[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.

                          ____________________