[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H980-H1012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). 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} 1144
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 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 Tuesday,
January 31, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran] had been disposed of, and title III was open for amendment
at any point.
Are there further amendments to title III?
parliamentary inquiry
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we have four Members who
wanted to offer their amendments. They are not here. I wonder if it is
possible to reserve 5 or 10 minutes of their time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may move to strike the last word, and
she would be recognized for 5 minutes, or any Member may move to strike
the last word.
amendment offered by mr. mineta
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment,
amendment numbered 95.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta: In section 301, at the end
of the proposed section 421(4) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, add the following:
Such term shall not be construed to include a provision in
legislation, statute, or regulation that preempts a State,
local, or tribal government from enacting or enforcing a law,
regulating, or other provision having the force of law
related to economic regulation, including limitations on
revenues to such governments.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, in general the bill before us is an attempt
to limit the intrusiveness of the Federal Government into the business
of State and local governments and private businesses. Many of us
disagree with
[[Page H981]] how the bill goes about meeting those objectives, but we
do not disagree with the objectives themselves.
In the area of transportation, economic regulation in particular, I
have been among the most consistent advocates of the economic
deregulation of transportation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is very
familiar with my efforts as a deregulator, because he has been an
important part of those efforts, and so have many Members on his side
of the aisle.
In the past 15 years, we have largely deregulated the airlines,
pipelines, trucking, and railroads. We have dramatically reduced the
intrusiveness of government into the marketplace. And in every instance
we have concluded that what we wanted to achieve was deregulation, not
a substitute of State regulation for Federal regulation.
Deregulation means get government out of the issue. It does not mean
close the Civil Aeronautics Board only to substitute 50 State Civil
Aeronautics Boards.
In every one of these deregulation efforts, we have not only told the
Federal Government to get out of economic regulation, we have told the
States not to get into it. And that is the only way we can increase
reliance on the marketplace.
This unfunded mandates bill would inadvertently apply to efforts to
deregulate industries. H.R. 5 not only makes it more difficult to tell
States what they have to do, it also makes it more difficult to tell
States what they cannot do, including that they cannot regulate
industries that we have just deregulated.
Mr. Chairman, this is not what the Members of this House intend for
this bill to do. It is not what the Senate bill does. This is an
unintended consequence that we ought to correct, and my amendment does
that.
Let me give a specific example. Last August we brought to the floor
legislation which very substantially deregulated the economic
regulation of the trucking industry. Many of you thought of it as the
Fed Ex bill, or the UPS bill, but it was in fact very broad
deregulation legislation affecting most of the trucking industry. That
bill would have been considered an unfunded mandate under H.R. 5
because it told the States they could not regulate those industries.
{time} 1150
None of us considered that an unfunded mandate, but H.R. 5 does. That
bill would have been required to have extensive analyses set out in
H.R. 5, which quite probably would have meant we would not have had
time to enact it in the closing weeks of the last Congress.
The same kinds of problems arise with regard to deregulation of
pipelines, of railroads, and of other industries we are looking at for
future deregulation.
These problems arise with respect to any clarifying bills we may need
to do in the future, to preserve the deregulation of industries that we
have already deregulated. This is not what the Members of this House
intend for this bill to do.
I know that the track record so far on the Democratic amendments to
this bill is not good. But I appeal to the manager of the bill that my
amendment supports one of the underlying objectives of the bill, less
government regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Mineta], the ranking Democratic member on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
I am a former chairman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission, so
I have seen how regulation works and it can work very efficiently and
effectively. I also have seen examples where it has not worked, where
it has cost consumers billions of dollars.
I might say about our legislation, that the gentleman from California
[Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the
vast majority of the Members of the House of Representatives and the
Senate all supported this last year, that it was to deregulate the
trucking industry. But I do think what the gentleman from California
[Mr. Mineta] has said is correct. This is an unintended consequence
that we ought to correct.
I realize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and
others have stated that they do not support amendments, but I hope they
will make an exception to the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CLEMENT. I would hope that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Condit] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and all of
those of us that support H.R. 5--and I strongly support H.R. 5--I will
vote for final passage, a lot of Democrats, lot of Republicans will
join hands in a very bipartisan manner. I do not like unfunded
mandates.
But this is not the intention of this particular amendment. Do not
strangle us. Do not put us in a straitjacket. We very well are going to
be looking at some other deregulation down the road. We have not
finished that task. Surely we have had much that we can be proud of
over the last 15 years, such as deregulation of airlines, pipelines,
trucking, and railroads.
This is the beginning for the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. In order to ensure that businesses and industry have an
opportunity to compete without all these rules and regulations, let us
adopt the Mineta amendment and let us be bipartisan about it.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my
friend from California, a mentor on the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation. I know and appreciate and am sensitive to his concerns.
But I rise in opposition to the amendment because the amendment
really broadly exempts Federal preemption of State law from the
definition of mandates. This includes any Federal limitation on
revenues that a State or local government can otherwise lawfully
collect.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment was drafted primarily in
response to concerns raised by the railroad industry. The railroads'
particularly concern is an inclusion in the bill of mandates that
require States or local governments to forgo revenues might adversely
affect a provision of law enacted in 1976 that prohibits States and
local governments from discriminating against railroads in taxation.
The most important point to be made is the same point that has been
made over and over again during the debate on this bill, and that is
that this bill does not affect existing mandates.
The point of order this the bill creates applies only to bills
brought to the House floor after October 1, 1995, which is the
effective date of the legislation.
The real question, Mr. Chairman, is whether a similar preemption of
State law in future bills that limits the ability of a State to collect
an otherwise lawful tax should be subject to the procedures established
by H.R. 5.
The State tax officials make a compelling case that Federal laws that
restrict States and local governments from employing tax practices
which would otherwise be legal under the U.S. Constitution have exactly
the same impact as an expenditure mandate.
So I believe that the same procedure should be applied to these
preemption provisions. If Congress believes and decides that the
national interest requires placing restrictions on States' ability to
raise lawful taxes, then it is not unreasonable to require a majority
vote to waive that point of order.
So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman as I have indicated, the Senate bill
relative to their legislation on unfunded mandates does not contain
this unintended consequence of making it more difficult to deregulate.
I would like to ask my very fine colleague from Pennsylvania, if I
can get a commitment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania that he will
revisit this issue in conference and attempt to
[[Page H982]] keep this bill from making it harder to deregulate.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that that, as
the gentleman says, that is a conferential issue. It is one that I will
certainly be willing to revisit and to work with the gentleman. As I
say, at this point I am not convinced that it is necessary but will be
happy to revisit the matter in conference.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
amendment offered by mr. sanders
Mr. SANDERS. 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. Sanders: Insert the following new
paragraphs at the end of the proposed section 424(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
``(5) Consideration of cost savings from federal
mandates.--For each bill or joint resolution of a public
character reported by any committee that establishes,
modifies, or repeals a Federal mandate, the Director shall
prepare and submit to the committee a statement describing
the cost savings that would accrue to the private and public
sectors from such Federal mandate, including long and short
term health care and environmental cost savings. Such
statements shall include a quantitative assessment of such
cost savings to the extent practicable.
``(6) Consideration of benefits of federal mandates.--For
each bill or joint resolution of a public character reported
by any committee that establishes, modifies, or repeals a
Federal mandate, the Director shall prepare and submit to the
committee a statement describing the benefits of such Federal
mandate, including benefits to human health, welfare, the
environment, and the economy. Such statement shall include a
quantitative assessment of such benefits to the extent
practicable.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my
colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Farr].
This amendment simply provides for full and unbiased information. It
provides that the CBO include an estimate of long- and short-term
health care and environmental cost savings and other benefits of
unfunded mandates.
The bottom line is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act threatens to
dismantle many laws that protect the public health and the environment.
This is because State and local governments need to heed these laws
just like the private sector.
When we consider the merits of mandates like the Safe Drinking Water
Act, OSHA, and bills regulating the disposal of medical waste, we
should be aware of the costs imposed on local governments. That is
absolutely appropriate. But we should also be equally aware of the cost
savings, the cost savings expected from these mandates.
The true cost of a bill is the direct cost imposed minus the cost
savings. This amendment ensures that
the CBO estimate the true cost.
If this amendment is adopted, we will be less likely to discard
preventative legislation that is cost effective in the long run.
Prevention is much cheaper than a cure. But prevention has a short-
term direct cost. If this amendment is not adopted, we will only be
informed of that short-term direct cost and will not be told about the
expected cost savings.
Cost savings is not a small part of the equation. H.R. 5 threatens
astronomical health care costs at a time when we want to save money.
Today one in three of us will get cancer and, frankly, one in four of
us will die of it. Over 60 different occupations are at a documented
risk of cancer, including farmers, petrochemical workers, asbestos
workers, plastics manufacturers, and radiation workers.
Under H.R. 5 it will be much harder to respond to this expensive and
debilitating health care crisis and easier for shortsighted private
industries to ignore it. We need access to real costs, including the
long-term medical costs that will result if we fail to respond.
{time} 1200
Lung cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer in America, yet H.R. 5 will
hamstring us from imposing indoor air laws limiting tobacco smoke in
workplaces and public places. The cost of imposing no-smoking areas is
minuscule--minuscule in comparison to the cost of treating lung cancer.
This amendment would clearly show the cost difference.
H.R. 5 also threatens, in my view, unacceptable environmental
contamination and extremely expensive cleanup costs. Superfund sites
littering the Nation are left festering because they are so expensive
to clean up. It would have been more cost effective to prevent that
contamination in the first place. We cannot foresee all future
environmental problems. That is one reason we cannot say that current
laws do an adequate job protecting us, but the CBO estimate of
environmental cost savings will help us identify those cost-effective
bills.
Fortunately, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to
``emergency legislation,'' but how will we know when there is a health
care or an environmental emergency? The best way is to adopt this
amendment which would indicate when the savings strongly outweigh the
short-term direct costs and a crisis is at hand.
This amendment also requires a CBO analysis of the benefits of the
legislation. As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 5 could very well destroy our
environmental and public safety laws. These laws not only save money,
but they prevent needless deaths, pain, suffering and environmental
degradation. These benefits should not be ignored.
This amendment provides for a CBO estimate of the benefits to human
health, welfare, the environment, and the economy. Costs should not be
viewed in a vacuum. Intelligent decisions require a cost-benefit
analysis. If CBO provides information on costs, which is absolutely
appropriate, and benefits, we would have access to a consistent and an
unbiased cost-benefit analysis.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the current provisions
that require a CBO estimate of the costs to State and local governments
of unfunded mandates. That is very important. That is very important.
But these estimates alone misrepresent the true cost of legislation and
ignore its benefits. This amendment corrects that fatal flaw. This
amendment helps us fulfill the laudable purposes spelled out in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Its purposes include, and I quote from the bill, ``to end the
imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of
Federal mandates,'' and ``to assist Congress in its consideration of
the proposed legislation * * * by establishing a mechanism to bring
such information to the attention of the Senate and House * * * and to
promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress.''
If Members support these purposes, I urge Members to support this
amendment.
The CBO will not always be able to provide a quantitative cost-
benefit analysis. This amendment recognizes this limitation and only
requires quantitative analyses when practicable, but when it is
practicable, we need to be aware of all essential pieces of
information. Uninformed decisions do not lead to cost-effective
decisions. Let us save money and pass intelligent legislation that is
not shortsighted.
I urge the Members to vote for this amendment, and vote for full and
unbiased information.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, very briefly, just to state that I think that the role that
the gentleman would have the CBO assume is not a role that they are
clearly designed to do. Their role is to find out the cost of what
things are and not really make policy decisions.
What the amendment would do is require CBO to become really a policy
adviser or a policy evaluator. Requiring it to do cost-benefit analysis
I think would really put it very close to policy advocacy.
I think the other thing that needs to be said about this is that the
committee itself is charged in our bill with
[[Page H983]] doing a cost-benefit analysis of the mandates.
I think finally it can be said that clearly the advocates for a
particular mandate and the need to pass it through are certainly going
to be pointing out the benefits of that. So I do not think we are
losing sight of the benefit.
What we have had is we have only considered the benefits in the past.
Now we are going to be required to consider the costs, and I think
there is an equilibrium that did not exist before.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply like to
echo his statement about the congressional budget.
I am opposed to this amendment because it seems to me that we are
looking at an additional $4\1/2\ million for the Congressional Budget
Office, simply to address the question of cost, and this amendment goes
beyond that, and I believe goes beyond even the purview of the
Congressional Budget Office in dealing with issues like unfunded
mandates.
It is for that reason I join with the distinguished chairman of the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee in insisting that this
amendment be defeated.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] makes a very sound point as to cost
effectiveness, and the benefits of preventive care is one example. It
is a consideration Congress ought to take into account on the floor and
even in committee.
What CBO told us that they can do and they are required to do under
this legislation, if we look at title III, a net savings analysis. In
other words, they will look at quantifiable costs and benefits, but
CBO, as my colleague stated, simply cannot do the more subjective
analysis. Committees can do that. In fact they are required under this
legislation to look at both the costs and benefits and that will then
come to the floor.
The gentleman makes a good point, that the point of this legislation
is to have an accountability and to have informed, deliberate debate on
the floor of the House. The benefits will be analyzed by the committee.
That information will be in the committee report, and the report will
be part of the debate on the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with my friend that it
is important for us to know the costs of the legislation we are
proposing, no argument about that. But I think my friends would also
not deny that some legislation is cost effective. If one could make the
case that by promoting x policy that cost us $1 million we save $10
million in increased health care costs, I am sure all three of the
gentlemen would be in agreement that was a good piece of legislation.
Mr. CLINGER. I would agree with the gentleman.
Let me reclaim my time to say we just do not think that is an
appropriate place to have that done. We think it is much more
appropriate in the committees which consist of elected Members to make
those kinds of policy decisions, because it really is a policy
decision. So our only objection is the appropriate place is not the
Congressional Budget Office, which, let us face it, are number
crunchers.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because I
think it is absolutely appropriate that we research and identify the
impacts of all congressional legislation. But H.R. 5, as it is drafted,
would only give us half the picture. We need the whole picture to make
well-reasoned decisions.
I would like to add, I am a small business owner and I cannot imagine
any business doing a cost-benefit analysis that only looked at the cost
and not at the benefits.
I would like to speak about a very tragic situation that we are
currently experiencing in the Pacific Northwest, that is the demise of
our legendary salmon runs. At one time 16 million fish returned to the
Columbia River to spawn each year, and now they are only numbered in
the thousands, and several species have been listed under the
Endangered Species Act. And when we analyze recovery methods in order
to bring back this great run, we need to clean up our polluted rivers,
modify the hydroelectric system, we have to look at the whole cost of
implementing these initiatives. But we also have to say what are the
economic benefits that happen to the Northwest if we bring back our
salmon.
There are some figures that I think are quite indicative of the
problems if we do not look at both sides.
As recently as 1988, commercial and recreational salmon fisheries
produced 62,000 jobs in my area, and they contributed over $1.25
billion annually to the economy. Much of that bounty was returned and
will be returned to the region if we can recover our salmon runs. So
surely this information is an integral part of the debate over whether
and how much to increase salmon recovery efforts.
{time} 1210
In my belief, it is only through a fair comparison between the costs
and the benefits that we can assess the merits of new legislative
mandates, and so I urge my colleagues to support this very reasonable
and very businesslike amendment to the bill that is before us.
I urge support of the Sanders amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment as a cosponsor. I
support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders].
I had a similar amendment in the Record, and I would hope that we
would have the debate on this amendment. I think, considering all the
talk about cost-benefit analysis in this bill, it is certainly fitting
to request CBO do a cost-benefit analysis on Federal mandates that
takes into account the long- and short-term savings and benefits of
those future actions--the cost benefits as well as the costs to State
and the National Government.
The fact of the matter is H.R. 5's provisions regarding CBO's cost
estimates and future legislation concentrates only on the direct costs
of bills without regard to the cost savings or benefits. Oftentimes the
impact of the most significant legislation will not be realized for
many years to come.
It would be flawed public policy to reject these proposals based upon
short-term cost accounting without taking into consideration long-term
benefits or savings.
As for an argument that this amendment places an unreasonable burden
on CBO, I would submit the unreasonable at least significant burden
already exists in the bill and that this amendment merely brings
fairness and balance and integrity to the CBO role. Certainly the
requirements in the proposed legislation are difficult for CBO to
fulfill, the current requirements. But to analyze such in a vacuum is
not responsible. If the CBO is going to be charged with the duty to
crunch the numbers for Federal mandates, then it logically follows they
should be looking at the whole picture, both debit and credit sides of
the spreadsheet, not just the debit.
This amendment calls for the CBO to quantitatively assess the savings
from Federal mandate that generate health care and environmental costs
of abatement, for example. These are legitimate savings. If a policy
eliminates contamination of a city's drinking water supply that has
physically harmed thousands of residents that constitutes a cost
savings, then it must be taken into account. A system, for instance,
that eliminates the microsporidium in Milwaukee's city water supply,
Mr. Chairman, is one such example.
The amendment calls for the CBO to quantitatively assess benefits for
Federal mandates to human health,
welfare, the environment, and the economy. These, of course, are
legitimate benefits. If a rail safety policy staves off a train
accident that results in a spill of a highly hazardous industrial
[[Page H984]] chemical into a waterway, that constitutes a real
benefit, and must be taken into account.
The point is CBO should include cost savings and benefits in their
cost estimates of the Federal mandates. This should not be left to the
committee, since it is CBO's count that carries the weight in this
bill. That is the intention. That is why there are going to be points
of order raised on this floor and apparently addressed.
There must be integrity in the CBO's cost estimates, and this
amendment provides such integrity.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, through this debate we have heard about
that this is only information. But what is becoming apparent today as
we focus in on this, it is limited information, and I understand CBO
information on the Federal Government side of the ledger; we have had
that historically. We have not had points of order necessarily on the
CBO estimate or scoring information or had special votes to deal with
the information. But we have had that CBO information before the House,
and benefit from such data.
This process in the proposed measure is untried and untested, what
they are setting up now, and what is advanced in this legislation.
There is not a model now to understand exactly how it will function.
What we have today, of course, are the figures that come out of the
States which I would suggest are not accurate and generally, I think,
carry more of an ideological concern about what the Federal Government
may require with regards to motor-voter or other types of activities.
The fact is having objection information will be helpful. But I think
it ought to be, as I said, not considered in a vacuum. It ought to
consider both the benefits and the costs of that program or of not
carrying forth such activity. We ought to know the costs of not doing
it, if it is possible.
I understand this is a difficult responsibility being placed on CBO,
Mr. Chairman, but it is no more difficult than some of the other
aspects that are represented in this bill.
I think if we were to go forward without this, obviously, it will
disadvantage those that may be trying to solve these broad problems
which have, after all, been visited upon the Federal Government, left
on our national doorstep, because throughout the 200 years of our
Federal system many States, either through compacts or other exercises
of powers, did not address those particular responsibilities.
This new federalism today, Mr. Chairman, I think is a curious way to
resolve problems. But at the very least, if all we want is information
here, I do not understand why the benefit value should be rejected out
of hand as apparently it is by some of the advocates of this bill
today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Sanders amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the same supporters are the ones who
voted to gut every other provision of this bill in terms of the type of
legislative discretion we would have, who it applies to, who is
exempted, and if we adopt this today, it will do the same thing.
The problem has been all along we have been full of benefits, as
these bills come to the floor of the Congress of the United States,
finding all the great benefits that are going to result if we pass this
bill.
What we have failed to look at are what are the costs going to be.
What are the costs going to be to the people who ultimately pay these?
