net effect of my amendment is to 
make a net reduction in the authorization by $1 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we have been advised by the 
Parliamentarian that because my amendment made so many changes it is in 
the nature of a substitute to title I, and therefore those other 
Members who may seek to amend title I may do so as amendments in the 
second degree to the amendment I am now offering. But I would like to 
explain that the modification which I offered, and which is now a part 
of my amendment, is the adoption of the language offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah], which was a modification to 
title I which was offered out of order previously in consideration of 
this bill. If that modification is not accepted into my amendment, then 
it could essentially get lost if my amendment is adopted by the House 
in the nature of a substitute to title I. That is the sole purpose of 
the modification that I have offered: to protect the language offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] and make sure it is 
continued in the language I am offering, if my language is adopted.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] as well as the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman]. We 
originally offered this amendment during our full committee markup in 
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that is so ably 
served by our chairman and by our ranking member.
  I felt then, as I do now, that it makes no sense to create and fund a 
new bureaucracy. I think we are on the right track here. A new 
commission on unfunded Federal mandates we do not need to study that 
this year. We already have an Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental 
Relations. It has conducted several studies which seem to have validity 
on the Federal mandates issue. It has the expertise.
  I am very happy my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff], also removed the $1 million fiscal impact of such an endeavor, 
because wherever we can cut and save money the better it is, and this 
commission is already serving a similar purpose. They can do the job, 
and we need to let them do it.
  I want my colleagues to support this amendment because it is one that 
has inculcated a bipartisan support and bipartisan input on that 
committee.

                              {time}  1220

  I have some concerns about H.R. 5, and I have supported and will 
support the amendments to strengthen and improve this bill, and I think 
that this amendment does. It saves money. It saves time. And it 
maximizes the efficiency which we already have, Mr. Chairman.
  With that, I want to ask all of my colleagues to support the Schiff 
amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Let me first of all commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff], who is a member of the ACIR, for this amendment and also the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], who has been a principal 
architect and author of this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. 
I think it recognizes, takes into account, that we have an existing 
commission which has done a great deal of work in this whole area over 
many, many years.
  Initially my only concern with using ACIR as the commission to 
undertake this task was that the commission is very, very deliberate in 
what it does, and my concern was that it might take too long a period 
of time. We have already put this commission on a fairly short leash 
and said we really want to have a report back from the commission 
within a year's time as to what should be done or should not be done.
  My only concern initially was ACIR might not be able to do what was 
required within the time that we gave them. I have since had 
conversations with Governor Winter, who is the head of the ACIR. He 
assured me the commission has taken that into account, will comply with 
our time restraints, will proceed with the work, so having been 
reassured in my own mind that the commission can in fact do that job we 
ask them to do in title II, I can now enthusiastically support the 
amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schiff amendment to substitute 
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations for the Unfunded 
Mandate Commission contained in H.R. 5.
  This issue was first brought to the attention of the Government 
Reform Committee by Representative Carrie Meek during our committee 
markup of H.R. 5. Mrs. Meek offered this very substitute, but withdrew 
it at the request of Chairman Clinger.
  If we must have another mandate report, at least we should not waste 
taxpayer money. The Unfunded Mandate Commission in H.R. 5 is pure 
Government waste. Why should we throw away $1 million in taxpayer money 
to set up another Government commission?
  This amendment would substitute the language in last year's bill, and 
require the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to 
do the mandate report.
  The U.S. Advisory Commission is nonpartisan, and has done numerous 
reports on unfunded mandates. These reports serve as the background for 
much of the work that has already been done in this area.
  It is irrational to set a new Commission, with new staff, to do work 
that can be done by an existing Commission, with the existing staff. 
The American people are sick and tired of Congress wasting millions of 
dollars on unnecessary commissions.
  Let us stop doing business as usual around here. Let us put an end to 
Government waste. I urge support for this amendment. I fully support 
this, and I 
[[Page H909]] am very happy that both the minority and the majority 
side have been able to agree on this amendment.
  This is a darn good amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I want to thank the gentlewoman. Obviously we have had a 
number of differences on other parts of this bill. I just want to thank 
the distinguished ranking member from Illinois for working with our 
side, working with me and other Members, the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Meek], the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], for working in a common interest 
where we can agree to make some progress on the bill. I want to express 
my appreciation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I wanted to tell the vice-chair of the 
committee we certainly have enjoyed the opportunity of working with him 
and found he was certainly eager to enable us to work with him on this 
very important issue, and we are glad we had comity in this case.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just rise to support the efforts of my colleagues, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], my colleagues on the other side including 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], to offer the strengthening 
amendment to the bill. I think it clarifies and strengthens what we are 
trying to do here. It should be noted there have been five major 
studies produced by ACIR in the last decade on this very issue of 
unfunded Federal mandates. I think theirs is certainly the professional 
organization in a position to do this job. It is made up of 26 members 
of all levels of government, local, State, and Federal.
  I think the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] is to be commended 
for raising this issue. I think in the end, as the vice chairman has 
noted, this will save the taxpayers money. We will end up with a better 
product.
  I also will say I, too, have been in discussions with ACIR. I think 
they are properly motivated and properly focused on the timeframe that 
the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], has noted. 
So I have every confidence they are going to come through.
  I would also say the Senate has approved a very similar amendment so 
that the Senate and the House bills will be, if not identical, very 
similar on this subject. ACIR is going to be given the responsibility 
and the authority to do this job.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of this amendment.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico the effect of 
deleting the specific $1 million portion of appropriations. Is that 
limiting or delimiting the ability of the Commission to function?
  I was walking over here as you were explaining it, I suspect, but I 
know that you made reference to the additional responsibilities that 
this Commission would have to take on as a result of the Senate action.
  Is it your intention to supply sufficient resources or to eliminate 
the resources that we would make available?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The intent of my amendment would remove at this time the 
authorization for new funds for this Commission which may now be the 
existing Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. That 
agency is already funded at approximately $1 million a year. Now, as 
the gentleman indicated and as I did refer to earlier, the Senate in 
their bill gave new duties. They adopted the Advisory Commission in 
place of a brandnew Commission. They then added new duties in the bill 
and provided an authorization, because they thought they had reached a 
point where some additional authorization was necessary even to an 
existing Commission.
  My amendment does not offer extensive new duties and, therefore, I do 
not offer any additional authorization. I think if the House adopts my 
amendment and adopts this bill, that would be a matter of conference 
between our two Houses as to whether we wanted to have sufficient 
additional duties and some additional authorization.
  Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for the 
explanation.
  I am concerned that with such an important bill if
   we do not give the Commission that is delegated the responsibility 
of defining mandates and determining their impact, then all of this 
effort is for nought if we do not have sufficient resources to carry 
out this responsibility. So I have some concern with not providing 
sufficient funds.

  I do not want underscore the importance of having the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations take on this responsibility. 
For those of you who are not familiar with it, it is chaired by the 
former Governor of Mississippi, Bill Winter; a very active member is 
the Republican mayor of Knoxville, TN, Victor Ashe, who is also 
president of the United States Conference of Mayors; a former senior 
staff person for the National League of Cities is executive director; 
Gov. Mike Leavitt is a very active member; the Democratic mayor of 
Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, is a very active member. It is totally 
bipartisan. In fact, it is fully committed to the principles espoused 
in the unfunded-mandates legislation we are currently considering. Over 
the last year, in fact, they have worked on defining a definition of 
mandates, the principles and processes involved in seeking relief for 
State and local governments, the guidelines for evaluating existing 
mandates and implementing mandate-relief legislation.
  So they are the ideal body. They were created 30 years ago, and they 
have a history of being responsive to the issue that has caused us, the 
Congress, to devote the last 2 weeks to the concerns of State and local 
governments. So I am strongly in support of this amendment to the 
legislation.
  I have some concern that within the legislation the Commission is 
required to come up with a criteria upon 60 days of enactment of this 
legislation. If we do not pass this amendment which designates ACIR, it 
is impossible to put a new Commission together in time to have the 
criteria, because the legislation actually designates the Commission to 
take operation within 60 days as well, so, in other words, the 
legislation empowers the Commission 2 months after enactment, but 
within 2 months after enactment, the Commission also has to have the 
report ready. So if we do not pass this amendment, we are going to have 
to revise some of the proposed legislation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and all the other 
speakers. This makes a lot of sense, even for those who have some 
doubts about the general legislation. This is an obvious improvement. 
It saves money and takes an existing institution with some memory to 
get the job done.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] for 
his comments.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Schiff's 
amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. I too believe 
H.R. 5 is an important first step in gaining control of big government 
spending and fulfilling the promises we made to the American people in 
keeping with the Contract With America. As it stands now, H.R. 5 sends 
an important message to the American people that the 104th Congress is 
serious about decreasing the financial burdens on States and 
localities.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last 20 years, there has been a steady 
increase in the number of unfunded Federal mandates passed down by the 
Congress to our 
[[Page H910]] State and local governments. While the number of unfunded 
mandates increase, the compliance with these mandates become more 
difficult. According to a GAO estimate released last year, from 1992 to 
1995, Chicagoans will spend $319 million to comply with unfunded 
Federal mandates. H.R. 5 puts a stop to this trend, and therefore, 
relieves the burdens on our State and local governments.
  The people of Chicago carry the weight of unfunded Federal mandates 
such as the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the Motor-
Voter Act and the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
at the expense of our city's educational system, infrastructure, 
business community, and law enforcement. According to my colleague, Mr. 
Donald Manzullo,  after an additional $15 million implementation cost, 
the Motor-Voter Act could cost our home State of Illinois another $2 
million annually. The act will cost the Nation more than $100 million 
over 5 years according to the Americans for Tax Reform. These costs do 
not include the litigation cost adding up in States like California 
that have chosen to sue the Federal Government rather than comply with 
the unfunded mandate. That is why I have signed on as a cosponsor of 
Mr. Manzullo's Motor-Voter Relief Act of 1995, which seeks to allow 
States to voluntarily adopt the motor-voter bill of 1993.
  Unfunded Federal mandates place a burden on States, localities, and 
eventually, the taxpayers. There are many times when Federal mandates 
preempt State procedures which leads to ineffective policy and wasteful 
overhauls of systems that already work. Our State elected officials 
know what works best in their local area and we should trust them to 
make these
 decisions. One example that comes to mind is a measure which Congress 
previously considered that would prohibit the use of lead in piping 
anywhere in the transportation of public drinking water. Historically, 
all of the city of Chicago's public water lines contained lead soddar. 
These public water lines have not been all replaced, consequently, 
large sections essential to water trasport remain. In addition, many 
water lines serving private homes are composed of lead soddar. The city 
treats its water in order to assure FDA approval of our public drinking 
water. This is a perfect example of how our city reached a solution 
locally that ultimately satisfied the same FDA requirements that all 
cities are asked to abide by. If the city was forced to replace these 
public water lines that transported drinking water, it would be a 
financial disaster costing Chicagoans millions of dollars.

  It is not only taxpayers who are bearing the burden. It is small 
business owners as well. Earlier this month the Washington Times 
reported on a regulation to force a Kansas City bank to install a 
Braille keypad, costing several thousand dollars, on its drive-through 
automatic teller.
  In addition to being financially difficult on taxpayers and small 
business, unfunded Federal mandate's one-size-fits-all mentality is 
extremely disturbing.
  Unfunded Federal mandates lead to wasteful spending. The Center for 
Study of American Business reported that in one community, the 
Endangered Species Act required paying a consultant $5,000 in taxpayers 
money to search for desert tortoises in dry desert washes. No tortoises 
were found but the city paid the consultant fees required by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Schiff's amendment, in my opinion, is a perfecting amendment to 
an already top rate piece of legislation. It is designed to eliminate 
the proposed Commission on Unfunded Federal Mandates which, in my 
opinion, creates more bureaucracy. Why create more Government when an 
existing commission can be called upon to perform the required duties? 
Not only does this amendment eliminate the creation of a new arm of the 
Federal Government, it also eliminates the need to fund the proposed 
Commission to the tune of $1 million.
  I strongly support H.R. 5 which limits future unfunded Federal 
mandates. Downscaling Government and stopping the irresponsible 
spending habits of past Congresses is what I, along with many of my 
colleagues, were sent here to do.
  I compliment the gentleman from New Mexico on finding an avenue to do 
just that and I gladly support Mr. Schiff's amendment and H.R. 5 on 
behalf of the people of the Fifth District of Illinois.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  As the gentleman knows, I was prepared to offer an amendment, 
amendment No. 89, that would ask the Commission to report back and 
investigate the extent to which States require local governments, 
without their consent, to perform duties imposed on State government by 
the unfunded Federal mandates, including any duty to pay a matching 
amount as a condition of Federal assistance.
  In reviewing this matter, it has been suggested to me that this 
investigatory and review function is really already included within the 
scope of what will be reviewed and reported back to this Congress.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, may I confirm to the gentlewoman that that is exactly 
the intention here, that that would be included in the review, that we 
want to make sure we are reviewing at all levels the impact, both of 
Federal on local, of State on local, all up and down the line. So it 
would be included within the language.
  Ms. LOFGREN. So given that we would get a report back on that 
specific subject, I would like it to be known that I will not be 
offering amendment No. 89. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentlewoman.


perfecting amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana to the amendment, 
                   as modified, offered by mr. schiff

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment 
to the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana to 
     the amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Schiff: In section 
     101(a)(4)(G), strike the period at the end of the paragraph 
     and add the following ``, and to ensure that unfunded Federal 
     mandate relief does not increase private sector burdens.''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is a 
controversial amendment. I have cleared it with the majority and with 
the ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins].
  Exempting the public sector and their private sector competitors from 
unfunded Federal mandates could also burden private sector entities 
which are not competing with the public sector. They may bear a larger 
share of the burden of meeting the mandate if the mandate itself is 
unchanged.
  For example, and this is a hypothetical example: City governments are 
exempted from a new clean air mandate for their vehicles. But the new 
clean air bill overall still requires pollutants to be reduced by 100 
million tons. That is even though the cities will be exempt from it.
  Therefore, since city-owned vehicles are exempt from the mandate, 
privately owned vehicles collectively must bear a larger share of the 
burden of accomplishing the 100 million tons of pollution reduction. 
Even though there is not competition, we would still have the public 
sector relief, which we support, inadvertently hurting the private 
sector.
  So we just want the Commission to study this in the event that this 
might occur in the future.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment to the amendment. 
It has been raised numerous times during debate on this bill about the 
possible effect of limiting unfunded mandates on public sector entities 
while not limiting them or not limiting them as much on private sector 
entities, the effect it might have when they are in competition with 
each other, such as in 
[[Page H911]] some cases power generation and other examples.
  I want to say that although I think we have addressed that at 
different places, the gentleman's amendment to the amendment is well 
taken, to expressly ask the Commission to study that effect and report 
back to Congress so that Congress could consider it in terms of further 
legislation.
  So I support the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana to the 
amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] for her help 
as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  The perfecting amendment to the amendment, as modified, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment and the 
efforts of the gentleman on this bill. Although there have been some 
differences on this side of the aisle on certain areas of exemptions 
and concerns that we have, I do plan to vote for this bill. I think it 
is a good bill. Its time is overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I was to have an amendment to this title which dealt 
with this Commission. This Commission, as we can see, is now a moot 
point, and naturally I will not have to offer that amendment.
  But what my amendment would have done, if you will, in this 
Commission there would have been nine members appointed from 
individuals who possess extensive leadership and experience in and 
knowledge of State and local and tribal governments and 
intergovernmental relations, including State and local elected 
officials.
  The Traficant amendment would simply say it would include officials 
representing the interests of working men and working women.
  Now, I am not going to offer that. But when in fact the authorization 
comes up for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, I 
do want to support, to specify within that authorization those specific 
advocates for, that are keeping an eye out for, working men and working 
women.

                              {time}  1240

  But in title 2, when we move toward certain activities within the 
bill that look at the impact that this legislation, the effect it will 
have on the private sector, and productivity, growth, employment and 
jobs, I will have an amendment that specifies that it also consider and 
factor in workers benefits and pensions, and let me say this to the 
majority:
  ``Some of you are saying, `Well, maybe that is covered.' There is a 
great need in this country to consider all of our legislation as it 
impacts benefits and health insurance which we are trying now to 
promulgate and plan to help those that are impacted upon by that and 
pensions, many of which are underfunded.''
  So, I am going to ask the majority to consider that in title 2. It is 
germane. I will not be offering my amendment in title 1, and I do 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  I think one of the first things we could and should do is, if we are 
going to have this Federal mandates, maybe who do not need a lot of 
these commissions, so perhaps it is wise to throw some of these things 
out.
  I commend the gentleman and ask for his support in that defining, 
delineating language to look at workers benefits and pensions in that 
title 2 scenario.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I will be glad to look at the 
gentleman's working. I have not seen it yet, but I just want to back up 
the gentleman's point about the composition of the Commission.
  Of the 26 members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, 20 are appointed 
by the President of the United States, and the existing law requires 
that three be private citizens without any connection to the 
Government.
  So I think the concern the gentleman is addressing in terms of the 
composition I believe is already found in the existing Commission in 
the amendment I have offered, and I thank the gentleman for his 
support.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to give me a hand; 
to give me a hand there in title 2. It is reasonable. Pensions and 
benefits of our workers should be considered in the impact of any 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


         request by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland to offer amendment

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 
27 of the amendment as modified, as amended.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  First, let the Chair inquire, does the gentleman have an amendment to 
the Schiff amendment.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I was asked to submit the 
amendment now. It is a perfecting amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, I do not think we have a copy of the amendment. We are 
looking for it now. We do not have a copy of it here.
  What is going on here?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. It is No. 27 in the Record.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. All right.
  Mr. Chairman, I will reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] reserves 
the point of order.
  The Chairman will advise the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett] 
that his amendment, as drawn, is not compatible with the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], but it could be 
easily modified to be compatible, and if the gentleman would withdraw 
it at the moment and work with the gentleman from New Mexico, perhaps 
his amendment would be in proper form.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Cannot the gentleman from Maryland, by unanimous consent, 
request that the amendment be completed now so that he could proceed 
with his amendment?
  By unanimous consent could he ask that the language be conformed to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]?
  The CHAIRMAN. He could ask unanimous consent to have the amendment 
drawn as a modification of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] as opposed to the language of the bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, I am reserving the right to object because I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with the gentleman who wishes to offer the 
amendment.
  Could the gentleman please just tell us what he is trying to do here? 
Maybe we can try to come to some kind of an agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will treat as pending a unanimous-consent 
request to modify offered by the gentleman from Maryland and recognizes 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] on a reservation of 
objection.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from 
Maryland, will the gentleman tell me if he is planning just to engage 
in a colloquy or what he is planning to do at this point?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Yes. If I could move to strike the last 
word, I think we could dispense with it very easily.
  The CHAIRMAN. The committee is proceeding under a reservation of 
objection by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. If the 
gentleman from Maryland could simply respond to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois, that would probably take care of it.
   [[Page H912]] Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. That would take care of it.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. All right.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment was really quite a simple one. It merely 
instructs the Commission to examine whether unbiased science is used 
when enforcing the State implementation plans such as other emissions 
testing under the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to first clear up the bit of 
confusion that started.
  We were advised by the Parliamentarian that because we felt we had to 
make so many changes in the bill to add the Advisory Commission in 
place of the proposed new Commission that my amendment is offered in 
the nature of a substitute.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. For that reason other amendments must be technically 
offered as amendments to my amendment, and I trust that all Members 
would, if they have not done so, ask unanimous consent just for that 
technical modification.
  I do not speak for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], but it 
is my understanding that he and the chairman of the committee have 
agreed that following a colloquy, which would be responded with a 
reference to report language, the gentleman would offer to withdraw his 
amendment at that time.
  May I ask the gentleman from Maryland if that is correct?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. That is correct. The chairman indicated 
that he supports the intent of our amendment, that what we want to 
accomplish could be effectively accomplished with report language, and 
with his assurance that that report language will be developed, we are 
prepared to withdraw our offer of the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my proffer of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] withdraws 
her reservation of objection, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Bartlett] has withdrawn his proffer of the amendment.
 perfecting amendment offered by mr. riggs to the amendment offered by 
                  mr. schiff, as modified, as amended

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment, as modified, as amended.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the perfecting amendment.
  The text of the perfecting amendment to the amendment, as amended, as 
modified, is as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Riggs to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Schiff, as modified, as amended: At the end of 
     section 101 (Page 5, after line 14), add the following:
       (e) Priority to Mandates That Are Subject of Judicial 
     Proceedings.--In carrying out this section, the Advisory 
     Commission shall give the highest priority to immediately 
     investigating, reviewing, and making recommendations 
     regarding unfunded Federal mandates that are the subject of 
     judicial proceedings between the United States and a State, 
     local, or tribal government.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, title 1 of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, provides for an establishment of a commission to review 
existing unfunded mandates, as we have been discussing over the last 
few minutes. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has offered a 
substitute, currently under consideration by the House, to title 1 
designating the existing Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 
Relations as the body to conduct this review.
  I rise to offer a bipartisan perfecting amendment to the Schiff 
substitute for myself, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and I might add this 
amendment also has the unanimous support of my colleagues, the 
California Republican congressional delegation.
  The Riggs-Manzullo amendment will direct the Commission to give the 
highest priority to immediately investigating, reviewing, and making 
recommendations regarding unfunded Federal mandates that are the 
subject of judicial proceedings between the United States and a State, 
local, or tribal government.
  The Riggs-Manzullo amendment will not change underlying law, only 
direct that matters in litigation be given the Commission's first 
attention.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I support the Riggs 
amendment as cosponsored by other Members of the House. I think that to 
say that the Advisory Commission should give its priority in studying 
those issues which are in litigation makes a great deal of sense. I 
have always felt, and long before I had the privilege of serving in 
this body, that there is a great waste of taxpayers' money when 
government agencies or levels of government go to court against one 
another and the taxpayers are essentially paying for both sides of a 
lawsuit.
  Now we all understand that is necessary, that a sovereign State has 
the right to make certain challenges to the Federal Government, and 
within the laws of those States, municipalities and counties may be 
able to challenge the State.

                              {time}  1250

  But it seems to me to the extent we can head this off or if they 
arise to the extent we can address them rapidly, that saves a great 
deal of money, of time, and of effort of government agencies that are 
litigating against each other.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that the gentleman's 
amendment is not any more specific. There is no way of saying whether 
litigation in the future might involve Democratic administrations at 
one level versus Republican administrations at another level. It does 
not matter. It is not relevant to the amendment, and it should not be 
relevant to the study of the Commission. Once there is litigation 
between levels of government, that should be sufficient to trigger the 
gentleman's priority, with which I agree.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the California Legislative 
Task Force, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to reiterate what was stated by my 
friend, the vice chairman of the California congressional delegation, 
that being that our delegation is strongly behind this. Clearly, the 
issue of litigation, as we look at this question of unfunded mandates, 
should be a priority. It has been demonstrated that there is major 
concern and controversy over a number of particular items.
  It seems to me that as we look at those, ACIR should be in position 
to in fact place those items at the top of the priority list. The Riggs 
amendment is, I believe, a very wise and helpful perfection to the 
Schiff amendment. I strongly support it, and I know my California 
colleagues join in extending their support.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I think this is a good amendment. The fact that California and 
several other States are involved in lawsuits and the fact that 
litigation exists is an example of proof that the issue of unfunded 
mandates is an extreme problem for State and local governments. I think 
this is one of the ways for us to expedite the problems of litigation 
and legal problems by getting it before this Commission and hopefully 
getting it resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment, one that we should 
adopt, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment that the gentleman 
form California [Mr. Riggs] and I crafted.
  The issue here is very simple. Regardless of the views of Members of 
[[Page H913]] this Chamber on the issue of unfunded mandates, I am sure 
that they know full well that this bill is going to pass, and that 
everybody in this body would want to make sure that those matters have 
the first attention of the Commission during the study of those matters 
that are presently in the hands of the courts or may be in the hands of 
the courts later on.
  The purpose of this amendment is to state that because litigation is 
existing, this means that the issue of studying unfunded mandates in 
those particular situations is paramount.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the Members of this body to 
vote in favor of the Riggs-Manzullo amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], as modified, as amended.
  The perfecting amendment to the amendment, as modified, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use very much time, but I wanted to discuss 
this with the gentleman from New Mexico.
  On the amendment that was withdrawn by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Bartlett], I would just say that I support the gentleman in what 
he is trying to do. The auto emission testing is a major issue 
certainly in my State and in my home city of Houston.
  While I support the goals of the Clean Air Act, we have found that 
the implementation of the program has not gone as planned, and it is 
something that has been a problem. There are not enough stations, and 
the lines are long. If the car fails the testing, the consumer must pay 
for repairs, as well as return for another test, and that is quite a 
bit to ask, particularly when they are asked to get other tests under 
State laws as well.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support the intent to have the ACIR look at this.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  First of all, I appreciate the gentleman's concern over the auto 
emissions testing. In the city of Albuquerque which I represent, the 
city of Albuquerque has attained Federal clean air standards for the 
last 3 consecutive years. Nevertheless people within our municipal and 
local governments believe that they have to alter our current testing 
programs to be in compliance with the desires of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. I am not clear on why we have to make changes when 
in fact we are now in compliance with Federal clean air standards.
  It was simply felt by the chairman of the committee and the gentleman 
from Maryland that certain issues laid down listing specifically--
because we could list specific issues virtually without end--that that 
issue instead of being listed as part of the bill would be recommended 
in report language in conference between the House and the Senate, and 
that is the commitment the chairman of the committee had with the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 
intent of the committee to include that in report language.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleagues, Representatives Schiff, Gejdenson, 
Moran, and Meek to delete the provision in H.R. 5 that establishes the 
Commission on Unfunded Federal Mandates and would instead require a 
similar review of unfunded mandates by the existing Advisory Commission 
on Intergovernmental Relations.
  This bipartisan body was established to ensure coordination between 
the different levels of government. As a member of the Advisory 
Commission, I have been impressed with the ability of the 26-member 
bipartisan panel which includes Members of Congress, members of the 
executive branch, Governors, and other State, county, and local 
officials to develop consensus on issues important at every level of 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, the Advisory Commission is currently in existence and 
equipped to carry out the mandate prescribed by H.R. 5. The Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is uniquely qualified to 
provide us with the expertise to give technical assistance on unfunded 
mandates. This agency has garnered an impressive body of research on 
this issue.
  The Commission has already completed a comprehensive analysis of the 
impact of unfunded mandates at every level of government, especially at 
the localities where the impact of regulatory burden is focused and 
felt.
  It does not make sense to expend limited resources to create a new 
bureaucracy, while we sit up here talking about dismantling a bloated 
one, when there is already an existing agency currently functioning in 
the proposed capacity.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
measure, because in all the rhetoric of cutting unnecessary government 
machinery, we have lost sight of the fact that creating a duplicate 
agency works counter to that objective.


 perfecting amendment offered by mr. manzullo to the amendment offered 
                 by mr. schiff, as modified, as amended

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. I wish 
to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman, and then it will be my 
intention to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
       The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Schiff, as modified, as amended: In 
     section 102(a)--
       (1) in paragraph (1), before the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``, including the role and impact of requirements 
     under section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a(d)(1)(B))''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), at the end add the following: ``The 
     Commission shall include in recommendations under paragraph 
     (2) recommendations with respect to requirements under 
     section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a(d)(1)(B)).''.

