[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3303-H3313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1, UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been reading.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, March 13, 1995, at page H3053.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  State and local governments can sleep safer tonight because we are 
about to put the menace of unfunded mandates behind lock and key. 
Congress has recognized, on a bipartisan basis, that its penchant for 
passing the costs of programs on to States and localities is a threat 
to our system of government. It has mustered the courage to say: 
Please, stop us before we mandate again.
  It is an enormous relief to know that we are in the final stage of 
House consideration of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 
The conference committee that negotiated the differences between the 
House and the Senate was the first conference committee of the 104th 
Congress to complete action.
  I believe it set an excellent precedent for bipartisan, thoughtful 
negotiation in the interest of producing the best conference report 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, no blood was shed; no voices were raised. It was a model 
of civility and comity as we deliberated on these matters that are 
going to mean so much to States and local governments throughout this 
country.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is a better and stronger piece of 
legislation as a result of the conference committee. It makes historic 
changes in the way the Federal Government does business with its State 
and local partners. It ensures Congress and Federal agencies have----
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, point of order. The House is not in order. 
There are conferences taking place. This is the first conference in 40 
years from a Republican House of Representatives. 
[[Page H3304]] The chairman of the committee deserves to be heard.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
  Mr. CLINGER. It is a historic moment; the first conference report 
from a Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years. And I agree with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], it is significant.
  This bill will ensure that Congress and Federal agencies have more 
information than ever before on the impact of Federal actions on the 
private sectors and it holds Members of Congress accountable for any 
decision to impose a mandate without paying for it.
  The conference report provides that Congress must have Congressional 
Budget Office estimates for the costs of the mandates it imposes on 
State and local governments and the private sector.
  The public sector mandates that will cost over $50 million must be 
funded through new budget or new entitlement authority or through the 
appropriations process, and legislation that does not meet those 
requirements will be subject to a point of order on the House and 
Senate floor or a majority of Members must vote to waive the point of 
order before Congress can impose a mandate without paying its costs.
                              {time}  1330

  It makes us accountable, Mr. Speaker. If a mandate is funded through 
appropriations and in any year appropriations are insufficient to cover 
the mandate's costs, the responsible Federal agency must notify 
Congress within 30 days after the start of the fiscal year. The agency 
shall either re-estimate the cost of the mandate and certify that the 
funds appropriated are indeed sufficient or submit recommendations to 
Congress for making the mandate less costly or making it ineffective 
for the fiscal year.
  Congress then would have 60 calendar days to act or the mandate 
becomes ineffective for that entire fiscal year. This is a change, a 
change from the House passed bill, H.R. 5, and it has improved, in my 
opinion, it has improved our final product. The language makes it clear 
that the final disposition of underfunded mandates is decided by 
Congress, not by the Federal agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill requires Federal agencies to 
analyze the effects of their rules on State and local governments and 
the private sector and to prepare written statements detailing the 
costs and benefits of rules expected to cost over $100 million. The 
agencies must consult with State and local elected officials who are 
given a limited exemption from FACA, the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act. This recognizes that in the implementation of intergovernmental 
programs, States and localities are our partners, not just another 
regulated entity.
  This title also requires agencies to select the least costly or most 
cost-effective rule where possible. The Office of Management and Budget 
must report annually to Congress on the compliance of Federal agencies 
with these requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, title III provides for a look back at existing mandates, 
something that I think is a very important piece of this legislation, 
requires the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to 
reevaluate existing mandates and to make recommendations to Congress 
and the President within 1 year as to whether some or all should be 
changed to ensure that they still make any sense at all.
  I will submit now that my suspicion is that a lot of them do not make 
any sense. These recommendations will not sit on a shelf collecting 
dust. We have the assurance of the House leadership that they will act 
on them expeditiously and will bring them to the floor for 
consideration. So I am very pleased that the conference committee 
agreed to most of the amendments that were passed during House 
consideration of the companion piece, H.R. 5, most notably, most 
notably and most importantly judicial review in a modified form. I am 
sensitive to the concerns of some of my House and Senate colleagues on 
judicial review. Yet the majority of Members in the House, many of them 
Democrats, believe that judicial review is absolutely essential to 
ensure that agencies perform the analyses and the estimates and the 
statements that are required by title II.
  The compromise on judicial review worked out in conference is by no 
means a lawyers' employment act. That was one of the charges that was 
made about it. It allows courts to compel agencies to prepare analyses, 
statements and estimates required under title II but without judging 
their content or adequacy. It precludes the requirements of title II 
from being the grounds on which a court can stay, enjoin or otherwise 
affect an agency rule.