Because none of these items are for free. Instead of Congress funding
them, we are sending them down to the localities.
This amendment changes the role of CBO from looking at the costs, of
starting to weigh benefits. That is our job as Members. It will already
be contained in the committee reports.
I think the bottom line is that the American people are tired of the
trickle-down taxes that have resulted from our actions here as we look
at the benefits which are presented, very ably, by authors of the
different mandates, and they are contained very fully in the committee
reports. But the costs are not contained, resulting in trickle-down
taxes.
They are tired of cost-shifting from these mandates from the Federal
income tax to local property taxes. They are tired of seeing local
governments, which I have been involved with for 15 years before coming
to this body, having to cut aid to schools, having to cut aid to, or
having to close community centers, having to lay off police officers to
fund mandates that emanate from here.
It is the costs we are concerned about. The benefits are readily
contained already in committee reports. That is what has been driving
this car from the inception.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, I really sincerely believe
this should not be a political debate for this reason: Any sensible
business person invests in the future. He or she purchases, say, new
machinery, new technology. If the only part of the equation that one
looked at was the million dollars one invested in new technology
without looking at the cost savings that are coming down the road, that
would be a very poor business person. I do not think we disagree on
that.
Mr. DAVIS. We do not. CBO's role versus what is our role.
Mr. SANDERS. That is right. What you have proposed which makes sense
is you want an objective analysis of the costs involved in a mandate.
Fair enough. I agree with you. It seems to me what we want is an
objective, nonpolitical analysis as best as they could do which
certainly will not be perfect in terms of the benefits, as well.
So that they could come forward, not in a political way, not on a 16
to 13 committee vote; they say, ``Look, if you invest $10 million, you
are going to save $100 million in health care costs.'' Then you analyze
that objectively as opposed to the partisanship which so often exists
in committees.
Mr. DAVIS. I understand the gentleman's point. I think we need to get
a handle on what the benefits are. I just do not think the CBO is the
direction to go. As I looked at the committee reports on bills reported
through, the benefits have been outlined fully. The benefits is what
have been driving legislation emanating from Congress for the last 50
years, and the costs have really been hidden.
There is a balance here, but I think they are going to be clearly
underscored in the reports, and we have that ability, the authors of
these bills, as they move through in the authorizing committee, to lay
out what the benefits are. It is not CBO's job. That is why I oppose
the amendment. I think it defeats what we are trying to do.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I have supported any number of exemptions to this bill,
but I want to make it clear I have no objection to the information that
is being asked for in this mandated bill. I do object to the unusual
procedure that would be implemented on this floor in terms of
implementing the legislation.
I think in this case we could say the same thing. You say that
information is already available through the committee process. then if
it is already available, why not incorporate it into the CBO?
It is not the intention here to undermine or undercut the
legislation, simply to provide the perspective on a balanced basis of
having both sides of the benefits that can be achieved and are achieved
which there would be little argument about. If it is not possible to
quantify that, then they would not be able to do that.
In fact, I suggest the gentleman's legislation under rules and
regulations provisions, pages 16 through 22, has the same sort of
language in it in terms of qualitative and quantitative analysis if it
is possible.
Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. I think we just disagree about the
best way to get to that.
I think the committee reports are going to amplify what the benefits
are as they traditionally have done. That will be available to the
Congress before they vote on it.
What this bill does for the first time is it brings accountability as
to who is going to pay for it. That is why it is important. I think
this amendment really defeats that purpose.
[[Page H985]] {time} 1220
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as coauthor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], on their efforts toward
bringing some balance to this bill.
I think that the authors of the bill ought to consider very carefully
that this bill needs to be balanced out.
Mr. Chairman, in recent days this body has dealt with such heady
issues as amendments to our U.S. Constitution.
Many of our colleagues lately have taken to reading the Federalist
Papers.
In that vein, I would like to remind everyone of something the
Preamble to the Constitution says, which is to ``promote the general
Welfare'' of the United States.
This bill does not promote the general welfare of the United States
because it creates a system under which laws, designed to promote the
general welfare, can be circumvented.
Mr. Chairman, every equation has two parts. The part before the equal
sign and the part after it. If the purpose of this bill is to agree
that we must measure the cost of legislation to the State and local
governments--the part before the equal sign, then should we not also
agree that we must measure the benefits of legislation to the people as
well--the part after the equal sign?
This bill is weighted only on one side; the cost side. But in many
cases, the benefits outweigh the costs. Unfortunately, the bill does
not provide for that estimate to be made a part of the equation.
Under H.R. 5, city and State governments would be exempt from basic
rules that now protect the health and well-being of hundreds of
millions of Americans. For example:
City and county water utilities would be exempt from rules to
disinfect their water.
When workers remove lead or asbestos from government buildings, they
would be exempt from rules that they must follow careful procedures to
limit toxic dust.
City-run garbage dumps would be exempt from requirements to use
liners as necessary to limit water contamination and city garbage
incinerators would be exempt from requirements to install equipment to
limit toxic air pollution.
Unless we insist on measuring the benefits of a policy and not just
the cost, many health, safety, and environmental protections will be
lost to us.
Let me make the argument another way. This bill could mean the
unraveling of the Clean Water Act. Despite the progress we have made
since passage of the Clean Water Act, there were still over 2,600 beach
closings in 1992 due to pollution and over 4,000 fish advisories or
bans are in place around the country today. Under H.R. 5, instead of
reducing beach closings or fish advisories, we will see more closed
beaches and more fish advisories. We will be moving backward. Is that
what we want?
Despite the progress we have made since passage of the Clean Air Act,
over 70 million Americans still live in cities that violate air quality
standards designed to protect human health. Under H.R. 5 those 70
million Americans may never get a breath of fresh air, ever. Is that
what we want?
Despite the progress we have made since passage of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, over 28 million Americans drank tapwater that violated
health-based standards in 1991-92. Do you want to risk your family's or
your neighbor's health because of this bill?
The benefit of policies enacted by this Congress must be weighed
against the cost. It is only fair. It is part of the equation.
I ask everyone to support this amendment.
Let us not leave here just knowing the cost of everything and the
value of nothing.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the gentleman's
statement. The fact is that the suggestion was made that this bill is
going to stop some of the unfunded mandates that are going on, that the
bill somehow will reduce the cost to local governments. I would suggest
to the Members on the floor and the committee that wrote this bill that
this bill has nothing to do with stopping unfunded mandates. In other
words, the presumption is if the costs are laid out before the Members,
that we did not know what we were doing, and therefore we would reject
the legislation out of hand. I would suggest under the bill that may be
possible. It may be any time there is costs associated with anything
that the Members will not consider it, along with some of the other
concerns. But the issue here is to try to safeguard, putting in place
the balance of what the benefits are in an objective way. If you have
ever read committee reports lately you would find out that they are not
always completely objective, at least with the minority and majority
opinions. So they advance a heck of a lot argument or a position.
The fact is--I have no concern about getting the information, the
objective information. In fact, we know what we are doing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Farr was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FARR. I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield.
Mr. Chairman, the implication is that the Congress somehow does not
know what they are doing in terms of when we pass there and advancing
certain benefits to the people we represent. The reason the National
Government or the Federal Government has taken on the role it has in
past years is not because of some plot that exists or strategy in the
halls of some political party. It is because the American public has
sought and advanced those particular goals and policies.
So the information as far as I am concerned, its disclosure would be
admirable. I would think this further disclosure of information with
regard to benefits is absolutely essential to make fairer judgments. I
would hope that the other side, whether it is in this amendment or in
the decisions we make, would in fact consider them and safeguard that
as a very important aspect of our role.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I think at a time when we are putting
emphasis on cost-benefits it is ironic that this bill puts all the
emphasis on cost and none on the benefits.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Let me outline briefly what is in the legislation with regard to the
balance that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] referred to. It
is simply unfair to say that the benefits are not to be considered; in
fact, they are required to be considered.
To repeat, section 423 requires the committees to perform a cost-
benefit analysis. Section 421(7)(c) requires CBO again to calculate not
only the cost but also the net savings. Any cost analysis, including
cost analysis of the threshold, has to be net savings to the local
government. Section 202 says agencies must perform a cost-benefit
analysis.
I would also say that all the examples listed by my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], are those under existing mandates
and none of those are covered by this bill.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has previously
spoken. His request requires unanimous consent.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by just saying this: The
truth is there is not a heck of a lot of difference of opinion on this
issue.
[[Page H986]] The strength of the bill that is coming before us is it
says, provide information, information, objective information to the
Members of Congress so they can assess the benefits of a particular
piece of legislation. If we spend a billion dollars and we get minimal
results, it is a bad piece of legislation. If we spend $1 billion and
we save $5 billion, you would not disagree with me that it is a good
piece of legislation.
All that this amendment does is to try to make objective that
process. If I present to you a bill and I say trust me this is going to
save huge amounts of money, you are probably not going to trust me, you
will think that I just want to get the amendment through for a dozen
different reasons.
But if I say, ``Hey, the objective CBO people who have done the costs
associated with it have also done the benefits associated with it,'' I
hope and expect that you would look at it and you would say, ``You know
what, it is a good investment for a billion dollars.''
So what this does is it takes away the partisanship, it takes away
the politics, and asks for an objective analysis so that all of us
could make a good cost-benefit analysis. I would very much hope that my
friends would support this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SANDERS. 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 152,
noes 254, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 80]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--254
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--28
Becerra
Bevill
Bliley
Chapman
Coleman
Dixon
Durbin
Fazio
Gejdenson
Gunderson
Hefner
Hostettler
Hoyer
Istook
Mfume
Mollohan
Obey
Ortiz
Sabo
Sisisky
Stockman
Stokes
Talent
Tucker
Watts (OK)
Wilson
Wise
Yates
{time} 1249
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Fazio for, with Mr. Watts of Oklahoma against.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Volkmer
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment printed in the Record
as amendment No. 25.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Amend Section 301 of H.R.
5 as reported as follows:
Page 23, line 25 strike ``except--'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``or''; and
Page 24 strike lines 1 through 6.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the definition
stage of the bill with regard to Federal intergovernmental mandates.
Under that definition, a mandate is any provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon
States, local governments, or tribal governments, except--and this is a
very large exception--the exception is a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program except as provided in subparagraph B, where you have such
things as AFDC and other entitlement programs that are not within the
exception.
Now, what does that mean? That means basically, Mr. Chairman, that
whenever we have a bill coming down, whether it is a Federal highway
bill, I can put any mandate on that bill that this Congress or anybody
else would like to put on it, and it does not have to do with Federal
highways, it just means a condition of your getting your Federal
highway funds that you are going to have to abide by if you want your
Federal highway funds.
If we set up a grant program and the States necessarily are going to
have to utilize that money in order to perform a certain function of
government, and then we could put any type of mandate on that.
Now, that is going to be happening, for those of you that may be
listening,
[[Page H987]] that is going to be happening in a couple of weeks. You
are going to have that type of mandate.
We had it last year in the crime bill. In the crime bill there is a
provision for prison construction. In that provision, you have a
requirement that you have a truth-in-sentencing provision in your State
before you are eligible for one-half of those funds.
Now, how does that work? That means that if your State does not have
a truth-in-sentencing provision law, then you do not get any of the
money.
It also means that if you enact a truth-in-sentencing law, which I
agree with as far as the States having that right to do it, I believe
the States should have the right to have a truth-in-sentencing law, if
they wish to do so, and if I was a State legislator I would push for
it, and we in Missouri already have one, and I would like to talk about
that in a few minutes, but I would like to talk about those States that
do not have one.
If they enact one, what does that mean? That means their convicted
felons, violent criminals, are going to have to spend at least 85
percent of their term, whatever they are given, in prison before they
are released on parole, probation, or any other thing.
That means your State is going to have to expend a whole bunch of
money for prisoners, and that is not even taken into account. We do not
take that into account at all.
Later on when we get to the crime package, that is going to happen.
What happened to the State of Missouri? Like I said, we have what we
thought was a truth-in-sentencing law, and we applied for funds under
this provision. Our problem is we now consider a dangerous felon
sufficient to serve 85 percent of their sentence. We do not say a
violent criminal. We said a dangerous felon. And that is characterized
by criminal intent and irreparable harm.
What has happened under this definition we had last year in the crime
bill and we are going to have in the new crime bill, we now are
required to immediately build 5,633 additional beds in order to qualify
for the funds that are coming from the taxpayers. Remember that, 5,633.
But guess what, folks? How much money are we going to get? We are
only going to get enough money for 1,859 beds.
You talk about an unfunded mandate, it is either that or not build
prisons. I thought we were up here to help States build prisons. We are
actually going backward, folks. We are not going to be building them.
The States are not going to be building them under this type of
provision.
We do not just let the States, instead of even putting these
conditions on grants, let the States use that money that comes from the
taxpayers. That is where it comes from; it does not grow on trees; it
does not come from the sky. It comes from taxpayers. And those are the
same taxpayers that are sending money up here to send to State
Governments to send to local governments. And I believe those people
should be able to determine if they are qualified, if they have a need
for a correctional facility, and if we have the money to give to them,
and it seems we do, why do we put these conditions that work just the
opposite of what you want to do? Because that has happened in my State,
to the chairman's State. Instead of giving us money for those 5,633
additional beds, we get money only for 1,859 beds.
Mr. Chairman, there are certain things as a person who stands here
today that believes in States' rights that I have found in the past to
be very onerous, what we have done even on the highway bills.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the States should have a right
to determine whether or not certain offenses, like DWI's, should be
prosecuted and given certain penalties. I believe that the States
should have the right to determine whether or not persons should ride
down the highway with a motorcycle helmet or not. I believe States
should have the right to determine whether or not you have seat belt
laws and all these other things.
But in the Congress, the Congress in the past has done all those
things, plus others. And under this bill, you will continue to see it
done. You are going to continue to see it done.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should really seriously consider if we want
to continue to do that, if we want to continue to mandate policy
decisions; it will not cost a lot of money, some of them will, but some
of them do not, policy decisions, should the States have the
decisionmaking power, or should we require it from here?
That is the reason I offer this, just to point out to the Members
that sometimes those so-called mandates that are not under our
definition mandates become as onerous as the mandates that are in this
bill and that have to go through a process before they can be
considered.
Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment. I will announce
to the House that I brought it up just for the purpose of discussion. I
believe it is a matter that needs to be discussed here.
I do not plan to go ahead and ask for a vote on the amendment. When
the discussion is completed, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment. But I do believe we need to have a discussion.
{time} 1300
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Missouri for
offering this issue for discussion in the format to which it has been
offered. I think this is an important issue, both generally and
specific, with respect to prisons. I have to say, first, that as a
general principle, if the amendment were to proceed, and I understood
the gentleman has offered it really as a vehicle for discussing this
issue, I would not support it, because I believe that the exemption we
have provided for Federal grants from this bill is appropriate.
I think Congress ought to retain the right, regardless of which
political philosophy or which political party might happen from time to
time to be the majority, to have the power to say, we are setting aside
a certain amount of money in grants. And if the State wants this grant
money, the State may have to apply certain policies that we are trying
to accomplish.
Now, whether individual policies are appropriate or not appropriate
may be a secondary but important subject.
I am merely indicating, Mr. Chairman, that I think Congress has the
right to say, with respect to grants, we have taken the political
responsibility to raise this money and, therefore, we believe certain
policy aims should be achieved by those States that wish to apply for
it. States are not required to apply for it. And this is on any
particular, any particular subject.
Now, the gentleman has more particularly focused on the coming crime
bills that will shortly reach the House floor, I believe. And
particularly to one bill which provides a further grant, I do not say
``grant,'' I say ``further grant,'' because there is already a
provision in the existing crime bill that passed last year which has
commonly been called truth in sentencing. That is a grant that would be
used by States that would impose a minimum time served of 85 percent of
a prison term by convicted felons. In terms of the bill actually
proposed, not all felons but second convicted violent felons.
Now, the gentleman from Missouri raises a very good point about
should Congress in the specific area of law enforcement, should
Congress block grant money to States and local governments and say,
here, you choose what you think best will serve your citizens in terms
of law enforcement and crime prevention. Or, should Congress put
certain requirements as it does in grants that are not in law
enforcement?
Well, this is a very, very important issue that the gentleman from
Missouri has raised, because the bill that passed in 1994, the crime
bill, contains a myriad of requirements after every grant, whether it
is for law enforcement officers or whether it is for prisons or whether
it is for what are called the prevention programs, there are page after
page after page of requirements for States and local governments to
[[Page H988]] comply with in order to apply for these grants.
And the great bulk of these requirements would be eliminated in the
bill that is proposed, that is in the Committee on the Judiciary right
now.
The current bill that is pending would take the proposed funding for
police, for law enforcement and for prevention programs essentially
into a block grant that would give the States the choice, you choose
how to best serve your citizens. I think this is important.
I think that once we recognize, as we should, that
State and local governments is primarily responsible for fighting
crime, particularly violent crime, that we should remove all these
pages of restrictions that we put on these grants last year.
I would say that, speaking for myself, and the majority of Members
either in the Committee on the Judiciary or on this floor may or may
not agree, I think the one exception that we are proposing in the area
of prison grants, and that is prison grants for States that adopt truth
in sentencing, which I am sorry to say my own State of New Mexico is
nowhere near, our State gives up to 50 percent off sentences for good
time credit to murderers, but to encourage that policy, I think makes
sense, because that is a more expensive policy.
Those States which adopt truth in sentencing, that is serving 85
percent of sentences, given the convicted criminals, either to a
portion of convicted criminals or to all convicted criminals, are
required to pay an extra expense, certainly an incarceration cost for
that policy.
We think it makes sense to try to help those States that are pursuing
that policy.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I agree with
the State of Missouri that has the truth in sentencing provision,
except it does not meet exactly the Federal language that the gentleman
used in the statute last year.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Schiff was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
as a result, I have given you exactly what has happened. We, in
Missouri, are building prisons from State funds, et cetera. In fact the
Governor's budget that was just introduced in the legislature within
the last couple weeks provides for an additional $27 million in our own
funds to build more correctional facilities, which we know we are going
to need.
It costs money to put people in penitentiaries. I think we have to
recognize that.
Now, whenever we write this, surely in the future, if we have to,
maybe we can work together and come up with some language, surely when
we do it. If the State of New Mexico, in their wisdom, would pass a law
that they thought met the requirement for 85 percent service in
sentencing for violent criminals, surely if they passed it but because
there is a little discrepancy in the wording that they do not get the
full benefit that you actually mandated, they tell us from the
Department of Justice that in order to get the money we have to build
penitentiaries big enough for 5,633 beds. But they are only going to
give us money for 1,859 beds.
Now, wait a minute. There is something wrong here. Even if we talk
about matching funds, that is only about 25 percent. What is going on?
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that it is
our purpose in a grant program to assist States. I do not think we are
necessarily agreeing to take over all costs of a given project. I think
even, I believe the highway construction program even is a 90/10
percent division between the Federal Government and State governments.
So I think that we are still following the same path.
If we assist the State of Missouri in approaching truth in
sentencing----
Mr. VOLKMER. Would it not be better to say that we are going to
require you, if you want this money, you are going to have to build
5,633 beds, and we will give you the money for around 4,000? Would that
not be more in line with it than us giving you a little bit?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Schiff was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I would like to say that that is a matter then of
funding. It is a matter of authorization. And I believe in truth in
sentencing. I do not believe that every person convicted of a crime
needs to be necessarily sentenced to prison. But I think those who are
sent to prison should serve basically the sentence imposed by the
judge, not only for the integrity of the criminal justice system but
for public safety.