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer brings to focus a 
terrible unfunded mandate that has come as a result of the 1990 
amendments to the Clean Air Act. That states as follows: ``In any area 
that has been nominated to be a severe or extreme ozone nonattainable 
area, States are required to file a State compliance plan.''
  Part of that plan states that any employer that has an excess of 100 
employees has to file a plan that certifies that within a year or two 
employee trips will be reduced by 25 percent. This is known as forced 
car pooling.
  The purpose of my amendment here would be to direct that the 
Commission give No. 1 priority to this unfunded mandate which is 
costing the States millions and millions of dollars.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has cordially agreed to 
enter into a colloquy to show that on the employee commute option, 
which is part of the Clean Air Act, had we had the unfunded mandates 
law in effect in 1990, this would have been studied. I ask the 
gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I believe that 
is correct.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, it just goes to show the absolute 
necessity of passing this unfunded mandate law. Back in 1990 there 
would have been required a study to say what is the impact on forced 
car pooling on State agencies, local agencies, and on local businesses. 
The State of Illinois now faces tens of millions of dollars in this new 
unfunded mandate. It is a new age, it is a new federalism. It is a time 
to look at America through the eyes of those that are trying to 
conserve its resources. That is why I simply cannot impress upon this 
body the absolute necessity of passing this unfunded mandates bill.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
   [[Page H914]] Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to say the chairman 
of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] have discussed this issue, 
and once again there are issues which we recommend be placed in the 
bill and other issues which by way of example are matters that the 
committee should stay.
  I understand the chairman of the committee has made a commitment to 
the gentleman from Illinois that assuming we do get to conference with 
the other body, that the chairman commits to try to get into report 
language the issues the gentleman has raised.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment numbered 17.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
perfecting amendment offered by mr. traficant to the amendment offered 
                 by mr. schiff, as modified, as amended

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment, as modified, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Traficant to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Schiff, as amended, as modified: 
     Before the semicolon at the end of the proposed section 
     101(a)(1), insert ``and consider views of and the impact on 
     working men and women on those same matters''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment says at the end of section 
101(a)(1), before that semicolon, insert, which would be after the 
following: ``Investigate and review the role of unfunded Federal 
mandates in intergovernmental relations and their impact on State, 
local, tribal, and Federal Government objectives and responsibilities 
and their impact on the competitive balance between State, local, and 
tribal governments and the private sector.''
  The Traficant amendment is very clear. It would clarify an intent of 
Congress and a concern of Congress by adding the following words: ``And 
consider views of and the impact on working men and working women on 
those same matters.''
  That is the amendment in a nutshell. It would not have been germane 
for me to offerit to that Commission, but as a perfecting amendment to 
the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment, I believe it will clarify 
the intent of Congress more than anything else in legislative history.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, when this bill was drafted, I believe that 
it was the committee's intent to include the working people who work 
for State government, local government, tribal government and the 
private sector as being considered under the study by the Commission. 
However, I certainly believe that this clarifies that issue for the 
future, should this bill be enacted into law. Therefore, I accept the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support. I 
think the legislative history shows the intent of Congress to be 
concerned with the views of the working men and women to be in our best 
interests.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], as modified, as amended.
  The perfecting amendment to the amendment, as modified, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], as modified, as amended.
  The amendment, as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
             TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

     SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted 
     by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 
     Code--
       (1) assess the effects of Federal regulations on States, 
     local governments, tribal governments, and the private sector 
     (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
     requirements specifically set forth in legislation), 
     including specifically the availability of resources to carry 
     out any Federal mandates in those regulations; and
       (2) seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or 
     significantly affect such governmental entities or the 
     private sector, consistent with achieving statutory and 
     regulatory objectives.
       (b) State, Local Government, and Tribal Government Input.--
     Each agency shall develop an effective process to permit 
     elected officials (or their designated representatives) of 
     States, local governments, and tribal governments to provide 
     meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
     proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental 
     mandates.
       (c) Agency Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Before establishing any regulatory 
     requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
     small governments, an agency shall have developed a plan 
     under which the agency shall--
       (A) provide notice of the contemplated requirements to 
     potentially affected small governments, if any;
       (B) enable officials of affected small governments to 
     provide input pursuant to subsection (b); and
       (C) inform, educate, and advise small governments on 
     compliance with the requirements.
       (2) Effects on private sector.--Before establishing any 
     regulatory requirements, agencies shall prepare estimates, 
     based on available data, of the effect of Federal private 
     sector mandates on the national economy, including the effect 
     on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation 
     of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of 
     United States goods and services.
     SEC. 202. STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY 
                   ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Before promulgating any final rule that 
     includes any Federal mandate that may result in the 
     expenditure by States, local governments, or tribal 
     governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector of at 
     least $100,000,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 
     year and before promulgating any general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any 
     such rule, the agency shall prepare a written statement 
     containing--
       (1) estimates by the agency, including the underlying 
     analysis, of the anticipated costs to States, local 
     governments, tribal governments, and the private sector of 
     complying with the Federal mandates, and of the extent to 
     which such costs may be paid with funds provided by the 
     Federal Government or otherwise paid through Federal 
     financial assistance;
       (2) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the 
     agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of--
       (A) the future costs of the Federal mandate; and
       (B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal 
     mandates upon any particular regions of the country or 
     particular States, local governments, tribal governments, 
     urban or rural or other types of communities, or particular 
     segments of the private sector;
       (3) a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative 
     assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal 
     mandates (such as the enhancement of health and safety and 
     the protection of the natural environment);
       (4) the effect of Federal private sector mandates on the 
     national economy, including the effect on productivity, 
     economic growth, full employment, creation of productive 
     jobs, and international competitiveness of United States 
     goods and services;
       (5) a description of the extent of the agency's prior 
     consultation with elected representatives (or their 
     designated representatives) of the affected States, local 
     governments, and tribal governments, and designated 
     representatives of the private sector;
       (6) a summary of the comments and concerns that were 
     presented by States, local governments, or tribal governments 
     and the private sector either orally or in writing to the 
     agency;
       (7) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those comments 
     and concerns; and
       (8) the agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
     regulation containing the Federal mandates (considering, 
     among other things, the extent to which costs may or may not 
     be paid with funds provided by the Federal Government).
       (b) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of 
     proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which a statement 
     under subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in 
     the promulgation a summary of the information contained in 
     the statement.
       (c) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--Any 
     agency may prepare any statement required by subsection (a) 
     in conjunction with or as part of any 
     [[Page H915]] other statement or analysis,
      if the statement or analysis satisfies the provisions of 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 203. ASSISTANCE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (1) collect from agencies the statements prepared under 
     section 202; and
       (2) periodically forward copies of them to the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office on a reasonably timely basis 
     after promulgation of the general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking or of the final rule for which the statement was 
     prepared.

     SEC. 204. PILOT PROGRAM ON SMALL GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, in consultation with Federal agencies, shall 
     establish pilot programs in at least 2 agencies to test 
     innovative and more flexible regulatory approaches that--
       (1) reduce reporting and compliance burdens on small 
     governments; and
       (2) meet overall statutory goals and objectives.
       (b) Program Focus.--The pilot programs shall focus on rules 
     in effect or proposal rules, or on a combination thereof.

     SEC. 205. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL COURT 
                   RULINGS.

       Not later than 4 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and no later than March 15 of each year thereafter, the 
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations shall 
     submit to the Congress, including each of the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, and to the President a report describing Federal 
     court rulings in the preceding calendar year which imposed an 
     enforceable duty on 1 or more States, local governments, or 
     tribal governments.


                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to subsection (c) of 
section 201.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: In subsection (c) of 
     section 201, strike paragraph (2), strike the heading for 
     paragraph (1) and run its text to the dash following the 
     heading for the subsection, and redesignate subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 
     respectively.

  Mr. WAXMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been worked out in 
consultation with the majority. Section 201(c)(2) requires an 
evaluation of private sector costs associated with major rules that 
appear to largely duplicate the evaluation required in section 202. 
Thus the amendment improves the bill by striking an apparently 
redundant provision. The amendment is also necessary because the 
language in section 201(c)(2) used vague terms like regulatory 
requirement that could have been interpreted to cover more than major 
rules. This amendment eliminates these potential ambiguities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman from California. This is an 
important clarifying amendment. We have worked this out, and I want to 
congratulate the gentleman on clarifying an important aspect of the 
legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment numbered 140.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: Amend section 201(b) to--
       (1) strike ``and Tribal Government'' in the subsection 
     heading and insert ``Tribal Government, and Concerned 
     Citizens'', and
       (2) strike ``and tribal governments'' and insert ``tribal 
     governments, and concerned citizens''.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 provides that Federal agencies must 
consult with State and local governments before proposing Federal 
regulations. This amendment that I am offering modifies this provision 
to require that Federal agencies also consult with concerned citizens 
at the same time. The amendment was adopted without dissent in the full 
Committee on Government Operations in the last Congress in October.
  The amendment recognizes that concerned citizens should have the same 
rights to participate in the rulemaking process as State and local 
governments.
  For example, if EPA is considering a new drinking water standard, the 
public that drinks the water should have just as much input into the 
standard as the public water suppliers who have to comply with that 
standard. I think this amendment makes a great deal of sense. It brings 
about a consultation with all those who are involved in the matter, and 
therefore would help those who are about to propose regulations to make 
the wisest regulations possible. I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment, having accepted the last amendment from the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman], which I thought was a good clarifying 
amendment.
  The chairman of the committee and other Members on this side who have 
been active in this process have looked carefully at this amendment. We 
are reluctantly opposing it. We certainly think input from private 
citizens to develop meaningful regulations makes a lot of sense, and 
that is exactly why there is a process currently in the legislation to 
allow citizens to participate, call a notice and comment period for the 
promulgation of regulations. every citizen has a right to submit 
comments and participate in this regulatory process.
  Reluctantly, because we agree on the intent of the amendment but we 
think it is not necessary to further amend this title with regard to 
this second amendment from the genteleman from California [Mr. Waxman], 
we must rise in opposition to it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point the gentleman is 
making, that you think all parties ought to be involved, but I wanted 
to point out that the comment period is after a proposal is already on 
the table. And this bill provides that State and local governments can 
come in in advance. If they are going to come in in advance, then 
private citizens ought to be able to come in in advance and be able to 
participate on equal terms.
  What we are proposing to do is there ought to be equal terms for 
comments, whether it be by a local government or by other concerned 
citizens.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for a moment, I think 
what we have done in this legislation is entirely consistent with the 
executive order and the current process. State and local governments 
are coregulators.

                              {time}  1310

  It is appropriate that they have the input that is provided in the 
title. Again, although I think the intent of the gentleman's amendment 
we all agree with, we think there currently is the ability for citizens 
to have the kind of input that the gentleman desires. Again, we must 
reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a meritorious amendment.
  This bill requires agencies issuing regulations to first develop a 
plan to solicit input from local governments. However, there is no 
similar requirement to solicit the input of private citizens who may 
also be affected by the regulation being contemplated.
  Ironically, this bill, in title III, does require CBO to solicit and 
consider information or comments from designated representatives of the 
private sector in conducting studies under section 424(b)(3), page 37 
at line 19.
  So why not require of the agencies the same wide range of views that 
is required by CBO? During the debate in 
[[Page H916]] the committee last Congress, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] raised similar concerns. And the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] made some excellent points that deserved to be 
heard by the new members of the committee, and there are 31 new members 
of the committee.
  He stated that if there is an antipollution regulation that addresses 
a health hazard affecting anyone, that it makes sense to have input 
from those who might be affected. And he supported an amendment that is 
similar to this one.
  Let me give my colleagues an example why this is so important. If EPA 
is contemplating proposing a new regulation, for example, affecting 
incinerators operated by State and local governments under H.R. 5, EPA 
must allow officials of those governments to have input before the 
regulation is even proposed. Yet neither the residents of these local 
low-income communities who are breathing in the pollution from these 
incinerators nor the operators of privately run incinerators would have 
that same opportunity.
  This is a commonsense amendment, and I would certainly hope that my 
colleagues would support this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  I just want to reiterate the point that was persuasive on both sides 
of the aisle in the last Congress. If a local government is running an 
incinerator and they want to come in in advance and have consultation 
with the regulators, that is unfair to the citizens who are not also 
being consulted in advance who are going to have to breathe in the 
pollution. The same would be true when Government is acting in a 
businesslike capacity almost like a private sector business, where they 
run a drinking water system or a sewage system.
  I have no objection with the consultation with the regulators, but it 
seems to me that they should not have an unfair advantage to be 
consulted without other citizens having that same opportunity.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Again, I think what the gentleman is attempting to achieve here, we 
can certainly understand it and sympathize with it. In fact, I think 
one of the things we are trying to get at with this bill is to prod the 
Federal Government, which has been reluctant to seek the kind of input 
from State and local governments. But this bill is really going to the 
regulator. They are coregulators. These are the people we are 
attempting to involve in the process.
  They have not been adequately involved in the process before. Private 
citizens should they have the same standing, should they have the same 
level, be allowed to input the system at the same level? I think not, 
because we are really asking here for the State and local governments 
to be a part of the process on regulations that directly affect them.
  I think we should note that nothing in this legislation prevents 
anyone from making comments on proposed regulations. That clearly is 
not the intent of this legislation. I must also point out that all of 
the interest groups that have been involved in shaping this 
legislation, the so-called big 7, National Governors Association, 
League of Mayors, all of the rest of them oppose this amendment because 
they do not want to see a special kind of a review process carved out 
for private citizens.
  So I must oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  The amendment was rejected.


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, my amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran: Insert at the end of 
     section 201 the following:
       (d) Least Burdensome Option or Explanation Required.--An 
     agency may not issue a rule that contains a Federal mandate 
     if the rulemaking record for the rule indicates that there 
     are 2 or more methods that could be used to accomplish the 
     objective of the rule, unless--
       (1) the Federal mandate is the least costly method, or has 
     the least burdensome effect, for--
       (A) States, local governments, and tribal governments, in 
     the case of a rule containing a Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate, and
       (B) the private sector, in the case of a rule containing a 
     Federal private sector mandate; or
       (2) the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
     of why the more costly or burdensome method of the Federal 
     mandate was adopted.

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues on the other side and 
on this side are aware that I introduced an unfunded mandates bill 
about 4 years ago. Most of the provisions that were in that bill are 
also included in this bill. But there are some very important 
provisions that are not. This amendment deals with one of those.
  This amendment would require that when Federal agencies issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking, receive comments back from the private 
sector and from State and local governments that would be affected by 
the new rule, that they choose the least costly alternative method of 
implementing the intent of the legislation. And if they do not choose 
that least costly alternative, then they must at least explain why they 
did not.
  I think this is a terribly important provision to include in our 
unfunded mandates bill, Mr. Chairman. The amendment simply asks that 
the Federal agencies act rationally. It does not tie their hands. But 
the fact that they have not, in many cases, acted rationally is the 
core problem for many of the issues that have come to the floor over 
the last week and a half during this unfunded mandates debate.
  One such issue is that of the emissions inspection requirement under 
the Clean Air Act. Now, when the Environmental Protection Agency issued 
its regulations, they got a lot of comments back. But they chose to 
impose a cookie cutter approach to implementation of the Clean Air Act. 
That is why so many Members, and it happened again this morning, have 
risen opposed to that Federal agency's regulations. There are far 
better ways of implementing the intent of the Clean Air Act, a concept 
that I agree with, I agree with the intent of the legislation. I very 
strongly disagree with the way in which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has chosen to implement that legislation.
  For example, they have required in many States to have central 
testing facilities, facilities that did not exist before, facilities 
that are not equipped to make the repairs necessitated by the rejection 
of the emissions test. And so we have a ping pong effect where citizens 
not only have to wait in long lines but they have to go back to a 
repair station, get the repair done. They cannot know whether it is 
going to pass or not until they go back to the central testing 
facility, and then oftentimes they ping pong back and forth. And it 
takes up the entire day or several days. No wonder the American people 
are upset with the Federal Government. It does not make sense.
  Why not have new automobiles be able to go to test and repair 
stations that already exist, but older automobiles could go to central 
testing? There are any number of other ways that we could choose to 
implement the intent of the legislation without violating any of the 
basic provisions and save a whole lot of money and a whole lot of 
aggravation.
  Another example is in Alexandria, and this is one of the reasons why 
I offered the unfunded mandates legislation, the FAIR Act, 4 years ago.
  EPA said that we had to separate our sewage from our storm water 
runoff. But they said we have to do it in a way that every other 
jurisdiction does it. For Alexandria, it meant digging up streets that 
were laid down 200 years ago, that were surveyed by George Washington, 
that are supporting very expensive historic structures. We would have 
had to dig under all those homes and streets to lay an additional storm 
water piping.
                       [[Page H917]] {time}  1320

  We had an alternative to have a retaining tank down in Old Town. 
Members have probably not noticed it because it is not even obvious. We 
could do it with very little money, accomplish the same purpose, with 
no threat to the health of our citizens, at a fraction of the cost, and 
yet it was unacceptable to EPA because they had one cookie cutter 
approach they wanted every jurisdiction to implement.
  This is the case with many Federal agencies, so what this amendment 
would do, Mr. Chairman, is to say, ``If you get better ideas from State 
and local governments on how to implement these regulations, or from 
the private sector, use that better thinking. Take advantage of it. 
Work with States and localities and businesses, and let us do the 
public's business in the most efficient and effective manner 
possible.''
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am confused because I am going to accept the 
gentleman's amendment. I am delighted to be able to indicate strong 
support for the amendment. I think the gentleman has made a very good 
argument that what we are trying to do here is to find the most 
effective, the most efficient, the least expensive and least disruptive 
way to accomplish these things.
  What the gentleman had done here is to clearly indicate that where 
there are two choices, we should clearly opt and encourage that the 
least expensive, least costly, and least disruptive be adopted, so I am 
pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment as a major contribution.
  Let me just also commend the gentleman for his, as he said, 4- or 5-
year effort in this regard as a principal player in this whole unfunded 
mandates debate. He has done a superb job. We have been grateful to 
work with him.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would echo the gentleman's comments. I am very 
pleased to support the amendment. Let me say briefly, this amendment is 
consistent with language that is in the FAIR Act, which I believe is 
the foundation for the legislation, H.R. 5, before us today, and have 
said that on many occasions, as the gentleman knows.
  It is also consistent with the Executive order, and we have had lots 
of discussions about the Presidential Executive order that is currently 
in place. All agencies are meant to abide by the requirements in this 
Executive order. It goes far further than title II of this act, which 
sets up the requirements for our Federal agencies in this legislation.
   Mr. Chairman, let me give a couple of examples. H.R. 5 only applies 
to rules having an impact of $100 million or more annually. The 
Executive order currently in place by President Clinton applies not 
only to rules having an impact of $100 million or more, but in addition 
all rules affecting in a material way productivity, competition, jobs, 
environment, State and local governments, even if less than $100 
million.
  Therefore, I would just make the point clearly here that yes, the 
gentleman's amendment is a good one. The least burdensome manner in 
which the agencies can regulate is a good idea. It is a sound idea. It 
is part of FAIR. It is also part of the Executive order.
  I would say, though, in addition, Mr. Chairman, that the Executive 
order in fact goes even further than the gentleman's amendment, and we 
will be accepting this amendment happily, but not picking up all of the 
requirements and additional burdens on the regulators that is in the 
Executive order, the Clinton Executive order of October 1993. I am 
happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment, and make 
mention of the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] on 
this issue. He has been a tremendous leader in the unfunded mandates 
issue. He is partly the reason we are here today. Had he not started 
this fight and engaged us in this debate some time ago, we would not, 
probably, be at this point.
  To his amendment, the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. I 
think it demonstrates good common sense for us to take the best option, 
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], I think in his amendment 
characterizes what he has done in this whole issue, for us to move to a 
solid, commonsense solution. I commend the gentleman for that. I urge 
Members to support the amendment, and I congratulate and commend the 
gentleman for his effort in this entire issue.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends and colleagues for their 
support.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend 
and neighbor, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], on this. I just 
want to take the opportunity to say I think this puts some teeth into 
title II. As a former board chairman adjacent to the city of 
Alexandria, of which Mr. Moran was the mayor, I applaud his leadership 
in this area.
  Long before many people were talking about unfunded mandates, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has been a leader in this cause. I 
think this amendment will strengthen this bill. I just want to applaud 
the gentleman once again for his efforts in this, and rise in support 
of it. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the 
sponsor of the amendment for bringing this issue up.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just relate as quickly as I could the experience 
of Texas on the unfunded mandates issue with the Clean Air Act. We also 
support clean air, but there are options we can get to that, I think 
the Moran amendment points that out, that we have the option, both the 
State agencies, but also the EPA here in Washington has some options 
that they would pick the least burdensome, or, as we call it, the most 
user-friendly, to get to that point on clean air.
  Mr. Chairman, I think with the controversy going on not only in Texas 
but in Illinois and lots of other States, I think this adds to this 
bill. I am glad that my colleague and also the chairman is accepting 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran: At the end of title II 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 206. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (A) Review of Agency Actions Subject to Review Under Other 
     Federal Law.--If an agency action that is subject to section 
     201 or 202 is subject to judicial review under any other 
     Federal law (other than chapter 7 of title 5, United States 
     Code)--
       (1) any court of the United States having jurisdiction to 
     review the action under the other law shall have jurisdiction 
     to review the action under sections 201 and 202; and

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, there is another part of this bill that I 
think could be strengthened. That deals with the issue of judicial 
review.
  The bill before us is silent on judicial review, but that does not 
mean that judicial review does not apply. In fact, ironically, it opens 
up much of this legislation to procedural suits, procedural delays, 
excessive litigation.
  [[Page H918]] My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would specify what is 
appropriate judicial review, and limit the ability to conduct unlimited 
litigation against provisions of law and regulation for which the 
unfunded mandates legislation might apply. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, 
it says that where we have agencies that are not currently subject to 
judicial review, that they would not become subject to judicial review 
under the Administrative Procedures Act solely for compliance with the 
procedural aspects of this legislation.
  It also says, Mr. Chairman, that where there is a single court of 
jurisdiction, whether it be the Court of International Trade, the U.S. 
Circuit Court, whatever court is appropriate for that agency, that any 
other litigation must go through that court. In other words, lawyers 
cannot go to several courts, which would be principally for the purpose 
of delaying action.
  Third, where there is an exhaustion of administrative remedies under 
the Administrative Procedures Act, in substantive legislation that 
exhaustion of administrative remedies would apply in this case as well, 
where legislation has been affected by the unfunded mandates 
legislation.
  Fourth, if there are substantive agency actions that cannot be 
stayed; in other words, you cannot delay implementation of the 
regulations, get an injunction against issuance of regulations, then 
you cannot as a result of this legislation, either.
  Mr. Chairman, there are four aspects that really do need to be 
addressed and refined. Mr. Chairman, I think it is terribly important 
that there be judicial remedies if Federal agencies and the executive 
branch do not comply with the intent of this legislation. On the other 
hand, we certainly do not want to open up a Pandora's box of 
opportunities to litigate for any period of time that a person who 
feels they are adversely affected by legislation or regulations might 
choose to.
  I think without this clarifying amendment, this limited amendment, 
Mr. Chairman, we would do just that, because if we do not specify 
limits to judicial review, the Administrative Procedures Act applies to 
everything, and in fact would create substantial gridlock throughout 
the Federal Government.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the committee 
and the sponsors of this bill to positively consider this amendment, 
and I think that its strengthens the legislation itself, the underlying 
legislation.
                              {time}  1330

  The only people who might not like it are in the legal community, but 
I do not think their interests are particularly well-served, either, by 
not addressing the issue of judicial review.
  I could give any number of examples where this would apply and where 
in fact this must apply to implement this legislation in a rational 
way, but at this point I would respond to any comments by people that 
might have questions about the intent of this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, just to 
very briefly say we have now had a chance to review this amendment on 
our side. In fact we have been in long discussions with the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran] over a long period of time on this. I think 
it represents a very, very good compromise between very divergent views 
on this question of judicial review. I think it is better than what we 
started out with, that it is clearly an improvement. I am delighted to 
accept the measure.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, just 
briefly to rise in support also of the amendment. It is a very good 
amendment.
  We have had on the floor here an interesting debate the last several 
days about the issue of judicial review. It came up in the context of 
the exemptions to the legislation, but it really went at some of the 
core issues of this act.
  I think the gentleman from Virginia would agree that judicial review 
is very important in order to ensure that there are teeth in the 
provisions in title II, to ensure that the agencies actually carry out 
the provisions which again are less burdensome on the agencies than the 
current executive order requirements that President Clinton issued in 
October 1993.
  I would say that this is an important clarification of the kind of 
judicial review that we had intended to have in this legislation. It is 
our view that this is not an issue that necessarily needed to be 
resolved by amendment, but if there is any misunderstanding or any 
clarification needed, I think it is important to do so. This 
specifically addresses concerns raised on the floor by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] raised the issue that you could possibly have a stay on an 
injunction in the case of a regulation and it would keep the regulation 
from going forward. This language I think very clearly provides that 
such a stay would not be permitted, that there would not be that kind 
of injunctive relief provided under the judicial review that is 
provided under H.R. 5.
  I thank the gentleman for clarifying that point and for addressing a 
legitimate concern which was raised on the floor.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The chairman of this committee and principal sponsor of this 
legislation has played a very constructive role in both working out the 
amendments that strengthen the legislation and in fact in getting this 
bill to the floor which I think is terribly important. I certainly 
appreciate the comments that were made by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Virginia, and 
the gentleman from California.
  I would like to say for the Record whereas I am getting recognized, I 
would like to recognize someone who was the original sponsor of the 
Fair Act and worked very hard on it. This particular judicial review 
issue was terribly important to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling]. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has played an 
instrumental role in the unfunded mandates legislation. As a former 
superintendent of schools, he understood the importance of not imposing 
mandates that in effect abrogated a locality's ability to carry out 
their own priorities with their own best judgment.
  I want to recognize particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] and I thank my friends and colleagues on the other side.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had put in the Record an amendment on this very 
subject of judicial review which I will not offer at this time. I will 
support the Moran amendment because I think it is an improvement over 
the text that has been submitted to this Committee of the Whole. But I 
do not think it goes far enough.
  I would hope that when we go into conference with the other body, the 
managers of this legislation will look with great care at the other 
body's stand on this very issue. In the other body, in their unfunded 
mandates legislation, there is an explicit provision saying that there 
should not be judicial review. I think that is appropriate, for the 
very simply reason that judicial review can tie up regulations for a 
very, very long time and leave a great deal of uncertainly about what 
the regulations will in fact be in the long term.
  Section 202 of H.R. 5 provides that before promulgating a final 
regulation containing a Federal mandate, the agency would have to 
prepare a detailed statement analyzing a number of different factors, 
economic and other impacts of the regulation. The matters that must be 
analyzed include the anticipated costs to State and local governments; 
the estimates of future costs of Federal mandate; estimates of 
disproportionate budgetary effects upon particular regions of the 
country or particular States; estimates of disproportionate budgetary 
effects upon 
[[Page H919]] urban or rural or other types of communities; estimates 
of any disproportionate budgetary effects on the private sector; a 
qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative assessment of costs and 
benefits anticipated from the Federal mandate, including enhancement of 
health and safety and protection of the natural environment; the effect 
on national economy; the effect on productivity; the effect on economic 
growth; the effect on full employment; the effect on creation of jobs; 
and the effect of mandate on international competitiveness.
  I do not disagree with all of these factors being analyzed, but if we 
allowed judicial review of the regulation pursuant to statute, pursuant 
to laws adopted by the Congress and signed by the President and the 
judicial review does not go against the regulation as to whether it is 
a wise one pursuant to the statute, but in case they did not look at 
the
 productivity factors as opposed to one economist's view vis-a-vis 
another economist's view on any of those items I have listed, it seems 
to me that it will not make a lot of sense to allow that kind of 
second-guessing by the courts of the regulations.

  It seems to me to offer a lot of opportunity for agencies to be 
stymied in their objectives to carry out laws like the Clean Air Act, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, laws that are put in place to protect the 
public.
  Who will benefit from judicial review? One thing I can say with 
certainty, it will be all the lawyers that will be litigating this 
matter, because they will have the ability to drag this litigation on 
for a very long time.
  The Moran amendment does go far enough to say that there cannot be an 
injunction on the implementation of the regulation, but it still 
permits the adjudication of that regulation based on whether the agency 
has done a sufficient analysis to the satisfaction of the court, which 
may then decide to get involved in the procedural matters of this 
review.
  I do not think judicial review is necessary to enforce what we are 
asking the agencies to do before they adopt regulations. The judicial 
review is not necessary for enforcement. The review requirements can be 
enforced by the White House during OMB review. The requirement can also 
be enforced through congressional oversight.
  Before EPA developed its proposal to regulate emissions from 
municipal incinerators, EPA consulted with the Conference of Mayors, 
the National League of Cities, and the National Association of 
Counties.
  Before the Department of Education proposed a regulation relating to 
vocational training for disadvantaged students, the Department held 
public meetings with State and local education officials.