  However, Mr. Speaker, in most cases the contents of these analyses, 
statements and estimates can be
 reviewed by the court as part of the whole rulemaking record in 
judicial review under the underlying statute.

  In my view, this is a fair deal, balancing one side's concern that 
this bill not become a nightmare of litigation with the other side's 
conviction that judicial review is essential to force agencies to obey 
the law.
  I want to thank a number of people for their great contributions to 
this process over the past few months.
  First, I want to commend the Speaker for making this legislation part 
of the Contract With America and a priority for the 104th Congress. And 
I want to express my deep appreciation to my fellow sponsors of this 
legislation, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], for their absolutely 
outstanding commitment to mandate relief and the hours that they put in 
to bring us to this point.
  They have been all outstanding leaders on the issue and I appreciate 
their efforts. I note I omitted the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran], who was also a very stalwart soldier in this effort.
  I want to acknowledge the minority House conferees, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for their valuable 
contribution to the conference.
  I thank also Senators Roth, Domenici, Glenn, Exon, and especially 
Senator Dirk Kempthorne for the outstanding job they have done in 
guiding this bill through the Senate.
  Of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank our partners in the 
public and private sector who endorsed this bill: the National 
Association of Counties, National Association of Towns and Townships, 
National Governors Association, League of Cities, and on and on. They 
have worked so hard over many, many months toward passage.
  Finally let me commend the staff of both bodies for their efforts in 
drafting, to draft a strong measure and broad support, working 
sometimes, 15, 16 hours a day, Christine Simmons on my staff, George 
Bridgeland with Mr. Portman, Steve Jones with Mr. Condit, Vince 
Randazzo with Mr. Dreier, and on, Chip Nottingham and others. There 
have been just a number of heroes in this overall effort. They have all 
done enormously good work.
  This is a good day for Congress, Mr. Speaker, a good day for the 
country and certainly a most welcome day for State and local elected 
officials throughout this Nation. I can almost hear the cheers and the 
applause across the Nation with the enactment of this conference 
report.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for this conference report so that 
we may forward the unfunded mandates relief reform bill to the 
President for his signature, which I am confident we shall have.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and I would note that the ranking 
member of the committee, Mrs. Collins, also supports the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the authors of the bipartisan mandates 
legislation that passed the Government Operations Committee last year 
with broad bipartisan support, it was with great reluctance that I 
opposed the House bill this year.
  Unfortunately, the majority members of the Government Reform 
Committee rushed through a bill that was drafted in secret, and gave 
the minority almost no opportunity to review it. 
[[Page H3305]] As a result, the bill was filled with procedural and 
regulatory excesses. It simply went too far.
  The Conference Committee spent 7 weeks rewriting the bill, and the 
result is an agreement that I believe we all can support:
  Under the agreement on judicial review, special interests cannot tie 
up regulations.
  Congress retains the final say over whether agencies can end mandates 
depending on the level of appropriations.
  Other provisions were clarified and tightened.
  Let me state that as a result, the Conference Report is not too 
different from last year's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that this bill addresses the major concerns 
of the State and local elected officials with whom we have been working 
with over the past several years. It guarantees that Congress has a 
full and open debate on the costs to State and local governments before 
it passes legislation mandating any new and costly requirements.
  Before I reserve the balance of my time, I would like to thank the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], for the outstanding job that he did. I also would like to 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], who worked 
very hard to make this day a reality. I also would like to thank the 
ranking member of the full committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins], for her work and leadership in this area as well, who 
worked very hard to strengthen the bill to make it better.
  I also would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran], who kept this alive over the past few years, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who also worked very, very hard 
to bring us to where we are today. I also would like to thank the staff 
of both committees and, of course, who worked and put a lot of time and 
energy in to help us to strengthen this bill. So I would like to thank 
them, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran], a member who kept this issue alive during the 103d Congress and 
came into the 104th Congress fighting to strengthen it because he felt 
that unfunded mandates was very, very important.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the subcommittee, and I want to thank the chairman of the 
full committee for carrying this bill through to its conclusion, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  This has been a cooperative, bipartisan, constructive effort to 
address a very serious problem within this country and particularly 
experienced by State and local governments and the private sector.
  I am going to support this bill. It is a necessary bill. It should 
have been passed years ago.