So I believe in the program. I would be willing to work with the
gentleman in finding as much authorization and funding to support that,
if we pass the bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my last question, what is really the gentleman's intent? Do we want to
build more prison out there so that we can put these crooks away and
keep them there where they should be, or do we want to make the States
put an 85 percent truth-in-sentencing law? Which one?
Mr. SCHIFF. I think ultimately the proponents of the crime bill would
like to see both.
Mr. VOLKMER. I do not think the way it is worded and the way it is
working that you are going to do both. That is my problem.
Mr. SCHIFF. I think in working with those States that have the
philosophy of truth in sentencing, I think we can work toward that
goal.
Mr. VOLKMER. In closing, I would like to say in Missouri's instance,
for treating all the States that already have an 85 percent this way,
it is not a very good feeling. You are making us come up with about 75
percent of the money.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a quick point at the risk
of stopping this debate on the crime bill, which may solve all of our
crime bill problems, let me get back to the amendment for a moment and
say I think it is an extremely helpful amendment. I congratulate the
gentleman for offering it. I think it focuses us on the very issue that
this legislation is trying to address but goes even broader. And that
is the question of conditional assistance from the Federal Government
and voluntary programs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Portman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Schiff was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. PORTMAN. I, for one, would be very pleased to work with the
gentleman, I know the majority side would, on trying to make sense out
of some of these Federal requirements. There needs to be more
flexibility. That is the point of the whole debate. The gentleman's
amendment would go even further than the legislation does, of course.
But I commend the gentleman for raising the issue.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
{time} 1310
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III?
Are there any other amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr. doggett
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 76.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett: At the end, add the
following new title:
[[Page H989]] TITLE IV--SUNSET
SEC. 401. TERMINATION DATE.
This Act shall cease to be in effect on January 3, 2000.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I come from America's Sun Belt, with a
strong belief in sunshine for our Government and a commitment to sunset
for new Government initiatives, including even the most well-
intentioned and appealing reforms, such as that provided us today by
the distinguished authors of H.R. No. 5, a measure that I personally
support.
Too often this Congress has embarked on ventures that were
undoubtedly very well motivated by the very best of intentions, and
they sounded great when they were presented in this Hall, but somewhere
between the beltway and the back roads of America, somewhere between
what was happening in this great building and the bureaucracies that
implemented that legislation, a great new statutory scheme, beginning
as a bright, beamy, sunshiny idea, left many people in America with
simply a bad burn.
In Texas, when we get too much government sun, we have got a
solution. I am not talking about an extra application of coppertone.
Rather, Mr. Chairman, we force periodic review of new government
initiatives through a systematic sunset process. Government statutes
simply should not have a claim to immortality.
In Texas, we believe that a periodic top-to-bottom reconsideration of
new laws, agencies, and programs is healthy, it is good for the
programs, it is good for those administering the programs, but most
importantly, it is good for the people that have to pay the bill, the
taxpayers.
We have found that through a periodic review process, the Texas
Sunset Act, which I was the author of in the Texas State Senate, that
we have been able to accomplish over 200 sunset reviews. We have
repealed statutes, we have consolidated and abolished agencies, and the
Texas Treasury is about $500 million the better off for it, which is a
good bit of money, even in this town.
If a new proposal like the one that is advanced here today is so
sound and so beneficial, and it has no harmful side effects, as its
supporters have very forcefully advised us to be the case, then this
measure can certainly stand in deep benefit from periodic review.
Therefore, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, places a 5-year life on this
reform. By adopting the amendment today, we can guarantee ourselves a
built-in opportunity to fix any unforeseen consequences of this major
new reform.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to what my State and local officials have
had to say very convincingly in support of H.R. 5, I am struck by how
often they suggest that we would not have this unfunded mandate problem
in the first place if the statutes approved in this Congress had had
some limitation on their life.
If Congress had had a firm sunset process for new Government
initiatives, we would not need an unfunded mandate bill, because we
would have been able to review those initiatives and do something about
them.
Therefore, what I try to accomplish through this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, is to see that we do not repeat that same old mistake with
today's reform proposal. Let us provide for its sunset today, right
now, so we will be forced to come back to this Congress, reconsider the
road we have taken, thinking that we are taking the right road, but
perhaps seeing some diversion down the road as it is implemented, and
see that we achieve all that the supporters have told us we can
achieve, and avoid the evils that have been advanced by various
detractors through the last several days of debate.
Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are debating is a complicated measure.
It could dramatically alter how the Federal Government operates. I hope
in some regards it does change the way the Federal Government operates,
and for the better, but it also has the potential for some
unanticipated harm.
Many Members have raised what seem to me to be legitimate questions
about it. By adopting this sunset amendment, we can make sure that we
really get what we are being promised in the course of this debate. Let
us adopt the amendment, review the reforms, make sure they actually
fulfill the author's promises, like this Congress should have done in
the first place with unfunded mandates.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are doing some very simple and basic things with
this legislation. We so often have gotten away from the intent here. We
are increasing the level of accountability in this House.
We are not saying that an unfunded mandate cannot be imposed on State
and local governments. Many of us here feel very strongly that that
should not happen, but what this legislation does is, it simply says
that if we are going to do it, we are going to have an up-or-down vote.
If that procedure fails, if that procedure fails, I do not believe we
should wait until the year 2000, I do not believe we should wait until
1997, I do not believe we should wait beyond the first failure that
comes from accountability to sunset this thing. I think we should
actually bring it to an end then.
That is why I would argue that as we look at this issue, Mr.
Chairman, we are in fact dealing with the concerns that conceivably
could be raised with this amendment by making sure that Members of this
House actually go on record facing these tough decisions, which
heretofore have been slipped into legislation, making us less than
accountable.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fine argument. However, is
it not essentially the same argument of anyone who has ever advanced a
new initiative on this floor, when someone has suggested, let us review
it? You say if something proves wrong, maybe we can review it in the
future, but there is no mechanism within the gentleman's statute to
ensure there is compelled review unless we have a sunset process.
I am for the gentleman's bill. I am probably for a number of these
other bills. However, if we are putting this in on measures we are for
as well as those we are against, we will compel review and refocusing
of this Congress on the statutes it is passing, rather than just having
more and more regulations.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I would say in
response to that is very simply that every single piece of legislation
that goes through the authorization process and comes down here will be
faced with that kind of review, because we will be looking at those
potential unfunded mandates. Points of order will be raised. We will be
having debate on them right here on the House floor, so that review
process to which my friend refers will go on regularly with this
legislation.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to point out that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett],
who offers this amendment, said several times if we had sunset
provisions we might not have an unfunded mandate problem now.
It is my understanding that the kind of sunset provisions that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] talks about, and of which he is
supportive, and which I am informed have worked for new programs and
new initiatives set up to expand governmental power, here this is a
motion, a bill, rather, that will reduce governmental power. I think in
this particular case, a sunset provision is not appropriate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the debate concludes, it is becoming painfully clear
that this House is responding not to the needs of the country, but to
the needs of doing a bunch of things in 100 days.
I was a small boy when the Democrats dealt with the 100 days of the
New Deal. Those were important times. The country was going broke. A
third of our population was out of work. Better than a third of the
country was ill-
[[Page H990]] housed, ill-clothed, and ill-fed, according to the
President. Homes and farms were being foreclosed. Businesses were going
down the drain. The suicide rate was up. They responded in 100 days.
However, there is nothing like that challenging the country at this
time. What we are doing is rushing to pass an assortment of legislation
ill-considered here, worse considered in committee. This legislation
has never had hearings in the committee of jurisdiction.
We are responding to a demand which is viewed on that side of the
aisle as being very important. However, we are not considering the
basic responsibility that we as Members of this body have, and that is
to legislate well.
{time} 1320
It would be my hope that when the 100 days that we are dealing with
now is recalled, it will be a time like the 100 days of the New Deal
when people remembered it as a time of greatness, when the Congress
responded well to a desperate challenge and to great concerns on the
part of the people; not, not I say, as a period during which the
Congress, in a prodigious rush, without the slightest attention to the
details and the concerns that the people have, or the need to legislate
well, would be properly addressed.
We witnessed not only this legislation brought to the floor without
hearings, but we have watched attempts to change the rules of the
House, so that the chairman of the committee can announce that hearings
are going to be held on a particular piece of legislation, in 5
minutes, and be there or forfeit your chance to participate.
In our committee we were about to have hearings on a piece of
legislation to address a major concern of my colleague, again on that
side of the aisle, and we were going to deal with the problem of tort
reform. But we are not going to hear from the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the impact on investors, and indeed the proposal was
going to absolve people who act with arrogant recklessness from any
liability for suits under the securities laws. How is that to be
justified? Or the widow who has lost a husband could not be the named
complainant in a lawsuit to protest a wrong which was done to her. I
think that is unwise.
We are now considering legislation to have risk assessment on a whole
broad array of statutes not identified in the bill, and each of these
statutes is different. No concern is being given to the impact of this
one-size-fits-all piece of legislation, a bill which would treat food
and drug orders, with regard to removal of things like blood
contaminated with AIDS from the system of commerce in this country, the
same as it would treat regulations relative to first-class mail.
I think that is an unwise course of action, and it is one that this
Congress, in its responsibility to its people, and indeed in its
responsibilities to itself, should avoid.
I just want my colleagues to know at the end of 100 days we are still
going to be here, the country is still going to be here, the business
of the Congress is still going to be before us. People are going to
judge us by what we do and how well we do it, not whether we rush
through to get a piece of legislation to this floor to pass it, to send
it to the President's desk. That is not the test.
The test is are we legislating wisely and well? The laws we pass
address the well-being of 270 million American people. They deal with
their financial security, they deal with their health, they deal with
the safety of their environment, they deal with things like nuclear
safety, and food and drugs which will affect this generation and future
generations. And they are going to impact, believe it or not, often
times adversely upon the industry of this country, which thinks it is
going to be benefited by some of these regulations.
Bad regulations are also bad for industry, but regulations which
cannot be brought forward to address the legitimate concerns of
industry are going to be banned or barred or mutilated by the process
in which we are now engaged.
I would tell my colleagues that the process upon which we are engaged
now is one which may look good at the end of 100 days, it may not look
too good at election time next year, but it is going to look a lot
worse when the cold light of history shines upon the efforts of this
100 days, when it is found that we proceeded carelessly when we passed
legislation, when we did not consider the concerns and needs and future
of the people.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we just heard a very broad view of probably
some of the problems that some of us see as excesses which could occur
in consideration of the program for 100 days or the process of moving
that legislation through without hearings and without detailed study
and analysis.
We that have had an opportunity to serve in Congress more than one
term, and I know I have colleagues on both the majority side and on our
side, favor an opportunity to exercise what has been less than
diligently exercised over the course of years, and that is the
oversight review of the Congress.
None of us pretend to be the ultimate lawgivers, none of us pretend
to have the expertise to know all of the unintended consequences of
this legislation or other legislation.
We are in a march, in a move now over these next 100 days to make
some startling changes.
The gentleman from California mentioned we can come back and change
this bill if it does not work, we can come back and change other bills
that my colleague from Texas and I and other Members of the majority
intend to ask to be considered at the end of every bill, the provision
to sunset.
I think the Congress can always come back and review and repass
bills, but those of us who have been here for a number of terms know we
never get around to it. The passage of a bill by its very nature
constructs an interest group, a special interest group that becomes the
promulgators of that bill and the continuers of that bill because they
have a special interest in that bill.
We are fortunate enough to recognize the gift that we have before us
today and start this process, and that is look at every piece of
constructive legislation we put forth, say that if it is good
legislation and it does not need anything a future Congress will have
the intelligence to reenact and reauthorize that legislation.
On the other hand, if after a period of time there are inadequacies
in the legislation, a future Congress will have the ability to amend
and change, to make up for those inadequacies; or if, on the other
hand, there is abuse or the legislation appears not to have solved the
problem it was tended to solve it will automatically go to a timely
death.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman for
his leadership on this issue, because I know the gentleman worked hard
on this in the committee, and for letting me as a brandnew member here
on what is my first amendment participate with the gentleman on this.
Having only heard the presentation of amendments and other Government
initiatives over C-SPAN myself prior to coming here, is not this call
for more Government oversight on programs something that our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have demanded again and again and again
when there were new initiatives?
Mr. KANJORSKI. The gentleman from Texas is absolutely correct. I have
sat here for 10 years and I have talked with my friends on the other
side. Sometimes the C-SPAN audience does not realize that indeed we are
friends, but all of us talked over this legislation and we all know
that there are pieces of legislation that we are embarrassed about that
do not adequately accomplish what they were intended to accomplish, but
the Congress never gets an opportunity to oversight or review and
return to that legislation.
What will happen with the gentleman's amendment and my amendment here
and the ones we intend to attach to future pieces of legislation, it
will require the Congress to come back and face the reality of their
legislation, to decide that they have to oversight it, to have hearings
on it, or to reauthorize it or let it die.
[[Page H991]] Mr. DOGGETT. And if we just pick and choose, picking
and applying sunset on Democratic initiatives or applying it on
initiatives that we like and not to those that we do not like we will
never get the process in place of having forced periodic review and
real oversight, will we?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Absolutely not. Let me give an example, and I know the
gentleman from Texas feels strongly on the wetlands legislation. I know
a lot of my friends on the other side and I have seen inadequacies in
the legislation, not in the intent but in the application of the
legislation as it affects small business people, farmers, residents of
our community, all, we have heard those woes. If the Congress got
involved in studying those issues, if we took advantage of the modern
era of electronics and could hold hearings in Washington, but have
people around this country that are directly affected, not
the interest groups, not the associations, not the lobbyists, but
real, live people that are affected by this legislation, their few
stories could set the pace for this Congress to understand the
underlying logic to redress, come back and examine legislation.
Finally, I would say to the gentleman from Texas and my friends on
the other side, do not fear sunset, do not fear sunset, do not fear
bringing this to a forced review. America is an evolving nation. Over
200 years we grew from 3 million people to 260 million, from 13 States
to 50 States. We have to take the time to review legislation that was
even good at the time it was enacted but now may be obsolete.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this as a
nonpartisan amendment, and support the principle that we can take 5
years, 2\1/2\ Congresses and give that next Congress, the 107th
Congress in its second session the opportunity to review what we do
here to today.
{time} 1330
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I will not use my entire 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, two points: First of all, again, with respect to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, I think sunset
provisions make eminent sense where there is the creation of a new
spending program by a level of government to review it to see if that
spending program merits support in the future instead of becoming an
entitlement program.
However, I think it does not fit a procedure by which we will be
limiting the passing of certain bills. I think the two just do not fit
together.
I would like to speak more generally on the last several comments I
have heard and what the gist of them seems to me to be, Mr. Chairman,
is that we are moving too fast, and we do not know all of the
ramifications of bills we are considering.
You know, back on the first day of the 104th Congress, the first day,
we made a number of changes in how this institution runs. Just one was
to eliminate proxy voting where Members were absent from committees,
but their votes were still cast just as if they were there, and just as
if they had listened to the debate on amendments by committee chairmen
who, with the use of those proxies, ruled the roost. You could ask for
all the votes you wanted in committee, and you knew that if the Chair
of that committee did not agree with you, no matter how the votes went,
as a practical matter, on the floor of that committee you were going to
lose the vote on the proxy vote, the use of the absent members' votes.
That was a reform everyone knew was overdue.
We did not need to start from scratch as if we had never heard of
proxy voting. We did not need to have hearings about it. I believe that
particular reform passed unanimously or almost unanimously on the first
day.
I think that is the situation we have today with unfunded mandates.
This is not an unheard of problem. In fact, the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, which we put in the bill as the monitoring
agency on this issue, has for years brought this issue to the attention
of Congress, all without any action by the previous Congresses.
The only difference here is that the 104th Congress, I believe, will
take action with respect to this very serious problem.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a general comment. I heard a few minutes
ago one of the Members make reference to this is as a 100-day agenda,
and what we are doing here today is doing what is not necessarily good
for the country in the long term, but we are pushing a 100-day agenda.
I want to make it perfectly clear, and excuse me for taking issue with
you on that statement, but this is not a 100-day agenda that we are
working on today.
This is an issue that we have been coming to grips with for years. We
have introduced unfunded mandate legislation years ago, not exactly the
same legislation, but we have introduced a number of bills years ago,
had hearings, formed caucuses. This is an agenda about unfunded
mandates. This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic
issue. This is an issue about the American people, and we need to
respond to it in that way, not that it is a 100-day issue.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. The gentleman and I were both on the committee last
year, the Committee on Government Operations, when legislation
substantially similar to this legislation was passed by a vote of 35 to
4 after 3 hearings in my subcommittee and hearings at the full-
committee level. This is not a new issue.
Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, that is only the point I want to
make. I am not speaking to the issue of the amendment.
I just simply want to say that some of us believe this is good for
the country. We believe it is good for local government, for State
government, for us to be forced to take accountability for our actions
here, and we are not throwing in with anybody's agenda for 100 days. We
are doing what we think is right, those of us who support the unfunded
mandate legislation.
I want to make that perfectly clear to my side of the aisle. We are
not throwing in with anybody's 100-day agenda. We are doing what is
right, what we feel is right. It is consistent with what we have been
doing not just the last couple of weeks but for the last few years.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 283, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
AYES--145
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
[[Page H992]] Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--283
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
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 (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
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
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
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--6
Becerra
Chapman
Cooley
Houghton
Leach
Radanovich
{time} 1352
Mr. HOLDEN and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. VENTO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moran
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Moran:
Amendment No. 21
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Accountability and
Intergovernmental Reform Act'' (``FAIR Act'').
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds and declares:
(1) Federal legislation and regulatory requirements impose
burdens on State and local resources to implement federally
mandated programs without fully evaluating the costs to State
and local governments associated with compliance with those
requirements and often times without provisions of adequate
federal financial assistance. These Federal legislative and
regulatory initiatives--
(A) force State and local governments to utilize scarce
public resources to comply with Federal mandates;
(B) prevent these resources from being available to meet
local needs; and
(C) detract from the ability of State and local governments
to establish local priorities for use of local public
resources.
(2) Federal legislation and regulatory programs result in
inefficient utilization of economic resources, thereby
reducing the pool of resources available--
(A) to enhance productivity, and increase the quantity and
quality of goods and services produced by the American
economy; and
(B) to enhance international competitiveness.
(3) In implementing Congressional policy, Federal agencies
should, consistent with the requirements of Federal law, seek
to implement statutory requirements, to the maximum extent
feasible, in a manner which minimizes--
(A) the inefficient allocation of economic resources;
(B) the burden such requirements impose on use of local
public resources by State and local governments; and
(C) the adverse economic effects of such regulations on
productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of
American goods and services.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this act are:
(1) To assist Congress in consideration of proposed
legislation establishing or revising Federal programs so as
to assure that, to the maximum extent practicable,
legislation enacted by Congress will--
(A) minimize the burden of such legislation on expenditure
of scarce local public resources by State and local
governments;
(B) minimize inefficient allocation of economic resources;
and
(C) reduce the adverse effect of such legislation--
(i) on the ability of State and local governmental entities
to use local public resources
to meet local needs and to establish local priorities for
local public resources, and(ii) on allocation of economic
resources, productivity, economic growth, full employment,
creation of productive jobs, and international
competitiveness.
(2) To require Federal agencies to exercise discretionary
authority and to implement statutory requirements in a manner
which is consistent with fulfillment of each agency's mission
and with the requirements of other laws, minimizes the impact
regulations and other major Federal actions affecting the
economy have on--
(A) the ability of State and local governmental entities to
use local public resources to meet local needs; and
(B) the allocation of economic resources, productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive
jobs, and international competitiveness of American goods and
services.
TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE REFORM
SEC. 101. REPORTS ON LEGISLATION.