                              {time}  1340

  Before proposing rules affecting housing on tribal lands, HUD met 
with many tribal authorities. In fact to assure compliance with the 
Executive order, OMB has sent several regulations back to the agencies 
for failure to consult with all of the State and local governments that 
were appropriate.
  For instance, EPA regulations controlling emissions from municipal 
landfills were sent back to EPA for this reason. Likewise regulations 
to improve water quality in the Great Lakes were sent back to EPA for 
that same reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, in other words, we ought not to provide a 
judicial review as the way to enforce that the analysis be done. OMB 
has that role as they look at regulations coming from that agency and 
they have required the agencies to go back and review these things if 
they felt a satisfactory review did not take place.
  In fact, the Director of OIRA, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs at OMB, Sally Katzen, has informed us that she is 
not aware of a single complaint with a State, local or tribal authority 
since the adoption of the Clinton Executive order, which has the same 
purpose as this legislation would in this regard.
  So the point is the Executive order is working without judicial 
review. The idea of judicial review can be very troublesome for the 
regulations to be settled with certainty. There are industries that can 
be affected by that uncertainty, and the public interest has been 
certainly adversely affected by that uncertainty and the lengthy 
litigations to be followed.
  It would be far better to see if there is a problem in reality before 
we have a judicial review provision that could have the consequence I 
fear.
  So I stand in support of this amendment with the statement that I 
want to make very clear on the Record that I do not think it needs to 
go as far as we need to have us go on this very issue.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say in response to the comments from my 
colleague from California that I appreciate him bringing this issue to 
the floor, for bringing it to the attention of the sponsors of the 
legislation. I think we worked responsibly with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], with the gentleman from California, and others to 
try to address at least the major concerns that have been raised on the 
floor, and I think it was a healthy process.
  I happen to believe in the end we have ended up with the right mix. 
We have judicial review, which I think is necessary to put teeth into 
agency requirements in title II.
  Just to remind my colleagues again, these requirements are less 
burdensome on the agencies than those found in the Executive order 
which is currently in place.
  I would also just very briefly talk to the issue of the standard 
which the courts will apply that the agency action must be arbitrary 
and capricious standard, which is very high. I quote from Judge Scalia 
with regard to the issue the gentleman raises:

       The scope of review under the ``arbitrary and capricious'' 
     standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its 
     judgment for that of the agency. This is especially true when 
     the agency is called upon to weigh the costs and benefits of 
     alternative policies since such cost-benefit analyses 
     epitomize the types of decisions that are most appropriately 
     entrusted to the expertise of an agency.

  I think that is very important, and I think I would agree with the 
gentleman from California, we do not want to needlessly tie things up 
in court. We want to defer to the agency expertise. The gentleman has 
raised a number of important concerns, and I believe given that 
standard which was just quoted, which is the common practice of the 
courts, that we would not be in such a position.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding on that 
point. I think it is a helpful one for us to have on the record and I 
do want to express to the gentleman and the chairman of the committee 
my appreciation for their willingness to explore this issue with me. I 
regret that we were not able to reach full agreement on it. I think we 
have come to a compromise, and perhaps we can continue to look at the 
issue as this legislation moves forward. But I do express the good 
spirit in which the gentleman engaged us in this issue to try to come 
up with what is the best public policy.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Again, I 
think we have done this in a way where we end up with the kind of teeth 
in the legislation, H.R. 5, many of us on this side feel is necessary 
to make sure these requirements are carried out.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to say the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has clearly stated 
his position that he does not believe judicial review should apply at 
all, and I understand the position and I respect the reasons he has 
given. However, I believe no judicial review ultimately means no 
enforcement.
  However, the concerns that have been raised have been legitimate 
concerns. And I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] in his 
amendment has tried to tighten this bill and 
[[Page H920]] tighten judicial review, so we hope to avoid even the 
prospect of some of the problems that might have arisen due to judicial 
review, as remote in my judgment as they may have been. I think the 
amendment strengthens the bill, and I support the amendment of the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Virginia, because I, too, do not think it goes far enough. If this 
bill is subject to judicial review, we should rename it the Lawyers 
Relief Act of 1995.
  Any new regulations issued pursuant to the bills covered by H.R. 5 
could be tied up in court for years. The Senate provision, which is the 
same as the original contract, would preclude judicial reviews, and I 
urge my colleagues to look at the Senate provision very carefully. It 
carries out the language of the contract. It favors review but it does 
not favor lawyers and litigation.
  New cottage industries on mandate law will suddenly spring up all 
over the country. Courses in mandate will be required to graduate from 
law school. The Civil Division at the Department of Justice will have 
to increase the number of lawyers it hires in order to keep up with the 
rising workload. Anyone remotely familiar with civil litigation knows 
that that agency regulations could easily be tied up in court for 
years. Delays, postponements, discovery, motions, and trials would make 
the swift implementation of agency regulations next to impossible. 
Meanwhile, the American people would be left out without vital health 
and safety protection.
  How important are these regulations?
  Well, I think one example will suffice. Just ask the parents of 
children who have died of E. coli bacteria about the need for new 
mandated requirements with State governments for meat inspection. The 
President and Vice President are continuing a historic effort to 
reinvent Government. Part of this effort involves streamlining and 
simplifying the Federal regulatory process.
  It also involves making the Federal Government respond more quickly 
to the needs of the American people. Yet much of the progress that has 
been made already by the President will be undone if all of the 
Government actions are subject to judicial review.
  The Federal Government will become entangled in an endless array of 
needless and confusing regulatory requirements in an effort to protect 
itself from being sued.
  Those who support judicial review argue that it is needed to ensure 
that Federal agencies comply with the requirements of this act. But 
there are other more effective ways to guarantee compliance. One way is 
the congressional oversight process, and that is what our committee is: 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  The Constitution confers on the Congress the responsibility to 
oversee the operations of the Federal Government. Congress has also 
been given a vast arsenal of weapons to oversee agencies' compliance 
with Federal law, including subpoena power and the power to command the 
appearance of witnesses to testify in public hearings, and the power to 
get access to most agency documents.
  Second, we have the appropriations process, the power of the purse. 
An agency's failure to comply with Federal law can be met with a 
reduction in funding for that agency. I can think of no more powerful 
tool to enforce the requirements of this bill.
  Many supporters of the no funding, no mandates provisions in this 
bill should also be concerned if it is undermined by judicial review.
  Suppose during a fiscal year the Committee on Appropriations fails to 
fully fund a mandate, triggering the bill's requirement that the 
responsible agency reduce the responsibilities of State and local 
governments. Judicial review will prevent that reduction from going 
into effect. This will leave State and local governments with less 
money while performing the same duties for years, while the issue is 
resolved in court.
  Tying up the executive branch with costly litigation is not an 
appropriate remedy for the problem of compliance. Compromising health 
and safety regulations because of legal gridlock is extremely 
dangerous.
  And again, I am going to support the amendment by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], but I sure do not think it goes far enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify what may not have been 
clarified, and that is that as the chairman of the committee I do 
support the gentleman's amendment wholeheartedly.
  Mr. MORAN, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I very much 
thank the gentleman for that clarification.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, there was a time in the history of this 
Congress when they believed that people back home would believe 
whatever we say and whatever we say we did rather than really tell them 
the way it is. Fortunately for this country that time is gone forever.
  I can remember a gentleman that I came with to Congress, and I used 
to say to him, ``I do not understand the philosophy you espouse here, 
because it seems to be totally opposite of your constituency.'' He 
said, ``My constituents believe what I tell them.'' Well, as I said, 
fortunately that is gone. I mention that simply because I am glad an 
accommodation was worked out, because as the gentleman from Virginia 
said, I feel very strongly about judicial review. I feel very strongly 
because nothing is going to happen if that threat is not there.
  When we presented the bill a couple years ago, I and others asked the 
CRS to comment on what it is we were doing in relationship to judicial 
review. We asked three specific things: How judicial review would apply 
to sections 201, 202, and 203; what impact this would have on the 
regulatory process, whether agencies would have to comply with the 
stipulations stated in sections 201, 202, 203, if section 201, page 15, 
lines 22 through 24, were removed.
  I am convinced in their response that we are on the right track and 
we are on the right track when we sent out the Dear Colleague, and I 
would like to read just a portion of that Dear Colleague:

       As you may recall, President Jimmy Carter signed the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act into law September 19, 1980. The 
     new law requires agencies to consider the special needs and 
     concerns of small entities whenever they engage in rulemaking 
     subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA or 
     other laws. Each time an agency was to propose a rule in the 
     Federal Register, it was also supposed to publish a 
     regulatory flexibility analysis. This RFA would describe the 
     impact of a proposed rule on small entities, which includes 
     small business, organizations, and governmental jurisdiction.

  Well, to make a long story short, provided in this was also an 
indication that judicial review would not apply. The end result was, as 
history will show, that the agencies paid no attention whatsoever to 
the RFA. They just ignored it completely, and so it meant that
 the act had no teeth and, therefore, the act was totally worthless.

  That was my fear with this legislation, that we would have this 
wonderful shell out there as if we were really doing something big, but 
they would not have the opportunity for judicial review. In return, the 
agencies would pay no attention whatsoever.
  Now, you see, the history of judicial review would indicate to us 
that there is no standing only line out there where everybody is 
rushing in trying to get into the judicial review process. It is so 
difficult that very seldom is it ever used.
  So, again, I am glad that we have come up with some accommodation. I 
hope we are strong enough, because I feel very strongly that without it 
this is a worthless, toothless piece of legislation.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  [[Page H921]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and the compromise that has been reached with this piece of 
legislation.
  When I first ran for Congress, I realized in talking to my 
constituency that there is a real problem with excessive regulation, 
and there is a real problem, because the Federal Government was not 
listening to the little guy, to the small business, to the units of 
government that do not have large legal staffs or big budgets. When I 
came to this body then, I thought what can we do about it. I looked 
into it, and I found that we had the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and I 
read that act. I thought, ``This should work. This should be a big 
help.''
  And then I said, ``Why is it not working?'' Well, I was told very 
quickly that it was not working because of the boilerplate language in 
that act that says that any agency can say the act does not apply to 
this rule and regulation and move right ahead as if no analysis was 
needed.
  What was the response from those being regulated? It was there was no 
judicial review.
  Ladies and gentlemen, judicial review is imperative unless we want to 
project on the American people another cruel hoax that we are doing 
something to help them overcome regulation and yet we are not.
  So this is an excellent compromise. I think that it is excellent that 
we are going to do this and send it to conference, and we can discuss 
that with the Senate side and hopefully we will come up with judicial 
review that will protect the little guy, the small business, the small 
unit of government.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has had prior recognition.
  Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rose before to strike the last word, and 
I rise in support of the amendment now.
  I do so to clarify for the Record that the General Accounting Office 
was asked to review what is called the Reg Flex Act to see whether the 
regulatory flexibility regulations are in fact being enforced by the 
executive branch, and they came back with a report which I would insert 
in the Record  following my remarks that some agencies have in fact 
complied.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, which is a target of much of the 
debate here today, they said had complied. Where there was 
noncompliance, the reasons were many, not, they pointed out, because 
there was a lack of judicial review, but because the Small Business 
Administration had not issued guidance, or the OMB had not established 
procedures to enforce the Regulatory Flexibility Act. They did not say 
that a judicial review was recommended or required in order for the 
Regulatory Act to work. I want to make that point clear.
  Because I do not think judicial review is advisable as a part of 
enforcement of these proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, the GAO report is included at this point in the Record, 
as follows:

                               U.S. General Accounting Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 1994.
     Hon. John J. LaFalce,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, House of 
         Representatives.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
       This letter is in response to your requests that we 
     evaluate federal agencies' implementation of the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), codified in Title 5 of the 
     U.S. Code.\1\ Specifically, you asked that we (1) review the 
     Small Business Administration's (SBA) annual reports on 
     agency compliance with the RFA and generalize from the 
     reports about which agencies were and were not implementing 
     the RFA in an effective manner and (2) review SBA annual 
     reports and related documents on the extent to which agencies 
     have complied with the RFA requirement that they periodically 
     examine their rules (section 610 of Title 5).
     \1\  5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               background

       The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the effects on 
     their proposed rules on small entities. According to the RFA, 
     small entities include small businesses, small governmental 
     jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit organizations. As a 
     result of their assessments, agencies must either (1) perform 
     a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of 
     the proposed rules on small entities or (2) certify that 
     their rules will not have a ``significant economic impact on 
     a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA does not 
     define ``significant economic impact'' or ``substantial 
     number,'' but does require the regulatory flexibility 
     analysis to indicate the objectives of the rule and the 
     projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
     requirements. Agencies must also consider alternatives to the 
     proposal that will accomplish the agencies' objectives while 
     minimizing the impact on small entities. The RFA also 
     requires agencies to publish a semiannual regulatory agenda 
     that describes any prospective rule that is likely to have a 
     significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
       Section 612 of Title 5 requires the SBA Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy to monitor and report at least annually on agency 
     compliance with the RFA.\2\ SBA's primary method of 
     monitoring agencies' compliance is to review and comment on 
     proposed regulations when they are published for notice and 
     comment in the Federal Register during the federal rulemaking 
     process. The Chief Counsels have issued 12 annual reports on 
     RFA compliance since 1980.\3\ The reports discuss some, but 
     not all, federal agencies' RFA compliance.
     \2\There have been several Chief Counsels since the RFA was 
     enacted, some of whom served as Acting Chief Counsels. In 
     this report, the Acting Chief Counsels are referred to as 
     ``Chief Counsels.''
     \3\The first report for 1981 was provided on October 7, 1981, 
     in testimony before the Subcommittee on Export Opportunities 
     and Special Small business Problems of the House Committee on 
     Small Business. Reports for 1989 and 1990 were not prepared 
     until 1992. All reports were prepared the year after the 
     subject year. The report for 1993 is scheduled to be 
     published in mid-1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            results in brief

       The SBA annual reports indicated agencies' compliance with 
     the RFA has varied widely from one agency to another. Some 
     agencies (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency) were 
     repeatedly characterized as satisfying the RFA's 
     requirements, while other agencies (e.g., the Internal 
     Revenue Service) were viewed by SBA as recalcitrant in 
     complying with those requirements. Still other agencies' RFA 
     compliance reportedly varied over time (e.g., the Federal 
     Communications Commission) or varied by subagency (e.g., the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture). The same lack of uniform 
     compliance is reflected in SBA documents regarding the 
     section 610 requirement that agencies periodically examine 
     their rules. Some agencies had developed plans for the review 
     of their regulations and had acted on those plans, while 
     other agencies had neither developed plans nor taken any 
     action.
       One reason for this lack of compliance with the RFA's 
     requirements is that the RFA does not expressly authorize SBA 
     to interpret key provisions in the statute. Also, the RFA 
     does not require SBA to develop criteria for agencies to 
     follow in reviewing their rules, and SBA has not issued any 
     guidance to federal agencies defining key statutory 
     provisions. Finally, the RFA does not authorize SBA or any 
     other agency to compel rulemaking agencies to comply with the 
     act's provisions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
     said that it has helped to ensure RFA compliance during the 
     rulemaking process whenever SBA has notified OMB of SBA's 
     concerns regarding an agency's RFA compliance. However, OMB's 
     ability to ensure RFA compliance has been limited because SBA 
     does not normally notify OMB of SBA's RFA concerns when it 
     comments on agencies' proposed rules. Also, OMB has no 
     established procedures in its review process to determine 
     whether agencies have complied with the RFA. Finally, OMB 
     cannot review rules from independent regulatory agencies or 
     agricultural marketing orders.
                   objectives, scope, and methodology

       The objectives of our review were to determine which 
     agencies SBA's annual reports and other documents (1) 
     frequently indicated were and were not implementing the RFA 
     in an effective manner and (2) indicated were and were not 
     complying with section 610 of Title 5. To accomplish these 
     objectives, we reviewed the annual reports of the SBA Chief 
     Counsel for Advocacy for 1981 through 1992; correspondence 
     from SBA and various agencies regarding section 610 
     activities; and related hearing records, reports, and other 
     RFA-related materials. We also obtained information on the 
     RFA and the regulatory process from officials at both SBA and 
     OMB. We did not make an independent determination of 
     agencies' RFA compliance. Any characterizations of particular 
     agencies in this report are directly attributable to SBA. We 
     discussed the results of our work with the SBA Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy and officials, including the Deputy 
     Administrator, from the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs at OMB in March 1994 and incorporated their comments 
     where appropriate. We conducted our review from September 
     1993 to February 1994 at the Washington, D.C., headquarters 
     offices of SBA and OMB. The review was conducted in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.


      sba reports indicate variable agency compliance with the rfa

       The SBA annual reports we reviewed did not evaluate all 
     federal agencies' compliance 
     [[Page H922]] with the RFA.\4\ Only the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's compliance record was specifically 
     mentioned in all 12 reports. Five other agencies--the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture (certain subagencies), the U.S. 
     Department of Labor, the Federal Communications Commission, 
     the Internal Revenue Service, and the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission--were mentioned in at least 8 of the 12 reports. 
     At the other extreme, some agencies (e.g., the U.S. 
     Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban 
     Development, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs) were 
     either not mentioned in any annual reports or were only 
     rarely mentioned. The SBA Chief Counsel said that differences 
     in the degree to which agencies were mentioned in the reports 
     are primarily due to differences between the agencies in 
     their levels of regulatory activity. For example, the State 
     Department issues very few regulations that affect small 
     entities.
     \4\All but the first report contained an appendix listing 
     selected comments filed by the Office of Advocacy regarding 
     agencies' proposed rules during the year. These listings did 
     not, however, evaluate agencies' compliance with the RFA.
       The Chief Counsel said SBA normally becomes aware of the 
     specifics of a proposed rule when it is published for notice 
     and comment. If SBA believes the rulemaking agency has not 
     adequately considered the effect of the proposed rule on 
     small entities, the Chief Counsel said SBA will send the 
     agency written comments. However, the Chief Counsel said that 
     SBA does not usually send OMB a copy of their compliance 
     concerns. OMB officials said that SBA officials have 
     occasionally called them on the telephone regarding certain 
     agencies' RFA compliance and, in those instances, OMB has 
     taken SBA's views into consideration during its reviews and 
     helped ensure RFA compliance. For example, they said that if 
     SBA official told them that a rulemaking agency should have 
     conducted an RFA analysis, OMB would ask the agency to show 
     why an analysis was not done before permitting the proposed 
     rule to be published in its final form.


                              conclusions

       Our review of SBA's annual reports and other documentation 
     indicated that some agencies have not complied with the RFA 
     as interpreted by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy. We 
     believe that the reasons for this apparent lack of compliance 
     include the following: (1) the RFA does not expressly 
     authorize SBA to interpret the act's key provisions, (2) the 
     RFA does not require SBA to develop criteria for agencies to 
     follow in reviewing their rules, (3) SBA has not issued any 
     guidance to federal agencies defining key statutory 
     provisions in the RFA, and (4) the RFA does not authorize SBA 
     or any other entity to compel rulemaking agencies to comply 
     with the act's provisions.
       OMB can help ensure certain rulemaking agencies' compliance 
     with the RFA by reviewing and commenting on those agencies' 
     significant regulatory actions pursuant to its 
     responsibilities under Executive Order 12866. OMB can return 
     most regulatory actions to agencies for further consideration 
     if it believes the actions are inconsistent with the RFA. 
     However, OMB's authority to play an enforcement role is 
     limited in several respects. OMB cannot review rules proposed 
     by independent regulatory agencies and cannot return 
     agricultural marketing orders to AMS. Also, OMB does not have 
     established criteria or procedures to determine whether 
     agencies have complied with the RFA. Finally, while SBA 
     reportedly notifies rulemaking agencies in writing of its RFA 
     concerns during the rulemaking notice and comment period, it 
     does not normally provide OMB with a copy of those concerns 
     and only occasionally telephones OMB about SBA's compliance 
     concerns. Therefore, OMB's ability to ensure agencies' RFA 
     compliance is diminished because it is often unaware of SBA's 
     concerns regarding an agency's compliance.
                 matters for consideration of congress

       If Congress wishes to strengthen the implementation of the 
     RFA, it should consider amending the act to (1) provide SBA 
     with clearer authority and responsibility to interpret the 
     RFA's provisions and (2) require SBA, in consultation with 
     OMB, to develop criteria as to whether and how federal 
     agencies should conduct RFA analyses. Congress could also 
     consider focusing its RFA oversight on the independent 
     regulatory agencies and agricultural marketing orders over 
     which OMB's review and comment authority is limited.


                            recommendations

       We recommend that the OMB Director, in consultation with 
     SBA, establish procedures OMB can use to determine agencies' 
     compliance with the RFA. These procedures should be 
     incorporated into OMB's processes for reviewing regulations 
     before they are published for notice and comment and before 
     they are published in final. We also recommend that the SBA 
     Administrator direct the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to 
     send OMB a copy of any written notification of RFA 
     noncompliance the Chief Counsel sends to an agency.


                   agency comments and our evaluation

       We provided a draft of this report to the SBA Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy and discussed the report with her on March 23, 
     1994. She suggested certain technical changes, which were 
     incorporated into the final report. Overall, she said she 
     agreed with the report's conclusions and recommendations. She 
     said SBA welcomes clarification of its authority to interpret 
     RFA provisions and will work with OMB to develop criteria and 
     procedures for agency compliance with the act. The Chief 
     Counsel also said that she will send OMB a copy of any 
     written notifications of RFA noncompliance she sends to 
     agencies during the rulemaking process.
       We also provided a draft of the report to the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB 
     and discussed the report with her staff on March 3, 1994. The 
     Deputy Administrator said OMB has no objection to any changes 
     in the statute or in the rulemaking process that would 
     strengthen its position in ensuring RFA compliance. He also 
     said OMB would work with SBA to develop criteria and 
     procedures for determining RFA compliance. Finally, he said 
     that if the SBA Chief Counsel notifies OMB during the 
     rulemaking process that an agency is not complying with the 
     RFA, OMB would discuss the issue with the agency before 
     concluding its review of any final regulations.
       We are sending copies of this report to the SBA 
     Administrator, the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, the OMB 
     Director, the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs at OMB, interested congressional 
     committees, and others who may have an interest in this 
     matter. Copies will also be made available to others upon 
     request.
       The major contributors to this report are Charles I. 
     Patton, Jr., Associate Director, Federal Management Issues, 
     General Government Division; Curtis W. Copeland, Assistant 
     Director, Federal Management Issues, General Government 
     Division; and V. Bruce Goddard, Senior Attorney, Office of 
     the General Counsel. If you have any questions or require any 
     additional information, please call me on (202) 512-8676.
                                                  William M. Hunt,
                              Director, Federal Management Issues.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                     amendment offered by ms. pryce

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 106 as printed in 
the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pryce: At the end of title II 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 206. ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE 
                   WITH REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE.

       Not later than one year after the effective date of title 
     III and annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall submit to Congress, including the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, written statements detailing the compliance with 
     the requirements of sections 201 and 202 by each agency 
     during the period reported on.

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering, along with 
my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], is designed very 
simply to strengthen regulatory accountability and improve 
congressional oversight of executive branch agencies.
  To insure that Federal agencies are not skirting the intent of this 
legislation, our amendment would require the Office of Management and 
Budget to provide Congress with annual written statements detailing 
each Federal agency's compliance with the requirements set forth in 
title II. Our proposal would allow the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight and its sister committee in the Senate to conduct greater 
oversight of Federal agencies.
  The amendment is not meant as a substitute for judicial review, nor 
is it incompatible therewith.
  Our amendment would merely give Congress a reliable status check on 
how well agencies are complying and whether any modifications are 
needed.
  Without this amendment, I fear agencies may regard these requirements 
merely as obstacles to overcome, rather than a standard to be 
diligently applied.
  This amendment provides real teeth go into title II of this 
legislation. Accountability should be part and parcel of the work that 
every Federal agency performs.
  Too often, bureaucracies take on a life of their own, and in the 
process they lose sight of the original intent of the legislation.
  We have all heard the horror stories about regulatory abuses by 
overzealous bureaucrats. This amendment would help ensure that State 
and local governments and the private sector are protected from future 
abuses.
  [[Page H923]] State and local governments are valuable coregulators. 
They help carry out the purposes of many Federal laws, and their 
perspectives should be invited and heard.
  This legislation and our amendment would force Federal agencies to 
recognize that mandates impose real costs on taxpayers and consumers 
alike. If for some reason agencies choose to ignore the requirements in 
title II and avoid coming to this realization, then they will have to 
justify their actions before this Congress.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from California for his 
strong support for this common sense, good government amendment. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my Rules Committee colleague 
has done a superb job. The gentlewoman mentioned my friend from the 
other part of California who is a coauthor of this amendment, but I 
would like to associate myself with the words of the gentlewoman and 
state that accountability is key here, and enhancing the ability for 
reporting back to us from the agencies is I think a very important part 
of this whole goal of trying to reduce this extraordinary burden which 
is shifted from Washington onto the shoulders of State and local 
governments.
  I would like to again say how proud I am of the fine work my friend 
from Columbus is doing on the Rules Committee and this amendment is 
clear evidence of that.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment is going to do much to shed 
light on how this whole bill is going to work. It is going to provide 
Congress with the administrative material to comply with H.R. 5. The 
information is going to be of interest to the President as well, since 
much of this is what is required by the President through his Executive 
order, and I believe this affords the Congress strong oversight. I 
think it is a very valuable addition to what we are trying to 
accomplish in H.R. 5. It does clarify what is required, and I am glad 
to support the gentlewoman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my colleague from Ohio's 
amendment. I would like to thank the Rules Committee for helping us to 
perfect the legislation. This is a good example of that. It provides a 
very important feedback loop back to the authorizing committees from 
the agencies that I think is really critical in order for the structure 
of H.R. 5 to work properly, and I congratulate the gentlewoman.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CONDIT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and say this is one 
of the good amendments that would force Congress to revisit this issue 
so it does not get away from us. It forces us to reevaluate the 
program, whether or not it is working, so we can take corrective 
actions if we need to do so.
  I commend the gentlewoman for her thoughtfulness in bringing up this 
amendment, and I have enjoyed working with her on it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment and support it.
  As I said earlier, congressional oversight of agency compliance with 
title II is an important mechanism that should be used to make title II 
effective.
  It is a less costly and more effective oversight tool than the 
courts.
  I recognize it is not being offered as a substitute for judicial 
review, but I still support it as a useful amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good perfecting amendment. It 
not only is common sense, it is good government. I think the 
gentlewoman brings that record to the Congress, and I support the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. ALLARD

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, we would like to know the number of the amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is No. 
26.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that this is a new form 
of the amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. This is a modification of amendment No. 26. We cleared it 
with the Clerk, and it was determined that the best way for everybody 
to understand where we were at this point was just to move the 
amendment. But it is a modification of amendment No. 26.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment, as modified, is required to be read.
  Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
until we find out what the modification is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to reading the 
amendment. It is a very short amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] withdraws his 
request, and the Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Allard: In section 
     202(a) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike 
     ``prepare a written statement containing--'' and insert 
     ``prepare a written statement identifying the provision of 
     Federal law under which the rule is being promulgated and 
     containing--''.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5 and also the 
amendment, as modified. I want to note that according to my 
understanding, the amendment, as modified, is now acceptable to the 
sponsors of H.R. 5.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is a piece of legislation 
whose time has come. However, as currently written, H.R. 5 will not 
prohibit certain regulations that could impose an unfunded mandate on 
States and localities. That is why Mr. Graham of South Carolina and I 
are offering this amendment to tighten H.R. 5.
  Our amendment requires regulatory agencies to identify the statutes 
that give the agencies specific authority to issue a regulation that 
imposes a mandate on State and local government and the private sector. 
This helps to ensure that executive agencies cannot escape the scrutiny 
of H.R. 5 by issuing general regulations that impose an unfunded 
mandate.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rise in support of the amendment. President 
Clinton's Executive order contains a very similar kind of requirement 
that a regulatory plan must include a statement of the statutory basis 
by which the plan is being carried out, and I think this clarifies that 
the intent is we are not trying to do anything extralegally. We are 
trying to ensure that what does 
[[Page H924]] happen here is going to be done according to statute. I 
think it is a welcome addition to the bill.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the Allard-Graham amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the kind of amendment that embodies 
the idea of government, a very simple idea but an important idea. 
Almost every municipality or county government in my district is 
affected by an unfunded regulatory mandate. What we are trying to do 
now is for the regulatory agency to tell us where the authority exists 
to regulate, to begin with. A big problem in this country is that 
agencies get off and running with these statutes and we are trying to 
rein them in.
  I come from a town of 2,000 people. Let me tell you what happened to 
a town of 2,000 in central South Carolina because of a regulatory 
mandate situation.
  The water bill went up 80 percent, we spent $16,000 to test the water 
through a government mandate that could have been done for about $2,000 
from a private firm. We had to pay $5 million to upgrade their water 
system, to test for contaminants not native to South Carolina.
  It is about time we started doing something about it, and this is a 
good step.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Allard-Graham 
amendment. I believe that this amendment will halt overzealous 
regulators that pass unfunded mandates to our local communities. This 
amendment strengthens H.R. 5, by forcing Federal regulators to be 
fiscally responsible as well. Under this amendment, regulators will be 
required to reference a specific law before passing unfunded mandates 
onto the State and local officials.
  In my district, I had a county commission that was forced to raise 
taxes on its citizens, not from an unfunded Federal mandate, but from 
an unfunded regulatory agency mandate. In Caldwell County, the 
Environmental Protection Agency forced the commission to place a clay 
liner on its land fill. Protection was not at issue. Instead, the issue 
was why a clay liner? Why was it necessary to use a material not 
available in the area? Why not look for and use and equally reliable 
material to reduce the $6 million cost to this community? And most 
importantly, what law gave the EPA the right to mandate this community? 
The fact is, a lack of legislation allowed this to occur. By supporting 
the Allard-Graham amendment, you can put an end to this ``taxation 
without representation''.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time only to withdraw the point of order 
reservation made by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. It 
is a good amendment. It is the kind of clarification that we need. I 
would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.  
Graham] for working closely with the sponsors of the legislation and 
with the chairman of the committee to come up with a proposal that I 
think fits with the broader scheme of H.R. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1410


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Oxley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oxley:

     SECTION 205. CLARIFICATION OF MANDATE ISSUE AS TO GREAT LAKES 
                   WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE.