  I do want to raise some issues, however, because I do have some 
concerns with what will happen once this bill is signed. The principal 
concern is with regard to appropriations. The last bill we passed 
included three programs that suffered very substantial reductions: lead 
abatement, let me make sure I have all of them, asbestos removal, safe 
drinking water. We had rescissions in all three programs, just passed 
them, $1.3 billion in reductions.
  But, my colleagues, there was no reduction in the mandates that 
States and localities must carry out to implement those programs. I 
think it is kind of ironic that we just imposed a more severe burden on 
States and localities by taking away over $1 billion that they needed 
to carry out Federal mandates and now, within the same hour, we are 
going to pass a conference report which says that they have to fully 
implement them.
  I wish that we had the provision in this as well that says that the 
executive agency has to seek out from the States and localities and the 
private industrial sectors affected the least burdensome option for 
carrying out the intent of the legislation.

                              {time}  1345

  It does not include that as being subject to judicial review. That 
could be a serious problem if the executive branch is not in full 
accord with the intent of this legislation. I wish that were included.
  Mr. Speaker, I do think that this is going to improve the 
relationship between States and localities and the Federal Government. 
Most importantly, it is going to improve the relationship between the 
American people and their Government. It is a good bill.
  I congratulate all those who worked so hard to get to this day. I am 
confident the President will pass it, and I appreciate having been 
given the time to address these issues. I thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the contributions of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Towns]. He was chairman of the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction last year that held field hearings, and he took a deep 
interest in the question of the burden that unfunded mandates were 
imposing on State and local governments, and deserves a great deal of 
credit for this exercise.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman], one of the prime movers and key people in this 
overall effort, and one who has worked endlessly and constructively and 
creatively to fashion the compromise that this conference report 
represents.
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the full committee, for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes this Chamber is going to pass the 
Unfunded Mandates Relief Act of 1995, landmark legislation that is part 
of the Contract With America. After a long and sometimes difficult 
process, it is good to see history being made.
  With Senate passage of the legislation yesterday by a strong vote of 
91 to 9, and with every indication from the White House that the 
President will sign this bill, I think within a few days we are likely 
to see a bill become law that not too long ago was a radically new 
concept, unfunded mandate reform.
  The bill is historic because it redefines the relationship between 
the Federal Government and our State and local partners. It is historic 
because it ensures for the first time that Congress will have cost 
information on mandates as they go through the committee process; a 
guaranteed informed debate on the floor of the House on unfunded 
mandates, which we have never had before, and yes, accountability, a 
vote, up or down, in front of the public, the press, our local 
partners, on the issue as to whether to impose unfunded Federal 
mandates.
  As the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], noted 
earlier in this debate, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to report that the 
conference report on S. 1 has given us an even stronger bill than 
passed either the House or the Senate.
  I am going to submit much more extensive comments in the Record on 
some of the key issues we worked out in conference, but I want to spend 
a minute expanding on Chairman Clinger's good description of the 
judicial review provision, because I think it is critical to 
understanding why this is strong, meaningful legislation.
  To address the concerns that many of us had, we wanted to ensure that 
Federal agencies complied with the key requirements of title II of the 
bill, especially the cost-benefit analysis. We insisted that agency 
action be subject to judicial review. The sad history of compliance 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act made that absolutely essential.
  The conference report provides that courts may compel agencies to 
perform cost-benefit analyses and to comply with other provisions of 
title II. It is
 simple. This review ensures that the agencies meet the requirements 
that Congress says are necessary in the context of rulemaking regarding 
mandates.

  At the same time, we reflected the case law that once an agency acts, 
the courts are not to substitute the court's judgment for the judgment 
of the agencies, not to second guess the adequacy 
[[Page H3306]] of the analysis prepared by the agencies.
  We also addressed the concern that judicial review would become a 
haven for lawyers and paralyze the regulatory process altogether, by 
making it very clear that the requirements of title II alone could not 
be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, or invalidating a rule.
  Let me emphasize, however, that if the underlying statute, and all of 
the requirements of S. 1 would arise in the context of the underlying 
statute, does not preclude the type of analysis contemplated in S. 1, a 
court may review the analysis, the statements, the estimates and the 
descriptions required by S. 1 as part of the whole rulemaking record to 
determine whether that rule should be stayed or should be struck down 
as arbitrary and capricious.
  This is crucial. As many will recall, judicial review was in our 
House-passed bill and was not in the Senate-passed bill. Thus, 
retaining judicial review was a victory for the House. However, much 
more important, it is a victory for our State and local partners and 
for all of our constituents and, yes, for the private sector.