(a) Report Required.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), whenever a committee of either House reports a bill or
resolution of a public character to its House which mandates
unfunded requirements upon State or local governments or the
private sector, the report accompanying that bill or
resolution shall contain an analysis, prepared after
consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, detailing the effect of the new requirements on--
(A) State and local government expenditures necessary to
comply with Federal mandates:
(B) private businesses, including the economic resources
required annually to comply with the legislation and
implementing regulations; and
(C) economic growth and competitiveness.
(2) Exception.--The requirements of paragraph (1) shall not
apply to any bill or resolution with respect to which the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies in
writing to the Chairman of the Committee reporting the
legislation that the estimated costs to State and local
governments and the private sector of implementation of such
legislation during the first three years will not exceed
$50,000,000 in the aggregate and during the first five years
will not exceed $100,000,000 in the aggregate. For this
purpose, a year shall be a period of three hundred and sixty
five consecutive days.
(b) Duties and Functions of Congressional Budget Office.--
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare
for each bill or resolution of a public character reported by
any committee of the House of Representatives or of the
Senate, an economic analysis of the effects of such bill or
resolution, satisfying the requirements of subsection (a).
The analysis prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall be included in the report accompanying
such bill or resolution if timely submitted to such committee
before such report is filed.
(c) Legislation Subject to Point of Order.--Any bill or
resolution shall be subject to a point of order against
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives or
the Senate (as the case may be) if such bill or resolution is
reported for consideration by the House of Representatives or
the Senate
[[Page H993]] unaccompanied by the analysis required by
this section.
SEC. 102. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The provisions of this title are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
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
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.
SEC. 103. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall apply to any bill or resolution ordered
reported by any committee of the House of Representatives or
of the Senate after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
SEC. 201. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest
extent practicable:
(1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the
United States shall be interpreted and administered in
accordance with the purposes of this Act;
(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall,
consistent with attainment of the requirements of Federal
law, minimize--
(A) the burden which rules and other major Federal actions
affecting the economy impose on State and local governments,
(B) the effect of rules and other major Federal actions
affecting the economy on allocation of private economic
resources, and
(C) the adverse effects of rules and other major Federal
actions affecting the economy on productivity, economic
growth, full employment, creation of productive, and
international competitiveness of American goods and services;
and
(3) in promulgating new rules, reviewing existing rules,
developing legislative proposals, or initiating any other
major Federal action identifies two or more alternatives
which will satisfy the agency's statutory obligations, the
agency shall--
(A) select the alternative which, on balance--
(i) imposes the least burden on expenditure of local public
resources by State and local governments, and
(ii) has the least adverse effect on productivity, economic
growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of American goods or services;
or
(B) provide a written statement--
(i) that the agency's failure to select such alternative is
precluded by the requirements of Federal law; or
(ii) that the agency's failure to select such alternative
is consistent with the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 202. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
(a) Requirement.--Whenever an agency publishes a general
notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, and
before initiating any other major Federal action affecting
the economy, the agency shall prepare and make available for
public comment an Intergovernmental and Economic Impact
Assessment. Such Assessment shall be published in the Federal
Register at the time of the publication of general notice of
proposed rulemaking for the rule or prior to implementing
such other major agency action affecting the economy.
(b) Content.--Each Intergovernmental and Economic Impact
Assessment required under this section shall contain--
(1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency
is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objective of, and legal
basis for, the proposed rule or other action; and
(3) a description and an estimate of the effect the
proposed rule or other major Federal action will have on--
(A) expenditure of State or local public resources by State
and local governments,
(B) allocation of economic resources, and
(C) productivity, economic growth, full employment,
creation of productive jobs, and international
competitiveness of American goods and services.
(c) Alternatives Considered.--Each Intergovernmental and
Economic Impact Assessment shall also contain a detailed
description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule or other major Federal action which would accomplish
applicable statutory objectives while reducing--
(1) the need for expenditure of State or local public
resources by State and local governments; and
(2) the potential adverse effects of such proposed rule or
other major Federal action on productivity, economic growth,
full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of American goods and services.
SEC. 203. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT.
(a) Requirement.--Whe an agency promulgates a final rule or
implements any other major Federal action affecting the
economy, the agency shall prepare an Intergovernmental and
Economic Impact Statement. Each Intergovernmental and
Economic Impact Statement shall contain--
(1) a succinct statement of the need for, and the
objectives of, such rule or other major Federal action;
(2) a summary of the issues raised by the public comments
in response to the publication by the agency of the Economic
Impact Assessment, a summary of the agency's evaluation of
such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule or other proposed action as a result of such
comments;
(3) a description of each of the significant alternatives
to the rule or other major Federal action affecting the
economy, considered by the agency, which, consistent with
fulfillment of agency statutory obligations, would--
(A) lessen the need for expenditure of State or local
public resources by State and local governments; or
(B) reduce the potential adverse effects of such proposed
rule or other major Federal action on productivity, economic
growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of American goods and services,
along with a statement of the reasons why each such
alternatives was rejected by the agency; and
(4) an estimate of the effect the rule or other major
Federal action will have on--
(A) expenditure of State or local public resources by State
and local governments; and
(B) productivity, economic growth, full employment,
creation of productive jobs, and international
competitiveness of American goods and services.
(b) Availability.--The agency shall make copies of each
Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Statement available to
members of the public and shall publish in the Federal
Register at the time of publication of any final rule or at
the time of implementing any other major Federal action
affecting the economy, a statement describing how the public
may obtain copies of such Statement.
SEC. 204. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
The requirements of this title shall not alter in any
manner the substantive standards otherwise applicable to the
implementation by an agency of statutory requirements or to
the exercise by an agency of authority delegated by law.
SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXEMPTION.
This title shall apply to any rule proposed, any final rule
promulgated, and any other major Federal action affecting the
economy implemented by any agency after the date of the
enactment of this Act. This title shall not apply to any
agency which is not an agency within the meaning of section
551(l) of title 5, United States Code.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the last amendment that we will
offer to this bill. It is in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of Members of this body recognize
that it is imperative that we address the issue of unfunded mandates
upon State and local governments and the private sector.
Speaking as a Democrat, I wish we had done this when we were in the
majority. We should have, and in many ways we should be ashamed that we
did not.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the proponents of this legislation. I agree
with their intent. I think it is time that we profoundly alter the way
we do business in Washington, that we accept accountability for our
actions.
If we are going to pass legislation, we have to be able to prove in a
compelling fashion that the cost of that legislation is less than the
benefits that it will provide, and we have to respect that State and
local governments have achieved a level of competence, and in fact have
had that level of competence for decades now that may not have been
there in the 1950's, and the 1960's, and early 1970's when we assumed
so much control at the Federal level. We undermined their efforts. We
undermined their ability to determine their own priorities, what was
best for the demography and the geography, for the needs of their own
jurisdictions.
This legislation is one of many that will in fact empower those State
and local officials. It is the right thing to do. But I want this
legislation to be enduring, to effect this profound change. My concern
is that, if we are not careful, the remedy that we write might be worse
than the malady that we cure.
For example, Mr. Chairman, this legislation will create new
entitlement programs for virtually every domestic discretionary program
that we enact on this floor. Now we could overturn them with a point of
order, but the point is those that we approve, consistent with the
intent of this legislation, must be fully funded. Entitlement programs
are the principal reason we have the problem we have now, because they
have crowded out Federal assistance to States and localities. That
assistance is considered domestic discretionary
[[Page H994]] assistance. That is now down to less than 20 percent of
the budget. It is now really only about 12 percent, if we include
everything.
That is the problem. States and localities do not have the money that
they need to carry out their responsibilities, and we are going to
create more entitlements with this legislation.
It will also create unequal treatment between the public and the
private sector.
{time} 1400
It will be very difficult to pass legislation that creates national
standards or that in fact addresses constructively the deficit problems
that we have.
For example, and I mentioned this last night, we probably need to
raise the part B premium on Medicare. The way this legislation is
worded, the 16 million public employees throughout the country that
work for States and localities and all the various commissions, they
could be exempt from having to increase their premium. Those employees
in the private sector, the 100 million employees who work for private
businesses, could not possibly be exempt. So not only would they pay
their share, but they would have to make up for the fact that 16
million public employees did not have to pay their share. I do not
think that is what we wanted to do.
In fact, there are reasons for national standards, and we can go back
through history, all the way back to the Articles of Confederation when
we gave complete latitude to States, and it did not work. We created a
patchwork quilt of governance, and we had to repeal that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. MORAN. I am very much concerned that as we encourage the private
sector to compete with the public sector so we can ensure that we carry
out our programs in the most efficient manner, that we can let the
market work its natural process so that the public sector is not
costing two and three times as much as it could be done for in the
private sector for many activities, whether it be waste disposal,
public utilities, or any number of other things, janitorial services,
secretarial services.
All those activities are being privatized. States and localities
ought to be able to privatize them, and private companies ought to be
able to compete. They would not be able to compete under this
legislation because we will have Federal standards applying completely
to the private sector and States and localities would be exempt.
I am offering a substitute amendment which was introduced 3 years
ago. As of last year we had 248 cosponsors. We stopped getting
cosponsors at that point because it was clear that the vast majority of
Members agreed. In fact, we had the support of the National League of
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors'
Association, all of the State organizations, the National Conference of
State Legislators, a long list of them. They all supported this.
They do not now, because the current legislation goes a step further.
It creates an entitlement for every State and local grant, and it gives
preferential treatment to the public sector over the private sector.
Naturally, they do not support it. They want to get as much as they
can.
I would suggest that this legislation, this substitute amendment, is
the kind of moderate but profound change that will be enduring, that
will not require that we fix it in 2 or 3 years. We know it does not go
too far, but it does in the right direction. It will require that a
point of order be raised on any legislation for which we have not
obtained a complete fiscal impact analysis, not only of the public
sector activities, but of what impact it has on the private sector.
It also enables any Member of this body to strike an unfunded Federal
mandate from the legislation being proposed.
It has a judicial review section; it applies to the executive branch.
It will require that the executive branch, when it issues regulations,
to solicit from those groups affected what is the most efficient way of
complying with the intent of the legislation. Take the ideas that are
out there in States and localities and private businesses, incorporate
those into your regulations, and let us conduct business in the most
efficient, effective, and responsible manner.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of my colleagues.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would join my colleagues on both sides from
applauding the gentleman from Virginia for the long hours and much
dedication and hard work that he has devoted to mandate relief and to
the FAIR Act.
It is unfortunate, as the gentleman has already indicated, in the
last Congress the then-majority party did not choose to consider his
bill or in fact any mandate relief bill, which we were all hopeful
might have been accomplished, even though I think the FAIR bill had an
enormous number of cosponsors and so forth.
However, this is a new day and a new opportunity to consider a bill
which I think goes beyond what the FAIR bill does. I think it blends
the benefits of the informational requirements, which are vital in the
FAIR bill, with the added feature of accountability, which is, I think,
the lack in this bill, is the factor accountability.
Also, I have to say the other failure that I personally find
disturbing is there is no commission to accomplish the sorts of things
that I hope to accomplish through the review of the ACIR.
While the gentleman and I agree on the need for mandate relief, and I
think that is a very strongly held belief that we must give relief to
State and local governments and the private sector, I must oppose this
amendment because I do not believe FAIR is the best we can do.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute of the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Clearly, we have to be much more sensitive to the costs that are
imposed on the State and local governments as well as the private
sector. I support very much legislation in this amendment to rein in
unnecessary Federal mandates. That is why I cosponsored it last year. I
received almost 250 cosponsors.
Now we have before us the proposal to go beyond the Moran substitute
and to adopt the contract proposal.
Might I say a word mostly to those who are for the Moran substitute
but who are thinking of voting for the contract provision. I recognize
very much that it is not easy to vote simply for the Moran substitute
and then against the final proposal if the Moran substitute fails, as
it is likely to do. But I want to speak from personal experience, if I
might.
As I said, it is not easy when you favor reining in mandates to
oppose the contract provision. But let me suggest what would happen.
Because of its presumptions, because it so stacks the deck, because of
the technical roadblocks that are set up, I think that a lot or some
legislation that is in the national interest will probably never see
the light of day.
Thirty years ago, when I was in the State legislature, I worked on
special education legislation. I did so because I was initiated into
the problem by somebody who worked with me on my campaign and had
simply one request: That if I were elected, I would work on special
education. In those days, half of the handicapped children in Michigan
did not have a single hour of special education opportunity.
Well, an event occurred. We got moving on a bipartisan basis in
Michigan 30 years ago, and we passed a major special education reform.
There was a lot of resistance to its from general education, believe
me. Most of the superintendents looked at it, I think, very
provincially. But we passed it.
But what we could not enact was any form of mandatory special
education within the State. And that meant still hundreds of students
and in other States tens of thousands of students with a handicap who
had no educational opportunity at all.
Some years later, the Federal Government passed the mandatory special
education law. What it said was there
[[Page H995]] was a national interest in all of the handicapped
children in this country, wherever they lived, having a special
education opportunity.
{time} 1410
And there was some funding, but also what was created was a local-
State-national partnership, when it came to handicapped children. If
there had not been that shared effort, that partnership effort, in my
judgment today tens of thousands of handicapped children today would be
without an educational opportunity.
I am not for blind unfunded mandates. I am in favor of this
substitute because I think it would slow us down and make us look, that
it would not handcuff us when national leadership was necessary. The
technical roadblocks are immense, the necessity to look at tens of
thousands of units to see their impact when it comes, for example, to
special education, tens of thousands and essentially the major
advantage, the presumptions that are given to those who want to avoid
national action.
What probably makes it worse is that this heightens the expectations
of local units that they are going to have a free ride, that if there
is a national interest, there cannot be a partnership of local-State-
national entities. That is probably the worst impact of this.
So in a word, I very much favor the Moran substitute. I favor major
reform.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. LEVIN. I favor major reform. I think there has to be a major
change. But I think this is an extreme change. What was true of special
ed I think would have been true and would be true today in terms of
clean air, in terms of clean water. I am not sure the Americans With
Disabilities Act would have ever passed.
So let us be sensible. Let us have some kind of balance here.
I am for a highly reformed federalism, but not for the end of it. And
I think that this bill, without this substitute, is a step backward
several hundred years instead of forward to a new era where there is a
true partnership.
So I just urge my colleagues, though the vote may be difficult, to
vote their conscience and, indeed, vote their local interests,
acknowledge at times there is a need for a merger, a melding of
national, State, and local interests.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first in response to my colleague from Michigan, very
thoughtful comments on the issue of unfunded mandates, I know he is
sincere about his interest in addressing the issue. I would say that
the conclusion he draws is a very different one than many of us do.
That is to say, we believe that having cost information, having a
debate on the floor as to the funding issue and then having a vote up
or down will not necessarily result in important issues like special
education being passed, when appropriate.
The difference between the Moran bill and H.R. 5 before us is that it
provides for that debate on the floor and it provides for that
accountability, the vote up or down.
The cost concerns that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] raised
would be the same concerns in the Moran bill as an example. The cost-
benefit analysis is in both pieces of legislation. I have to oppose the
Moran amendment simply because it does not go far enough. And in doing
so, I will once again commend the gentleman from Virginia and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] for all the work they have
put into this.
As I have said earlier in this debate, it is the foundation of this
bill, the cost part is extremely important. But I would also say that
there is a crucial part missing. At the very least, if we think
something is important enough to mandate from Congress, from the
Federal level, we ought to be challenged as to paying for that mandate.
That is all this bill says. And under the Moran substitute, we have the
cost information, but Congress does not have to face, confront that
very crucial issue as to whether when we mandate, if it is important
enough to mandate, is it not important enough for us to fund it. that
is what this legislation gets to.
I would say that we have heard plenty of examples in these past 2
weeks of the horrors out there in terms of what the Federal Government
is currently doing. It is nothing short of an abuse of power from
Washington. When we have these kinds of examples out there, when we
have good evidence of such a crisis, we ought to act.
I can just say, in summary, that cost information alone is not strong
enough medicine for what clearly ails us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I, too, would like to join reluctantly opposing this amendment.
We spent a great deal of time working with the Parliamentarian and in
a bipartisan way struck an agreement with the former chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. And
that amendment deals with this entire issue of points of order, and I
believe that the accountability that comes about with H.R. 5 is very
adequately addressed.
We looked at this point-of-order question in a clearly bipartisan
way, and it is my hope that the House will recognize that time and
effort was spent doing just that and will, in fact, reject this
substitute, which clearly repeals that bipartisan agreement.
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in reluctant opposition to the Moran
amendment. But I want to take a moment to just note that the reason we
are here today is because there has been a bipartisan effort under way
for the last 3 or 4 years. And the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]
has been one of the real leaders in that effort.
He did so much to build the foundation for the bill that we consider
today. I supported his bill last year. I support the bill under
consideration today, because it does carry it one step further, a very
important step further, in my opinion, to make sure that we embed in
our law the principle that if it is important enough to pass it, it is
important enough to pay for it. But we would not be here today, we
would not have this bill ready, as it is, for consideration on the
floor if it had not been for the leadership that the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran] has shown on this issue.
He has drawn on his experience in city government. He brought a
wealth of understanding of this issue to the U.S. Congress. And he has
contributed so much to the development of this legislation, to
educating the Congress on the principles that underlie this
legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for what he
has done. Again, it is with great reluctance that I oppose this
amendment, which by itself would have been a big step forward. In the
last Congress it would have been as much as we could have gotten done.
The bill we have in front of us now does carry it to the next step. I
support the bill in front of us for that reason.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit],
another person who has been such a leader in this bipartisan effort,
worked with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], worked with the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Roberts], in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I too, rise, reluctantly opposed to the
substitute amendment by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
I want to tell my colleagues that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran] is an example of a long-term effort, that he has not agreed to
any 100-day agenda. He has been involved in this issue for a long
period of time.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren] is absolutely correct. We
would not be at this stage today had it not been for the efforts of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. He has been a fighter for putting
a stop to unfunded mandates, for us to deal with this in a responsible
way.
We both got involved in this issue. He took a little different path
than some
[[Page H996]] of the rest of us, but I commend him and congratulate
him for his effort and think that he is a reason that we are going to
be, I believe, successful on the floor today on passage of this bill. I
support H.R. 5. I think it is the right way to go.
With all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] I ask
my colleagues to not support the substitute amendment. Let us move H.R.
5. It is, I think, a big step for us in putting a stop to unfunded
mandates.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join many of my colleagues in the legislation which I
believe is the most bipartisan of the two major bills before us, and
that is the Moran legislation. I commend it to my colleagues as the
real genuine bipartisan article.
I say that only because of the number of cosponsors on both sides. It
is true that H.R. 5 has at least a tinge of bipartisanship to it. But
if one looks at the cosponsorship that the Moran bill had, one finds
that more than half the Members of the House had cosponsored the
bipartisan effort of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a
Democrat, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], a
Republican.
{time} 1420
About half of the Members of the Republican side had cosponsored the
piece of legislation offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran]. I believe it is more thoughtful, and I believe it is not
captive to the baby and the bath water syndrome which I think drives
H.R. 5.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about the whole purpose here. I
am, of course, speaking for myself in giving my own opinion. I do not
believe the effort in H.R. 5 is as benign as it is upheld to be. Some
say the sole purpose of it is to reduce the number of Federal
requirements, or eliminate the number of Federal requirements that are
there, unless there is money to back those requirements, and that is
the sole purpose of it.
I believe that the architects of this H.R. 5, this particular
unfunded mandate bill, have a much larger purpose. There is, I believe,
this legislation joined with others, some of which is in the Contract
With America, which, taken together, amount to a grand strategy, a
strategy which I believe is aimed at removing the public from the
opportunity to utilize their National Government for the purpose of
embracing and enhancing those matters which are in the national
interest.