       Section (c)(2)(C) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1268(c)(2) is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following new sentence:

     ``For purposes of this subparagraph, the requirement that the 
     States adopt programs `consistent with' the Great Lakes 
     guidance shall mean that States are required to take the 
     guidance into account in adopting their programs for waters 
     within the Great Lakes System, but are in no event required 
     to adopt programs that are identical or substantially 
     identical to the provisions in the guidance.''

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] reserves 
a point of order against the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues another example of an unfunded mandate under the Clean Water 
Act which will cost my constituents millions of dollars. The issue is 
the proposed Great Lakes water quality rule from the U.S. EPA which is 
expected to be finalized in early March.
  The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act requires EPA to issue guidance 
concerning certain water quality regulatory procedures, and then 
requires the Great Lakes States to adopt requirements that are 
consistent with that guidance. However, when EPA issued its proposed 
guidance, that document was actually a binding regulatory mandate 
instead of the guidance that the act requires. If fact, EPA clearly 
indicated that it wants all of the State programs, to be identical to 
the Federal rule.
  EPA's intention to issue a binding regulation rather than guidance 
with respect to the Great Lakes is inconsistent with congressional 
intent. Also, by taking away any flexibility for a State to develop a 
program that is appropriate for its own situation, EPA would violate 
the basic federalism principles that are at the heart of the Clean 
Water Act. Again, the Federal Government would be imposing an unfunded 
mandate on the States.
  This mandate will result in unfunded compliance costs in excess of $2 
billion per year and potential loss of 33,000 jobs without producing 
meaningful toxic reductions.
  Several cities in my district surveyed their own municipal water 
treatment operations and looked at the additional regulatory controls 
needed to control mercury under the proposed Great Lakes water quality 
rule. The survey, based upon mercury only, shows that it would cost 
Bucyrus, OH, population 14,000, $13.6 million to comply with the 
proposed rule. Mansfield, OH, population 50,000, would pay $29.1 
million and Lima, OH, population 43,000, would pay $89 million.
  In terms of household taxes, the town of Lima has estimated an 
increase of $207 in taxes to pay for the costs of the water treatment 
program. In later years, as the rule is fully implemented, the town of 
Lima estimates that the household tax will increase to $1,147 per home 
per year.
  This is an incredible increase in local taxes for a federally 
mandated program from EPA. These costs are in addition to what Lima 
taxpayers already pay for safe drinking water controls and Clean Water 
Act controls on mercury. The Federal Government and EPA cannot expect 
towns like Lima to spend millions of additional dollars when the 
results will demonstrate little environmental improvement.
  EPA has simply gone too far. The 1986 reauthorization of the Clean 
Water Act did not ask EPA to propose a rule on these pollutants to 
improve the Great Lakes Basin. In fact, the act simply called for the 
EPA to issue guidance to the States surrounding the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes States want to fix the toxics problem, not just 
throw 
[[Page H925]] money at it. My amendment would require that the EPA 
issued guidance which could be used in a flexible manner as the States 
choose.
  If we are to keep our promise we made with the people, we must not 
force the costs of the Great Lakes initiative on the cities and States. 
Including this initiative in the unfunded mandates reform would prevent 
if from being issued as a regulation. It is my hope that if we cannot 
resolve this matter today, Congress will move quickly to fix the Great 
Lakes water quality initiative. While well-intended, this proposal is 
an unproductive and expensive detour around the real environmental 
solutions.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to insist on my point 
of order because I think the amendment is not germane. I do appreciate 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] taking the time to raise this very 
important issue. I would like to assure the gentleman that I am aware 
of and sensitive to the impact that the Great Lakes water quality 
initiative is going to have on municipalities and industries all across 
the Great Lakes region.
  My district does not border on the Great Lakes. My hometown of Warren 
is only an hour's drive from Erie, PA, and, according to a study 
conducted by the Great Lakes Quality Coalition, the EPA's new binding 
regulatory mandates could cost Erie, PA $119 million. Also the General 
Electric plant in Erie expects GLI's regulation to cost $50 million.
  National Forge, a major employer in my district, manufactures 
crankshafts for approximately 900 engines built annually in G.E.'s Erie 
plant, and the G.E. plant accounts for nearly 20 percent of National 
Forge's business, and the ripple effect of these costly mandates could 
force layoffs, or worse, relocation of National Forge.
  Another company affected by these new regulations that has 
significant presence in my district is International Paper. The cost of 
compliance to I.P.'s mill at Erie could reach $30 million.
  Although the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 
states it would not impose the new regulations statewide, the Lock 
Haven mill in my district could be indirectly affected since the Erie 
mill supplies wood pulp to Lock Haven.
  So, as the gentleman could see, I, too, have some concerns about 
EPA's new regulations and very much appreciate his bringing this to our 
attention and would like to work with the gentleman to address this 
very important issue, but must insist, I think, on my point of order in 
this regard.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], the author of the amendment to H.R. 5, for his efforts in 
bringing this issue to the floor.
  I support this proposal which seeks to clarify the original 
legislative intent in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and 
Control Act of 1990. The language in this act requires the States to 
institute water quality programs consistent with the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Great Lakes guidance, but in no way requires the 
States to adopt regulations which identically comply with the specific 
elements of the Great Lakes guidance.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, it will be helpful to clarify the intent 
of this section of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control 
Act.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that was just 
withdrawn by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and I take the time 
of the House to speak on this because it is such an important issue to 
those of us who reside on the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes are the largest single body of fresh water in the 
world. They are an important environmental and economic resource for 
this Nation and for those of us who live on their borders.
  In 1990, we passed the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act which 
included a measure to level the playing field of all States that border 
the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, or the GLI 
as it is known, requires Great Lakes State governments to develop and 
adopt uniform water quality standards, and it is imperative that the 
overall mission of the GLI not be undermined by the amendment that we 
were about to consider. This is a classic case where the Federal 
Government is needed to ensure that each State is playing by the same 
rules, that we have a level playing field, that one State does not 
disadvantage another State.
  The GLI eliminates the competitive advantage a State might derive by 
setting relaxed pollution standards. Now different States share 
resources, and one has a different approach to managing the resources 
than another. Who mediates the dispute? Logic would suggest the Federal 
Government.
  I do not always agree with my Governor, Gov. John Engler of Michigan, 
but in this case he understands the need to replace conflicting water 
pollution control rules that widely vary from State to State with a 
uniform comprehensive and enforceable set of standards, and in this 
instance I hope that others of his party will follow his lead in the 
future.
  While I do not believe this amendment is germane, and it obviously is 
not because it was withdrawn by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] at 
the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], I 
would have opposed it anyway. Good responsible governing does not try 
to gut every Federal rule that has ever been made. It is about 
resolving issues that States cannot resolve on their own. This is one 
instance where the Federal Government should and must intervene, and I 
hope, when this debate unfolds in the future, that we will remember 
this issue and we will
 not give up on a program that works, is needed and will help mediate 
the problems between the various Great Lakes States.

  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an editorial from the Detroit 
Free Press: ``Ban on Federal Mandates May Even Hurt Great Lakes.''

              [From the Detroit Free Press, Jan. 30, 1995]

           Ban on Federal Mandates May Even Hurt Great Lakes

       If you want an example of the mischief that can be done in 
     the name of heedlessly doing away with unfunded mandates, 
     consider an Ohio congressman's move to throw out the proposed 
     Great Lakes water quality standards.
       The Great Lakes Initiative [GLI] has been painfully 
     hammered out by business, regulators, governors and the 
     environmental community. The result didn't satisfy everybody, 
     but its stunning virtue is that it would apply the same rules 
     to all players: Steel mills in Illinois, auto plants in Ohio 
     and sewage plants in Wisconsin would have the same water 
     quality rules as their counterparts in Michigan.
       That protects the Great Lakes, and also eliminates the 
     competitive advantage a state might derive from winking at 
     pollution. The principle is critical for Michigan, which has 
     had tougher water quality standards than many of its 
     neighbors. The GLI has the firm support of Gov. John Engler.
       That protects the Great Lakes, and also eliminates the 
     competitive advantage a stage might derive from winking at 
     pollution. The principle is critical for Michigan, which has 
     had tougher water quality standards than many of its 
     neighbors. The GLI has the firm support of Gov. John Engler.
       Enter Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, with an amendment to the 
     unfunded mandates bill that would turn the GLI into advisory 
     guidelines, rather than rules. That would get Ohio off the 
     hook and gut Great Lakes protection. And bad as the Oxley 
     proposal is, it is only one of scores of similar amendments 
     the trash-the-rules gang is lining up to tack onto the 
     measure.
       Clean lakes? Safe drinking water? Worker safety? Consumer 
     protection? Not if the mandate-bashers have anything to say 
     about it. Rep. Oxley's amendment emasculating the GLI is bad 
     enough. A rigid, unthinking prohibition of any form of 
     federal mandate would be far worse.
                              {time}  1420


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: In section 202(a), 
     after ``productive jobs,'' insert ``worker benefits and 
     pensions,''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been banged around a 
[[Page H926]] little bit. It has had quite a bit of scrutiny and 
review, but I think it is imperative that the amendment be understood 
and that we understand the importance of the amendment as it relates to 
unfunded mandates, working people, and the health of our economy.
  This bill requires Federal agencies to examine a number of factors 
before promulgating regulations, but under this section where my 
amendment is in fact targeted, agencies are required to examine the 
effect of a proposed rule on the economy, the effect on productivity, 
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and the 
impact on international competitiveness.
  The Traficant amendment adds the impact on workers' benefits and 
their pensions. Let me say this: Many pensions in this country are 
underfunded. When a pension plan is underfunded, the Congress of the 
United States bails those pension plans out through the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation.
  As we know, workers are worried sick around the country about many of 
these underfunded pension plans.
  The Traficant amendment is not designed to impose any regulatory 
process on the insurance industry nor pension plans, but what the 
Traficant amendment says is that when we consider and when that group 
considers the impact of these unfunded Federal mandates on these 
respective elements under section 202(a)(4), they also look at its 
impact on the long-term effect on those health insurance plans and 
those pension plans.
  The Pension Plan Fund of America is the major source of investment 
money that impacts our stock markets, our bond markets, and the 
viability of our economic community, and I believe that in fact to 
leave that out, to be silent on that, or to not address it specifically 
would be a failing of this bill.
  I am a strong supporter of the bill, and I believe that we cannot 
separate these important areas from the other elements that are 
addressed specifically in the bill.
  So I would ask the Members to support the amendment and to keep that 
amendment in that part of the bill which addresses the fact that it 
must be reviewed and considered in any other capacity as those other 
areas so delineated. I think if we are going to ask the agencies to 
examine those other areas, we would be remiss if we did not focus on 
those two main areas that so affect our economy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The gentleman from Ohio has been very active on this issue of making 
the bill a better bill. I think this amendment is a good amendment. I 
think he has tried to work it out with the majority and tried to do 
everything he can to make sure it fits in where it is supposed to fit. 
I commend the gentleman for his effort and his support on this issue. 
It has been greatly appreciated, and I ask the Members to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for his leadership on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that as I understand the 
debate over the type of unfunded mandates we are talking about, I see 
them distant in the areas I can think of from the areas the gentleman 
is talking about.
  However, the area of pension guarantees is so important that if there 
is any possibility that this legislation affects the areas the 
gentleman from Ohio is identifying, then I think it is important that 
we add his amendment to the bill as offered, and I accept the amendment 
and support it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I certainly support the gentleman's amendment. It makes a lot of 
sense. It would add the words, ``work benefits and pensions'' after the 
words, ``creation of productive jobs'' as one aspect of private sector 
regulatory analysis.
  Certainly regulations can affect productivity and jobs. They can 
create jobs or cost jobs. What is equally important is the impact upon 
the benefits and pensions of workers across the country. I find that 
the average worker is not just concerned about the security of his job 
or her job, but they are equally concerned about the security of 
benefits and the security of pensions which are increasingly being 
eroded.
  The gentleman's amendment makes a lot of good sense. It focuses our 
attention and the agency's attention on this very important matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Traficant was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio, for yielding, and I just want to thank the gentleman for 
educating us over the last several hours here on this very important 
issue. I thank the gentleman for his contribution to the debate.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Before I complete my presentation, let me say this: It is not just 
the retirees and their pension plans I am concerned about. When those 
pension plans are impacted and that money dries up for investment in 
our economy, it impacts the active workers in our country as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the openness of the Members of the 
majority party in looking at this issue as broadly as they have. I 
appreciate their support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect my right to offer an amendment, 
amendment No. 14.
  I understand a similar amendment has already been considered today, 
and I was not on the floor at that time. But I do, nonetheless, want to 
raise the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, on page 17 of this bill it provides that each agency 
shall develop an effective process to permit elected officials or their 
designated representatives of State, local, or tribal governments to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
proposals.
  The amendment that I had considered offering today and, therefore, 
had printed in the Record, was an amendment that would also provide for 
private sector input and not just the input of elected officials. I 
thought the thrust of what I had been hearing here on the Hill was that 
we wanted to give the government back to the people, and that perhaps 
we wanted to have input from individuals, private individuals, not just 
elected officials.
  Having understood a previous amendment which was very similar to mine 
was not passed, I would be willing to not belabor the point if I could 
get a point of view as to why this type of amendment would not be found 
acceptable by the majority.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  Very briefly, we did have a good discussion on this issue previously 
in response to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] which was not accepted.
  I think there are two issues here. No. 1, there is a process by which 
through the existing Administrative Procedures Act, in a notice and 
comment period in the private sector, individuals would have an 
opportunity to be heard.
  The second point is that we do in fact provide for a special place in 
a sense for State and local governments at the table, but that is 
because they are the coregulators of the very Federal regulations that 
are subject to this rulemaking.
  So I think the response is, frankly, that there is already in the 
process the 
[[Page H927]] opportunity for people to be heard, and that is 
appropriate. We endorse that. But we did not need to carve out a 
special requirement for the agencies with respect to this. We did so 
for State and local governments, again in the sense that they are the 
coregulators and are directly affected by these regulations.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his explanation.
  Mr. Chairman, in consideration of what has been offered as an 
explanation, I would reiterate that it would seem to me that it would 
be appropriate for us to provide in this section absolute guarantees of 
private sector input and private citizen input. However, so that we 
would not delay the process and in consideration of the vote on the 
previous amendment which was similar to mine, I at this point would 
withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I again thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. We worked closely on some other amendments 
in the process, including amendments to title I, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's withdrawing his amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] simply declines to offer his amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important piece of legislation, 
and I must just take 1 minute to draw the body's attention to what this 
legislation is doing in the area, for example, of the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard many examples of the burdens placed on the 
States by unfunded Federal mandates during this debate. The Great Lakes 
States, are facing a very serious problem that will affect cities, 
townships, and villages all around the lakes.
  The EPA's proposed Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative [GLI] will 
impose substantial costs on local government and industry with little 
proven environmental benefit.
  The EPA Science Advisory Board and the American Council on Science 
and Health, as well as a study commissioned by the Great lakes 
Governors, have all expressed doubts about the proposal's potential 
environmental effectiveness.
  There is little doubt, however, that the proposal will do significant 
damage to the Great Lakes economy. The Governors' study estimates that 
it will cost more than $2 billion a year and destroy more than 33,000 
jobs.
  These large costs are not being imposed solely on industry. The most 
recent study estimates the costs will be even higher. For just 50 
municipalities, this study estimates $1.7 billion in capital costs and 
$695 million in operating and maintenance costs. That means costs to 
the entire region could be well in excess of $5 billion.
  The EPA currently intends to issue the proposal as a binding 
regulatory mandate that must be implemented the same way in every State 
and every community. There would be no flexibility, and consequently, 
no opportunity to reduce costs.
  This is yet another example of an outrageous unfunded mandate imposed 
by an out-of-control bureaucracy. A mandate that may bankrupt an entire 
region with little or no proven environmental benefit.
  We must return to some common sense in our governmental conduct. The 
proposal was originally intended as a guidance, not a mandate. We must 
give the States back the flexibility to adopt the GLI to local 
conditions and needs.
  This amendment says clearly that the States should take the EPA 
guidance into account in adopting water quality programs. At the same 
time, however, State programs do not have to be identical to the EPA 
guidance.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide a sensible remedy to an 
expensive and unfair situation.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed out 
of order at this point. I think this amendment is the last one that was 
going to be offered in title II. We are working with the majority side 
to try to reach agreement on this language. Rather than try to proceed 
prematurely, I ask unanimous consent that we go into title III and 
reserve the right to come back.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have no 
objection. The gentleman from Colorado and the chairman of the 
committee have been discussing this issue. In the possibility that they 
might reach agreement, it would be well warranted.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the rights of the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] to offer an amendment to title II will be 
protected.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

            TITLE III--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

     SEC. 301. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM.

       Title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting before section 401 the following:

                  ``Part A--General Provisions''; and

       (2) adding at the end the following new part:

                       ``Part B--Federal Mandates

     ``SEC. 421. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part:
       ``(1) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning stated in 
     section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include independent regulatory agencies, as defined by 
     section 3502(10) of title 44, United States Code.
       ``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office.
       ``(3) Federal financial assistance.--The term `Federal 
     financial assistance' means the amount of budget authority 
     for any Federal grant assistance or any Federal program 
     providing loan guarantees or direct loans.
       ``(4) Federal intergovernmental mandate.--The term `Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate' means--
       ``(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
     that--
       ``(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments, except--
       ``(I) a condition of Federal assistance; or
       ``(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program, except as provided in subparagraph (B); or
       ``(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount of 
     authorization of appropriations for Federal financial 
     assistance that would be provided to States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments for the purpose of 
     complying with any such previously imposed duty unless such 
     duty is reduced or eliminated by a corresponding amount; or
       ``(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
     that relates to a then-existing Federal program under which 
     $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to States, local 
     governments, and tribal governments under entitlement 
     authority, if--
       ``(i)(I) the provision would increase the stringency of 
     conditions of assistance to States, local governments, or 
     tribal governments under the program; or
       ``(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the 
     Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding to 
     States, local governments, or tribal governments under the 
     program; and
       ``(ii) the States, local governments, or tribal governments 
     that participate in the Federal program lack authority under 
     that program to amend their financial or programmatic 
     responsibilities to continue providing required services that 
     are affected by the legislation, statute, or regulation.
       ``(5) Federal private sector mandate.--The term `Federal 
     private sector mandate' means any provision in legislation, 
     statute, or regulation that--
       ``(A) would impose an enforceable duty on the private 
     sector except--
       ``(i) a condition of Federal assistance; or
       ``(ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program; or
       ``(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization 
     of appropriations for Federal financial assistance that will 
     be provided to the private sector for the purpose of ensuring 
     compliance with such duty.
       ``(6) Federal mandate.--The term `Federal mandate' means a 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector 
     mandate, as defined in paragraphs (4) and (5).
       ``(7) Federal mandate direct costs.--
       ``(A) Federal intergovernmental direct costs.--In the case 
     of a Federal intergovernmental mandate, the term `direct 
     costs' means the aggregate estimated amounts that all States, 
     local governments, and tribal governments would be required 
     to spend or would be required to forego in revenues in order 
     to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate, or in 
     the case of a provision referred to in paragraph (4)(A)(ii), 
     the amount of Federal financial assistance eliminated or 
     reduced.
       ``(B) Private sector direct costs.--In the case of a 
     Federal private sector mandate, the 
     [[Page H928]] term `direct costs' means the aggregate 
     estimated amounts that the private sector would be required 
     to spend in order to comply with a Federal private sector 
     mandate.
       ``(C) Execlusion from direct costs.--The term `direct 
     costs' does not include--
       ``(i) estimated amounts that the States, local governments, 
     and tribal governments (in the case of a Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate), or the private sector (in the 
     case of a Federal private sector mandate), would spend--
       ``(I) to comply with or carry out all applicable Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in effect at 
     the time of the adoption of a Federal mandate for the same 
     activity as is affected by that Federal mandate; or
       ``(II) to comply with or carry out State, local government, 
     and tribal governmental programs, or private-sector business 
     or other activities in effect at the time of the adoption of 
     a Federal mandate for the same activity as is affected by 
     that mandate; or
       ``(ii) expenditures to the extent that they will be offset 
     by any direct savings to be enjoyed by the States, local 
     governments, and tribal governments, or by the private 
     sector, as a result of--
       ``(I) their compliance with the Federal mandate; or
       ``(II) other changes in Federal law or regulation that are 
     enacted or adopted in the same bill or joint resolution or 
     proposed or final Federal regulation and that govern the same 
     activity as is affected by the Federal mandate.
       ``(D) Determination of costs.--Direct costs shall be 
     determined based on the assumption that States, local 
     governments, tribal governments, and the private sector will 
     take all reasonable steps necessary to mitigate the costs 
     resulting from the Federal mandate, and will comply with 
     applicable standards of practice and conduct established by 
     recognized professional or trade associations. Reasonable
      steps to mitigate the costs shall not include increases in 
     State, local, or tribal taxes or fees.
       ``(8) Local government.--The term `local government' has 
     the same meaning as in section 6501(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       ``(9) Private sector.--The term `private sector' means 
     individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, 
     business trusts, or legal representatives, organized groups 
     of individuals, and educational and other nonprofit 
     institutions.
       ``(10) Regulation.--The term `regulation' or `rule' has the 
     meaning of `rule' as defined in section 601(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(11) State.--The term `State' has the same meaning as in 
     section 6501(9) of title 31, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 422. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.

       ``This part shall not apply to any provision in a bill, 
     joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report 
     before Congress 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.

     ``SEC. 423. DUTIES OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

       ``(a) Submission of Rules to the Director.--When a 
     committee of authorization of the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate orders a bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported, the committee shall promptly provide the 
     text of the bill or joint resolution to the Director and 
     shall identify to the Director any Federal mandate contained 
     in the bill or resolution.
       ``(b) Committee Report.--
       ``(1) Information regarding federal mandates.--When a 
     committee of authorization of the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate reports a bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character that includes any Federal mandate, the report of 
     the committee accompanying the bill or joint resolution shall 
     contain the information required by paragraph (2) and, in the 
     case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate, paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Reports on federal mandates.--Each report referred to 
     in paragraph (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) an identification and description of each Federal 
     mandate in the bill or joint resolution, including the 
     statement,
      if available, from the Director pursuant to section 424(a):
       ``(B) a qualitative assessment, and if practicable, a 
     quantitative assessment of costs and benefits anticipated 
     from the Federal mandate (including the effects on health and 
     safety and protection of the natural environment); and
       ``(C) a statement of the degree to which the Federal 
     mandate affects each of the public and private sectors and 
     the extent to which Federal payment of public sector costs 
     would affect the competitive balance between States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments and the private sector.
       ``(3) Intergovernmental mandates.--If any of the Federal 
     mandates in the bill or joint resolution are Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates, the report referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall also contain--
       ``(A)(i) a statement of the amount, if any, of increase or 
     decrease in authorization of appropriations under existing 
     Federal financial assistance programs or for new Federal 
     financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint 
     resolution and unable for activities of States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments subject to Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates; and
       ``(ii) a statement of whether the committee intends that 
     the Federal intergovernmental mandates be partly or entirely 
     unfunded, and, if so, the reasons for that intention; and
       ``(B) a statement of any existing sources of Federal 
     financial assistance in addition to those identified in 
     subparagraph (A) that may assist States, local governments, 
     and tribal governments in paying the direct costs of the 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates.
       ``(4) Information regarding preemption.--When a committee 
     of authorization of the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate reports a bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character, the committee report accompanying the bill or 
     joint resolution shall contain, if relevant to the bill or 
     joint resolution, an explicit statement on whether the bill 
     or joint resolution, in whole or in part, is intended to 
     preempt any State, local, or tribal law, and if so, an 
     explanation of the reasons for such intention.
       ``(c) Publication of Statement From the Director.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receiving a statement (including 
     any supplemental statement) from the Director pursuant to 
     section 424(a), a committee of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate shall publish the statement in the committee 
     report accompanying the bill or joint resolution to which the 
     statement relates if the statement is available to be 
     included in the printed report.
       ``(2) Other publication or statement of director.--If the 
     statement is not published in the report, or if the bill or 
     joint resolution to which the statement relates is expected 
     to be considered by the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate before the report is published, the committee shall 
     cause the statement, or a summary thereof, to be published in 
     the Congressional
      Record in advance of floor consideration of the bill or 
     joint resolution.

     ``SEC. 424. DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR.