  Let me sum up, Mr. Speaker, by mentioning just a few of the many 
people who have contributed to this effort. I will tell the Members, 
having been intimately involved with this bill for the last year or so 
as it has moved through the process, this is one of those situations 
where, but for the efforts of any one of these individuals, we might 
not be here today. It took all of us, working together, pulling 
together, to get it done. It is hard to get things done in Washington, 
and we could not have done it without pulling, all of us pulling 
together.
  First, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, said, we 
have to thank our Speaker. He allowed us to put this language in the 
Contract With America. He prioritized the issue. He also worked very 
closely with State and local officials through this whole process.
  Second, I want to mention one of my colleagues in this effort, the 
gentleman from California, Gary Condit, the man I call our spiritual 
leader, the heart and soul of this effort. He was the sponsor of H.R. 5 
and one of the conferees selected by the Republicans, and we were happy 
to have him as part of the team. He was out there talking about this 
issue, unfunded Federal mandates, long before it was well understood 
and popular in the House and throughout this country.
  Next, the person I call our Senate partner, Dirk Kempthorne. He was 
the original proponent of this legislation. He was the driving force in 
the Senate, and he worked cooperatively with us in an extraordinary 
show of bicameralism over the last 8 or 9 months to pull together this 
legislation.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, the chairman, 
for his partnership with all of us in this great debate, particularly 
for giving me an incredible opportunity here on the floor.
  I would also like to thank Senator John Glenn, my colleague from 
Ohio, who showed a commitment to this issue early on in the Senate when 
few of his colleagues on this side of the aisle were supporting it; the 
gentleman from California, David Dreier, for his excellent work in 
sorting out the difficult House procedural issues that came up in the 
context of the conference, particularly with the Byrd amendment; the 
gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, a freshman member of the conference 
and an original sponsor of this legislation, who not 4 or 5 months ago 
was lobbying us on behalf of the National Association of Counties, 
because he lived under these crippling mandates not long ago.
  There are lots of other critical players in the House: The gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran]; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling]; the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]; the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Geren]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]; the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns]; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], and the list goes on.
  From my home State of Ohio, Gov. George Voinovich, he led the 
Governors on this, and helped us to get focused on mandate relief 
legislation. I am going to mention some key staffers. They do a lot of 
heavy lifting around here, and do not get enough credit; Kristine 
Simmons with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Clinger; Steve Jones with the gentleman from California, Gary Condit; 
Vince Randazzo, with the gentleman from California, David Dreier, and 
my chief of staff, John Bridgeland.
  On the Senate side, there is Buzz Fawcett with Senator Kempthorne, 
Sebastian O'Kelly with Senator Glenn, and Austin Smythe with Senator 
Domenici. We would not be here without them.
  Finally, thanks to our State, local, and county officials. Without 
them, we would not be here. It is on their behalf we are acting today 
to help them to govern this great country.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I am excited and delighted to be here today. 
This is a long time coming. What this really does, I think, across the 
country is give us a ray of hope, because a couple of years ago when we 
started with the unfunded mandate issue, we were told by experts inside 
the beltway that ``This cannot be achieved; you will never get an 
unfunded mandate bill through the House, through the Senate, and get 
the President to sign it. It cannot be done.''
  Let me say, we are going to do it today. In the next couple of weeks, 
the President will sign this piece of legislation. He has already 
indicated his support in the past, and has indicated his support to 
this conference committee report. This is a ray of hope to the American 
people and to local elected officials across this country that we can 
come to grips with problems facing this country here in Congress; that 
we Republicans and Democrats can come together and find a solution. We 
have found a solution, and this is a bipartisan solution.
  I cannot say enough about my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle for their cooperation: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] who has been a total gentleman, and has involved us in every 
phase of this issue. I want him to know that I truly appreciate that. 
That is the kind of attitude we ought to take in solving problems 
facing this country.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Portman], who a 
couple of days after the election was on the phone to me, talking to me 
about what we should include in an unfunded mandate bill. I truly 
appreciate his efforts.
  I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] and the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran] and a variety of other people; the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] who was a trooper with the unfunded mandate 
caucus and forced the issue; the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
who has come abroad and been active in this issue.
  It is truly a bipartisan effort. That is why there is a ray of hope 
here today, Mr. Speaker, because this is an example of what we can do 
on other issues. This is an example of how we can solve the problems 
facing this country, that we can come together and we can tell the 
experts they are wrong, we can find solutions to the problems facing 
this country, because we just found one. It may not be perfect, but 
this is a huge, huge step in battling unfunded mandates.