Let me go back to the 1970's. David Stockman, who served, as Members
will recall, as Budget Director under former President Ronald Reagan,
confessed after leaving that position that the purpose of their
economic plan was not what it was thought to be, and that was just to
cut the budget. He said, ``We had a grander strategy than that in mind.
We were attempting to empty the Federal Treasury,'' and they were
successful at doing exactly that in the 1980's.
Mr. Chairman, let us look at what happened beginning at about that
time with regard to Federal mandates. Go back to the 1970's. One of the
strictest, most voluminous mandates ever passed by the Congress of the
United States was passed in the 1970's, the Clean Water Act.
My colleagues will recall that great rivers in America were catching
on fire, spontaneous combustion, and the American people looked around
and said, ``Maybe the rivers are not quite clean enough in this
country. Because rivers run through us, this cleaning of rivers will
take a national strategy,'' so they correctly looked to the Congress of
the United States to pass legislation to clean up America's major
waterways. We passed major legislation to do that. It was a mandate, a
rock-ribbed, ironclad mandate to clean up America's rivers.
However, we did something else back in the seventies. We passed the
money to help the States and the communities, and yes, industry, to
follow the mandates of that law. In fact, the amount of money passed
amounted to the greatest public works program in the history of the
United States, second only to the Interstate Highway System.
Now go to the time following the Reagan administration.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Williams was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes).
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, following the beginning of what I think
is this grand strategy to prevent the public from working their will
through the national Congress, in the 1980's the Congress passed
another water mandate. This one was the Safe Drinking Water Act, every
bit as much of a mandate as was the earlier Clean Water Act.
Regulation after regulation, as with the Clean Water Act, followed
the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was a mandate, ironclad, copper-
riveted, placed on the localities and the States and the industry, but
there was one difference. It was now in the 1980's, and the new grand
strategy to make the Federal Government infantile was in place.
The Congress of the United States, because of the emptying of the
Treasury, did not pass a penny in the initial goal, not a penny to help
the localities carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act. That damaged my
State of Montana and my communities out there in a terrible way.
I would ask the Members, have they heard complaints about the Safe
Drinking Water Act? Absolutely, because this Congress did not have the
will to pay for it. The Treasury had been drained.
Did Members hear complaints about the Clean Water Act? No. Why?
Because the Congress had the will to spend the money to help the
communities in the 1970's, as it did in the sixties and the fifties and
the forties, but things changed pretty dramatically in those early
eighties. The effort was drain the Treasury. The effort was to not pay
for the mandates.
Now the effort is ``Let us not have the mandates at all,'' so the
strategy is coming full circle. I ask my colleagues to say no to it,
and yes to the Moran amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Having served in the New York
State Assembly for 12 years, I am opposed to unfunded mandates.
However, I think that what we need to do in this Congress is not be
blind, not pass laws which blanketly prohibit Congress from exercising
the flexibility that it may need to exercise from time to time.
The substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]
simply says that Congress can consider legislation containing unfunded
mandates. It does not mean Congress has to consider it. It does not
mean that Congress will consider it. However, frankly, it means that
Congress in the future can consider it.
What are we afraid of? Each of us comes here to represent our
constituents, about 600,000 people. It seems to me that under the
system we have in this country, the majority ought to rule.
Prohibitions, blanket prohibitions that we try to shackle on future
Congresses it seems to me are very, very dangerous precedents.
Yes, we must have mandates and we must be very careful that we fund
these mandates. However, some future Congresses may look at this in
another light. At a time when we are talking here of passing a balanced
budget amendment, and at a time we are talking here coupling with it
unfunded mandates, a complete prohibition on any kind of mandates,
unless they are totally funded, the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] is quite right. What we are really seeing here is a total
prohibition on any kind of mandates from the Federal Government,
because frankly, there will not be any money to do the kinds of things
that some people know need to be done.
When we combine the two, it really brings us paralysis in terms of
saying that the Federal Government needs to have a uniform policy
throughout the country.
I do not think it is so terrible to have clean air and clean water
and other things. My State of New York has a problem with acid rain. We
cannot handle the problem ourselves. We need, frankly, a universal
taking care of this
[[Page H997]] problem. If there is a problem in Ohio and it affects
New York, we cannot do it ourselves, so we need the Federal Government
to intervene.
What really frightens me, Mr. Chairman, is that under the guise of
unfunded mandates and under the guise of a balanced budget and under
the guise of all these things we are rushing toward, we are going to
give our children a dirtier environment, dirtier air, dirtier water.
All the kinds of things that the Federal Government has done for so
many years the Federal Government will not be able to do.
In the abstract, Mr. Chairman, of course we need to say that if we
are going to mandate something, things ought to be paid for. However,
let us not tie the hands of future Congresses to give them the
flexibility to pass the programs that they see fit without being tied
up in a straitjacket.
{time} 1430
I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia. This is something that
he has pushed for a long, long time. It adheres to the principle the
fact that we ought to not have unfunded mandates, but it allows the
future Congresses to have the flexibility that they need. One person--
one vote.
If a future Congress wants to mandate something, they can. If they do
not want to, they do not have to.
What are we afraid of? Let us have the flexibility.
The Moran amendment, as far as I am concerned, is the best of both
worlds, and that is why I believe we ought to pass it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think the gentleman has
made a strong statement in support of H.R. 5.
I would ask him if he is aware under H.R. 5 of the fact that in fact
by majority vote Congress can at any time waive the point of order and
go ahead and impose a mandate, go ahead and provide the costs or not
mandate at all. Those options are all there.
Mr. ENGEL. The options may be there, but the threshold is much more
difficult than what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is
proposing. That is why I think what he is saying is to give us maximum
flexibility. Frankly, I do not understand why we are not all rallying
around the Moran proposal.
Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just say
again I think you made a strong statement in support of H.R. 5. The
abstract concept that you said you supported, which is no-money/no-
mandate, is in fact even stronger than H.R. 5. I would say all we are
asking for is the cost information that is in the Moran bill, but then
in addition to that, to have a debate on the floor on the funding issue
and force Congress to be accountable to that issue.
Mr. ENGEL. Can I ask the gentleman why then he does not embrace the
Moran bill, because I think what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran] is doing is frankly giving you everything that you feel needs to
be done.
Mr. PORTMAN. Let me be clear again. What the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran] does is the foundation for this legislation which is to
provide the cost information, but we need to go further than the cost
information and address the very issue which you addressed in the
abstract, which is the question of funding. And that is what this
legislation does.
Mr. ENGEL. But, I think what this legislation also does is, if
something is not fully funded, it makes it very, very hard to do.
Frankly, I am not afraid of unfunded mandates.
I am afraid that the ruse of unfunded mandates is going to be used to
prevent Federal action on clean water, clean air, the environment, and
all the things that I know we need. And that is why I think the
gentleman's proposal makes infinite sense.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honor and privilege to speak
at this juncture of the debate with the Moran substitute before us at
this hour. This is really the conclusion of years and years of work for
people who were in the Congress before me and people who served with me
in the past 2 years, and I want to just take a moment in this historic
debate and its conclusion and thank a few people.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the
chairman. He has shown incredible leadership on this issue, not just
today but over the years, in working in the past 2 years in the
minority. Also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] who joined us in
the last Congress and he took up the mantle of unfunded mandates and
carried it through, and carried it through some tough times. My
compliments to them.
Also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], who formerly chaired
our subcommittee. I served on that subcommittee. He helped us fight the
battle to get unfunded mandates and the question before the Congress
and before the country. To these gentleman and colleagues, I want to
say thank you so much.
Also to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. He and I worked
on this issue, and this has indeed been a bipartisan issue. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] offered a measure much tougher
than anything we see before us today. It was no-money-/no-mandate
proposal.
And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin and the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Pete Geren. We were called the unholy trinity, because we
believed in moving forward with some action on unfunded mandates and
property rights and risk assessment, issues that have long been swept
under the rug and left behind the carpet.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], myself, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Portman], we all participated in hearings. This is not a new issue. It
is an issue that people were not listening to or paying attention to
the debate.
We conducted field hearings. I will never forget the field hearings
in the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] where
local officials came and said, ``We can't take it anymore. It is
cheaper for us to deliver bottled water than to comply with the
regulations and mandates coming out of Washington. We have to make some
common sense out of this mess.''
We held field hearings in my district and we heard of local tax caps
and State requirements for balanced budgets. Unfortunately here we
passed on these matters to local governments. They said they could take
it anymore, but no one was listening.
Last year, ladies and gentleman, we pleaded and we begged and we
asked for the opportunity to bring this legislation forward, and our
words were not heard. We did not have the opportunity to bring this
issue forward, and here we are today at the last hour and the last
minute.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the final answer to unfunded mandates.
It does not cure the problem, but it does set a standard. It does set
some sense of responsibility and accountability for the process.
At this particular historic juncture, I wish to thank the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I cannot support his substitute. Mr. Moran
has made some great contributions to this effort, not just today but
over the history of this particular legislation.
I want to also thank our staff who have worked hard on both sides of
the aisle and contributed to this effort and also this historic
occasion.
With that, ladies and gentleman, again at this historic juncture, I
oppose the Moran substitute. I have the biggest smile on my face of
anyone in this Congress to see this long neglected legislation move
forward in the next hour, and I compliment everyone who has been
involved in its success.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong
supporter of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and applaud the
efforts of all involved. This bill is similar to legislation I and
other Members sponsored at the outset of the 103d Congress.
If an idea is good enough to mandate, then it should be good enough
to pay for. For too long Congress has passed mandates, but not the
bucks to State and local governments. Usually these unfunded mandates
would come at the expense of local education and public safety
programs.
[[Page H998]] In my home State of Massachusetts, many residents will
soon face water and sewer rates in excess of $2,000 annually to pay for
federally imposed unfunded mandates. We are not arguing with the need,
on occasion, to mandate certain requirements. All we are asking is that
they be paid for.
While everyone wants clean water, clean air, and other benefits, we
must pursue these goals sensibly and in a way we can pay for.
While H.R. 5 will not rescind past mandates, but it will address
future mandates. Just as the balanced budget amendment will force
Congress to stop saddling future generations with debt, this act will
force Congress to stop saddling State and local governments with de
facto tax increases and local service cuts.
I strongly urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5 and stop the
destruction caused by unfunded mandates.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my reluctant opposition
to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. I am reluctant to oppose
H.R. 5 because I think that its basic purpose is sound and important.
Almost everyone in this body agrees that something must be done about
the increasing burdens that the Federal Government places upon the
States and local governments.
Let there be no mistake--I support unfunded mandates reform
legislation. I proudly voted for a well-crafted, bipartisan bill in the
last Congress, and I voted for the substitute to H.R. 5 offered by
Representative Moran today. Those efforts were designed to allow
Congress to make informed decisions about the burdens the Federal
Government places on the States. They required the House to be fully
informed about those costs before passing legislation.
It is unfortunate therefore that H.R. 5 has so many serious problems,
starting with the abuse of the legislative process which brought this
bill to the floor. It is ironic that this was the first bill to be
reported out of the newly renamed Government Reform and Oversight
Committee, for it did not receive 1 minute of hearings in that
committee--a bad omen for the new era of openness called for by the
Contract With America. The partisan power play which brought this bill
to the floor is all the more disturbing given the fundamental ways in
which it will affect the intrinsic nature of American government. A
bill of this importance deserved better.
As it is written, H.R. 5 is an invitation to paralysis designed to
prevent us from requiring the States to do anything unless we fully pay
for it. Proponents of this bill argue that it allows us to impose
mandates if, by a majority vote, we choose to do so. However, the same
proponents would, I think, agree that this bill establishes the
principle that the Federal Government should not impose mandates on the
States unless it is prepared to pay every dime of the costs of the new
requirements. That is not a proposition that I can agree with.
Many amendments were offered to this bill which would have added to
the list of exemptions from this legislation. I offered one which would
have exempted legislation to protect the health of children. I voted
for others which would have exempted banking regulations, environmental
legislation and bills to protect work-safety standards. Other
amendments designed to protect private enterprise and to require an
analysis of the benefits of specific bills as well as their costs, were
offered and rejected.
Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the bill before us, however, well-
intentioned, will roll back the progress that the Federal Government
has made in protecting the most fundamental rights of the American
people. These include the right to breathe clean air, the right to
drink pure water, the right to eat healthy food, and the right to work
in a safe workplace.
Those are all national problems which require national solutions and
national standards. Interstate problems are one example of this need.
Air and water pollution know no boundaries. The smoke from
incinerations blows easily from Ohio to New York. Sewage flows just a
easily down the Mississippi from Missouri to Louisiana.
The Federal Government must also set standards of decency and
compassion. It must stand against efforts by the States to cut off food
stamps to needy children or reduce standards in nursing homes. Welfare
reform is something everyone agrees needs to be done, but as a Federal
legislator I would fight attempts by the States to abolish it. By
imposing the point of order contained in this bill, H.R. 5 is a mandate
for gridlock on these and other national priorities. Gridlock that the
American people have rejected time and time again.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the goals of this bill. But it is abundantly
clear that H.R. 5 was hastily written--and badly written at that--and
that it was forced out of committee and onto the floor with an
authoritarian heavy hand more interested in partisan politics than good
policy.
A reform bill should push forward, not set us back. By building on
the bipartisan efforts of the last Congress, I believe that a good bill
could have been presented to the Congress, one that helped, rather than
potentially harmed, the people we were sent here to represent. It is
unfortunate we did not have the opportunity to vote for that bill.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. As a
cosponsor of this legislation this Congress and last Congress, I
commend Chairman Clinger of the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor in an
expeditious manner. I also want to commend the distinguished gentleman
from California [Mr. Condit], and my good friend from Ohio [Mr.
Portman], for their leadership and hard work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation because it will slow the
torrent of unfunded mandates Congress has passed onto State and local
governments, causing local property taxes to rise. While any relief
from unfunded mandates are welcome, I want to remind my colleagues that
the protection from unfunded mandates contained in this bill are not
ironclad. This bill does include a point of order against any new
mandates over $50 million. However, since this relief is statutory, a
future Congress can circumvent this legislation by simple majority.
Therefore, today Congress is not closing the door to keep new unfunded
mandates. Instead, today Congress is merely slowing, not stopping, the
passage of new mandates.
Mr. Chairman, the only sure way to stop unfunded mandates is through
a constitutional amendment. For this reason, I have reintroduced
legislation (H.J. Res. 27) that would give State and local governments
a constitutional guarantee against new, unfunded, Federal mandates.
Without constitutional protection from unfunded mandates, I fear
Congress will transfer programs to State and local governments in order
to meet its obligation under the balanced budget amendment, instead of
raising taxes or taking the preferable route of cutting spending.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 is a necessary first step to protect local
taxpayers. While I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important
legislation, I urge my colleagues to finish the job by supporting House
Joint Resolution 27, a joint resolution that would stop unfunded
Federal mandates constitutionally.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. While I am keenly aware of the
fact that many of our State and local governments face formidable
financial constraints--not unlike those of our Federal Government--I am
also extremely conscious of my duty as a Member of Congress to act in
the best interest of the people I represent and the American public. We
cannot and should not, in an attempt to decrease financial burdens
placed on State and local governments, shirk our responsibility to act
in the best interest of the American people. This flawed and hurried
legislation will not only fail to resolve the financial difficulties of
State and local governments, but will endanger the American public.
The bill before us today, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,
will not only attempt to undo many of the important accomplishments of
the U.S. Congress, but also seeks to undermine many of our most
important efforts to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
The stated purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is to limit
Congress' ability to impose Federal mandates on State and local
government. While I agree that Congress should be aware of the nature
and extent of costs that may be imposed on State and local government,
this proposed measure goes well beyond this legitimate objective of
balancing the responsibilities placed on these governments. In fact,
this bill is specifically designed to inhibit the will of the people by
creating artificial obstacles to congressional support for programs the
current majority has long sought to weaken if not totally eliminate,
including laws that protect the environment, enhance voter
participation, strengthen crime control, and heighten worker and
citizen safety.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unprecedented in its scope. Few
areas of Federal legislation will be unaffected by this measure, yet,
with very little opportunity for open hearing, and with limited debate,
this act has been placed before us. A measure of this kind requires
detailed analysis of the impact it may have on the American people, but
no such review has or will take place. In the current rush to force
this bill to the floor of this House, the will of the American people
will certainly be compromised.
H.R. 5 will have a devastating impact on the environment. As a
Representative of the urban district of Cleveland, OH, I have first-
hand witnessed the severity of the environmental problems this Nation
and its inner cities
now face. The quality of most urban air and water in this country is in
dire need of immediate attention.Mr. Chairman, without so-called
unfunded mandates such as the Clean Water Act, the
[[Page H999]] Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act--all acts
that represent significant steps towards remedying the effects of
environmental devastation and injustice--the American people and all
future generations will be harmed forever.
This bill will also significantly compromise citizen and worker
safety. Last year, over 10,000 American workers died in the workplace.
Another 70,000 were permanently disabled, and more than 100,000
contracted fatal occupational illnesses. H.R. 5 will greatly inhibit
our ability to protect the American population from unsafe products,
dangerous working conditions, and avoidable disasters. I cannot in good
conscience endanger American workers by supporting this bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not only have a
dramatic and disastrous impact on future legislation, it will also
affect existing legislation. Bills that reauthorize existing laws, by
enhancing standards, or by enhancing the scope of the original
legislation, which results in an increase in costs for State and local
government, will all be inhibited by unfunded mandates. Important
measures placed in jeopardy by this proposed legislation include the
Brady bill that mandates a waiting period prior to the purchase of a
firearm; the Family Medical Leave Act that permits parents to take care
of their sick children; and the National Voter Registration Act that
would greatly enhance voter participation.
Perhaps the most negative impact of this proposed legislation will be
on future legislation that may be considered by Congress. Any proposed
legislation that is designed to protect workers and citizens from
unnecessary injury, protect the environment, or end poverty, will be
subject to exclusion under this bill.
Mr. Chairman, adding to the cynical approach employed by this
legislation, I am sad to report that this law has been engineered to
take effect on October 1 of this year, to ensure that the Republican
Contract With America and the attempted rescissions of fiscal year 1995
appropriations, would not be subject to its requirements. This
transparent effort to exempt Republican legislation is clearly unjust
and further hinders the will of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that H.R. 5 and the circumstances under
which it is presented in this House attempt to mislead the American
people to believe that cookie cutter, simplistic solutions will cure
what ails this Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As our
Nation faces an epidemic of pollution, discrimination, and poverty, the
solution to these problems will not be found in quick fixes like the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. The American people elected us to act in
their best interest, not compromise their welfare because Government
refuses to have the courage to meet its obligations. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a long and oftentimes wrenching debate
that has occurred on this bill over the last couple of weeks and
Members on both sides of the aisle clearly feel very strongly about it
one way or another.
Let me preface my remarks by congratulating the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman, for the manner in which he
has managed this bill and the manner in which he has managed the
debate, particularly on his side of the aisle, and I know I speak for
Members on this side of the aisle when I say he has been thoughtful,
deliberative and fair in that process and that has not gone unnoticed.
In the last Congress, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and
I and perhaps many others in addition to Chris Shays talked about this
notion of unfunded mandates. People had varying ideas and approaches as
to how it might be done. The fact that we are here today, I think,
underlines the importance of this legislation to a lot of people.
But as has been said over and over and over again, many people want
to make sure that we do this the right way, so that we do not have to
revisit it and that we do it the right way so that we in fact do not do
more harm than good.