       ``(a) Statements on Bills and Joint Resolutions Other Than 
     Appropriations Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
       (1) Federal intergovernmental mandates in reported bills 
     and resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee of authorization 
     of the House of Representatives or the Senate, the Director 
     shall prepare and submit to the committee a statement as 
     follows:
       (A) If the Director estimates that the direct cost of all 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution will equal or exceed $50,000,000 (adjusted 
     annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which such a 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate (or in any necessary 
     implementing regulation) would first be effective or in any 
     of the 4 fiscal years following such year, the Director shall 
     so state, specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis 
     of the estimate.
       (B) The estimate required by subparagraph (A) shall include 
     estimates (and brief explanations of the basis of the 
     estimates) of--
       ``(i) the total amount of direct cost of complying with the 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution; and
       ``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of 
     appropriations or budget authority or entitlement authority 
     under existing Federal financial assistance programs, or of 
     authorization of appropriations for new Federal financial 
     assistance, provided by the bill or joint resolution and 
     usable by States, local governments, or tribal governments 
     for activities subject to the Federal intergovernmental 
     mandates.
       ``(2) Federal private sector mandates in reported bills and 
     joint resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee of authorization 
     of the House of Representatives or the Senate, the Director 
     shall prepare and submit to the committee a statement as 
     follows:
       ``(A) If the Director estimates that the direct cost of all 
     Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution will equal or exceed $100,000,000 (adjusted 
     annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any 
     Federal private sector mandate in the bill or joint 
     resolution (or in any necessary implementing regulation) 
     would first be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years 
     following such fiscal year, the Director shall so state, 
     specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis of the 
     estimate.
       ``(B) The estimate required by subparagraph (A) shall 
     include estimates (and brief explanations of the basis of the 
     estimates) of--
       ``(i) the total amount of direct costs of complying with 
     the Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution; and
       ``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of 
     appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance 
     programs, or of 
     [[Page H929]] authorization of appropriations for new Federal 
     financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint 
     resolution usable by the private sector for the activities 
     subject to the Federal private sector mandates.
       ``(C) If the Director determines that it is not feasible to 
     make a reasonable estimate that would be required under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Director shall not make the 
     estimate, but shall report in the statement that the 
     reasonable estimate cannot be made and shall include the 
     reasons for that determination in the statement.
       ``(3) Legislation falling below the direct costs 
     thresholds.--If the Director estimates that the direct costs 
     of a Federal mandate will not equal or exceed the threshold 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A), the Director shall 
     so state and shall briefly explain the basis of the estimate.
       ``(4) Amended bills and joint resolutions; conference 
     reports.--If the Director has prepared the statement pursuant 
     to subsection (a) for a bill or joint resolution, and if that 
     bill or joint resolution is reported or passed in an amended 
     form (including if passed by one House as an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute for the text of a bill or joint 
     resolution from the other House) or is reported by a 
     committee of conference in an amended form, the committee of 
     conference shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, 
     that the Director shall prepare a supplemental statement for 
     the bill or joint resolution in that amended form.
       ``(b) Assistance to Committees and Studies.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the request of any committee of the 
     House of Representatives or of the Senate, the Director 
     shall, to the extent practicable, consult with and assist 
     such committee in analyzing the budgetary or financial impact 
     of any proposed legislation that may have--
       ``(A) a significant budgetary impact on State, local, or 
     tribal governments; or
       ``(B) a significant financial impact on the private sector.
       ``(2) Continuing studies.--The Director shall conduct 
     continuing studies to enhance comparisons of budget outlays, 
     credit authority, and tax expenditures.
       ``(3) Federal mandate studies.--
       ``(A) At the request of any committee of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, the Director shall, to the 
     extent practicable, conduct a study of a legislative proposal 
     containing a Federal mandate.
       ``(B) In conducting a study under subparagraph (A), the 
     Director shall--
       ``(i) solict and consider information or comments from 
     elected officials (including their designated 
     representatives) of States, local governments, tribal 
     governments, designated representatives of the private 
     sector, and such other persons as may provide helpful 
     information or comments;
       ``(ii) consider establishing advisory panels of elected 
     officials (including their designated representatives) of 
     States, local governments, tribal governments, designated 
     representatives of the private sector, and other persons if 
     the Director determines, in the Director's discretion, that 
     such advisory panels would be helpful in performing the 
     Director's responsibilities under this section; and
       ``(iii) include estimates, if and to the extent that the 
     Director determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of--
       ``(I) the future direct cost of the Federal mandates 
     concerned to the extent that they significantly differ from 
     or extend beyond the 5-year period after the mandate is first 
     effective; and
       ``(II) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the 
     Federal mandates concerned upon particular industries or 
     sectors of the economy, States, regions, and urban, or rural 
     or other types of communities, as appropriate.
       ``(C) In conducting a study on private sector mandates 
     under subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide estimates, 
     if and to the extent that the Director determines that such 
     estimates are reasonably feasible, of--
       ``(i) future costs of Federal private sector mandates to 
     the extent that such mandates differ significantly from or 
     extend beyond the 5-year period referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)(I);
       ``(ii) any disproportionate financial effects of Federal 
     private sector mandates and of any Federal financial 
     assistance in the bill or joint resolution upon any 
     particular industries or sectors of the economy, States, 
     regions, and urban or rural or other types of communities; 
     and
       ``(iii) the effect of Federal private sector mandates in 
     the bill or joint resolution on the national economy, 
     including the effect on productivity, economic growth, full 
     employment, creation of productive jobs, and international 
     competitiveness of United States goods and services.
       ``(c) Views of Committees.--Any committee of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate which anticipates that the 
     committee will consider any proposed legislation 
     establishing, amending, or reauthorizing any Federal program 
     likely to have a significant budgetary impact on the States, 
     local governments, or tribal governments, or likely to have a 
     significant financial impact on the private sector, including 
     any legislative proposal submitted by the executive branch 
     likely to have such a budgetary or financial impact, shall 
     provide its views and estimates on such proposal to the 
     Committee on the Budget of its House.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Congressional Budget Office to 
     carry out this part $4,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
     ``SEC. 425. POINT OF ORDER.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a 
     committee unless the committee has published the statement of 
     the Director pursuant to section 424(a) prior to such 
     consideration, except that this paragraph shall not apply to 
     any supplemental statement prepared by the Director under 
     section 424(a)(4); or
       ``(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that contains a Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate having direct costs that exceed the threshold 
     specified in section 424(a)(1)(A), or that would cause the 
     direct costs of any other Federal intergovernmental mandate 
     to exceed the threshold specified in section 424(a)(1)(A), 
     unless--
       ``(A) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides new budget authority or new 
     entitlement authority in the House of Representatives or 
     direct spending authority in the Senate for each fiscal year 
     for the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report in an amount that equals or exceeds the estimated 
     direct costs of such mandate; or
       ``(B) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides an increase in receipts or a 
     decrease in new budget authority or new entitlement authority 
     in the House of Representatives or direct spending authority 
     in the Senate and an increase in new budget authority or new 
     entitlement authority in the House of Representatives or an 
     increase direct spending authority for each fiscal year for 
     the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report in 
     an amount that equals or exceeds the estimated direct costs 
     of such mandate; or
       ``(C) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report--
       ``(i) provides that--
       ``(I) such mandate shall be effective for any fiscal year 
     only if all direct costs of such mandate in the fiscal year 
     are provided in appropriations Acts, and
       ``(II) in the case of such a mandate contained in the bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, 
     the mandate is repealed effective on the first day of any 
     fiscal year for which all direct costs of such mandate are 
     not provided in appropriations Acts; or
       ``(ii) requires a Federal agency to reduce programmatic and 
     financial responsibilities of State, local, and tribal 
     governments for meeting the objectives of the mandate such 
     that the estimated direct costs of the mandate to such 
     governments do not exceed the amount of Federal funding 
     provided to those governments to carry out the mandate in the 
     form of appropriations or new budget authority or new 
     entitlement
      authority in the House of Representatives or direct spending 
     authority in the Senate, and establishes criteria and 
     procedures for that reduction.
       ``(b) Limitation on Application to Appropriations Bills.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to a bill that is reported by 
     the Committee on Appropriations or an amendment thereto.
       ``(c) Determination of Direct Costs Based on Estimates by 
     Budget Committees.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     amount of direct costs of a Federal mandate for a fiscal year 
     shall be determined based on estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget, in consultation with the Director, of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be.
       ``(d) Determination of Existence of Federal Mandate by 
     Government Reform and Oversight and Governmental Affairs 
     Committees.--For the purposes of this section, the question 
     of whether a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report contains a Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate shall be determined after consideration of the 
     recommendation, if available, of the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives or the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, as applicable.
       ``(e) Limitation on application of Subsection (a)(2).--
     Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report 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 for such enactment, would reduce 
     the duties imposed by the Federal intergovernmental mandate 
     by a corresponding amount.
      [[Page H930]]  ``SEC. 426. ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       ``It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives 
     to consider a rule or order that waives the application of 
     section 425(a): Provided, however, That pending a point of 
     order under section 425(a) or under this section a Member may 
     move to waive the point of order. Such a motion shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent but, if offered in the House, 
     shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except 
     a motion that the House adjourn. The adoption of a motion to 
     waive such a point of order against consideration of a bill 
     or joint resolution shall be considered also to waive a like 
     point of order against an amendment made in order as original 
     text.''.
     SEC. 302. ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Motions To Strike in the Committee of the Whole.--Cause 
     5 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     is amended by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(c) In the consideration of any measure for amendment in 
     the Committee of the Whole containing any Federal mandate the 
     direct costs of which exceed the threshold in section 
     424(a)(1)(A) of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, it 
     shall always be in order, unless specifically waived by terms 
     of a rule governing consideration of that measure, to move to 
     strike such Federal mandate from the portion of the bill then 
     open to amendment.''.
       (b) Committee on Rules Reports on Waived Points of Order.--
     The Committee on Rules shall include in the report required 
     by clause 1(d) of Rule XI (relating to its activities during 
     the Congress) of the Rules of the House of Representatives a 
     separate item identifying all waivers of points of order 
     relating to Federal mandates, listed by bill or joint 
     resolution number and the subject matter of that measure.

     SEC. 303. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The provisions of this title (except section 305) are 
     enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking powers of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, and as such they shall be 
     considered as part of the rules of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and such rules 
     shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate to change such 
     rules at anytime, in the same manner, and to the same extent 
     as in the case of any other rule of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, respectively.

     SEC. 304. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       Section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``Part A--General 
     Provisions'' before the items relating to section 401 and by 
     inserting after the items relating to section 407 the 
     following:
                       ``Part B--Federal Mandates

``Sec. 421. Definitions.
``Sec. 422. Limitation on application.
``Sec. 423. Duties of congressional committees.
``Sec. 424. Duties of the Director.
``Sec. 425. Point of order.
``Sec. 426. Enforcement in the House of Representatives.''.
     SEC. 305. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--The State and Local Government 
     Cost Estimate Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-108) is repealed.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 403 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:


               ``analysis by congressional budget office

       Sec. 403. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each bill or 
     resolution of a public character reported by any committee of 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate (except the 
     Committee on Appropriations of each House), and submit to 
     such committee--
       (1) an estimate of the costs which would be incurred in 
     carrying out such bill or resolution in the fiscal year in 
     which it is to become effective and in each of the fiscal 
     years following such fiscal year, together with the basis for 
     each estimate; and
       ``(2) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in 
     paragraph (1) with any available estimate of costs made by 
     such committee or by any Federal agency.

     The estimate and comparison so submitted shall be included in 
     the report accompanying such bill or resolution if timely 
     submitted to such committee before such report is filed.''.

     SEC. 306. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on October 1, 1995.


             amendment offered by mrs. collins of illinois
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment numbered 
51.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois: In section 
     306, strike ``October 1, 1995'' and insert ``at the end of 
     the 10-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act''.

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, many Democrats will vote for 
this bill because they believe the open and full debate on the costs to 
the public and private sector is the essence of good public policy.
  That is why it is imperative that if this bill is passed, the 
requirements of the bill be applied to legislation as soon as possible. 
We need to ensure a full and open debate on the true costs of the 
legislation that the Republican leadership will be bringing to this 
floor.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 5 in its present form will not allow us to do 
that. The effective date in section 306 is not when we pass this bill, 
or even a week or a month after passage. No, for some unexplained 
reasons, this bill does not go into effect until October 1, 1995. That 
is more than 8 months away. My amendment would simply move up the 
effective date to 10 days after enactment.
  We have heard how important this legislation is, how essential it is 
to pass it as soon as possible. How urgent is this bill?
  So urgent that the primary committee of jurisdiction, the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, was told that it did not have time 
for a hearing on the bill.
  So urgent that it was marked up just 2 days after the bill was 
printed.
  So urgent that the markup took place at the same time that the 
committee held its first organizational meeting.
  So urgent that the majority requested permission to file the 
committee report early to get us to the floor today.
  Why, if it is so urgent, does it not take effect for another 9 
months? The chairman of the committee has stated that he wanted to give 
the Congressional Budget Office time to gear up for its new 
responsibilities. I would answer that CBO has had plenty of opportunity 
to gear up. It has known for 2 years that unfunded mandate legislation 
was coming.
  In fact, in staff discussions with CBO, its staff does not believe it 
will take much additional resources to carry out its duties under this 
legislation.
  Let me suggest a different reason for delaying enactment until 
October 1: By then, most of the Republican contract, including 
rescission bills, welfare reform, and other cost-cutting measures, will 
have come to the floor and been acted on.
  Some of these bills, in cutting the Federal responsibility for 
certain programs, may very well have the effect of shifting those 
burdens to State and local governments.
  For example, the welfare reform bills that we have heard about would 
provide less money to States while perhaps still requiring them to 
provide certain levels of assistance. That is an unfunded mandate under 
this bill. And we have no idea what impact the rescission bills may 
have on State and local governments.
  We have heard that none of the legislation to be taken up between now 
and October will impose any costs on State and local governments. 
Therefore, there should be no opposition to this amendment. If there is 
hesitation to applying this bill over the coming months, then either 
this bill has great problems, or there are in fact unfunded mandates in 
the Republican agenda.
  Let us not delay the effect of this bill. Regardless of your views on 
this bill, there is no reason to exempt our actions over the coming 
months on the Republican contract.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the amendment is very well intentioned, but 
it seems to me that there is a sense that this October 1 effective date 
was somehow just drawn out of thin air, when in fact that clearly is 
not the case. The enactment date of October 1 was not determined by the 
Contract With America. In fact, it was determined based on 
consultations with the Congressional Budget Office to arrive at a 
reasonable time frame that would allow the Congressional Budget Office 
to obtain the staffing and expertise to conduct accurate cost 
estimates, which clearly is the major thrust of what we are trying to 
do with this legislation.
  It seems to me that is a very responsible route for us to take. 
Nothing is trying to be put off at all.
                       [[Page H931]] {time}  1440

  I think that the attempt to proceed with this is less than 
responsible.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Cincinnati, OH.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  A couple of points in response to the gentlewoman's comments 
regarding the effective date. It should be made clear, Mr. Chairman, 
that in last year's legislation, which passed the Government Operations 
Committee by a vote of 35 to 4, the effective date was October 1, 1995. 
This was, of course, prior to the Contract With America, prior to the 
new Congress. And this was a piece of legislation which was very 
similar to the H.R. 5 now before us. Again, it was a strong bipartisan 
vote of 35 to 4. The reason October 1 was chosen is precisely what my 
friend from California has said, which is, it would take that long for 
the Congressional Budget Office to be prepared to do the extensive 
analysis which is required under this legislation.
  I would say, in addition, that I have had direct personal 
conversations with CBO as recently as in the last 2 weeks with regard 
to this very issue. And they, in fact, would probably prefer the Senate 
version of the bill, which provides for an effective date of January 1, 
1996. The House version, again, is October 1, 1995.
  I would say finally that this is also very important so that our 
committees, authorizing committees here in the House and so that the 
Federal agencies can be prepared to actually respond to the new 
requirements in this legislation, which are so important to the 
accountability that is central to this act.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Portman] mentioned that the bill that we had last year had an enactment 
date of October 1995. I just want to point out, this is not the bill we 
had last year. This is a totally different bill than the bill we had 
last year. This is a new bill, as the gentleman very well knows. It 
just seems to me we cannot compare those two at this point in time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
just one small comment, it is a different piece of legislation with 
regard to the CBO requirements. If anything, this bill has even more 
requirements for CBO, although the bill last year also had a CBO cost 
requirement, as the gentlewoman knows, and if anything, one would think 
the logic would be that we would push back the effective date beyond 
October 1, given the change in the legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, they also had a year's head 
up since we are in another year, and another Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think a very important point that needs 
to be made here is that the dollars that would be necessary for the 
Congressional Budget Office to successfully implement this will not be 
appropriated until the next fiscal year. We can authorize it, but those 
funds would not be available until following October 1, and that is the 
reason for this date. That is why I think that it is important for us 
to maintain that.
  A great deal of thought went into it. It is for that reason that I am 
going to have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman have any 
idea when he would expect CBO to be doing these estimates and getting 
information back to the Congress?
  Mr. DREIER. This is obviously going to be taking place over the next 
several weeks and months following implementation of this legislation. 
And they are well aware of the fact that this October 1 date is 
obviously key for them and that sets an actual deadline.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Does the gentleman expect an unfunded 
mandate to come down the pike before then, before October 1?
  Mr. DREIER. Surely. Before the first of October, surely, we are going 
to be looking at those. It is obvious that as we begin addressing this 
issue, it is going to be on the horizon, but this October 1 date was 
very important and, as I said, was not grasped out of thin air. It was 
something that clearly we did with careful negotiations with the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to have to 
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Could the gentleman tell me when is the 
effective date of title II?
  Mr. DREIER. The effective date on title II.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would say in response to the gentlewoman's question with regard to 
title II, which is the regulatory requirements, that it is my 
understanding that they become effective upon enactment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, was the answer adequate?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, the gentleman said title II was effective upon 
enactment. So will we have to wait for that title until October 1, 
1995, even though it is effective upon enactment?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
it is my understanding that the regulatory section, which is title II, 
becomes effective upon enactment. In other words, the Federal agencies 
will be required to continue to do as they do now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Portman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the Federal agencies will be required to do as they are required now 
under the Executive order to carry out the cost-benefit analysis 
contained in title II.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman suppose 
they might be willing to delay any additional enactment until October 
1, 1995, under title II, the Federal agencies?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Federal agencies are currently 
required, under the Executive order, to go even beyond the cost-benefit 
analysis provided in title II. We now have it in statute, not just in 
the Executive order. But it is my understanding the agencies would 
continue to provide the cost-benefit analysis that was subject to the 
debate earlier today.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the problem is, it is a new 
requirement because it is a new bill. I just wondered how it was going 
to all play out between now and October 1, 1995.
  Mr. PORTMAN. It is my understanding that the Congressional Budget 
Office, because, they have no requirements within title II, will begin 
their analysis on October 1. By that time they will have adequate 
funding and adequate personnel to do the very major tasks which we are 
asking them to do in this legislation. Again, this is all consistent 
with the legislation we passed last year, H.R. 5128. The Senate bill 
has January 1, 1996, as a deadline.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 250, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     [[Page H932]] Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--250

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     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
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     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
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bilbray
     Gekas
     Mfume

                             {time}   1505

  Mr. RICHARDSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, DOLLEY, DEAL of Georgia, BAESLER, 
TAUZIN, PARKER, and LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. portman

  Mr. PORTMAN. 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. Portman: In section 301, in the 
     proposed section 423(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, amend subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) a statement of--
       ``(i) the degree to which the Federal mandate affects each 
     of the public and private sectors, including a description of 
     the actions, if any, taken by the committee to avoid any 
     adverse impact on the private sector or on the competitive 
     balance between the public sector and the private sector; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a Federal mandate that is a Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate, the extent to which limiting or 
     eliminating the Federal intergovernmental mandate or Federal 
     payment of direct costs of the Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate (if applicable) would affect the competitive balance 
     between States, local governments, or tribal governments and 
     the private sector.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague and friend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit] and I are offering this amendment in response 
to concerns we have heard from Members about the potential adverse 
impacts this legislation, H.R. 5, could have on the private sector and 
the competitive balance between the public and private sectors.
  I should say at the outset it is not my view that H.R. 5 would have 
such a negative impact. In fact, it strikes me as rather odd that while 
certain Members of the other party are expressing concerns about the 
devastation that might befall the private sector, it is representatives 
of this very sector, the private sector, that have strongly supported 
H.R. 5 and have worked with us in drafting this bill and are strongly 
supportive of this clarifying amendment.
  The list of business groups endorsing H.R. 5 is too lengthy to go 
through in its entirety, Mr. Chairman, but I will say for the record 
that we have support from the chamber of commerce, the NFIB, the Small 
Business Legislative Council and, yes, one of the largest private 
sector entities involved in this situation which would be BFI, 
Browning-Ferris. That is quite persuasive to me that the concerns being 
expressed by the opponents to H.R. 5 are being overdone.
  These are groups that the opponents of H.R. 5 claim would be 
negatively affected by its enactment. Yet these groups want this 
legislation. They want it passed now.
  As someone who is very proud of my record of support of the private 
sector, particularly small business, I can assure my colleagues that I 
would not be standing here today arguing for the passage of H.R. 5 if I 
believed it would harm this critically important sector of our economy. 
In fact, I believe just the opposite. Passage of H.R. 5 does not mean 
that Congress is denied the right to impose mandates on the public 
sector that are imposed on the private sector. Nor does it mean that we 
will fund mandates for the public sector that are not funded on the 
private sector, thereby setting up a competitive disadvantage. Instead 
it simply means we are going to have the cost information we need to 
make an informed decision.
  Specifically on this point, H.R. 5 gives us for the first time, Mr. 
Chairman, a requirement that Congress must address the impact on the 
private sector. It must address this very issue of the competitive 
balance between the public and private sectors. The Portman-Condit 
amendment strengthens this requirement so that before legislation is 
brought to the House floor, we will be apprised of the degree to which 
Federal mandates in this bill could affect the competitive balance 
between the public and private sectors.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would require that the committee report 
accompanying the Federal mandate legislation spell out precisely what 
the effect on the public-private competitive balance would be if there 
were mandates on both the public and private sector that were scaled 
back, eliminated, or funded for the public sector.
  [[Page H933]] By doing so, Mr. Chairman, we achieve the goal of 
accountability that is central to H.R. 5. These are the very ends that 
H.R. 5 seeks, accountability and informed debate. We owe nothing less 
to the American people than to have that. I believe this amendment 
clarifies and strengthens the accountability in this act. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to associate myself with his 
remarks and say that I believe that this amendment strikes the very 
important balance which we are seeking between the private and public 
sectors, so that in fact an analysis can be done that would determine 
if there were any negative effects that this measure were imposing on 
those on the private side.
  I think it is a very good amendment, it clarifies the situation which 
was in question, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join in support of this amendment. I think it 
is a very constructive one. This analysis about the competitive 
situation between the public and the private side will be a very useful 
one. I think this is a helpful amendment and I urge support for it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for his support and appreciate it 
very much.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and 
thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for his involvement and 
effort in this amendment and the bill.

                              {time}  1510

  I think that this amendment is a good amendment in dealing with the 
private sector problem that we have, and we acknowledge that we have a 
private sector problem. We are doing everything that we can to try to 
deal with it in a fair fashion. We think this does it. We think this 
reporting requirement would allow us the opportunity to collect the 
information, and to then do something about it at a later time.
  Let me also just remind my colleagues that in a few weeks we will 
also be discussing other issues that I believe deal with the private 
sector, that will help them in dealing with unfunded mandates, and that 
is risk assessment and cost analysis.
  For those who get overly exercised about this not being totally what 
they want it to be or totally fair, I think we are going to have 
another bite at the apple down the road with risk assessment and cost 
benefit, which I think will be a great benefit to the private sector 
and to putting some balance in regulatory law in this place.
  So, this is a good amendment. It may not be what everybody wants, but 
I think it is a good amendment, it makes the bill work, and I would 
encourage Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] 
that this does not do everything we want and it is not totally fair. 
And I am glad he made that point.
  I support this amendment. I think it is appropriate that each 
authorizing committee consider the impact of their legislation on both 
the public sector and the private sector and where it creates a 
disparity, a lack of competitiveness, that committee ought to address 
it.
  But where this amendment does clarify the problem, it does not 
rectify the problem. I will have an amendment that I will offer shortly 
that would rectify the problem. But I appreciate my friends, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit], bringing up this issue, exposing it to public 
consideration and particularly within this body, because it is a very 
basic issue, and I think a significant flaw within this legislation.
  But it is a flaw that we can easily, as I say, rectify with a 
subsequent amendment that I will offer to treat the public sector 
equally with the private sector.
  The basic problem with this bill is that it enables State and local 
governments to avoid Federal mandates if they are not completely 
funded. But it does not give that same option to the private sector.
  So all of these privatization efforts that we have made and that I 
think the other side is particularly supportive of, but they are 
getting a lot of support on the Democratic side as well, to let the 
public sector carry out in the most efficient way all of the 
privatization efforts, which are going to be compromised or in fact 
eliminated if we do not rectify this basic flaw in the legislation 
which says that it becomes optional for State and local governments to 
carry out Federal legislation, but it is not optional for the private 
sector. Even though we will know what the cost to the private sector 
is, we do not give them the option to avoid the impact of this 
legislation, and as a result, in most areas where the private sector 
attempts to compete with the public sector it will become uncompetitive 
because it will not have to comply with environmental or labor laws or 
any other piece of legislation that we will subsequently enact. It is 
basically unfair and I think it is totally inconsistent with the 
concept of this legislation.
  So, while I support this amendment and I certainly support what the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit] would like to accomplish with this amendment, it does not 
do the job.
  I appreciate the fact that they have pointed out the problem, but I 
would hope that they would support my effort to rectify the problem.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the debate on the 
upcoming amendment to which the gentleman referred.
  I would say this amendment does in fact address the problem, it does 
in fact force Congress to deal with the issue of public-private 
competition. If Congress, under its point of order requirement, which 
would be the discretion of Congress by majority vote, chooses not to 
impose a mandate because of the private-public concern, then Congress 
has the ability to do that under H.R. 5. And by this amendment we are 
insuring that Congress has the information to carry out that very 
informed debate and to make this very important decision.
  So I would say that this amendment in fact does solve the gentleman's 
concern, and I look forward to the debate on his amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman. If I could reclaim my time just 
shortly to respond, yes, it will give us that information, and that 
information should be used for our decisionmaking.
  The problem is the gentleman wants us to make a decision now which 
will preclude our ability to rectify the unfairness that committees are 
going to discover as a result of the gentleman's amendment. That is the 
basic problem. He wants to make the decision now before we have the 
information that is available.
  But, we will continue this discussion when we entertain my amendment. 
I do support this particular amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 amendment offered by mr. hall of ohio

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 15.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment number 15 offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
       In section 301(2), in the matter proposed to be added as a 
     new section 421(4)(B)(ii) to the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, insert ``except with respect to any low-income program 
     referred to in section 255(h) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,''.