Having said that, I stand in support of the Moran substitute. It is a
clear and reasoned approach. It has less of a broad-brush application
to it. It will slow us down and make us think as it should, and it
allows for the uncertainty of the future.
The only thing certain, someone said, about the future is that it is,
in fact, uncertain.
Many of us over the course of the last 2 weeks have tried to take
advantage of the process in a constructive manner, to change, to modify
and to make better the original bill. We have tried to exempt Medicare,
we have tried to exempt certain children's programs. We tried to exempt
programs for the disabled. We have asked for CBO estimates to make sure
that financially the moneys and the fiscal impact were in fact correct.
We have attempted to make sure, if we could at least, that clean
water and clean water standards in this country would not be affected,
as well as a number of health issues.
Those of you who have watched the debate and those of you who have
participated in the debate know that very little has changed in that
regard and we have a bill somewhat different than the bill that was
first before this body, but we have a bill that we still can improve on
if in fact we adopt the Moran substitute.
I say that because I have heard from persons who want this in its
current pure and clinical fashion, that the bill does allow for future
Congresses to allow for mandates. Well, it does, if in fact the mandate
is 100 percent fully funded.
We have already begun the process in this Congress of reducing the
amount of money available for mandates, unfunded or otherwise. We are
on the verge of a major debate on the merits of the balanced budget
amendment, and there are proposals in at least six different committees
of this body to reduce taxes.
{time} 1440
When we couple those three things together, clearly, ladies and
gentlemen, it is going to be every difficult at any point in the future
to get a 100 percent fully funded mandate. It takes away when the
ability of this Congress, in this Member's opinion, to be as effective
as we must.
So the Moran substitute does not prevent unfunded mandates from being
considered. To the contrary of what some have suggested, it allows for
that and it allows for us to move forward without the 100 percent
trigger that is involved. It simply says that future Congresses, if
they so choose, may in fact consider at some later date passing an
unfunded mandate, whereby you have a partnership with the Federal
Government, the State government and local governments to take care of
an issue and/or a problem that besets the citizens of this country.
In my opinion, that allows for more flexibility, it certainly creates
a greater air of sensibility and it allows for the notion of
partnerships if at some point in time by a majority vote in this body
they so choose to do so.
So I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle as we near the vote
and the conclusion on this bill to consider again the Moran substitute
which I think is the right and proper approach for us to take.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran] for the outstanding job he has done in bringing us to this
point, because if it had not been for him last year in terms of his
talking about the importance of unfunded mandates, I do not really feel
we would be here now. So, I would like to say to him he really kept the
issue alive.
I would also like to say to the other side that this bill really is
more the bill that we dealt with last year, the bill that the gentleman
from Florida talked about, the hearings that we had all over this
country, and basically what people were saying to us is that something
has to be done, and I think this bill really addresses their concerns.
I know that others want to go even further, but I think that to go
further is a mistake. I think we have been down that road before. I
remember the catastrophic health care bill that we kept wanting to go
further, and go further, and go further, and we went, and then all of a
sudden we had to come back to undo what was done.
So, I can see that we are making the same mistake again.
So the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] offers us an opportunity
to do something different. First of all to address the problem in a
very logical and sensible kind of way, not the draconian bill that is
being proposed on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 5. I think we need
to recognize that, and deal with it.
[[Page H1000]] What we are saying, is people out there are saying we
want to know how much it is going to cost and we need to know how much
it is going to cost. To me that is a very practical way to deal with
the problem and that to me is a solution to the problem. We heard it as
we had hearings in Pennsylvania, as we had hearings in Florida, as we
had hearings here in Washington, DC; people were saying to us that was
their concern.
But what we are doing is taking it a step further and I think we are
going to find that there are procedural barriers that are going to make
it impossible for us to do the kind of thing we need to do.
I have heard the term bipartisan support. I think bipartisan support
is good and I think we should have it whenever possible, and I think
that this bill that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is putting
forth is truly the bipartisan bill. That is the Moran-Goodling bill of
last time around. I think that is the bipartisan approach.
So, I would encourage my friends on both sides of the aisle to take a
look at this legislation, because this really deals with the problem,
it makes it possible for us to be able to legislate in a very timely
fashion and do the kinds of things that need to be done. It eliminates
the dumping that goes on from one State to another.
When I look in terms of what is happening in my own area in terms of
incineration, how one area can create problems for another area and we
cannot do anything about it because of the fact that we would have to
come back and be able to examine it before we move forward, this
legislation eliminates that kind of bottleneck, it makes it possible if
one area is dumping on another area that we address that and deal with
it right away.
So I think this makes a lot of sense if we really want to deal with
the problem as we have heard it out there, as it comes from people
throughout the area.
On this particular legislation, H.R. 5, let me set the record
straight because I have heard about all kinds of hearings and all of
that. Even if there were hearings they were held though in secrecy,
because I do not know anything about them, and I have talked to Members
who have been here even longer than I have been here and they do not
know anything about it, I do not know anything about it, so it seems to
me the hearings they are talking about did not take place; and being
they did not take place, we did not talk to governors of various States
to find out their views and feelings, we did not talk to city council
members to find out their views and feelings, we did not talk to county
executives and we did not talk to legislators around the country to see
in terms of their views and feelings about this legislation.
All of a sudden here we are rushing to push it through because of the
fact we must do it before dark.
I would just like to say it is too important to move forward in that
fashion. I would hope this would be an opportunity to correct the
mistake that has been made. Support the Moran bill, because at least
this is something on which we have had communication with people out
there, we have talked to them about it. So I think this is an
opportunity to stop us from making a major mistake by going further
with H.R. 5, but coming back and supporting the Moran substitute which
I think deals with the issue that is at hand.
So I would like to yield back the balance of my time and encourage
all of my friends and supporters to make certain that they support the
Moran substitute. That is really the legislation that should be moved
forward.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I really apologize to the Members for prolonging this
debate which I think has been getting better the longer it goes along,
and I want to add my compliments to those already expressed by the
managers on both sides.
I have a feeling, I have not participated in this debate because I do
not have any particular expertise in this area, but I have a feeling
that on both sides we may be committing some sins that we perhaps do
not realize.
Unfunded mandates is a problem. A problem has arisen from the fact
that the Federal Government has become increasingly unable to fund
programs, no matter how good they were, and has gradually shifted that
burden to the State and local governments, and they are increasingly
unable to bear that burden also.
Most of the programs in an era of less limited funding probably would
be accepted as legitimate expenditures by some level of government, and
now no level of government has the capability to fund them.
Now what is the reason for this? Obviously one of them is we have
been living on our credit cards far too long and we have run up this
tremendous interest which will deprive us of what may be another $100
billion, $200 billion, or $300 billion of income at the Federal level
that could have been used to fund these programs at the same time the
States are increasingly strapped and overburdened by taxes and have put
limits on what they can spend. California led the way with proposition
13 which capped property taxes, for example, reducing us from being the
perhaps high-level spender of any of the States for education down
amongst the lower, and we are regretting that at the present time.
Let us not deceive ourselves by thinking that this program is going
to solve the problem of inadequate funding for the kinds of things that
Government ought to do. We will need some more profound solution to
that problem. A balanced budget, reduced interest costs is of course
one of the things we need to do.
How soon are we going to do that? Nobody expects any major impact
from a balanced budget amendment in less than 8 to 10 years, in all
probability.
What we need to focus on are those areas of public service which we
have allowed to grow unrestrained.
{time} 1450
Health costs, for example, the most rapidly growing part of the
budget: We need to do something to bring that under control and off the
backs of the Federal taxpayers in general, a more workable national
insurance program of some kind, so that individuals can have access to
insurance but could basically be responsible for the level of health
care that they wanted to pay for themselves, and it would not be a
formula sort of thing that keeps growing.
We need to do something about the welfare program, and it does not
mean just cutting off welfare. It means creating a system in which we
have opportunity and jobs for that vast class of people who are now
deprived of the opportunity to participate in the economy. That will
help us.
The unfunded-mandates bill will not solve these kinds of problems.
They may give us a chance for some political cover while we begin to
seriously deal with these problems, and this is what I would urge upon
us as we proceed down the road here.
I think the Republicans in this case, through their contract, have
touched the chord of a large part of the American people, not
necessarily all, but a large part, and they, charged up with this
mandate to do something about this, are moving ahead and obviously they
do not want us on this side trying to perfect the great program that
they have. And I can understand this.
But I would urge upon them, after they have tasted success with their
program, and they are going to have successes, and many Democrats are
going to support them including me on occasion, I think then we should
begin to look seriously at these underlying problems of our society and
develop some programs that will begin to address those in some very
realistic fashion and help us then to really create the new society,
the new culture, the new civilization, however we want to describe it
that we should be doing to assert our position as the world's leading
nation in terms of bringing opportunity, freedom, and democracy to the
whole world.
I thank you for listening to me.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Committee for 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman I just want to cast a few roses here,
although let me start with a thorn and get this out of the way. The one
thing that has
[[Page H1001]] been disappointing about this debate is the information
that was handed to the Members on the vote last night that may have
influenced some, says that, ``The Moran amendment effectively exempts
90 percent of the laws Congress passes from the informational
requirements of H.R. 5.'' That is not accurate.
I think my colleagues on the other side would agree that it does not
exempt Congress from 90 percent of the legislation and the
informational requirements.
I was disappointed that that is the sheet all the Members received on
their way in to vote. It is true that it would delete the no money, no
mandate provision, but I would hope that that not be the piece that is
handed out for this vote or the subsequent vote, because it is
misleading.
Now, having gotten over that, let me thank the chairman of the
committee, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the Members on my side who were strongly
supportive of the version that is an alternative to the substitute we
are about to vote on.
This has been a very constructive debate. I think that we are making
history in the next two votes that we will take. I know we are going in
the right direction. We have a disagreement in whether or not we are
going too far in the underlying Republican version. But I do appreciate
the attention that has been given this issue.
I particularly appreciate the constructive manner in which the
sponsors of this bill have worked with us on the minority side, and I
would hope that it would set a precedent for subsequent bills that come
to this floor.
Now, let me just say one further word about the gentleman sitting in
the chair throughout this entire debate. The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Emerson] has conducted this debate in such a fine and fair manner
that he really deserves some recognition, I would hope maybe even a
little applause. He has been absolutely indefatigable and exceptionally
fair, and I thank him, and I know I speak for all of the Members on
this side of the aisle in doing so, and I would certainly expect on the
other side of the aisle.
I thank all of those who have participated in this debate for a very
constructive dialog.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute 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 152,
noes 278, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No 82]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
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
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--278
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
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
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
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
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCarthy
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
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
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
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
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
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--4
Becerra
Hunter
Kaptur
Scarborough
{time} 1514
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Ms. Kaptur for, with Mr. Scarborough against.
Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin on my remarks, I want to say right here
and now, ``During the course of the consideration of this bill, you,
Mr. Chairman, have heard many of us on this side of the aisle raise the
subject of procedural abuses in committee, as well as time limits on
floor debates, which concerned us greatly. However I want to say
something positive as well. I want to certainly commend the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]
for his fairness and patience in presiding over this debate.''
Let me also commend the chairman of our Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger],
for
[[Page H1002]] his hard work on this bill. He has certainly had his
hands full recently, and, despite our very early shaky start, I have
really enjoyed working with him and look forward to working with him in
the future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that this bill is fatally
flawed.
H.R. 5 places Congress in a straitjacket, and provides cover for
those who want to roll back the progress we have made in this country
to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
Viewed in isolation it may seem reasonable to many, but that is the
wrong way to view it. This bill must be seen as a dot matrix, which
when the lines are all connected, reveals a mean-spirited effort to
abandon those who are most in need.
Over the past several days, we have taken the time to look at just
what this so-called unfunded mandates bill does. As I said earlier in
the debate, we needed to get beyond the term ``unfunded mandates'' and
into the real world of what types of laws the Republican majority in
this body apparently want to make difficult to pass. Well it became
clear when we began the amending process that they firmly embraced the
Senate Republican Task Force list of 10 worst Federal laws as a guide.
Many of us on this side of the aisle offered amendments to safeguard
environmental laws that protect the public health and safety. We made
every possible effort to protect the provisions of the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, because these
laws are supported by all Americans. They were passed, because the
people wanted them. They protect us all from the pollution of our
neighbors.
Similarly, we offered amendments to preserve laws protecting our most
vulnerable citizens--those with disabilities and our children. Again
the proponents of this legislation exhibited their disparate views by
exempting from the unfunded mandate definition bills that relate to the
implementation of international treaties, but not those which provide a
better way of life for the disabled; by ``requiring compliance with
accounting and auditing procedures relating to grants and other money
provided by the Federal Government,'' but ignoring savings inherent in
disease prevention, that result from childhood immunization laws.
It was totally inconceivable to me that amendments we Democrats
offered to ensure that we as a nation could proceed with establishing a
database to track, first, deadbeat dads and, second, child molesters
would be opposed by advocates of this legislation. I thought they would
surely agree to such amendments. What harm would it do if we went on
record in favor of that program and future programs to protect our
children? None whatsoever; but, once again, the bill's supporters
soundly defeated these child protection amendments.
What was their rationale for so doing? Well it was simply that if the
Federal Government did not provide the funds, the State, local, or
territorial governments did not have to keep a list of names of
deadbeat dads and/or known child abusers or repeat child molesters.
We Democrats offered amendments that would have exempted from the
definition of unfunded mandates laws designed to, first, protect child
labor laws, second, protect the worker in the factory and, third,
increase the minimum wage. Surely these were not the laws that even the
Governors and mayors want to gut; but again the proponents acted in
lockstep to defeat these amendments.
I have found it extremely interesting that in their zeal to please
their Governors, county commissioners, and mayors, the authors have
very carefully circumscribed restrictions on the quality of life our
citizens have a right to expect to enjoy in the future. We hold
ourselves out to be a compassionate nation; one that cares about its
citizens, about its overall quality of life, about the underdog, about
the least of us. Yet every single amendment offered to prevent new
barriers from being raised against these very Americans was defeated by
bloc voting.
Some on the other side of the aisle have suggested that the numerous
amendments have been a stalling tactic; that the votes have been
dilatory. Let me assure the Members that the issue was accountability.
The voters in their districts will now know exactly what their Members
have voted to protect, and what they have voted to not protect.
Perhaps the problems with this bill began when its authors chose to
draft it in secret, and then refused to hold public hearings. Those
hearings might have allowed ordinary Americans better known as the
public, to discuss which laws they like and which ones they do not. The
authors would have heard the voices of mothers concerned for and about
their children, of senior citizens who fear that Medicare and Medicaid
will not cover an illness, of workers wanting a safe workplace and a
decent, living wage, a father who cared about safe drinking water for
his family. Instead, we will never know who was in the room drafting
those bills, but we know who was not there, whose voices were not
allowed to be there.
As I have read this bill over the past several weeks, I can find
almost no consideration given to the benefits from our laws--the
benefits that I assume caused Congress to pass them. Every people
program is subjected to rigorous cost estimates, but there are no
estimates about the protections, the safety, and the improvements to
the quality of life and to our economy these laws have brought to all
Americans. Perhaps that, too, is because we were never allowed to hear
the voices of the people.
Throughout debate, the proponents of this bill, have said, ``Don't
worry. All it will take is a simple majority vote to pass those kinds
of laws in the future by waiving a point of order. I doubt that this
will be the case.
The subjects of the amendments we Democrats have offered are the
exact laws that the Republican majority would like to kill. We know
this to be true because the Senate Republican Regulatory Relief Task
Force released a list of its so-called 10 worst Federal laws which
include the Clean Air Act, the Superfund toxic waste cleanup law,
wetlands law, the clean water law, food safety laws, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and Occupational Safety and Health Act. This bill, H.R. 5,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, is a first start at killing
these laws.
In a matter of days we will begin debating a regulatory moratorium
bill that takes aim at regulations under these laws. Then we will see
laws to make agencies go through so many hoops and procedures that they
can never take an action to protect the public health or safety. If all
else fails, new laws will empower corporations to keep the Government
tied up in court forever. This bill is the first step.
No, this bill, H.R. 5, is not really about unfunded mandates. It is
about destroying laws that protect the average citizen. It is about
raising barriers and debilitating the disenfranchised.
As we debate the remaining elements of the Republican contract, let
us begin to face what is really going on. Taken as a whole, the
contract is a program developed in secret with major corporations to
gut the major protections for the average American. Today they will be
called unfunded mandates; tomorrow they will be called regulatory
burdens. At least the Republican Senate Task Force was honest about
their goals. I believe the American people deserve to know the truth.
{time} 1520
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to express my gratitude and
appreciation to a number of people who have been involved in this now
7- or 8-day-long debate, which I think has been a very open, a very
constructive debate, really the first debate that we have had on the
new federalism.
I think what we are seeing is the beginning of a constructive dialog
about what the relations of the various levels of government are going
to be.
We do not pretend this is a perfect solution to what may be the new
paradigm. But what we do suggest is the debate is necessary. We really
have to get to the point where we are beginning to analyze which
governments need to do what and which governments can do them best.
But in the process of the debate, I have got to recognize, first of
all, as has already been indicated, you have
[[Page H1003]] done a superb job in chairing the committee during this
sometimes contentious but, I think, always helpful and educational
discussion we have had.
Second, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], who is a prime
author of this legislation, who has worked tirelessly to bring it to
the point we are at now. And the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis],
who has been so effective as a very, very junior freshman Member and
has hit the floor running and done a superb job. The gentleman from
California, [Mr. Condit], the other sponsor, who has been a leader in
this effort for many, many years before it really was an issue that was
on anybody's radar screen. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who
has made some very constructive additions to this bill, some of which
were not accepted. Also, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], who
worked on this matter in the past Congress. And the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. There are so many that I really am afraid
I am going to overlook someone. They have all been outstanding.
{time} 1530
There are three people that I want to specifically recognize. They
are staff members who often are not heralded in these halls but who, in
this case, I can vouch from personal experience deserve most of the
credit for the fact that this bill has gotten to where we are today.
This is Kristine Simmons, who is on my staff and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and John Bridgeland, who is with the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], and Steve Jones, who is with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
They have done an absolutely superb job and worked incredible hours
to work on this legislation. So my thanks to all of them for all the
work that they have done.
Mr. Chairman, if you listen closely today you can hear State and
local governments around the Nation breathing a sigh of relief. Today
we are at last ready to vote on final passage of H.R. 5, a vote I think
which is going to bring at least the beginning of an historic change in
the way the Federal Government does business with its State and local
counterparts. This bill will restore State and local governments to
their true places as partners in our federal system.
Mr. Chairman, I express, again, my appreciation to the gentlewoman
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking minority member. It has been
a pleasure to work with her on this matter. To all who participated in
this really initial, most substantive and most important debate, I
think I would reference the gentleman from California. This is an
important debate. We are involved in very important issues here. This
is history in the making. We do have differences, but I think the
debate is what counts.
The resolution, I hope, will be passage of this bill.
If you listen closely, you can hear State and local governments
around the Nation breathing a sigh of relief today. We at last are
ready to vote on final passage of H.R. 5, a vote which will bring
historic change in the way the Federal Government does business with
its State and local counterparts. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act will
restore State and local governments to their true places as partners in
our federal system.
Debate on this bill was rigorous and I want to congratulate many of
my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for casting tough votes in
the interest of stopping this mandate madness. Attempts to weaken this
bill were rejected consistently and soundly, reflecting a majority
opinion that imposing unfunded mandates without knowledge or funding is
wrong and it must end.
I also would like to thank my colleagues who are not in support of
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, for their contribution to the fair and
open debate we have had during the 7 days of debate on this bill. It
has been a spirited exchange, but a healthy one and I thank my
colleagues.
As we prepare to vote on final passage, I ask each Member to consider
the adverse impact the cost of mandates has had on your constituents.
Ask yourself if it is fair to raise their local property taxes and to
cut community services so the local government can afford programs we
think are important. Ask yourself if your priorities are only important
if a State or local government pays to carry them out.
This vote is about information and accountability. It is about
changing Washington ways for the better. It is an affirmative statement
that we will stop ourselves before we mandate again.
Please vote ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 5.
Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I rise in support of H.R. 5, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, of which I have been a strong
supporter.
Since coming to Congress, I have had the opportunity to make
decisions on a variety of good idea that Congress felt would help
improve the lives of its citizens and help make Government work better.
Of those ideas, the Motor Voter Act was a Federal mandate costing the
State of Alabama $500,000 a year without the funding to comply with it.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, another bill with good intentions,
requires local officials to test the water supply for 25 substances
without regard to the region or the types of substances used there.
As a result, Alabama water systems had to test their water supply for
pesticides used to protect pineapple crops.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the day when, before the Federal
Government issues an expensive regulation, we will stop, look, and
listen to how this will affect local officials.
I rise in support of H.R. 5, another good idea from Congress, but
this one long, long overdue.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a great day for State and local
governments. It is a great day for taxpayers and a great day for a new
accountability in Congress.
With this passage, we are going to take a giant step in returning
local decisionmaking to local and State governments, to returning
property taxes to local governments instead of being hijacked by
Congress for programs that we in this body feel are more important than
what the localities decide.
If we believe in a program in this Congress, we should believe in it
enough to fund it, not pound our chest and pass the bill and then go
ahead and pass the buck on to State and local governments and their
taxpayers. When a government that sets the priorities does not find the
money within its budget to fund those priorities, we get a completely
different set of priorities than if a government that sets the
priorities has to find the funds within their own organization and
their own budgets.
What has happened over the past few years is a proliferation of
unfunded mandates going down to State and local governments, layer
after layer of unfunded mandates and a significant shifting of costs
from a progressive income tax to regressive property taxes and sales
taxes.
Another consequence is that although there are many fine programs
mandated and imposed on local governments, many other fine programs
that local governments intend end up having to close shelters, lay off
police officers, cut day-care centers. And they have to achieve these
to pay for the mandates that we fail to fund.
The numerous attempts to exclude and exempt certain areas from this
bill, Medicare, Medicaid, health laws, programs for children,
environmental laws, labor laws and the like, would have, taken
together, gutted this bill, what we are trying to do here.
Besides, this bill still gives us the option of sending those
mandates to the States but we will have the costs in front of us before
we make those decisions and find out what kind of bill we are sending
down to the State and local governments.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that their inclusion, if we had included
those exemptions in this bill, it would have resulted in more
imposition of costs on local governments and the end result, as one who
has been in local government for 15 years, would be forcing our States
and our cities and our counties to continue to close community centers,
cut back on public safety, cut education, abandon health care centers,
because we in Congress, by unfunded mandates, have redirected their
local budgets in a way we felt was better, not often realizing that we
forced the local governments to cut good programs so they could fund
our programs.
[[Page H1004]] I would also add, Mr. Chairman, there was no rush in
passing this bill, even the other body, the most deliberative body in
this country, managed to pass this 86 to 10 in a shorter period of time
than it took us.
I just want to end by saying this has strong bipartisan support. I
wanted to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for
shepherding this bill through committee and on the floor, my
cosponsors, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who has been
working on this before I ever came to this body, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Portman], who was instrumental in getting this included in
the contract, the staffs and other Members, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], and others who
have been working on this for many years, and you, Mr. Chairman, for
presiding over these proceedings.
This is a great day for State and local governments. I think we have
taken a giant first step today, and I urge final passage.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to refute the idea that this is simply a
Republican contract issue. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit], who introduced an unfunded mandate bill in the
last Congress and as a Democrat had the leadership to form the Unfunded
Mandate Caucus in which many Democrats were members.
Also I want to read a short two sentences from a mayor in my
district, a Democrat, who sent me this letter, dated October 27, 1993.
In that letter the mayor of San Marcos, Mayor Kathy Morris toward the
bottom of the first page said, ``We want to make it clear that we
usually have no quarrel with the intentions of laws enacted by
Congress, such as assuring a healthy environment and enabling people
with disabilities to participate fully in our society.''
What concerns us is that the costs and tasks of these good intentions
are all too often left for us to pay for and carry out. Adding to our
frustration is the fact that these programs enacted by distant
lawmakers in Washington can lay claim to our tax funds ahead of the
needs and priorities of the people who elected us to address those
needs.'' End of quote from the letter from Kathy Morris.
This simply states why this bill is needed and desired by the
American people, and I urge its support.
{time} 1540
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today is a historic day. It is a historic day. It is a
historic piece of legislation, historic because it does redefine the
relationship between the Federal Government and the State and local
governments; historic because for the first time it ensures that
Congress will have a separate and informed debate on the question of
costs of mandates; and historic because it shows Congress' willingness
to put the brakes on the mandate madness.
We had over 30 hours debate, Mr. Chairman, on one preliminary section
of H.R. 5, and I have to admit that I joined many of my colleagues in
wondering whether we would ever get through this legislation. I was
concerned that what was truly a bipartisan issue outside this beltway
had become a partisan issue, sadly partisan within this Chamber, but I
have to say over the last 24 hours Congress has worked in a very
constructive, bipartisan way on this legislation.
As an example, yesterday I believe we accepted nine amendments from
the other side. I think they all improved and perfected this
legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentlewoman from Illinois
[Mrs. Collins] and other Members on the minority side for working
constructively with us throughout this whole process.
Mr. Chairman, I think what we have done now is that we have set the
tone, perhaps, for dealing with other legislation that this Congress
will consider over the next year. Although some have cast it as such,
H.R. 5 was never about the merits or demerits of individual mandates.
It is about having the cost information, it is about having an informed
debate on the floor of the House, and yet, yes, it is about
accountability, having a vote up-or-down on whether to impose a mandate
without providing the money.
Mr. Chairman, let me just sum up by acknowledging a few of the many
people that got us to where we are today. The first person I am going
to mention I think will speak next. I consider him the spiritual leader
on the unfunded mandate front, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Condit].
He was the lone voice crying out in the wilderness over the last
several years. He was talking about unfunded mandate reform when most
people did not understand it or appreciate it. It has now come to the
fore, and he is to be congratulated.
Senator Dirk Kempthorne on the Senate side is the person who has
aggressively pushed this bill on the Senate side, and he is responsible
really for the 86 to 10 vote, a very strong vote last week on
essentially the same bill. He showed an extraordinary amount of
bicameralism in working with the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], myself, and others to put together a tough
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like, of course, to commend the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman. He has shown an
impressive amount of grace under pressure. I would concur with the
comments of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and others as
to the way he has conducted this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the freshman sponsor of this
legislation, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. He has recently
lived under the crippling effect of unfunded mandates, and I think he
has shared his stories with us convincingly.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], I have to acknowledge
Chairman Towns from last year's Congress. His subcommittee was the
subcommittee that had hearings on this issue. The gentleman from New
York [Mr. Towns], in the face of a lot of opposition from people who
did not want mandate relief last year, had not only hearings but a
markup on important legislation very similar to this legislation. We
would not be here, I do not think, today if Ed Towns had not done that.
Mr. Chairman, a subcommittee last year of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Towns], also included two leaders on our side of this issue, the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is here in the Chamber, and
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who were very important to
getting us to this point.
The Committee on Rules was very helpful in this process. We took a
good bill to the Committee on Rules. It became a better bill, thanks to
the work of the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and others who perfected
and refined this legislation. They are to be thanked.
Governor Voinovich of Ohio has led this issue for the National
Governors and for other elected officials over the years. He is
unrelenting, he is focused, and
again, I think it is crucial to thank him, because we probably would
not be here without that pressure.Finally, let me thank our State and
local partners, every township trustee, every mayor, every Governor,
every local, State elected official. They are the ones who have really
advocated this. They are the reason we are here. Their Big Seven
representatives here in Washington have been responsible for helping us
craft this legislation over time.
All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that we have acted today on their
behalf, on behalf of the local and State elected officials, and on
behalf of all our citizens, to craft a new partnership to enable us to
better this country in a true partnership.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, briefly, on behalf of the Committee on Rules, I would
say that sharing jurisdiction on this legislation, we would like to
extend our congratulations first to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Emerson] and then
[[Page H1005]] to the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] and all who have played a role.
There is one particular item which really has not been discussed in a
major way on this debate. That is the fact that as unfunded mandates
are imposed on the State and local governments, many of the priorities
which those local governments have established cannot be met because of
the burden that they have been shouldering to pay for these mandates.
The city of Los Angeles has had an extraordinarily onerous
responsibility which has jeopardized their desire to provide resources
for police and fire and other public safety areas. It seems to me that
cannot be forgotten.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has
expired.
(At the request of Mr. Dreier and by unanimous consent, Mr. Portman
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like for all colleagues to return with me now
as we return to the not so thrilling days of yesteryear, when out of
the past came the thundering hoofbeats of one horse and one gentleman
astride that horse; that is, the unfunded mandates horse. He was the
Lone Ranger, and that is the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
He formed a group that was a lonely posse. There were several of us
that were riding shotgun with him. We told him to be careful, just like
Miss Kitty always tells me when I leave Dodge City, ``Pat, be
careful,'' but he was not careful. He forged ahead and he was
aggressive. He told the Big Seven it was not really good enough. He did
not get a lot of encouragement.
Mr. Chairman, I quite frankly did not think we could get this job
done, but the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] really persevered,
so I want to pay him a great deal of tribute. I am allegedly the co-
chairman of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus, but he was the foreman, and
he did all the work, so I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Condit].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I know what we are about to do may be the political
thing to do. It may be the popular thing to do. Many of us as Members
of this body may be putting our fingers to the air to see which way the
wind is blowing, and blowing in that direction.
However, let me say for this Member, Mr. Chairman, for this Member
from Georgia, mandates are not necessarily bad, funded or unfunded.
Mandates are as old as the Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, the Bill of Rights, even the scripture. Thank God.
When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, he did not say, ``Moses,
take it, if it costs something or whether it is free.'' He said,
``These are the Ten Commandments. Don't take it whether you feel like
it, maybe. These are the Ten Commandments.''
Let me remind some of my brothers from this side of the aisle and the
other side, in another period in our history it took the Federal
Government, the national government, to tell our country what to do, to
do what was right.
People in Alabama, in Mississippi, in Georgia, 11 Southern States of
the old Confederacy, were denied the right to vote 30 years ago, and it
took the National Government to make it possible for all these people
to register to vote, to become participants in the democratic process.
That was a mandate, so what is wrong with mandates?
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill. It may not be
the popular thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to serve on the committee this year with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman, and our
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Members why it took so long to be on
the floor. I know it was not our Chairman's responsibility, because he
was given his marching orders to send this bill out. The reason we had
to spend 2 weeks on this bill was because we did not get to have a
public hearing in committee.
Members have heard that for this whole 2 weeks, any time any of the
Members from the minority side were up here. Maybe we are learning that
if we are going to take this kind of time on the floor, maybe it would
be better if our committees actually spent time in hearing from
interested citizens and people who are impacted by it.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the bill because I do not think
the bill is that bad in its form. I just think because we took 2 weeks,
though, the American people and each Member of this House needed to
know what we were doing. We did.
We know that this bill will require us to have some type of cost
estimates, and we will have to have a separate vote on a point of order
if it is raised on over $100 million. That is not so terrible.
What we need to recognize, though, is what may come afterwards,
because again, we are a Nation not of 50 individual States, and
territories, in addition, we are one United States. We need to
recognize that, that there are rules that all of us, whether we live in
Texas, whether we live in New York or Hawaii, that we have to live
under.
Mr. Chairman, we were deliberative on this. That is why we had so
many amendments on this. We wanted to make sure people understood that
the Clean Water Act, with all its problems, and the Clean Air Act, and
I want to amend it, too, and do some things with it, with all its
problems, it was still a compromise bill that was passed in 1990 and
signed by President Bush.
Now it has caused problems we need to deal with, but it was still
passed with bipartisan support because it was addressing a problem of
clean air or clean water. Mr. Chairman, it has raised costs for our
constituents, but like I said in the earlier debate, when I go to New
York and visit the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], I would like to
make sure that the water I turn on, I can drink, coming from Houston. I
would like to make sure our Houston water is good enough for him to
drink.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, the reason we took so long on this, and
because we did, is because of the partisanshipness, not of the issue
but because of the procedure.
{time} 1550
I hope we have learned our lesson, that we need to spend the time in
the committee and take that kind of time so we do not have to take 2
weeks or 435 Members. That is why we have committees.
Again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger],
because he is a fair chairman, our ranking member is fair, but I think
all our committees in the House can learn from the problem we
experienced in this bill.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Every individual that needs to be
thanked has been thanked.
All the people who have participated in this from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns],
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis], to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran],
everybody has been thanked and properly so. They have all participated
in this issue and they have been the reason we are here today. I
personally want to thank them very much. I want to thank my colleagues
on the Republican side for allowing me to participate in the
development of this legislation. I appreciate that very much.
I do want to say, and I want to underline, that this is a bipartisan
issue. No place in the country is this a partisan issue. You need to
just be reminded for just a brief moment, the last couple of days of
debate when the issues came up on the amendments, there were 60 to 70
Democrats who voted to keep this bill strong, to keep H.R. 5 in its
current form. It is a bipartisan solution that we have come up with
here today, and I think that we are to congratulate
[[Page H1006]] ourselves for working together in a bipartisan way.
I also want to acknowledge the unfunded mandate caucus. Those people
hung together for the last couple of years, and they were a bunch of
renegades on this issue. They hung together, they pushed and they
fought to make sure that we got to where we are today and I want to
thank them for that.
Mr. Chairman, this is simply about accountability. This is about us
being accountable. This is about whether or not we will take
responsibility for the legislation that we pass. That is all we are
asking for today. We are not asking for anything extraordinary or
radical. Just if you are willing to pass a piece of legislation, you
take the accountability for it. That is fair. Most of the people
throughout this country think that is fair. This is good for the
country. This is good for local government. This is good for State
government. I encourage all the Members here today to think about this
carefully. Let us continue that trend of finding a bipartisan solution
and vote ``aye'' for H.R. 5 today.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Upton) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the
practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local
governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs
incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements
under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on
the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 38, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mrs. collins of illinois
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes, in its present form, I am, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois moves to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360,
noes 74, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 83]
AYES--360
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
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
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
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
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--74
Abercrombie
Beilenson
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dingell
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foglietta
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jefferson
Johnston
Kennedy (RI)
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Maloney
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--1
Becerra
[[Page H1007]] {time} 1618
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the voting). The Chair wants to
announce that the reason we have gone beyond 17 minutes, as several
Members have inquired about, is that the computer has broken down, and
the staff is finishing making sure the vote is accurate. So on behalf
of the computer, the Chair apologizes.
{time} 1621
Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RICHARDSON, Ms. RIVERS, and Mr. BALLENGER changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CLINGER,. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1) to curb the practice of imposing
unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments; to
strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State,
local and tribal governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of
full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local,
and tribal governments without adequate funding, in a manner that may
displace other essential governmental priorities; and to ensure that
the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in
complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and
regulations, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
of 1995''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and State, local, and tribal governments;
(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal
funding, in a manner that may displace other essential State,
local, and tribal governmental priorities;
(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed
legislation establishing or revising Federal programs
containing Federal mandates affecting State, local, and
tribal governments, and the private sector by--
(A) providing for the development of information about the
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to
the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives
before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on
proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance;
(5) to require that Congress consider whether to provide
funding to assist State, local, and tribal governments in
complying with Federal mandates, to require analyses of the
impact of private sector mandates, and through the
dissemination of that information provide informed and
deliberate decisions by Congress and Federal agencies and
retain competitive balance between the public and private
sectors;
(6) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration
in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation
containing significant Federal mandates; and
(7) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of
proposed regulations affecting State, local, and tribal
governments, by--
(A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to
enable the elected and other officials of State, local, and
tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are
developing regulations; and
(B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider
better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations
containing Federal mandates upon State, local, and tribal
governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring
that small governments are given special consideration in
that process.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the terms defined under section 408(h) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as
added by section 101 of this Act) shall have the meanings as
so defined; and
(2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
SEC. 4. EXCLUSIONS.
This Act shall not apply to any provision in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report before
Congress and any provision in a proposed or final Federal
regulation that--
(1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
(2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability;
(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing
procedures with respect to grants or other money or property
provided by the United States Government;
(4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the
request of any State, local, or tribal government or any
official of a State, local, or tribal government;
(5) is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations; or
(6) the President designates as emergency legislation and
that the Congress so designates in statute.
SEC. 5. AGENCY ASSISTANCE.
Each agency shall provide to the Director such information
and assistance as the Director may reasonably request to
assist the Director in carrying out this Act.
TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
SEC. 101. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .
(a) In General.--Title IV of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
``SEC. 408. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .
``(a) Duties of Congressional Committees.--
``(1) In general.--When a committee of authorization of the
Senate or the House of Representatives reports a bill or
joint resolution of public character that includes any
Federal mandate, the report of the committee accompanying the
bill or joint resolution shall contain the information
required by paragraphs (3) and (4).
``(2) Submission of bills to the director.--When a
committee of authorization of the Senate or the House of
Representatives orders reported a bill or joint resolution of
a public character, the committee shall promptly provide the
bill or joint resolution to the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office and shall identify to the Director any Federal
mandates contained in the bill or resolution.
``(3) Reports on federal mandates.--Each report described
under paragraph (1) shall contain--
``(A) an identification and description of any Federal
mandates in the bill or joint resolution, including the
direct costs to State, local, and tribal governments, and to
the private sector, required to comply with the Federal
mandates;
``(B) a qualitative, and if practicable, a quantitative
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal
mandates (including the effects on health and safety and the
protection of the natural environment); and
``(C) a statement of the degree to which a Federal mandate
affects both the public and private sectors and the extent to
which Federal payment of public sector costs or the
modification or termination of the Federal mandate as
provided under subsection (c)(1)(B) would affect the
competitive balance between State, local, or tribal
governments and privately owned businesses including a
description of the actions, if any, taken by the committee to
avoid any adverse impact on the private sector or the
competitive balance between the public sector and the private
sector.
``(4) Intergovernmental mandates.--If any of the Federal
mandates in the bill or joint resolution are Federal
intergovernmental mandates, the report required under
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 of authorization of
appropriations for new Federal financial assistance, provided
by the bill or joint resolution and usable for activities of
State, local, or tribal governments subject to the Federal
intergovernmental mandates;
``(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
``(iii) if funded in whole or in part, a statement of
whether and how the committee has created a mechanism to
allocate the funding in a manner that is reasonably
consistent with the expected direct costs among and between
the respective levels of State, local, and tribal government;
and
``(B) any existing sources of Federal assistance in
addition to those identified in subparagraph (A) that may
assist State, local, and tribal governments in meeting the
direct costs of the Federal intergovernmental mandates.
``(5) Preemption clarification and information.--When a
committee of authorization
[[Page H1008]] of the Senate or the House of Representatives
reports a bill or joint resolution of 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 the extent to which the bill or
joint resolution preempts any State, local, or tribal law,
and, if so, an explanation of the reasons for such
preemption.
``(6) Publication of statement from the director.--
``(A) Upon receiving a statement (including any
supplemental statement) from the Director under subsection
(b), a committee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives shall publish the statement in the committee
report accompanying the bill or joint resolution to which the
statement relates if the statement is available at the time
the report is printed.