[[Page H934]]

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It protects very low-income programs, those that we 
exempted from sequestration under the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985 as 
unfunded mandates. This is important, because there could be major 
changes coming down the road on low-income programs including food and 
poverty programs.
  My amendment clarifies the definition of Federal intergovernmental 
mandates in section 421. What I am trying to do is clarify the 
intergovernmental mandates in section 421 to ensure that the poor will 
get an up-or-down vote on their programs just like everyone else. 
Programs that would be protected under this amendment are child 
nutrition, which would be school lunch, school breakfast, summer food 
service, child- and adult-care food programs, food stamps, Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, and SSI.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 is essentially a piece of legislation that 
changes the procedures for bills coming down the road, and we have not 
yet seen the bills and amendments it is intended to affect.
  While I am sympathetic to the idea the Federal Government should 
provide adequate funds for mandates, I want to be sure that the poor 
are not left out. Whenever tough issues come up, it seems like we 
always look to the weakest constituency first, the poor, and these 
people really have no one fighting for them.
  What I am saying is our Government does have a responsibility to 
provide basic things like food and shelter and health care for our own 
poverty-stricken. I am afraid if this amendment is not included, the 
poor will be left holding the bag.
  There are many proposals in Congress to change poverty programs. The 
Contract With America proposes to eliminate Federal nutrition programs 
and substitute a single block-grant payment to the States. We will be 
confronted with a proposal very soon that would eliminate the 
entitlement status of food programs including food stamps, and it will 
reduce appropriations in the first year alone, I am told, to about $5 
billion below the levels required to maintain current services.
  Under the best-case scenario, the Contract With America will result 
in a reduction of funding in food assistance for the poor and hungry by 
over $30 billion by fiscal year 2000. While I oppose these kinds of 
changes, particularly when the Conference of Mayors tells us that the 
requests for emergency food and shelter are on the rise, we all know 
who will be the victims of these changes, millions of low-income 
families, children, and the elderly. My own State of Ohio is slated to 
lose about 20 percent of funding for food assistance in fiscal year 
1996.
  If the Federal Government places responsibility on the States to take 
care of low-income people with fewer resources, then that is an 
unfunded mandate, and while section 421 does have language to this 
effect, it also has language which would allow States the flexibility 
to lower services.
  To many, the third paragraph of that section is very unclear, and 
that is the section that I am trying to get at. The amendment makes it 
clear, my amendment, that these entitlement programs would be unfunded 
mandates and subject to the point of order if they are reduced.
  Many of my friends on both sides of the aisle have already voted to 
protect these very important programs. We have done this already, and 
we have done it time and time again. We did it under the Gramm-Rudman 
Act. Congress has spoken on this. We should do it again.
  My amendment will make sure that the poor programs will get the same 
vote as other unfunded programs. Do not leave poverty and nutrition 
programs in doubt. Please, join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I would say to my very good friend, colleague on the Committee on 
Rules, I am very sympathetic with the need to address the concerns of 
those who are less fortunate, those who are hungry, those who are 
desperately in need. In fact, we on this side of the aisle clearly feel 
that one of the pressing needs out there is for us to expand individual 
initiative and responsibility and self-reliance.
  But having said that, we are well aware of the fact that there are 
people who do have to have some kind of assistance provided by 
government, but the concern that we have with this amendment here is 
that we are not providing the States with the kind of flexibility which 
is needed.
  I happen to be one who believes strongly that States do feel a 
responsibility to address these issues, and there is a sense, I have 
inferred from this amendment, that if we choose to accept this 
amendment that we are somehow saying that the States do not have any 
kind of responsibility to effectively address the issues of hunger and 
homelessness and a wide range of other social needs that are out there. 
I happen to believe that they are positioned to, and feel a 
responsibility to, address those needs, and it is for that reason that 
I am compelled to oppose the very well-intentioned amendment by my 
friend.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentleman will yield, I would just also have to 
rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think he 
is right to be concerned about what some of the impacts could be. But I 
think he is also wrong in the assumption that giving flexibility to the 
States to implement these programs, carry out these programs, that they 
are not going to be concerned about the health, safety, and well-being 
of their children. So I think that we at the Federal Government, I 
think, too often take the assumption or have the assumption that the 
States and local governments cannot be trusted to do these things.
  Hopefully they will be challenged to do them and to provide the kind 
of necessary measure of care. But they need the flexibility in order to 
do that.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  We are in the position where some would like to say we are somehow 
abrogating our responsibility if we do not in fact micromanage these 
particular programs, and we happen to have a great deal of confidence 
in individuals and State and local governments to address these needs, 
and it is for that reason that we are opposing the amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment seeks to do is to have the Congress 
understand that if we are going to cut back on these programs for low-
income people, the most vulnerable people in our society, that we are 
creating an unfunded mandate on local governments either to have to 
make up the difference in dollars or to cut some of these people adrift 
from food stamps or from supplemental security income or WIC. These are 
programs for very, very low-income people.
  When we had the Gramm-Rudman bill before us, we specifically said 
that those programs would not be required to undergo the sequestrations 
that would be required to be placed on other Government programs, 
because we wanted to treat these with a special concern.
  I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is a good 
one. If we are going to cut these programs that affect the low income 
in our society, let us know about it, let us have a point of order, and 
let a specific vote be cast in order to accomplish that goal with the 
full information before us that we are hurting those who are most 
vulnerable in our society.
  I urge support for the Hall amendment.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment which 
our colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has offered to H.R. 5, the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act.
  Mr. Hall's amendment is designed to make certain that Congress 
specifically studies and deliberates any reductions in programs which 
make up our Nation's weakening social safety net.
  [[Page H935]] Without attachment of this provision to H.R. 5, there 
is a distinct possibility that reductions in the basic Federal poverty 
programs--AFDC, child nutrition, food stamps, medicaid, and SSI--could 
be reduced without a specific vote on that reduction.
  At a time when the majority has called for increased accountability 
and responsibility on the part of Congress, this should be an absolute 
no-brainer for this body.
  Even during the Reagan budget-cutting frenzy of the mid-1980's, there 
was a specific exception to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget deficit 
act for all of these programs.
  They are the lifeblood of our Nation's poorest citizens, and 
therefore deserve the deliberate and conscious protection which this 
amendment would ensure.
  This amendment would by no means assure that reductions will not 
occur in the funding allocations for these budget items.
  However, it would guarantee that a separate floor vote and committee 
analysis be accomplished before such reductions could be enacted.
  In a commonsense manner, this amendment would provide that reductions 
of this type be treated as unfunded mandates.
  This is particularly appropriate, since States and local governments 
would undoubtedly have to make up for such reductions with their own 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle 
to support this extremely worthwhile amendment.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly, as the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] knows, in opposition to his amendment. I want to 
go through a scenario that gives me some serious concern. It is 
difficult to precisely read Mr. Hall's amendment because there is no 
specific line number in the amendment.
  It appears the amendment would foreclose the Federal Government's 
ability to ever cut or impose a cap on a number of low-income programs 
which are listed in section 255(h) of the Budget Act. In essence, any 
cut or cap would be by definition a Federal intergovernmental mandate 
even if the States have the authority to change their financial or 
programmatic responsibilities. This would trigger the point of order.
  Now, to get specific and go to one of the programs listed in 255(h), 
Medicaid, the Hall amendment would define any cut or cap in the 
Medicaid Program as an unfunded mandate regardless of the fact that the 
States have the flexibility to change their programs.
  To demonstrate that this is not good policy in the Medicaid Program, 
I would like to remind my colleagues about a sad chapter in the 
Medicaid Program involving provider-specific taxes and disproportionate 
share payments to hospitals. Because of a change in Medicaid law in 
1990, provider-specific taxes help cause an annual growth in Federal 
Medicaid payments to the tune of $10 billion per year, that is 
annually, $10 billion per year, every year.
  Now, to help close this loophole, legislation was passed in 1991; the 
provider-specific tax amendments of 1991 and in OBRA 1993 to place a 
cap on disproportionate share payments.
  Now, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] voted for both of 
these caps on the Medicaid Program. In both instances these caps were 
placing limits on an element of the Medicaid Program that was being 
abused; I think we agree.
  In both instances the States had the flexibility to change their 
programs. If Mr. Hall's amendment was in effect, his votes would be 
defined as an unfunded intergovernmental mandate subject to points of 
order.
  So it is for that very technical reason, even though I understand 
what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, that I have to again 
underscore that while this is well meaning it is not going to have a 
benign effect on what we are trying to do, in my view, and is going to 
remove flexibility.
  The States have asked for that flexibility. To take that away from 
them, especially after what we just heard from the Governors, just does 
not make a lot of sense to me at this time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hall amendment.
  There isn't a more vulnerable population out there than children, 
especially poor children. The food programs the country has instituted 
over the years have been put in place to protect this most at-risk 
group. It is unconscionable for this body to consider legislation that 
would deny food to the very mouths of babes.
  Upward of 2.2 million children could be affected in the Food Stamp 
Program alone by this bill.
  Another 1 million children could be affected by cuts to the WIC 
Program.
  Even more would feel the impact of cuts to child nutrition, school 
lunch and breakfast and other hot meal programs that provide essential 
services to our youngest and most tenuous of constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hall amendment and give American 
kids a fighting chance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 289, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--289

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     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
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     [[Page H936]] Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mfume
       

                              {time}  1553

  Mr. STUPAK and Mr. SCHUMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             amendment offered by mr. peterson of minnesota

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the 
amendment numbered 165.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota: In section 
     301, in the proposed section 424(a)(2)(A) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``$100,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$50,000,000''.

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward 
amendment offered by myself, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Pete Geren], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley], and others who 
worked on this and who had similar ideas.
  It is a straightforward amendment that lowers the threshold on 
private sector mandates in which CBO is required to file a report from 
$100 million to $50 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this will equalize the threshold at $50 million for 
both the public and the private sector. There were a number of 
amendments offered in this area. Some of them went lower, but we 
thought this made sense, to equalize the two.
  One of the issues was whether the lowering of this threshold would 
possibly cost CBO additional money. But we have checked, and CBO said 
the money authorized in this bill is sufficient to comply with these 
provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 103d Congress, 226 of us, including myself, 
cosponsored the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], 
which would impose a tougher standard, basically a ``no money, no 
mandate'' standard, which a lot of us would still like to see. But this 
is a good first start.
  What we are doing here by lowering this threshold is making sure that 
we have the same standards in both the public and private sector, and 
also that we will include more mandates in this process.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, on which I 
serve.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts in 
fashioning a bipartisan approach to this and for his efforts in my 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Relief to do the same.
  I think this is an important amendment because it would lower the 
threshold at which we would study the problem of regulations in the 
private sector. As I have said many times before, regulations are a 
hidden tax on the middle class in this country, and we have to do 
something to attack that problem. It is important that we do that well 
informed and with the studies that would be resulting from this 
legislation.
  I strongly support this amendment, and want to thank my colleague 
from Minnesota for introducing it here today.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Peterson], in coauthoring this amendment with myself, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley], 
and many other members of the unfunded mandates caucus. This has the 
support of the unfunded mandates caucus.
  It is bipartisan in nature. The gentleman has simply explained the 
amendment very well. What it does is to equalize the threshold and 
brings it down to $50 million in regards to the private sector.
  It is my considered opinion that all mandates should fall under the 
careful scrutiny of the Congressional Budget Office. A mandate is a 
mandate. In fact, I think there are some of us that would support 
lowering the threshold to zero. This is really an effort by the 
gentleman from Minnesota, myself, and others, to make the threshold 
apply to rural and small-town America.
  Obviously, if you exclude the smaller mandates, that is going to 
impose a greater burden on small communities. So the gentleman's 
amendment is certainly appropriate to that effort.
                              {time}  1600

  There has been some concern about the fact whether or not the CBO can 
do this job. They can. We have been in contact with the CBO, and I 
think I should point out to Members that the CBO cost estimates have 
not always been in agreement with the cost estimates that are prepared 
by State and by local governments. So if you had a $100 million 
threshold, as opposed to $50, look what happened in regards to the 
Motor Voter Act. The cost of implementation as estimated by CBO was $28 
million. It costs $26 million alone in regards to California.
  It is a good amendment. I rise in support of it. I thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, just briefly let me just say 
that this has bipartisan support. I obviously want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Minnesota for his hard work as well as my distinguished 
colleague who was gracious enough to yield to me.
  We are moving in the right direction as far as these mandates are 
concerned. I think the people of this country, both public and private, 
are going to congratulate us for this effort.
  I would just like to say, once again, to my colleague, 
congratulations on the amendment.
  As has been stated, our amendment equalizes the threshold for 
requiring a CBO cost estimate of mandates on the public and private 
sector.
  Under H.R. 5, if a mandate will have an annual impact of $50 million 
or more on State and local governments, then CBO must do a cost 
analysis of the mandate and find out how much it will actually cost. A 
point of order can be raised if the bill does not contain this 
information.
  The threshold for the same cost estimate for the private sector is 
$100 million, and a point of order can also be raised here as well if 
this information is not included.
  My amendment lowers the threshold for the CBO cost estimate for the 
private sector to $50 million. This helps to level the playing field.
  In many cases, the mandate should then be reduced or killed, and if 
it is really necessary it should be paid for.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution. Let the record show the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] was 
[[Page H937]] a coauthor of this amendment and worked very hard with us 
to bring it to the attention of the House at this moment.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just want to be very brief and compliment the authors of this 
amendment and say on behalf of the committee that we support this 
amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this will expand the scope of this legislation. It will 
bring in many more Federal activities. But since the private sector 
will only require that a cost estimate be done, it will not trigger the 
optional aspect of this legislation, as would be triggered for States 
and localities. I do not see that it is a problem. The reality is that 
for CBO to determine whether or not a piece of legislation is going to 
impose a mandate of $100 million or more, they have to do the analysis 
anyway. So in the process of doing the analysis, that will suffice for 
the $50 million threshold.
  I do not think it is going to cause much more work on the part of the 
Congressional Budget Office. It is consistent with the intent of the 
legislation, and it would be welcomed by the private sector. So I 
support the amendment as well.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought that the intent of the majority was that we 
would have no strengthening or weakening amendments to this bill. The 
other Chamber has acted on this matter, and this amendment would 
seemingly fly in the face of reaching some appropriate compromise on 
this matter, because it actually moves in the opposite direction.
  So I would hope that even though it has been indicated that there is 
support, that there would be some consistency as we move through this 
process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the amendment 
designated number 173.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer: 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) pertains to the immunization of children against 
     vaccine-preventable diseases.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would just like to say that 
the intention of this amendment, which would exempt children's 
immunizations from the legislation that we are considering here, given 
the special circumstances that we have a Federal program running right 
now for children's immunizations which we need to improve but we might 
need to eventually have go back to the States and localities, I am not 
sure that I will offer this. I may withdraw it, but I do want to talk 
about the importance of immunizations for children.
  Let me say, I want to congratulate the Members that have been working 
so hard on this bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and many others.
  My amendment is in no way to be dilatory or to take away from the 
serious debate and the bipartisan nature by which we are working 
together to prohibit unfunded mandates where many of my constituents 
and Democratic and Republican mayors want us to act in this body in a 
bipartisan way.
  I intend to vote for passage of this legislation. But I also want to 
make sure that there are not unintended consequences of this 
legislation. And with immunization rates in this country trailing badly 
other developed and industrialized countries, we need to make sure that 
we continue to put the very highest priority on immunizing our 
children. We are 20 and 25 percent behind the immunization rates of 
countries such as Japan and Germany.
  We invest $1 in immunizing a child and we save $10 later on in our 
health care costs. There is absolutely no question that to put the very 
highest priority on these programs is in the very best interest of our 
children, our taxpayers, and our health care system. So I want to offer 
this amendment with the intention of working with the Republican 
majority and other interested parties here in Congress on seeing that 
we improve our immunization rate, seeing that we improve the Federal 
program that was started by President Clinton, seeing that we improve 
the State rate of participation, and seeing that at some point in the 
future we may need to critically analyze and critique this program that 
is currently running and possibly move it back to the States and the 
localities, which might run it in a better and more efficient fashion.
  We have seen some of the regulations with this program throw some 
hurdles into the delivery of immunizations and inoculations for 
children, in that a regulation requires a doctor to keep a free 
vaccination in a separate quarter from a paid-for vaccination or 
inoculation. So I think that there are many improvements that we can 
do, and I want to just guarantee and have guarantees from the majority 
that we can improve this program, there will be priorities put on this 
program to immunize our children and that there are no hurdles put up 
under this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, who has worked so 
hard on this legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would just say, as the gentleman is aware, there is nothing in H.R. 
5 which would preclude the Congress from continuing to have an active 
role to play in immunization programs and to perfect, in fact, the 
local-State-Federal partnership on immunization. I think on the 
majority side we share the concern about the programs. We share the 
gentleman's view that these are salutary preventive programs that make 
a lot of sense, that they are very cost effective.
  I would say, again, as we said many times over the last several days 
in response to the exemption argument, that this legislation will in no 
way preclude Congress carefully considering future mandates in this 
area.
  However, reluctantly, we would have to oppose such an amendment 
simply because it again creates an exemption which is not necessary for 
this legislation.
  I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing, given that 
understanding, that in fact these immunization programs would be coming 
to the floor, would be receiving debate on a more informed basis, I 
might add, that he might consider withdrawing his amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent in the next 
minute, to withdraw the amendment and just make two further points, 
ancillary points to what the gentleman has just brought up.
  I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work together on this.
  The reason that I brought the amendment to the floor was, again, not 
to be dilatory but that immunizations have two distinct differences 
from some of the more generic amendments that have been offered by my 
colleagues on children's health.
  One is that we have a Federal program in place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Portman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROEMER. We have a program in place that we do not want to see 
hurt by this legislation. I think we may want to see improvements in 
it. And if we cannot implement those improvements, we may want to work 
more with the State and local governments to see this implemented.
  Second, with the outbreak of a virus or something that could affect 
our children, the emergency provisions in this 
[[Page H938]] bill would allow us to act pretty expeditiously if we 
want to guarantee that quick action, not only for the impact on 
children but for our senior citizens, who might be more susceptible to 
infection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
in section 4, there is a specific exemption for emergency situations 
such as the one which the gentleman stated. I would think that that 
would be covered by that exemption.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1610


                    amendment Offered by Mr. Skaggs
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 158.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs: In paragraph (4) of 
     section 202(a), insert before ``the effect'' the following: 
     ``estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the 
     agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of''.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with what I suspect 
was really a drafting error, back in title II of the bill, having to do 
with the estimates that are required to be prepared by agencies 
pursuant to the new authorities in this legislation.
  Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, in subsection A(2) of section 202, 
estimates made by agencies concerning future costs or disproportional 
budgetary effects are to be made ``if and to the extent that the agency 
determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible.''
  However, over in paragraph 4 of that subsection, estimates concerning 
the effect on the national economy, including productivity, economic 
growth, full employment, creation of jobs, and international 
competitiveness have no such qualifying language about reasonable 
feasibility.
  It seems to me those estimates are equally problematic for the agency 
to be able to conduct, Mr. Chairman. In discussing this with the floor 
manager of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], I 
think it is clear that we all recognize that in this proposed statute, 
as in any others, there is an implied qualification of reasonableness.
  I just wanted to inquire of the floor manager currently on the floor, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], if indeed that is his 
interpretation, that we are looking for reasonable estimates to be made 
by the agency under paragraph 4, just as under paragraph 2.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the gentleman's statement. There is 
a standard of reasonableness built into this bill in terms of the 
agencies being able to gather and make the reports.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Therefore, we are not asking them to do anything that is 
impossible or impracticable, is that correct?
  Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will yield further, that is correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. With that understanding, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. cooley

  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley:
       Strike out subsection (e) of the proposed section 425 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would strike the mandate grandfather provision of the Unfunded Mandate 
Reform Act.
  Added during the Committee on Rules' consideration of this bill, this 
provision, found in section 425(E), protects all past mandates as long 
as they do not increase the mandate or decrease the resources allocated 
to fund it.
  In other words, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Immigration Act, 
Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Resource Conservation 
Recovery Act, and Superfund amendments are all protected from the bill 
as written.
  As I have listened to this debate, Mr. Chairman, these past few days 
it has occurred to me that it has been a degradation of the debate on 
the value of this particular law. Someone wants to keep the bill from 
applying to seniors, another to children and yet women, yet another to 
laws affecting public health and safety.
  Mr. Chairman, these are debates for another time. The question at 
hand today is ``Will we make States pick up the tab for Congress' 
ideas?''
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is not a single Member of this body 
who wants to jeopardize the health and safety of Americans, nor do we 
believe that there is a single Member who would want to lessen the 
standard of living for the children, mothers, or senior citizens. 
Disabled persons are not on anyone's hit list, either. We are here in 
Congress because we are concerned about these very problems.
  In light of that, I cannot fathom why the opponents of this bill are 
so certain that the bill will be the undoing of all laws governing 
public health, safety, and the environment. Would striking the 
exemption for existing unfunded mandates mean that we instantly 
disregard the progress we have made? Absolutely not.
  My amendment would simple ensure that unfunded mandates be on equal 
footing. There should be nothing sacred about these massive costs 
inflicted upon the States, nor should future mandates, if deemed 
critically important, be considered less necessary to public health and 
safety by virtue of their following this act. All mandates, whether 
funded or unfunded, should be considered on their merit.
  We can signal our resolve to carefully consider all unfunded mandates 
that come up for reauthorization by cancelling the provision that 
protects them from a point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, if we subject future unfunded mandates to a point of 
order, then we should do the same for those being reauthorized.
  Before I close, I must unequivocally state that my amendment does not 
end all present unfunded mandates immediately. That is, my amendment 
does not make this legislation retroactive. The only thing that will 
change is a law requiring reauthorization for related appropriations to 
be subject to the point of order.
  Clearly, if Congress supports the underlying legislation that faces 
reauthorization, it will dispose of the point of order. Everyone here 
knows that if the sentiment is here for the substance of the 
legislation, the point of order, which requires a simple majority, will 
be waived by a similar count.
  My amendment simply makes us stop and consider the wisdom or folly of 
our predecessors. If we waive the point of order, then we will have 
deemed the content of the reauthorization necessary.
  We have considered this bill for the purpose of casting light upon 
the burden that unfunded mandates have created for the States. If my 
amendment is adopted, these past mandates will be evaluated on the 
basis of the burden they impose and the benefits they bring to our 
States and communities. If past mandates do not pass the muster, then 
why have them and why protect them, as they are unfairly shielded in 
this bill as presently written?
  My amendment merely signals our intention to consider all unfunded 
mandates equally. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this amendment. It will unabashedly seek to undo all Federal laws 
that protect the health, safety, and welfare of Americans by subjecting 
the laws to a 
[[Page H939]] point of order when they are reauthorized. We have 
repeatedly sought to exempt laws already on the books from the 
provisions of this bill, as long as reauthorizations did not impose 
additional unfunded mandates.
  The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, as 
far as I know, has agreed. The chairman of the Committee on Rules has 
agreed, as far as I know, and in fact, inserted language specifically 
to clarify this point.
  Now the gentleman throws out all statutes as they come up for 
reauthorization. The result would be a wholesale dismantling of dozens 
of laws. All of our environmental statutes would be repealed, because 
there is no way we could fully fund the costs. So would worker safety 
laws. Consumer protection standards would be gutted.
  Are the American people really willing to risk their drinking water? 
I do not think so. Are they willing to trust States upstream to not 
dump their sewage in their rivers and our beaches? I do not think so. 
Do they want airport safety to be decided by some local accountant? I 
do not think so. Will they forego the safety of their children? I know 
they will not.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know the answer to these questions. Vote ``no'' 
on this amendment. This is a crippling amendment, one we do not need. I 
would urge all my colleagues to strike it down and not vote for it.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley]. I know what many on this side of 
the aisle and Members on the other side of the aisle feel is that this 
bill does not go far enough, that we really should be looking back and 
taking a look at all of the myriad mandates that we have imposed on 
State and local governments over the years.
  Title I of this bill is a first effort to do that, to say yes, we 
need to review where we stand. We need to look at what is on the books. 
We need to assess what has been the impact, what is the cumulative 
impact.
  I think there is no question that we can say 1 mandate is not too 
much, 2 is not too much, but 176 unfunded mandates clearly is too much, 
so I think the gentleman is certainly on the right track. He is looking 
at this thing and saying we have gone overboard and we should really be 
reviewing and eliminating those at this point.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I would say that this language that is in the 
bill does represent a compromise that was effected, and which was 
actually fashioned in the Committee on Rules to address this very 
issue. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that this would be a 
killer amendment. It is a strengthening amendment, there is no question 
about that, but I think it strengthens the bill too much to survive. 
For that reason, I would have to oppose the amendment.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further state that the 
Committee on Rules did respond in a very cooperative way to what we 
think was a very legitimate concern by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight on how to work out a compromise that would work on 
this, and we did come up with an amendment which we called the Goss 
amendment which we thought resolved the issue pretty well.
  I would like to point out that this is a subject that went through a 
briefing, a hearing, a markup, and not a little bit of debate, to say 
nothing at all of the fact that we had a rule discussion on it. So we 
have really given this a lot of analysis.
  My concern about a killer amendment is very real. We have tried to 
weigh and balance, and we have got a protection built in. I say this 
sincerely, because I speak as a local government official who has come 
out of being a mayor and a county chairman. I have very strong, deep 
personal feelings about dealing with unfunded mandates whether they 
come from the Federal Government or the State capital, and that is, 
that we have got our Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 
Relations, and we have been given, I think, very strong promises of 
commitment from the leadership that we are going to pay attention to 
what they say.
  We are going to have a report, a study, monitoring, and I think we 
have hit middle ground here. Until we know a little better whether 
there is a problem or there is not, I think we ought to go as the 
committee has presented it.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I regrettably say 
that I will be in opposition to the Cooley amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just say to 
the gentleman that I am sympathetic to the concerns that he has raised 
here. I think that what we have in this bill, however, is a first cut. 
As the gentleman has indicated, there are many on this side that would 
like to see us go much further. There are many on the other side who 
think we have gone way too far as it is, and this seems to strike a 
fairly reasonable balance. Again, I would have to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 287, not voting 1, as follows:
                              [Roll No 75]

                               AYES--146

     Allard
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     [[Page H940]] Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mfume
       

                              {time}  1648

  Messrs. RUSH, OLVER, BONIOR, COYNE, ACKERMAN, RICHARDSON, DINGELL, 
and MARKEY, and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. HERGER, HASTINGS of Washington, HILLEARY, HANCOCK, JOHNSON of 
South Dakota, GALLEGLY, KIM, SMITH of Texas, ALLARD, EWING, and WAMP, 
Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Messrs. PACKARD, PAXON, and CAMP, Ms. PRYCE, Mr. 
BEVILL, Mr. McCOLLUM, Mrs. SEASTRAND, and Messrs. LaHOOD, LIGHTFOOT, 
NORWOOD, BARRETT of Nebraska, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, ISTOOK, TORKILDSEN, 
BLUTE, and BEREUTER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: In the proposed section 
     424 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, redesignate 
     subsection (d) as subsection (e) and insert after subsection 
     (c) the following:
       ``(d) Estimates.--If the Director determines that it is not 
     feasible to make a reasonable estimate that would be required 
     for a statement under subsection (a)(1) for a bill or joint 
     resolution, the Director shall not make such a statement and 
     shall inform the committees involved that such an estimate 
     cannot be made and the reasons for that determination. The 
     bill or joint resolution for which such statement was to be 
     made shall be subject to a point of order under section 
     425(a)(1).

  Mr. WAXMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been worked out with the 
majority. It is noncontroversial, a perfecting amendment to clarify 
what CBO is supposed to do if it is not able to estimate the impact on 
State or local governments. It provides in this situation that CBO may 
give the committee a statement that it is not feasible to estimate the 
cost. We have worked this out. I would urge support for the 
legislation.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California. I think it is a good addition to the bill. What it is 
really saying is we do not want CBO to have to invent figures, make 
them up, to be forced into coming up with squishy numbers in this area, 
though yet the point of order would still lie. We have preserved the 
point of order.
  We also say ``Be straight up with us, tell us if you cannot do it. If 
you cannot to it, just tell us that.''
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 144.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
       In the proposed section 421(4) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, add the following new sentence at the end of the 
     section: ``Clause (i)(I) of subparagraph (B) shall not apply 
     to provisions that are designed to prevent fraud or abuse or 
     to increase fiscal accountability of the program administered 
     by the States, local governments, or tribal governments 
     receiving assistance.''

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides that it would 
be considered an unfunded mandate if we increase the stringency in an 
entitlement program as a condition of assistance. Now, the way this is 
defined, I think it applies perhaps exclusively, but certainly to the 
Medicaid program.
  What my amendment would provide is that if there is an increase in 
the stringency of conditions of assistance in Medicaid, this would not 
apply if the change in the requirements is to assure the fiscal 
integrity of the program to assure that expenditures are for the 
purposes that are legitimate under the program or to prevent fraud and 
abuse by people or providers receiving payment under the program.
  This is a good Government amendment. If we are, let's say under the 
Medicaid Program, going to pay for health care services for poor people 
and we ask the States to be sure to police the program to be sure that 
there is no fraud or abuse being committed, if in that increased 
stringency requirement in order to protect the integrity of the program 
the States are required to do more than would otherwise be the case, we 
should consider that an unfunded mandate that would be prevented.
  We have, as most of you know, a reverse suggestion of what we 
ordinarily think about in this unfunded mandate. We have a provision 
for extra payments by the Federal Government when the States provide 
assistance to disproportionate share institutions. These are usually 
hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income people and 
we want to provide extra reimbursement to them.
  But some of the States took advantage of this provision and they 
concocted schemes to rip off Federal dollars to which they were not 
entitled. They came in and requested that the Federal Government match 
money that they put up and then used the Federal dollars under Medicaid 
for things that had nothing to do with Medicaid. Medicaid was being 
used as a revenue-sharing program.
  Let me just illustrate this by the fact that under this loophole 
States collected billions of dollars of Federal Medicaid spending. We 
went in the space of Federal Medicaid spending. We went in the space of 
about 3 years from spending $300 million on disproportionate share 
payments to $11 billion. When we came back in 1993 in a bipartisan way 
and we said this is a loophole that cannot be tolerated, we
 plugged up that loophole. But if this mandates bill were in effect, 
that would be considered increased stringency of the program and the 
States could come back and say you cannot increase the stringency of 
the program as it relates to them, even though it plugged up a loophole 
by which they got Federal dollars from the Federal Government to which 
they were not entitled.