``(B) 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 Senate or the
House of Representatives 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.
``(b) Duties of the Director; 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 Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office 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 any
Federal intergovernmental 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 under 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, but no more than 10 years beyond the effective
date of the mandate; and
``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of
appropriations 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 State, local, or tribal governments
for activities subject to the Federal intergovernmental
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. If such
determination is made by the Director, a point of order shall
lie only under subsection (c)(1)(A) and as if the requirement
of subsection (c)(1)(A) had not been met.
``(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 Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office 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 $200,000,000 (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) Estimates required under this paragraph shall include
estimates (and a brief explanation 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, but no more than 10 years beyond the effective
date of the mandate; and
``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of
appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance
programs, or of 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 thresholds
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Director shall so
state and shall briefly explain the basis of the estimate.
``(4) Amended bills and joint resolutions; conference
reports.--If a bill or joint resolution is 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 amended form, and the amended
form contains a Federal mandate not previously considered by
either House or which contains an increase in the direct cost
of a previously considered Federal mandate, then the
committee of conference shall ensure, to the greatest extent
practicable, that the Director shall prepare a statement as
provided in this paragraph or a supplemental statement for
the bill or joint resolution in that amended form.
``(c) Legislation Subject to Point of Order in the
Senate.--
``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider--
``(A) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a
committee unless the committee has published a statement of
the Director on the direct costs of Federal mandates in
accordance with subsection (a)(6) before such consideration;
and
``(B) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would increase the direct costs of
Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes
the thresholds specified in subsection (b)(1)(A) to be
exceeded, unless--
``(i) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report provides 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 is equal to the direct
costs of such mandate;
``(ii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report provides an increase in receipts and an
increase in 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 equal to the direct costs of such
mandate; or
``(iii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report includes an authorization for
appropriations in an amount equal to the direct costs of such
mandate, and--
``(I) identifies a specific dollar amount of the direct
costs of the mandate for each year or other period up to 10
years during which the mandate shall be in effect under the
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference
report, and such estimate is consistent with the estimate
determined under paragraph (5) for each fiscal year; and
``(II) identifies any appropriation bill that is expected
to provide for Federal funding of the direct cost referred to
under subclause (III);
``(III)(aa) provides that if for any fiscal year the
responsible Federal agency determines that there are
insufficient appropriations to provide for the estimated
direct costs of the mandate, the Federal agency shall (not
later than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year)
notify the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress of
the determination and submit either--
``(1) a statement that the agency has determined, based on
a re-estimate of the direct costs of a mandate, after
consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, that
the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct
costs of the mandate; or
``(2) legislative recommendations for either implementing a
less costly mandate or making the mandate ineffective for the
fiscal year;
``(bb) provides expedited procedures for the consideration
of the statement or legislative recommendations referred to
in item (aa) by Congress not later than 30 days after the
statement or recommendations are submitted to Congress; and
``(cc) provides that the mandate shall--
``(1) in the case of a statement referred to in item
(aa)(1), cease to be effective 60 days after the statement is
submitted unless Congress has approved the agency's
determination by joint resolution during the 60-day period;
``(2) cease to be effective 60 days after the date the
legislative recommendations of the responsible Federal agency
are submitted to Congress under item (aa)(2) unless Congress
provides otherwise by law; or
``(3) in the case of a mandate that has not yet taken
effect, continue not to be effective unless Congress provides
otherwise by law.
``(2) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraph
(1)(B)(III) shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise
restrict a State, local, or tribal government from
voluntarily electing to remain subject to the original
Federal intergovernmental mandate, complying with the
programmatic or financial responsibilities of the original
Federal intergovernmental mandate and providing the funding
necessary consistent with the costs of Federal agency
assistance, monitoring, and enforcement.
``(3) Committee on appropriations.--(A) Paragraph (1)--
``(i) shall not apply to any bill or resolution reported by
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or the House of
Representatives; but
``(ii) shall apply to--
[[Page H1009]] ``(I) any legislative provision increasing
direct costs of a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained
in any bill or resolution reported by such Committee;
``(II) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of
a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in any
amendment offered to a bill or resolution reported by such
Committee;
``(III) any legislative provision increasing direct costs
of a Federal intergovernmental mandate in a conference report
accompanying a bill or resolution reported by such Committee;
and
``(IV) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of
a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in any
amendments in disagreement between the two Houses to any bill
or resolution reported by such Committee.
``(B) Upon a point of order being made by any Senator
against any provision listed in subparagraph (A)(ii), and the
point of order being sustained by the Chair, such specific
provision shall be deemed stricken from the bill, resolution,
amendment, amendment in disagreement, or conference report
and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
``(4) Determinations of applicability to pending
legislation.--For purposes of this subsection, in the Senate,
the presiding officer of the Senate shall consult with the
Committee on Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable,
on questions concerning the applicability of this section to
a pending bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report.
``(5) Determinations of federal mandate levels.--For
purposes of this subsection, in the Senate, the levels of
Federal mandates for a fiscal year shall be determined based
on the estimates made by the Committee on the Budget.
``(d) 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
subsection (c) to a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee of authorization.
``(e) Requests From Senators.--At the written request of a
Senator, the Director shall, to the extent practicable,
prepare an estimate of the direct costs of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate contained in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or motion of such Senator.
``(f) Clarification of Application.--(1) This section
applies to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that reauthorizes appropriations, or that
amends existing authorizations of appropriations, to carry
out any statute, or that otherwise amends any statute, only
if enactment of the bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report--
``(A) would result in a net reduction in or elimination of
authorization of appropriations for Federal financial
assistance that would be provided to State, local, or tribal
governments for use for the purpose of complying with any
Federal intergovernmental mandate, or to the private sector
for use to comply with any Federal private sector mandate,
and would not eliminate or reduce duties established by the
Federal mandate by a corresponding amount; or
``(B) would result in a net increase in the aggregate
amount of direct costs of Federal intergovernmental mandates
or Federal private sector mandates otherwise than as
described in subparagraph (A).
``(2)(A) For purposes of this section, the direct cost of
the Federal mandates in a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report that reauthorizes
appropriations, or that amends existing authorizations of
appropriations, to carry out a statute, or that otherwise
amends any statute, means the net increase, resulting from
enactment of the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion,
or conference report, in the amount described under
subparagraph (B)(i) over the amount described under
subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(B) The amounts referred to under subparagraph (A) are--
``(i) the aggregate amount of direct costs of Federal
mandates that would result under the statute if the bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report is
enacted; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of direct costs of Federal
mandates that would result under the statute if the bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
were not enacted.
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of
legislation to extend authorization of appropriations, the
authorization level that would be provided by the extension
shall be compared to the auhorization level for the last year
in which authorization of appropriations is already provided.
``(g) Exclusions.--This section shall not apply to any
provision in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 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, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability;
``(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing
procedures with respect to grants or other money or property
provided by the United States Government;
``(4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the
request of any State, local, or tribal government or any
official of a State, local, or tribal government;
``(5) is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations; or
``(6) the President designates as emergency legislation and
that the Congress so designates in statute.
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) The term `Federal intergovernmental mandate' means--
``(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that--
``(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
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--
``(I) Federal financial assistance that would be provided
to State, local, 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
``(II) the control of borders by the Federal Government; or
reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the
net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable
aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to
emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when
such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing
education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of,
illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in
effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government,
to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated
in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate,
apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;
``(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 State, local,
and tribal governments under entitlement authority, if the
provision--
``(i)(I) would increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance to State, local, or tribal governments under the
program; or
``(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the
Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding to
State, local, or tribal governments under the program; and
``(ii) the State, local, 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.
``(2) The term `Federal private sector mandate' means any
provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that--
``(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon 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 purposes of
ensuring compliance with such duty.
``(3) The term `Federal mandate' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector
mandate, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(4) The terms `Federal mandate direct costs' and `direct
costs'--
``(A)(i) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, mean the aggregate estimated amounts that all State,
local, and tribal governments would be required to spend in
order to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate;
or
``(ii) in the case of a provision referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), mean the amount of Federal financial assistance
eliminated or reduced;
``(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate, mean
the aggregate estimated amounts that the private sector will
be required to spend in order to comply with the Federal
private sector mandate;
``(C) shall not include--
``(i) estimated amounts that the State, local, 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 the Federal mandate for the same
activity as is affected by that Federal mandate; or
``(II) to comply with or carry out State, local, and tribal
governmental programs, or private-sector business or other
activities in effect at the time of the adoption of the
Federal mandate for the same activity as is affected by that
mandate; or
``(ii) expenditures to the extent that such expenditures
will be offset by any direct savings to the State, local, and
tribal governments, or by the private sector, as a result
of--
``(I) 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; and
``(D) shall be determined on the assumption that State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector will
take all
[[Page H1010]] 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.
``(5) The term `amount', with respect to an authorization
of appropriations for Federal financial assistance, means the
amount of budget authority for any Federal grant assistance
program or any Federal program providing loan guarantees or
direct loans.
``(6) The term `private sector' means all persons or
entitles in the United States, including individuals,
partnerships, associations, corporations, and educational and
nonprofit institutions, but shall not include State, local,
or tribal governments.
``(7) The term `local government' has the same meaning as
in section 6501(6) of title 31, United States Code.
``(8) The term `tribal government' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their special status as Indians.
``(9) The term `small government' means any small
governmental jurisdictions defined in section 601(5) of title
5, United States Code, and any tribal government.
``(10) The term `State' has the same meaning as in section
6501(9) of title 31, United State Code.
``(11) The term `agency' has the meaning as defined in
section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, but does not
include independent regulatory agencies, as defined in
section 3502(10) of title 44, United States Code, or the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Office of
Thrift Supervision.
``(12) The term `regulation' or `rule' has the meaning of
`rule' as defined in section 601(2) of title 5, United States
Code.
``(13) The term `direct savings', when used with respect to
the result of compliance with the Federal mandate--
``(A) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate,
means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to any
State, local, or tribal government as a result of compliance
with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; and
``(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate,
means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to the
private sector as a result of compliance with the Federal
private sector mandate.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 407 the following new item:
``Sec. 408. Legislative mandate accountability and reform.''.
SEC. 102. ASSISTANCE TO COMMITTEES AND STUDIES.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 is amended--
(1) in section 202--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) At the request of any committee of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, the Office 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.'';
(B) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) Studies.--
``(1) Continuing studies.--The Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall conduct continuing studies
to enhance comparisons of budget outlays, credit authority,
and tax expenditures.
``(2) Federal mandate studies.--
``(A) At the request of any Chairman or ranking member of
the minority of a Committee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, the Director shall, to the extent
practicable, conduct a study of a Federal mandate legislative
proposal.
``(B) In conducting a study on intergovernmental mandates
under subparagraph (A), the Director shall--
``(i) solicit and consider information or comments from
elected officials (including their designated
representatives) of State, local, or tribal governments as
may provide helpful information or comments;
``(ii) consider establishing advisory panels of elected
officials or their designated representatives, of State,
local, or tribal governments if the Director determines that
such advisory panels would be helpful in performing
responsibilities of the Director under this section; and
``(iii) if, and to the extent that the Director determines
that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, include
estimates of--
``(I) the future direct cost of the Federal mandate to the
extent that such costs significantly differ from or extend
beyond the 5-year period after the mandate is first
effective; and
``(II) any disproportionate budgetary effects of Federal
mandates 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 time 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.''; and
(2) in section 301(d) by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: ``Any Committee of the House of
Representatives or the Senate that anticipates that the
committee will consider any proposed legislation
establishing, amending, or reauthorizing any Federal program
likely to have a significant budgetary impact on any State,
local, or tribal government, 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 include
its views and estimates on that proposal to the Committee on
the Budget of the applicable House.''.
SEC. 103. COST OF REGULATIONS.
(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that Federal agencies should review and evaluate planned
regulations to ensure that the cost estimates provided by the
Congressional Budget Office will be carefully considered as
regulations are promulgated.
(b) Statement of Cost.--At the written request of any
Senator, the Director shall, to the extent practicable,
prepare--
(1) an estimate of the costs of regulations implementing an
Act containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
as added by section 101(a) of this Act; and
(2) a comparison of the costs of such regulations with the
cost estimate provided for such Act by the Congressional
Budget Office.
(c) Cooperation of Office of Management and Budget.--At the
request of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
provide data and cost estimates for regulations implementing
an Act containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
as added by section 101(a) of this Act.
SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Congressional Budget Office $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry
out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 105. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The provisions of section 101 are enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House,
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
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.
SEC. 106. REPEAL OF CERTAIN ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE.
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)''
and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively;
(2) by striking ``(a)''; and
(3) by striking subsections (b) and (c).
SEC. 107. CONSIDERATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
Nothing in this Act shall preclude a State, local, or
tribal government that already complies with all or part of
the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
from consideration for Federal funding for the cost of the
mandate, including the costs the State, local, or tribal
government is currently paying and any additional costs
necessary to meet the mandate.
SEC. 108. IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Congress should be concerned about shifting costs
from Federal to State and local authorities and should be
equally concerned about the growing tendency of States to
shift costs to local governments;
[[Page H1011]] (2) cost shifting from States to local
governments has, in many instances, forced local governments
to raise property taxes or curtail sometimes essential
services; and
(3) increases in local property taxes and cuts in essential
services threaten the ability of many citizens to attain and
maintain the American dream of owning a home in a safe,
secure community.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Federal Government should not shift certain costs
to the State, and States should end the practice of shifting
costs to local governments, which forces many local
governments to increase property taxes;
(2) States should end the imposition, in the absence of
full consideration by their legislatures, of State issued
mandates on local governments without adequate State funding,
in a manner that may displace other essential government
priorities; and
(3) one primary objective of this Act and other efforts to
change the relationship among Federal, State, and local
governments should be to reduce taxes and spending at all
levels and to end the practice of shifting costs from one
level of government to another with little or no benefit to
taxpayers.
SEC. 109. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect on January 1, 1996 or on the
date 90 days after appropriations are made available as
authorized under section 104, whichever is earlier and shall
apply to legislation considered on and after such date.
TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.
(a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted
in law--
(1) assess the effects of Federal regulations on State,
local, and tribal governments (other than to the extent that
such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in legislation), and the private sector, including
specifically the availability of resources to carry out any
Federal intergovernmental mandates in those regulations; and
(2) seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or
significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent
with achieving statutory and regulatory objectives.
(b) State, Local, and Tribal Government Input.--Each agency
shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective
process to permit elected officials (or their designated
representatives) of State, local, and tribal governments to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory proposals containing significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates. Such a process shall be
consistent with all applicable laws.
(c) Agency Plan.--
(1) Effects on state, local, and tribal governments.--
Before establishing any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, agencies
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 under subsection (b); and
(C) inform, educate, and advise small governments on
compliance with the requirements.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to each agency to carry out the provisions
of this section, and for no other purpose, such sums as are
necessary.
SEC. 202. STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY
ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Before promulgating any final rule that
includes any Federal intergovernmental mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, and the private sector, in the aggregate, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation by the
Consumer Price Index) 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 State, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector of complying with
the Federal intergovernmental mandate, 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 intergovernmental
mandate; and
(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
intergovernmental mandate upon any particular regions of the
Nation or particular State, local, or tribal governments,
urban or rural or other types of communities;
(3) a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal
intergovernmental mandate (such as the enhancement of health
and safety and the protection of the natural environment);
(4) the effect of the Federal private sector mandate 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; and
(5)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior
consultation with elected representatives (or their
designated representatives) of the affected State, local, and
tribal governments;
(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented by State, local, or tribal governments either
orally or in writing to the agency;
(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those comments
and concerns; and
(D) the agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation containing the Federal intergovernmental mandates
(considering, among other things, the extent to which costs
may or may not be paid with funds provided by the Federal
Government).
(b) Agency Statement; Private Sector Mandates.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an agency
statement prepared pursuant to subsection (a) shall also be
prepared for a Federal private sector mandate that may result
in the expenditure by State, local, tribal governments, or
the private sector, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation by the Consumer Price Index)
in any 1 year.
(c) 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.
(d) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--Any
agency may prepare any statement required under subsection
(a) in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement
or analysis, provided that 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 such statements 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 proposed rules, or a combination thereof.
SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect 60 days after the date of enactment.
TITLE III--REVIEW OF UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES
SEC. 301. BASELINE STUDY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations (hereafter in this title referred
to as the ``Advisory Commission''), in consultation with the
Director, shall begin a study to examine the measurement and
definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and
benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of
compliance with Federal law.
(b) Considerations.--The study required by this section
shall consider--
(1) the feasibility of measuring indirect costs and
benefits as well as direct costs and benefits of the Federal,
State, local, and tribal relationship; and
(2) how to measure both the direct and indirect benefits of
Federal financial assistance and tax benefits to State,
local, and tribal governments.
SEC. 302. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations 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;
(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;
[[Page H1012]] (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; and
(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
(3) identify in each recommendation made under paragraph
(2), to the extent practicable, the specific unfunded Federal
mandates to which the recommendation applies.
(b) Treatment of Requirements for Metric Systems of
Measurement.--
(1) Treatment.--For purposes of subsection (a) (1) and (2),
the Commission shall consider requirements for metric systems
of measurement to be Federal mandates.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
``requirements for metric systems of measurement'' means
requirements of the departments, agencies, and other entities
of the Federal Government that State, local, and tribal
governments utilize metric systems of measurement.
(c) Criteria.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish criteria
for making recommendations under subsection (a).
(2) Issuance of proposed criteria.--The 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 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
Commission determines will aid the Commission in carrying out
its duties under this section; and
(C) issue final criteria under this subsection.
(d) Preliminary Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the 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 Commission shall hold public
hearings on the preliminary recommendations contained in the
preliminary report of the Commission under this subsection.
(e) Final Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date
of the publication of the preliminary report under subsection
(c), the 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 Commission
under this section.
SEC. 303. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.
(a) Experts and Consultants.--For purposes of carrying out
this title, the Advisory Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services of experts or consultants under section
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Detail of Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of
the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission, the head
of any Federal department or 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 this title.
(c) Contract Authority.--The Advisory Commission may,
subject to appropriations, contract with and compensate
government and private persons (including agencies) for
property and services used to carry out its duties under this
title.
SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Advisory
Commission to carry out section 301 and section 302,
$1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--Any statement or report prepared under
this Act, and any compliance or noncompliance with the
provisions of this Act, and any determination concerning the
applicability of the provisions of this Act shall not be
subject to judicial review.
(b) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this Act or
amendment made by this Act shall be construed to create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by
any person in any administrative or judicial action. No
ruling or determination made under the provisions of this Act
or amendments made by this Act shall be considered by any
court in determining the intent of Congress or for any other
purpose.
motion offered by mr. clinger
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Clinger moves to strike all after the enacting clause
of S. 1 and insert the text of H.R. 5 as passed, as follows:
(The engrossed provisions of H.R. 5 were not available to be printed
at time of publication.)
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: ``An Act 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.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill, H.R. 5, was laid on the table.
authorizing the clerk to make corrections in engrossment of s. 1,
unfunded mandate reform act of 1995
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of the Senate bill (S. 1) the Clerk be authorized to make
technical corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and
cross-referencing and the insertion of appropriate headings.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
appointment of conferees on s. 1, unfunded mandate reform act of 1995
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
insist on its House amendments to S. 1 and request a conference with
the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following
conferees: Messrs. Clinger, Dreier, Portman, Davis, and Condit, Mrs.
Collins of Illinois, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Moakley.
____________________