  Those of us who want to protect the integrity of a program like 
Medicaid to make sure States police for fraud and abuse, make sure the 
States are protecting the integrity of the dollars being spent by the 
Federal Government, those things should not be considered unfunded 
mandates. We should not subject such a requirement and 
[[Page H941]] Federal changes in Federal law to a point of order. This 
amendment would accomplish that result. So I would urge an aye vote for 
this amendment.
  It is not dissimilar, by the way, to the exceptions in this 
legislation that say that when we require compliance with accounting 
and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or 
property provided by the Federal Government, that should not be 
considered an unfunded mandate under section 4 limitations on the 
limits of the legislation.
  But I do not believe that that limitation on the application of what 
is considered unfunded mandate means where we say if it is to comply 
with accounting and auditing procedures, it would apply to something 
more to protect the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment very briefly.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is too broad for what the 
gentleman is seeking to accomplish. As he has already indicated, we do 
exempt auditing and accounting from the provisions of this bill to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The concern I have with it is that it 
really does broaden the scope of what we are trying to do. I think the 
purpose we should be focusing on, at least, is to try to enforce what 
exists. We do have controls existing that are not being enforced. I 
think we do a better job of getting the inspector generals to enforce 
what exists now without adding new restrictions and broadening language 
to the bill.
  So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. 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 275, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--275

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     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
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Chapman
     Everett
     Hefner
     Mfume
     Petri
     Torres

                              {time}  1715

  Messrs. HOLDEN, McHALE, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendments offered by mr. hayes

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Hayes:
       In Section 301, in the proposed section 421 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, on page 29, line 11, after 
     the period, insert the following: ``(12) Significant 
     employment impact.--The term `significant employment impact' 
     means an estimated net aggregate loss of 10,000 or more 
     jobs.''
       In section 301, in the proposed section 424(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: on page 38, line 11, strike 
     ``or''; and on page 38, line 13, after ``private sector'', 
     insert: ``; or (C) significant employment impact on the 
     private sector''.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, realizing the length to which this bill has 
proceeded, I will be as brief as I can.
  The impact of these two amendments considered en bloc as they appear 
have impact on sections 421 and 421(b)(1)(b) of the Budget Act of 1974 
as follows:
  We talk so much about unfunded mandates in terms of money. The word 
``funding'' itself would make us believe that we have got to look at 
each and every dollar sign.
  The fact of the matter is that there are many instances in which the 
cost to human beings cannot be easily predilected in terms of money 
accounts.
  In my home State of Louisiana, we lost more oilfield workers in the 
crash 
[[Page H942]] of the early 1980's than the entire automobile industry 
of America lost. So what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], my 
colleague, and I have done, in a bill filed in the last Congress, the 
impact of which is to effect the amendments to this bill in this 
Congress, is simply add language saying that the significant employment 
impact on the private sector, under a definitional statement, a net 
aggregate loss of 10,000 or more jobs is as significant as any amount 
of money could possibly be.
  For that reason, we are simply extending the application to the 
consideration of the impact of loss of jobs to the American worker.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to commend 
the gentleman from Louisiana for his efforts in this matter and point 
out that there is one other aspect of this amendment I think most 
important.
  The debate to date has been centered about the effect of unfunded 
mandates on local and State governments. The effect of this amendment 
with regard to employment stretches the effect of analysis to go now to 
the private sector, which I think is very important in all this rush to 
make sure we are not doing things that are unreasonable.
  If we are going to cost American jobs, we should be mindful of the 
effect, and balance that against the supposed benefit of some new 
federally mandated rule or regulation.
  So the scope and effect of this amendment, I think, is very important 
in that it assigns a dollar value to the regulations for local 
governments. But it also assigns a job employment effect for those in 
private enterprise.
  I commend the gentleman for his hard work and cooperation on this 
matter and hope the House will look favorably on its adoption.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], 
and I, for the last 8 years, have been able to work under what is now 
called bipartisanship and what we considered a natural kinship for the 
betterment of the State of Louisiana. I am glad the rest of the 
Congress is on occasion catching up to the gentleman from Louisiana and 
I.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment. I think it makes a 
valuable addition to what we are trying to do here and merely 
authorizes the committees of Congress to seek information as to what it 
is going to mean to employment, what kind of impact it is going to have 
on employment.
  It does not affect the point of order, but it does provide valuable 
information to the committees. I am pleased to support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would simply like to join in and praise the bipartisan spirit of 
this amendment and say that I believe that it is right on target and to 
say to my friend from Louisiana that those of us in the 52-Member 
delegation from California are in fact learning from the marvelous 
example that the two gentlemen are setting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  The amendments were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier: In section 301, in the 
     proposed section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     strike subsection (d) and redesignate subsection (e) as 
     subsection (d).
       In section 301, in the proposed section 426 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike: ``: Provided, 
     however,'' and all that follows through the close quotation 
     marks.
       In section 301, after such proposed section 426, add the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 427. DISPOSITION OF POINTS OF ORDER.

       ``(a) In General.--As disposition of points of order under 
     section 425(a) or 426, the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the points of order.
       ``(b) Debate and Intervening Motions.--A question of 
     consideration under this section shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes by each Member initiating a point of order and for 10 
     minutes by an opponent on each point of order, but shall 
     otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one 
     that the House adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole 
     rise, as the case may be.
       ``(c) Effect on Amendment in Order as Original Text.--The 
     disposition of the question of consideration under this 
     section with respect to a bill or joint resolution shall be 
     considered also to determine the question of consideration 
     under this section with respect to an amendment made in order 
     as original text.''.

  Mr. DREIER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, during consideration of H.R. 5 in the 
Committee on Rules, an amendment to section 426 was adopted that 
creates a mechanism to allow any Member to make a motion to waive 
points of order against a mandate in any bill, joint resolution, 
amendment or conference report that does not include a CBO cost 
estimate or a means for paying for the mandate.
  The language currently in section 426 is preferable to the language 
in H.R. 5 as introduced for several reasons.
  First, it more directly achieves the goal of the authors of H.R. 5 to 
guarantee votes in the House specifically on unfunded mandates. Second, 
it does not place undue constraints on the legislative schedule by 
requiring our Committee on Rules to report two rules every time a 
decision is made to waive the application of section 425.
  Third, it relieves some of the burden on the presiding officer when 
making a determination with respect to a point of order.
  Since H.R. 5 was reported to the House, I have been working with the 
parliamentarian and a lot of other Members have been working with the 
parliamentarian on language to address two additional concerns raised 
by section 426. The language is contained in the amendment that I am 
now offering, Mr. Chairman.
  First, the amendment further reduces the burden on the presiding 
officer to rule on points of order with respect to not only the 
existence of a mandate but whether the cost of the mandate exceeds the 
threshold of $50 million. This will be particularly troublesome in 
situations where a motion to waive such a point of order is not made.
  Second, the amendment addresses a concern raised by a number of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle with respect to the role of 
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 
advising the Chair about the question of unfunded mandates. Under my 
amendment, that advice would no longer be necessary.
  Essentially, Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides that whenever 
points of order are raised pursuant to section 425(a) or 426, the 
points of order shall be disposed of by a vote of the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The question would be debatable for 20 minutes, 10 minutes by the 
Member initiating the point of order and 10 minutes by an opponent of 
the point of order.
  This also addresses the concern that was raised by our distinguished 
ranking minority member, my friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA 
[Mr. Moakley], who argued that the 10 minutes of debate time contained 
in the existing section 426 was insufficient.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an honest attempt to address a number 
of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
It further clarifies the procedure under which points of order against 
unfunded mandates are to be enforced in the House.
  The amendment should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.


amendment offered by mr. moakley to the amendment offered by mr. dreier

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moakley to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Dreier:
       [[Page H943]] In the proposed new section 427, insert the 
     following new subsection (a) (and redesignate the existing 
     subsections accordingly):
       ``(a) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order under section 425(a) or 426 must specify the precise 
     language on which it is premised.''

  Mr. DREIER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Dreier amendment is a major 
improvement over the text of the bill. I would, however, make one 
suggestion.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] explained to us, his 
amendment will change the point of order into a question of 
consideration. But I am worried that there will be no way to ensure 
that this process is not abused.
  So as the amendment now stands, if a Member wanted to avoid a vote, 
the Member just could raise the unfunded mandates point of order. Once 
that point of order has been raised, the Chair will have no choice but 
to put the question of consideration.
  There is no way to prevent a Member from making an unfunded mandates 
point of order, even when there is none.
  My amendment makes the Member who is raising the point of order show 
exactly where the unfunded mandate exists and explain how that language 
constitutes a violation.
  I believe that this amendment to the Dreier amendment will make a 
very big difference in preventing abuse of the unfunded mandate point 
of order.
  If my amendment is accepted, a Member will not be able to raise a 
point of order against a measure unless he or she can show that one may 
exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had a lot of constructive conversations with the 
gentleman from California. [Mr. Dreier]. I appreciate his willingness 
to work with us on this matter.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] will 
accept this amendment. Later if we find we have to make further 
modifications, perhaps we can take those up in conference.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have to say, Mr. Chairman, well wonders never cease. The Louisiana 
delegation has come together. The Committee on rules is coming 
together. We are working in a bipartisan way in the 104th Congress to 
deal with many of the challenges that lie ahead of us.
  It seems to me that on this issue the burden of proof should in fact 
lie with the Member raising the point of order. This is a very 
effective way to address that concern. I strongly support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. [Mr. Moakley] to the 
amendment I have offered. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
will be let off the hook with this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. Moakley. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I wanted to say. In 
the legislation presently drafted, the task of determining what was or 
was not an unfunded mandate would have fallen on the shoulders of the 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and/or 
perhaps the ranking member of that committee, so I certainly appreciate 
the fact that this is now going to ensure that this matter will be 
decided by the House itself. That is the appropriate place for this 
decision to be made. I am pleased to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
                amendment offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. 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 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii: In section 301, 
     in the matter proposed as section 421(4)(A)(i)(II) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)''.
       In section 301, in the matter proposed as section 421(4) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike subparagraph 
     (B).
       In Section 301, in the matter proposed as 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 insert at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) requires compliance with certain conditions necessary 
     to receive grants or other money provided by the Federal 
     Government in programs for which the States, local 
     governments, or tribal governments voluntarily apply.

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to 
express my opposition to this legislation because of the many questions 
caused by the ambiguous, overly broad language contained in this 
legislation which have not been resolved to my satisfaction.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate on this bill has raised many areas of 
national concern which will be seriously jeopardized by the mandate 
that all standards and requirements be fully funded or risk the hazard 
of not being implemented or even repealed.
  This debate is a lesson on the critical issues that we have tried to 
face as a Nation where the Congress has set forth the goals, and sought 
to make the case for national compliance in a shared responsibility 
with States and local communities.
  This bill provides that unless the Federal Government pays for the 
cost of implementing these standards and goals on a local level, that 
these goals are of no force and effect.
  The obvious effect of this bill is to reduce the reach of the Federal 
Government to help fight disease, curb pollution, prevent contamination 
of our environment, improve educational opportunities, raise the 
minimum wage, maintain safe places of work, prohibit child abuse, child 
exploitation, and provide for the poor, the elderly, and the infirm.
  We in the minority believe very strongly that the Federal Government 
has the constitutional responsibility to provide for the general 
welfare of all citizens of these country and that, accordingly, it has 
the duty to establish by Federal law, Federal rules of conduct and 
safety, Federal standards, and Federal regulation that cut across State 
boundaries because they are safeguards and protections we are sworn to 
provide to all citizens of this country.
  But the sweep of this legislation we are debating is to cut off the 
establishment of any new Federal responsibility or to expand an 
existing responsibility unless we are prepared to pay for it totally. 
the majority explicitly state that their goal is to transform the 
Federal Government and to reduce its function and authority in all 
programs, regardless of merit.
  When the public realizes what this bill will do in reducing their 
protections in the areas of health, safety, and educational benefits, I 
feel confident that they will seek the abrogation of this contract
 which the majority seeks to impose on an unwilling Nation.

  Mr. Chairman, I agree that certain mandates are unreasonable and 
ought to be revisited, but because you have a problem with your toe is 
no reason to cut off your foot and cripple yourself for the rest of 
your life.
  My amendment makes clear that this bill does not affect any program 
which is voluntary. If the Federal Government sets out its goals, and 
invites the States and local entities to participate with the lure of 
funding, it is clearly voluntary and should not be covered by any bill 
which deals with mandates.
  Yet this bill is unclear exactly where it draws the line as to what 
is voluntary and what is not.
  My amendment seeks to make explicitly clear that no voluntary program 
entered into by the States and local communities can be converted into 
a mandate because it costs more than 
[[Page H944]] $500 million. If a program was voluntarily entered into 
by the States and local communities, the fact that it now costs the 
Federal Government to implement it does not convert it into a mandate.
  Section 301 of H.R. 5 includes voluntary entitlements. Why? Strictly 
because it costs the Federal Government more than $500 million. Why 
should costs convert what is voluntary into a mandate? An entitlement 
is a mandate on the Federal Government.
  It does not mandate participation on the part of the States. No State 
is required to participate in a voluntary entitlement program. It 
chooses to do so on its own, voluntarily, and when it chooses to 
participate, it agrees to the basic guidelines set forth in the law.
  Mr. Chairman, AFDC is a classic example. The range of voluntary 
participation can be easily demonstrated by just looking at the range 
of benefit payments: $120 a month to a family of three in Mississippi, 
$624 a month to a family of three in California. There is no uniform 
benefit payment. AFDC is clearly and unequivocally a voluntary program, 
yet it is covered by this legislation as an unfunded mandate because it 
costs the Federal Government more than $500 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this same argument applies to all the other voluntary 
entitlement programs. I urge this House to support my amendment and 
make clear that this bill does not cover voluntary programs whatsoever.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mr. Chairman, we have, as we know, eliminated or exempted voluntary 
programs and those that would have conditions as part of a grant, but 
when we are talking about exempting out an entire Medicaid Program, 
which is one of the largest programs we have, I think it would be very 
remiss of us not to at least consider what the cost of that would be, 
and to at least have some accounting of what the cost would be. This, 
again, would be a massive exemption from the provisions of this bill. 
Again, it would not affect the bill, but it would clearly call into 
account what we are doing here and make it very difficult for us to go 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 310, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 77]

                               AYES--121

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--310

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Becerra
     Coburn
     Crane
                              {time}  1756

  Mr. GEJDENSON, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

  Mr. BEILENSON. 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. Beilenson: In the proposed section 
     421(a)(4)(ii) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 insert 
     ``or the amount of appropriations'' after ``appropriations''.
       In the heading for the proposed section 424(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``Other Than 
     Appropriations Bills and Joint Resolutions''.
       In paragraphs (1) and (2) of the proposed section 424(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``of 
     authorization''.
       In the proposed section 425(b) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, insert ``(2)'' after ``(a)''.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would impose 
the same information requirements with respect to unfunded mandates on 
appropriations bills as H.R. 5 requires for authorizing legislation.
  [[Page H945]] Even if we are not going to prohibit consideration of 
appropriations bills which contain unfunded mandates we should at 
least, Mr. Chairman, require that they be submitted to CBO for an 
estimate of the cost of any unfunded mandates they may contain. 
Otherwise we will be making appropriation bills a magnet for 
authorizers attempting to circumvent the requirements imposed on their 
own bills.
  I personally have some reservations about the practicality of CBO-
produced estimates of Federal mandates in legislation. It is a good 
idea in concept, but we are likely to see problems in its 
implementation, at least for a while. But if we are going to require 
such cost estimates for authorizing bills we ought to require them for 
appropriations bills as well.
  It is easy to imagine a situation where members of authorizing 
committees, frustrated that they are unable to get a cost estimate from 
CBO on a timely basis, or are unwilling to do so because they know how 
the figures will turn out, go to the Committee on Appropriations and 
persuade a majority of members there to add the legislation to the 
appropriations bill.
                              {time}  1800

  It is also easy to imagine members of the Committee on Appropriations 
inserting legislation into their bills that the authorizing committees 
will not act on. It is easy to imagine these scenarios, because they 
have happened frequently in the past for other reasons. When an 
authorizing committee is unable to move a piece of legislation under 
its jurisdiction for whatever reason but wants to enact a programmatic 
change, the authorizing members often persuade the appropriators to 
include the legislative language in one of their bills.
  Likewise, appropriations members who cannot get a legislative 
provision they want through an authorizing committee have been known to 
put it in an appropriations bill.
  Subjecting authorizing bills but not appropriations bills to cost 
estimates for mandates would give Members an additional reason, 
potentially a very powerful one, to try to use the appropriations 
process to enact legislation.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], has argued that using the appropriations process to 
circumvent the unfunded-mandate requirement will be difficult because 
the Committee on Rules will not waive clause 2 of rule XXI, the 
prohibition on legislation in an appropriations bill. However, there 
will be times that the Committee on Rules will be under enormous 
pressure to waive that rule, and if the Committee on Appropriations 
does not have a determination from the CBO as to whether there are 
unfunded mandates in the bill, the Committee on Rules will have no way 
of knowing whether waiving rule XXI will also result in sending an 
unfunded mandate to the floor.
  Subsequently, if the House votes to waive rule XXI, the House could 
find itself voting on an unfunded mandate without knowing it is doing 
any such thing.
  Furthermore, no matter how well we adhere to our prohibition in an 
appropriations bill here in the House, we have no control over what the 
Senate will do in this regard. We may well find that in conference on 
appropriations bills House Members will be under enormous pressure to 
accept legislative provisions containing unfunded mandates inserted by 
Members of the other body.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, if we fail to ask of appropriations bills what 
we are asking of authorizing bills under this proposed legislation in 
the way of information requirements, we will be tilting the balance of 
power among our committees away from authorizers and toward the 
appropriators, and we will have created a significant loophole in this 
legislation. We can avoid doing both to a great extent by adopting this 
amendment.
  I urge support for it. I think it is an eminently reasonable 
amendment. I think it makes all the sense in the world, and I urge 
Members to support it and vote for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment essentially repeals the exemption in the 
bill for the appropriations bills, as my friend has said. Contrary to 
the argument that has just been provided, there really is no loophole. 
There clearly is no loophole.
  Any unfunded mandate in an appropriations bill would constitute 
legislating in an appropriations bill and would, therefore, alone be 
subjected to a point of order. So it is open to a point of order that 
conceivably could be raised.
  Even if the Committee on Rules reported a rule that waived this point 
of order, an amendment to strike the unfunded mandate would always be 
in order unless it were a completely closed rule. Those of us on this 
side who are in the majority now do not plan to continue this pattern 
we have seen in the past of closing down rules.
  So it seems to me that this amendment really does not do anything to 
effectively address the issue we are trying to get at here. There is 
really no need to proceed with this, and I hope very much that we will 
be able to reject this duplicative amendment which is already addressed 
in the standard operating rules of the House of Representatives.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, why is this change so important? Well, the House is 
about to embark on some drastic cost-cutting measures including 
rescissions and elimination of programs through the regular 
appropriations process. Already the Committee on Appropriations is 
working on two rescissions bills that will soon be considered on this 
floor. We must make sure that we know whether these cuts will shift the 
cost burdens to State and local governments, and if they do, we must 
apply the procedures of H.R. 5 to those bills.
  No proponents of this legislation have given a reason why 
appropriations bills are not covered by H.R. 5. Just as important are 
conference reports on appropriations bills that come back from the 
other body with all sorts of authorizing legislation attached.
  If a conference on an appropriations bill contains an unfunded 
mandate, why should not H.R. 5 apply?
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we all know that provisions can be attached to 
continuing resolutions and reconciliation bills. They should all be 
included in
 the scope of this legislation. But in order to accomplish this, we 
must first amend the definition of Federal intergovernmental mandate in 
section 421(4). That definition currently includes only bills that 
decrease authorization of appropriations and not appropriations bills 
themselves.

  Therefore, CBO is not required to perform any cost analysis on 
appropriations bills even though those bills may drastically cut funds 
for State and local governments used to pay for Federal mandates.
  The goal of full and open debate on the cost of legislation cannot be 
met if appropriations bills, including rescissions, are not included.
  Now, the Republican leadership has been talking of consolidating many 
costly Federal assistance programs and, instead, providing block grants 
to States. This, they promise, will save money, because fewer dollars 
will be needed. I want to tell you that I am skeptical. I fear that, 
instead, these unfunded mandates will be passed on to the States. That 
is why we need to closely scrutinize each appropriations and rescission 
bill that comes to the floor and to apply the proceeds of H.R. 5 to 
stop any unfunded mandates.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Beilenson amendment.
  As we have heard over the past few days, the unfunded-mandate 
legislation is a far-reaching effort to alter the way the Federal and 
State governments relate to each other on a wide range of regulatory 
matters. There is certainly room for improvement in this relationship.
  The fact is, we used to do a better job of listening to each other 
and sharing responsibility for the standards we set. I think we should 
bring back a better balance to the system. But it seems to me that the 
legislation which we are considering here today contains a very large 
loophole. It does not extend the CBO information requirements to 
appropriations bills.
  [[Page H946]] I am at a loss to understand why. This is a very 
significant part of our legislative process, and this was omitted from 
the legislation. When we raised the issue in the Committee on Rules, 
the only response from the authors of the bill is that they did not 
want to offend the members of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that extending the reporting provisions to 
appropriations bills so that we have information on any unfunded 
mandates they may contain would close a glaring loophole and provide a 
very valuable addition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, to be fair and to be comprehensive in our desire to 
address the legitimate financial concerns of the States and localities, 
we need to extend the provisions of H.R. 5 to appropriations 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Beilenson 
amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that as we look at the 
Committee on Rules' relationship to the appropriations process, for the 
past several years we have seen restrictions imposed on the 
appropriations bills and waivers granted and all, but before that, that 
really did not happen, and I believe very sincerely that in this 104th 
Congress we are going to be able to get back to the point where we are 
not imposing those kinds of constraints on consideration of 
appropriations bills.
  Also, I have to add that when I had the privilege of serving with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], cochairing our Joint Committee 
on the Organization of Congress, I was just reminded, throughout that 
hearing process I said the greatest reform that we could possibly 
implement in this institution would be to simply comply with the 
standing rules of the House. That is all we are saying right now.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] tragically is based on the assumption that we are going to 
be waiving the rules of the House again. We would like to think, it is 
not ironclad, but we would like to think in most cases we will, in 
fact, be able to look at that as a thing of the past.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have several problems 
with the logic there. First of all, arguing that something should not 
be included because it is not necessary, if there is any ambiguity, it 
seems to me a weak argument. None of those arguing in opposition said 
it would do any harm. They said it is not necessary.
  In other words, we are getting the argument from literary elegance, 
not from logic.
  Let us not be redundant. Fortunately the rule against redundancy does 
not apply to our speeches, or we would be in better shape.
  On the other hand, there is a reason to apply this here. Among other 
things, we are not the only institution in this capital that treats 
appropriations legislation. Yonder lies the Senate. They have no such 
rule.
  We have sometimes been confronted, as the gentleman understands, with 
situations in which, in conference, we have had to agree to that. So to 
argue that we should not put something into a statute which is intended 
to last indefinitely, because we have a House rule provision that does 
the same thing, is no argument at all.

                              {time}  1810

  If you are serious about the principle, then the fact it is in the 
House rule is a good idea, but hardly a sufficient protection. Putting 
it in the statute does no harm and arms us against a Senate where there 
is no such rule whatsoever.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleague knows, over in the other body they 
regularly have opportunities with motions to strike. So clearly this 
issue can be addressed there.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Now, I am surprised because the gentleman has not said that all the 
time we spent on the unfunded mandates was a waste, because he is 
saying in effect we do not need an unfunded mandate bill, all we need 
is not to vote on unfunded mandates.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Moakley was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield further to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
further.
  Mr. Chairman, this is astonishing. What the gentleman is saying is we 
do not need any of this because if a motion comes up in a bill that has 
an unfunded mandate we defeat it. Has this been a charade? No, it has 
not been a charade. I mean, is the contract unnecessary? Is this 
superfluity? How can you argue that we do not need this whole bill and 
argue that we do not need this amendment because, after all, if it 
comes up we will vote it down. That stands the whole process on its 
head.
  I am surprised that the gentleman thinks that the whole thing we are 
talking about is illogical. Given the logic of a need for an unfunded 
mandates bill, applying it to appropriations bills makes the most 
obvious sense. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is 
correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, beyond the standing rules of the House, on which we 
have had a pattern of waivers over the past several years, and this 
measure, what else would be necessary to ensure that we do not proceed 
with imposition of an unfunded mandate? I am just saying at what point? 
We have concluded that the rules of the House are not enough. I happen 
to think they are.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Moakley was allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield further to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House are not enough, I would say to 
the gentleman very simply, when we are dealing with a matter which 
includes the U.S. Senate. That is not hard. The rules of the House do 
not bind the Senate, they do not impress the Senate, and if you are 
serious about this you do it by statute.
  Mr. DREIER. The rules of the House are not enough, and people who 
were formerly in the majority have had a pattern of constantly waiving 
them.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], No. 1: In the Senate debate on this the 
Senate did agree to a Senate procedure which handles the appropriations 
issue. So Mr. Frank will take comfort from that, I am sure.
  It is in a sense a line item in the appropriations bill on the Senate 
side. So that point is not necessary.
  Second, this legislation is in fact not only necessary, but as we 
have seen over the last week in debating it, there is a crisis out 
there in terms of us sending unfunded mandates to States and 
localities.
  If we do not get at it at the authorizing committee level, we will be 
in a situation where in a balanced budget environment we are 
increasingly pushing our costs down to the local level. So the 
legislation is absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Dreier's concerns are well-stated. Why have another point of 
order? We already have a point of order. Why 
[[Page H947]] have a duplication of a second point of order on 
appropriations bills? If you are legislating on an appropriations bill, 
there can be a point of order raised. That is all we are saying. We 
just do not need it. The language in the bill makes it very clear that 
at the authorizing committee level you have to consider the costs. Then 
on the floor of the House there is a point of order raised if the 
mandate is not funded. At the appropriations level there is always a 
point of order if you go beyond what the authorizing committee has 
done.
  So in point of fact, by definition there is a point of order for both 
situations, and I think this legislation should not be duplicative. We 
should not go out of our way to go back and make rules that are not 
necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

  Mr. BEILENSON. 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. Beilenson: Amend section 425 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to read as follows:

     SEC. 425. POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution that is reported by a committee unless the 
     committee has published the statement of the Director 
     pursuant to section 424(a) prior to such consideration, 
     except that this paragraph shall not apply to any 
     supplemental statement prepared by the Director under section 
     424(a)(4).
       (b) Limitation on Application to Appropriations Bills.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to a bill that is reported by 
     the Committee on Appropriations or an amendment thereto.
       Strike the proposed section 426 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 and strike the reference to such section in the 
     amendment made by section 304.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would 
eliminate the bill's prohibition on consideration of legislation 
containing an unfunded mandate on State and local governments.
  This amendment goes to the heart of what makes this bill so 
troublesome and problematic: The prohibition it establishes against 
considering legislation that contains an unfunded mandate on State and 
local governments of more than $50 million annually. It is clear from 
the debate we have had thus far that we do not know enough about the 
likely impact of such a rule to institute it at this time.
  We do not know how an unfunded mandate will be determined, how 
different types of Federal activities will be affected, and whether the 
Congressional Budget Office will be capable of assessing the costs of a 
proposal to State and local governments accurately and in a timely 
fashion. It seems unwise, to say the least, to prohibit consideration 
of a certain type of legislation when we really do not know what 
legislation we will be prohibiting.
  Supporters of H.R. 5 have portrayed the proposed rule as a rather 
benign procedure that will not prevent Congress from enacting any 
legislation we want to enact. They have said that it is not a ``no 
money, no mandates'' rule; they have said that all it will do is help 
us make more informed decisions about legislation which would impose an 
unfunded mandate, and be more accountable for those decisions.
  But that, in fact, is not the case. If this rule were as benign as 
some of its proponents claim, the sponsors would not have exempted 
legislation dealing with civil rights, or national security, or 
emergencies. They would not have exempted appropriations bills. They 
would not have agreed to amendments offered by Democratic Members to 
exempt Social Security and antidiscrimination measures for older 
Americans. Their support for exemptions for certain types of 
legislation is a tacit admission that this new prohibition does in fact 
have the potential to be a serious obstacle--if not a complete 
barrier--to enactment of certain types of legislation.
  If you consider what this new rule means, and how it will work, you 
cannot help but reach the conclusion that it will make it enormously 
difficult, if not impossible, to enact legislation imposing a 
requirement that could be determined to be an unfunded mandate. And 
that would effectively stop us from enacting legislation promoting 
clean air, clean water, public health, child safety, labor standards, 
and a whole host of other activities which the vast majority of 
Americans support.
  Let us look at how the process will work:
  If a bill containing an unfunded mandate, as determined by CBO, is 
reported from a committee, or if a Member wants to offer a floor 
amendment that contains an unfunded mandate, the legislation in 
question cannot be protected by a waiver included in the rule providing 
for the bill's consideration. This, by the way, is the only case where 
the Rules Committee will not be allowed to include a waiver of a point 
of order in a rule. No other rule of the House is treated this way.
  Instead, any Member will be able to make a point of order against any 
legislation which he or she knows, or suspects, may contain an unfunded 
mandate. Following that, the Chair would put the question of 
consideration.
  If this rule does not make it impossible to pass legislation 
containing an unfunded mandate, it certainly will make it almost 
impossible. Certainly committees will avoid reporting legislation which 
has been judged by CBO to contain an unfunded mandate--no matter how 
worthy the purpose may be--to avoid subjecting the bill to a vote which 
is almost certain to fail.
  Thus, contrary to what many of this bill's supporters say, the 
practical effect is that it is a ``no money, no mandate,'' bill.
  In cases of amendments, we may not know if the legislation contains 
an unfunded mandate and, if so, how serious the violation is. Yet we 
will be required to vote on the question of consideration. That does 
not make any sense, and it puts Members in the very difficult situation 
of having to make a decision and cast a vote on the waiver without the 
information we would need to make that decision.
  Proponents of the legislation say that this procedure will encourage 
Members to get cost estimates for their amendments ahead of time. But 
the fact is, it is going to be very difficult for CBO, even with the 
extra resources they will get under this bill, to assess the costs of 
mandates on the more than 87,000 State and local governments for 
committee bills. It will be next to impossible to assess those costs 
for individual Members' amendments. It will be completely impossible to 
assess them in the middle of floor debate. So, by adopting this new 
point of order, we will be setting ourselves up for some very difficult 
situations on the House floor, to put it mildly.
  There are cases where it makes sense for us to prohibit consideration 
of certain types of legislation. One good example is our point of order 
against tax or entitlement legislation which would increase the 
deficit. That makes sense because it is an enforceable rule and because 
it is relatively easy for CBO to determine whether legislation will 
have that effect. But establishing a rule against consideration of 
legislation containing unfunded mandates is far more problematic.
  For all of these reasons, it would be wise for us to drop the 
prohibition on consideration of legislation containing unfunded 
mandates at this time. We ought to give CBO some time to get some 
experience in defining unfunded mandates, and determining their costs 
before we use those determinations as a basis for banning the 
consideration of legislation, and setting up a process that could 
create some real procedural problems for the House.
                              {time}  1820

  If what we really want from this legislation, as has been stated 
repeatedly during this debate, is information and accountability with 
respect to our actions regarding legislation containing unfunded 
mandates, we can achieve that by requiring CBO to determine whether 
reported bills contain an unfunded mandate and requiring the committees 
to include that information in reports accompanying the reported bills. 
This amendment would maintain the prohibition on consideration of 
committee reported legislation if the committee fails to include a CBO 
analysis of the cost of the mandate.
   [[Page H948]] So, Mr. Chairman, so long as we have that information 
available to us, it will become part of the debate. We will know that 
by voting for the measure we are acting to impose an unfunded mandate. 
We will be accountable for that vote, but we will not have stacked the 
deck against enactment of such legislation to the extent that the bill 
currently does. We will not have tied our hands with respect to 
responding to as yet unknown problems that may emerge in the future.
  This amendment will enable us to achieve the fundamental purpose of 
this bill, knowing the cost of mandates we are imposing and thus making 
us accountable for our vote, as we shall be, without making it all but 
impossible to enact important environmental, health and safety 
legislation, and I urge our colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this amendment really does not allow us 
to address the issue of payment, and, first, it only establishes a 
point of order for failure to include a CBO analysis in the committee 
report. Under H.R. 5 a point of order also exists if the bill does not 
provide for a way to pay for the mandate. Actually getting the cost 
information is needed not only to provide information, but to determine 
how much is necessary to pay for the mandate.
  It seems to me that this is completely unnecessary, and I am going to 
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good 
friend the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] I believe that his 
amendment establishes a point of order which is far more appropriate 
than what is currently contained in this bill. Under this procedure, 
CBO would be required to provide detailed information on the potential 
cost that any unfunded mandate in proposed legislation would have on 
State and local governments as well as on private businesses. The point 
of order would not apply, however, to the consideration of legislation 
containing an unfunded mandate.
  By including a point of order against consideration of mandate 
legislation we would effectively create a ``no money, no mandate'' 
bill. It would be next to impossible to get Members to cast an explicit 
vote to impose an unfunded mandate. I believe that it is valuable for 
Members to have the ability to make informed decisions on whether the 
particular Federal mandate's benefit outweighs the financial burden 
that might be incurred due to the legislation. However, it seems to me 
that we do not want to jeopardize the opportunity of the House to 
decide whether to consider a legislation proposal without an 
appropriate amount of deliberation and debate.
  Under this procedure proposed by Mr. Beilenson, legislation 
containing mandates important to our Nation would still be able to move 
forward for consideration by the Congress. The CBO information would 
provide members with an upfront assessment of the costs of the 
legislation being considered. Members could then decide by comparing 
the merits of the bill with the impact of the burden on non-Federal 
entities. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
constructive amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138, 
noes 291, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 78]

                               AYES--138

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--291

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Becerra
     Crane
     Frank (MA)
     McDermott
     Rose

                              {time}  1842

  Mr. LIVINGSTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BEVILL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  [[Page H949]] The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 99.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran: In the proposed section 
     421(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, add after and 
     below subparagraph (B) the following:
       A mandate which would apply an enforceable mandate equally 
     on State, local, or tribal governments and the private sector 
     shall not, for purposes of section 425(a)(2), be considered a 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate.

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to treat 
the private sector in the same way that we treat the public sector. It 
is as simple as that. It only takes up one paragraph.
  The basic problem it gets at is that this piece of legislation has a 
fundamental flaw. On the very first day of this session, we passed 
legislation that said that every law that applies to private citizens 
ought to apply to the Federal Government as well, particularly to the 
U.S. Congress. But now this piece of legislation would say that every 
law that applies to private citizens and private businesses will not 
necessarily apply to State and local governments and that, in fact, it 
intends to exempt State and local governments from complying with many 
of the safeguards and the standards that will continue to be imposed 
upon private citizens and private businesses.
  The purpose of this amendment is to say that is not fair. We ought to 
treat the private sector in the same way that we treat the public 
sector.
  Ironically, the point of order provision in this legislation will end 
virtually all of our privatization efforts. It has that potential, Mr. 
Chairman.
  There is nothing wrong with the point of order that says that if we 
do not know the cost of legislation that is being imposed on State and 
local governments and private businesses, then that legislation ought 
to be subject to a point or order, because no longer ought we to pass 
the bill and then pass the buck to others to pay for it. But that point 
of order that requires a fiscal impact analysis makes sense, because it 
relies upon this Congress to exercise its judgment to determine whether 
or not the intent of the legislation is worth the imposition that it 
will impose on state and local governments and businesses.
  That is necessary. The vast majority of the Members of this Congress 
last year cosponsored legislation that would do that.
  This bill goes one step further. I think one step further that flaws 
the intent of the bill and will create unintended consequences that 
will haunt us for years to come, because it says that if there is not 
100 percent funding for legislation, then there is no mandate.
  In effect, if the appropriations committees pass an across-the-board 
cut, that will trigger the option for States and localities to 
determine whether or not they want to implement legislation.
  Now, let me give Members some examples of the specific problem areas 
this will create. There are 16 million public employees. If, for 
example, we were to increase part B hospital insurance premium under 
Medicare, which may well have to be done to make that program solvent, 
we would not be able to fund it. We should not have to fund it. But it 
will make it optional for all 16 million public employees, all of the 
thousands of public entities that employ those employees, whether or 
not they want to come up with the premium.
  I cannot imagine any of them voluntarily paying that premium, which 
means that the 100 million private employees will not only have to pay 
their share of that Medicare increase, they will also have to make up 
for the fact that 16 million public employees do not have to pay for 
it. That is the problem we are trying to get at.
  We have 1,800 municipal power plants, almost 1,000 rural electric 
cooperatives who will be exempt from meeting new Clean Air Act 
requirements.

                              {time}  1850

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, there are 226 investor-owned power 
companies. They will have to abide by every single new air quality 
standard, even though they generate 75 percent of the power in this 
country, whereas those municipal power plants will not have to. That is 
the unfair treatment we are creating.
  Mr. Chairman, if we enact this legislation in its present form, we 
are going to take a step backward, backward to a situation that is 
really analogous with the Articles of Confederation. From about 1781 to 
1787 we gave almost complete discretion to all the States. It did not 
work. There had to be national standards. This says there no longer 
have to be national standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts that have been made by my 
friends on the other side to study this legislation, but the problem is 
that studying it, exposing it, even understanding it, does not rectify 
it. This amendment rectifies it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that where we have Federal 
activities that are carried out by both the public and the private 
sector, we have to treat them equally; that in fact we cannot give an 
option to States and localities whether or not they want to comply with 
standards. It still requires that we know exactly what the cost of 
implementation is, but it leaves it to our judgment whether or not we 
want to pass that legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously it does not apply to any programs that are 
completely Federal programs, like Medicaid. SSI is a public program, 
the Women, Infants, and Children Program, any number of these 
entitlements. Those are all public programs. We are only talking about 
programs that apply to both the public and private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a terribly important amendment that 
this body needs to support and pass.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this might be deemed the mother of all exemptions, 
because there is a very real possibility here that many amendments can 
be deemed to have application to both public and private entities. This 
would in effect say that anyone that had equal application, both 
private and public, would be exempt from the provisions of this bill. 
That sweeps in many, many of the exemptions that have already been 
dealt with here tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, as I say, the mother of all exemptions. I 
think exempting this class of mandates would preclude Congress from 
having the Congressional Budget Office cost estimates for these 
requirements. Further, it would deny the ability of Congress to have a 
separate vote on whether or not to consider these amendments.
  The gentleman talked about some of the things, horrendous things that 
could occur with this. We are just saying we need to consider these on 
a case-by-case basis; that we should take a look at it, and in fact 
there are serious competitive disadvantages built into it. I think that 
would determine the response we might well make.
  However, to say that we are going to exempt them flat out, across the 
board, without that kind of case-by-case analysis, I think would be 
wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that H.R. 5 already requires 
committee reports to include a statement analyzing the degree to which 
the Federal mandate affects each of the public and private sectors, and 
the extent to which Federal payment of public sector cost would affect 
the competitive balance between States, local governments, or tribal 
governments, and the private sector. This is something that we have 
never had before. We have never had the ability or never had the 
requirement that this kind of analysis be done, as to how it affects 
the competitive balance between the governmental entities and the 
private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, language was crafted in very careful consultation with 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, Browning-Ferris Industries, and other groups who may well be 
in a 
[[Page H950]] competitive situation with public sector entities. but 
they have all endorsed H.R. 5 as presently structured.
  The point is that Congress, as a result of this legislation, is going 
to have more information as to the costs of private sector mandates, 
and I believe this is just the first in what are going to be a series 
of efforts in Congress we are going to make over the next few months to 
address the very pressing need for regulatory reform.
  We cannot solve all of those issues in one fell swoop, but I do 
consider this amendment to be a weakening one. In fact, I consider this 
to be one that would be so sweeping in its potential application as to 
render the bill really useless.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], let me say and emphasize this does not exempt every program 
that is carried out by both the public and the private sector 
whatsoever. All it says is that the opt-out provision would no longer 
be included in the legislation. There are any number of other 
provisions that apply.
  We still have a bill that addresses unfunded mandates, a bill that 
every single State and local organization in the country that I am 
aware of supported, a bill that the Chamber of Commerce supported, that 
the Federation of Independent Businesses supported, the National 
Association of Manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, we have written support from all of those 
organizations. In fact, I have a letter from Browning-Ferris objecting 
to this provision.
  Mr. Chairman, my point was not that we should exempt any of this 
legislation. My point is that we are going too far in including the 
opt-out provision. The gentleman is aware of so many privatization 
efforts that are working so well.
  In fact, we got a letter from the National School Transportation 
Association. They pointed out that in Connecticut 90 percent of the 
buses are operated by private companies. Any Federal law or regulation 
that applies to the operation of those bus companies would continue to 
be imposed on that private company, but would not on municipalities, 
and there is no question that all of these school districts are going 
to take back the operation of those buses, because it will eventually 
become uncompetitive.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are trying to do is to say the private sector 
ought to be able to compete with the public sector in areas that are 
appropriate. If we do not pass this amendment, they cannot, because the 
public sector can opt out. The private sector does not have that 
option. Mr. Chairman, these standards would continue to be imposed upon 
them.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, the gentleman keeps 
talking about the opt-out provision. What is the opt-out provision in 
H.R. 5?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
the opt-out provision is that if there is not complete funding for a 
program, a Federal activity that would be considered on the floor of 
the House, then States and localities have the option of not 
implementing.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
that is an incorrect representation of the bill. What the bill says is 
that there is a point of order to be raised if the mandate is not 
funded. Congress can always act by a majority vote to waive that point 
of order. It is not an opt-out provision for State and local 
government.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, the 
point is the gentleman is assuming that we will overturn the point of 
order. Every time we raise these issues, if the gentleman's answer is, 
we are going to overturn the point of order, what we are saying, let us 
not create that situation in the first place. It is a fundamental flaw.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I 
would hope we would not override the point of order in every case. I 
would hope Congress would in an informed way be able to look at the 
issue of public-private. That was the purpose of an amendment offered 
earlier today by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and myself.
  The committees have the responsibility, the requirement under this 
bill to look at the very issue the gentleman is discussing. As the 
gentleman knows, they have three things they can do. They can either 
not fund the public mandate, they can either have the mandate apply 
equally to both parties, or they can not apply the mandate to the 
private sector, so there is an explicit provision in this legislation 
to get at the very issue that is addressed.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman] makes. The problem is that all he does is to require 
that we look at the situation after we have passed this legislation. 
That is the problem. We do not want to create a situation that we 
subsequently have to undo.
  In the National League of Cities publication this week, it tells 
States and localities, it is obviously very pleased with this 
legislation, but it tells States and localities, and I want to make 
sure that the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on 
Appropriations is listening, it tells States and localities that in the 
future, any Federal program that is not an individual entitlement for 
full funding will become optional to States and localities. They will 
not have the requirement to carry it out.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that is an 
accurate representation of the legislation?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss 
Collins] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Portman and by unanimous consent, Miss Collins 
of Michigan was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. PORTMAN. Does the gentleman believe that is an accurate 
representation of the legislation?
  Mr. MORAN. I would tell the gentleman from Ohio that the National 
League of Cities represents more than 16,000 local jurisdictions. This 
is their understanding of legislation that affects them more than any 
other group.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Is the gentleman's understanding correct?
  Mr. MORAN. That is what they are being told and they are citing 
conversations that they have had with the proponents of the bill. So 
that is their understanding.
  Mr. PORTMAN. That representation is not accurate. As you know, the 
legislation is very clear, we have now talked about it for a week. It 
does provide a point of order if the new mandate is not funded. This 
bill is only prospective, as we know. The bill would not apply to any 
existing mandate, and it provides a point of order on the floor of the 
House absolutely. That is the whole idea. But the representation from 
the League of Cities or even your earlier characterization of the bill 
just are not what we have here before us today on H.R. 5.
  Mr. MORAN. You are correct if you can assume that we will overturn 
points of order consistently when they are raised.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss 
Collins] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Obey and by unanimous consent, Miss Collins of 
Michigan was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote fro this bill if the 
Moran substitute is adopted tomorrow, but frankly I am still concerned 
about the 
[[Page H951]] point the gentleman is trying to make, because I do not 
want to create the possibility of creating additional entitlements when 
we are supposedly telling the country we are in the business of shaving 
them back.
  Would the gentleman walk through for the House again how in your view 
without your amendment and without the amendment you are going to be 
offering tomorrow as well, how this, in fact, does create an 
unintentional entitlement, if the Committee on Appropriations, for 
instance, were to cut back by passing an across-the-board cut?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I will be 
happy to do that. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for raising that 
issue.
  The legislation says that if there is any reduction from the amount 
that is authorized to be appropriated for any Federal activity we pass 
on the floor, if there is any reduction, that triggers the option for 
States and localities whether or not they want to implement it.
  There is another alternative. If in that legislation the authorizing 
committee specifies that the Federal agency, the executive branch, has 
the option of paring back the program, choosing what activities they 
want to conduct and which they do not, it gives that kind of 
prerogative to the executive branch to decide what part of an 
authorization they choose to implement and how they want to cut it back 
if there was such an across-the-board cut in the appropriations bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman believe that under this procedure there 
would in fact be built into the process an incentive against cutting 
spending under those circumstances?
  Mr. MORAN. I think it will preclude the Committee on Appropriations 
from exercising its discretion on domestic discretionary programs in 
the same way that it lacks discretion on entitlement programs today.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue came up in our committee meeting and at the 
time I indicated that I have a great deal of sympathy with the problem 
that was created here or the potential problem that the private sector 
enterprises would be put at a disadvantage if they were not put on the 
same playing field as the public sector. But I do think that this 
remedy to that problem is much too extreme and goes too far in gutting 
the basic provisions of this bill.
  What I would propose and would like to do is work with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Virginia, on addressing this issue in H.R. 9 or 
other appropriate legislation to grant many of the same protections to 
the private sector that would be available to their public sector 
competitors, so we can move forward with unfunded mandate legislation 
that is real legislation and real reform and yet at the same time make 
sure that we do not put the private sector at a disadvantage.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I noticed that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] had a amendment that would have required that the private 
sector be fully funded just as the public sector would be fully funded. 
I notice that that was withdrawn because I suspect the leadership 
requested it and, of course, it would have exposed the box that the 
opponents of this bill have put themselves into.
  There is no way that we can fully fund private sector mandates, but 
nevertheless we are treating them unequally from public sector. The 
public sector we control. The private sector we do not.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me address the 
question. I think that there are ways of doing this that does not 
require the Federal Government to lay funds forward but simply to 
extend the provision that says where there are no funds appropriated, 
there is no mandate to extend that provision to the private sector.
  I am willing to discuss the other if the gentleman from Virginia 
would like to see it, but I think the context is not in this bill. It 
should be done in the context of regulatory reform for the private 
sector which I understand will be coming forward to this House in the 
coming month.
  Mr. MORAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the other 
obvious alternative. No money, no mandates for all the private sector. 
Forget air traffic control, forget all of the regulations that apply, 
but that is an honest provision.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going to get into 
any of that type of situation. What we will do is create a level of 
playing field for the private sector competitors of public sector 
providers of services and goods that are regulated. I would favor 
addressing that issue in a later bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the issue of public and private sector 
competition under Government mandates has gotten awfully confused here. 
Let us look at the facts as they exist today. Today government at the 
local level and the Federal level does compete against private industry 
and vice versa in many areas.
  When the Federal Government issues a mandate to local government to 
do something, the local government today is in competition in many 
cases with private sector companies who are under the same mandate to 
do the same thing. The local government funds that operation today. It 
funds it out of tax dollars raised locally.
  The only change this unfunded mandate bill makes in that equation is 
it changes as to who raised the money to pay for the public sector 
operation. That is the only change. It does not change the equation of 
private sector or public sector competition at all. It simply says that 
in that equation when it comes time to raise the money to carry out the 
mandate, instead of raising the money locally with taxes raised at the 
local level, the money has to be raised on the Federal level, or else a 
point of order is raised against the mandate to being with.
  Now, if you really do not believe in the unfunded mandates concept of 
this bill, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has offered you the 
perfect amendment to defeat it. This amendment would simply say that 
where you have a Federal mandate that does apply to both local 
government and to private sector businesses, which most of these 
mandates do, that the point of order does not lie against it. But you 
cannot in fact enforce the unfunded mandate provision of this bill 
against such a mandate.
  If you ever wanted an exemption that exempted most Federal mandates 
out of this bill, we have just been offered it today.
  Let me say again, the equation of competition private to public is 
not affected by this bill. If you believe that, you need to think just 
a second what is happening in the world today. The private sector 
competing against local government, local government having to carry 
out Federal mandates, raising the money locally because we force them 
to, and the change this bill will make, the only change is that instead
 of telling local government you have to do it this way and you have to 
raise the money locally to do it, under this bill a point of order 
would lie against such a rule.

  Unless we exempted ourselves from that point of order or waived it, a 
point of order would lie against it so that we would have to come up 
with the money here in Washington to fund that public mandate on the 
public institution locally at home. That is the only difference.
  I understand if you do not believe in that proposition. If you 
believe that Government ought to be able to mandate things on local 
governments and we ought not to have to come up with the money to fund 
them, if you believe that we ought to be able to tell a State and 
county and parish and city governments across America that you have got 
to do it our way and you have to raise the taxes to pay for it, if you 
really believe that, this is the perfect out amendment.

                              {time}  1910

  This amendment says a point of order will not lie against those kind 
of 
[[Page H952]] mandates in the future, and it also says, in effect, this 
unfunded mandate provision will not be enforceable against any mandate 
that affects both the local government and a private business in your 
district.
  So if my colleagues really do not like this bill, if they do not 
believe in it, if they want to believe in mandates from Washington 
without the necessity of funding them, then vote for this amendment. If 
my colleagues believe in a strong unfunded mandates bill, they have got 
to defeat this amendment. It is the amendment that exempts most 
mandates from the bill. It is the one that destroys the whole idea of 
an unfunded mandates bill.
  So, I urge Members, defeat this amendment and let us go on to pass a 
strong unfunded mandates bill.
  When we get through, every time we have a mandate that affects public 
and private businesses from now on we will now consider do we in fact 
fund it from Washington or do we tell our comrades in arms, the local 
city councilmen, the Members who represent a district back home, a 
county or a parrish or a State government it is up to you to come up 
with the money, you just have got to do it our way? If Members want to 
keep doing business that way, vote for this amendment.
  If they want to change business and make sure from now on when we 
mandate things on local governments back home we either provide the 
money or we do not mandate it, vote against this amendment. It is that 
simple.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding. I know my friend does not mean to be deliberately misleading, 
but I would ask my friend if he is aware that there is a provision in 
the bill that says that it is always in order to strike an unfunded 
mandate? And this amendment does not affect that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, let me assure the gentleman the 
League of Cities campaigned that the opt-out provision applied to the 
former bill introduced in the last Congress by my good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who led this effort. It does 
not apply to H.R. 5; that provision is not in the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I rise to cosponsor this amendment because I 
firmly believe that what the gentleman is seeking to do is very 
important. And I do not believe that the cavalier attitude of casually 
disposing of all of these important amendments is in the best interests 
of what we are trying to do for this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that public employers should be model 
employers. As such, I believe they have a duty to provide their workers 
with the same protections that we otherwise require of private 
employers. They have a responsibility to ensure that the manner in 
which they operate shows the same respect for the health and safety of 
the general public that we require of private sector businesses.
  I note from my colleagues on the other side that the adoption of this 
amendment will ensure that H.R. 5 does not confer undue and improper 
competitive advantages to public employers over private employers. That 
is the point that the gentleman from Virginia has made and very 
effectively made.
  A public hospital should not be treated any differently with regard 
to Federal standards regulating the disposal of hazardous wastes than a 
private hospital. The city of St. Louis should be under the same 
requirement to pay at least minimum wages to its employees that we 
impose on private sector employees.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely right. If we 
do not fully fund some of these programs that apply to both public and 
private, then a point of order can be raised to knock out the public 
sector involvement. And it probably will stand.
  Mr. Chairman, an employee has the same responsibilities to provide a 
decent living for his or her family, regardless of whether the employee 
is employed in the public sector or the private sector. The fact that 
hazardous fumes emanate from a public incinerator instead of a private 
incinerator in no way diminishes the health hazards to the general 
public. There are basic protections that must and should be extended to 
all.
  Where the Congress determines such a circumstance to exist, public 
employers and private employers should be treated equally.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to respond to what the gentleman from 
Louisiana said. When I brought up the fact that it would always be in 
order to strike any unfunded Federal mandate, the last thing the 
gentleman said was that that provision was in the bill of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit]. It is not in this bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a second?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the Record. I did not say 
that the provision to have a point of order against the mandate is not 
in this bill; it is. What is not in this bill is the opt-out for local 
governments, which was contained in the Condit bill last year, which 
the League of Cities wrote to the gentleman and all of us about, and 
which the gentleman from Virginia quoted on the floor tonight. That 
provision is not in H.R. 5. It was in the Condit bill last year.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield again to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana missed 
the point. I was not referring to last year. I was referring to the 
point that the gentleman from Louisiana tried to make, that if we pass 
this amendment it will essentially gut the intent of this legislation.
  That could not be further from the truth. And I would draw the 
attention of my colleagues to page 48, that says that

       With regard to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, it 
     shall always be in order, unless specifically waived by terms 
     of a rule governing consideration of a measure, to move to 
     strike such unfunded Federal mandate from the portion of the 
     bill that is open to amendment.

And this is not affected by our amendment.
  The point is that with passage of this bill it will be in order for 
any Member of this House to strike an unfunded Federal mandate. That is 
what we want. All I am trying to get at is the disparity in the 
treatment of the public sector versus the private sector. I am not 
trying to eliminate any responsibility to address unfunded Federal 
mandates. And this bill would continue to do that.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  Very briefly, there is a big difference between the motion to strike 
and the point of order. The point of order is precisely what gives us 
information on the public-private competition issue that we want to 
have to address this issue responsibly. So I would say in response to 
the gentleman's concern about what the gentleman from Louisiana said, 
that the motion to strike does not solve the problem. We need the point 
of order, we have to have the point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlemen 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready to vote here. The point 
is if we do not pass this amendment, we are going to hear from our 
private sector businesses who will be treated unfairly, who will lost 
their opportunity to compete with the public sector in a constructive 
way, and we are going to wind up having to change this bill down the 
road when we realize the unintended consequences of this legislation.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to treat the public and private sector 
alike, to approve this amendment, and 
[[Page H953]] then to pass a responsible version of the unfunded 
mandates legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, 
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               AYES--143

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--285

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Becerra
     Crane
     Gibbons
     Martinez
     Pelosi
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1934

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I have always been sensitive 
to the local impact of Federal laws that are underfunded--that are not 
supported by adequate resources. They place State and local governments 
in an awkward, and often impossible, position--trying to ensure that 
the required protections are in place, without sufficient financial 
support.
  For that reason, during the last Congress, I supported the efforts of 
my Democratic colleagues--Mr. Condit of California and Mr. Moran of 
Virginia--to provide local governments with some relief from this 
financial hardship. And, at this time, I want to acknowledge both Mr. 
Condit and Mr. Moran for meeting this challenge head-on during the 103d 
Congress, each by introducing legislation that would have provided some 
relief in response to the pleas for help that we received from local 
communities.
  As Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton experienced, first hand, 
the difficulty and frustration of dealing with Federal laws that were 
insufficiently funded. That is why he has expressed support for 
unfunded mandate reform, just as many local officials in my district 
have. The cities of Winters, Red Bluff, and West Sacramento, along with 
Tehama, Colusa, and Solano Counties, are just some of the local 
jurisdictions that advised me of their support for Federal mandate 
relief. Some passed resolutions, and others incorporated mandate reform 
in their legislative platforms. Regardless of the vehicle, however, the 
message was consistent--local government is overly burdened by Federal 
programs that are not accompanied by the necessary resources to 
implement them. Although giving local communities more flexibility in 
managing these programs helps, we also need to weigh and control their 
cost.
  I therefore support enactment of legislation that will help us make 
all-around better decisions--decisions that are solid, sound, informed, 
and responsible, and that do not overly burden the local communities 
charged with implementing them. But, the Federal Government also has a 
responsibility to ensure that both the public and private sectors 
follow basic policies and practices if the health, safety, environment, 
and human and civil rights of American citizens are to be protected. 
Without these standards--whether they are for education, or nursing 
homes, or clean air and water, or proper waste disposal within States 
and across State lines--American families are placed at great risk. 
And, although implementation can be costly, the social costs of not 
implementing them--of failing to protect the public--are immeasurable.
  That is why I have several serious concerns about the bill
   that is now before us and why I support amendments that clarify its 
intent and enhance its effectiveness. As it is written, H.R. 5, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, could force us to abandon many of the 
most important Federal safety and environmental standards in existence 
today--standards that protect the American public and that the American 
people really want and support. To rush this legislation through 
without hearings and without improving it is a grave mistake.

  Unamended, H.R. 5 is much too broad and much too vague. If it is 
enacted, will we continue to be able to protect our children? What 
about school safety regulations designed to safeguard against asbestos, 
radon, and lead paint? What about child support enforcement laws? Will 
the Federal Government be able to enact national standards that prevent 
child abuse and exploitation?
  What about the American worker? Are minimum labor standards, such as 
minimum wage, child labor prohibitions, and occupational safety 
standards at risk?
  What about Medicare and the social service programs that serve as a 
safety net for our senior citizens? What about Federal protections that 
extend to investors, financial markets, federally insured banks and 
credit unions 
[[Page H954]] and deposit insurance funds? What about regulating the 
generation, transportation, storage and disposal of toxic, hazardous, 
and radioactive substances? Without a Federal standard, can each State 
set its own guidelines for waste disposal, and be free to unload its 
waste on another? Will this bill threaten water safety regulations? Are 
those protections that we have worked so long and hard to put in place 
at risk of being erased? I support the concept of mandate reform, but I 
have serious problems with this process--the way in which we are 
forcing this bill through. Its long-term impact is too great and too 
far reaching to be sacrificed for a short-lived success.
  I am voting in favor of final passage of H.R. 5 in support of the 
communities in my district that have consistently expressed their 
frustration and concern with underfunded mandates. However, I also want 
to go on record noting my concerns with mandates reform that moves too 
quickly and does not take into consideration its far-reaching impact. 
H.R. 5 must ensure that State and local governments get the help that 
they need in meeting the financial costs of complying with Federal 
regulations. But it must also reflect the fact that we must have 
Federal standards. There are certain protections that cannot be waived 
or eroded. We must therefore work together to develop legislation that 
balances our support of these critical protections with consideration 
for the State and local governments that bear the burden of their 
implementation.
  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. 
Bereuter) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and 
local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs 
incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements 
under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on 
the costs of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________