  Local governments across this country, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] said, ought to rejoice today, because we are 
on the verge of freeing them; giving them some discretionary authority 
so they can have control over their own destiny. I want to commend and 
congratulate all my colleagues, and Senator Kempthorne, who has worked 
very hard, I want to mention him; and the Senate and the people who 
have been involved over there, I want to thank and congratulate them as 
well.
  I am delighted and honored that I was able to serve on the conference 
committee. I thank the Speaker of the House for that opportunity. I am 
truly honored that I had that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Member who has sought relief from unfunded Federal 
mandates for State and local governments since 1991, I am truly proud 
to be standing before you today. We are at the culmination of a long 
journey 
[[Page H3307]] which will conclude today with the passage of the 
conference report on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The action which 
we will take today will do more for State and local governments than 
anything we have done in the last 20 years or are likely to do in the 
next 20.
  There is not a Member of this body who has not heard from their local 
or State governments about the damage that unfunded mandates do to 
their local budgets. Not only do unfunded Federal mandates displace 
local priorities, but they compel State and local jurisdictions to 
either increase taxes or curtail services. This is the real injustice 
with unfunded mandates; they allow us in Congress to get all the credit 
for approving new programs, but they require State and local 
governments to scramble to come up with the funds needed to implement 
them.
  As many of my colleagues know, there is not an issue in which I feel 
more passionately about than the abolition of unfunded mandates on 
State and local governments. I came to this body in 1989 after spending 
17 years in either city, county, or State government. So I came here 
with a full knowledge of what unfunded mandates do to a local 
official's budget, and I came committed to putting an end to the 
practice.
  In January 1993, I introduced legislation that effectively said that 
if a mandate on a State or local government was not fully funded, then 
its application was voluntary. The bill could be summed up with the 
simple phrase, ``No money, no mandate.'' Much to my surprise, this 
legislation struck a chord with State and local officials nationwide 
and they actively lobbied their representatives to support the bill. In 
fact, this legislation was cosponsored by a majority of Members during 
the last session of Congress. Nevertheless, the no money, no mandate 
legislation was controversial and engendered a significant amount of 
opposition from those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Despite 
the enormous bipartisan support for the no money, no mandate 
legislation, it was never even considered by the last Congress. 
However, I knew that this was an issue whose day would eventually come.
  The Speaker of the House obviously knew it was a good public policy 
initiative because he included unfunded mandate reform legislation in 
the Contract With America.
 While the contract is obviously a Republican endeavor, I would be 
remiss if I did not state that my Republican colleagues fully included 
me in this effort to enact unfunded mandate relief. I sincerely 
appreciate their willingness to work with me.

  The day after the November elections, Representatives Clinger, 
Portman, Davis, and myself immediately began drafting the House version 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Very similar to the Senate bill S. 
1, our bill, H.R. 5, set up an elaborate system of rules and procedures 
that Congress would have to follow when considering legislation 
imposing mandates on State and local governments and the private 
sector. As my colleagues will recall, H.R. 5 was approved by this body, 
on February 1, by a vote of 370 to 86.
  After 6 weeks of sometimes tortuous negotiations with our Senate 
counterparts, the conference finally agreed on a final product. The 
conference report is a good bill. Is it a perfect bill? Of course not. 
Is it everything that this Member would have preferred? No. But, is it 
a landmark bill that will begin to rein in our penchant for passing the 
costs of Federal programs onto State and local governments? It is that. 
And it deserves the support of all Members who profess to believe in 
putting an end to unfunded Federal mandates.
  The conference report on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act truly 
reforms the way that we do business. Under the conference report, 
Congress must identify the costs of new mandates imposed on State and 
local governments by either increasing spending, increasing receipts, 
or through appropriations. If a mandate is to be paid for with 
appropriations, then the authorizing bill creating the mandate must 
condition its effectiveness on subsequent appropriations. If subsequent 
appropriations are insufficient to pay for a mandate, the mandate will 
cease to be effective unless Congress provides otherwise by law within 
90 days of the beginning of the fiscal year.
  This process is enforced by a point of order. Legislation that does 
not satisfy the aforementioned requirements can be ruled out of order, 
thereby blocking further consideration of the bill by either the House 
or the Senate. A majority vote can waive the point of order.
  Title I of the conference report, which I have just described, 
applies only to future mandates. It is not retroactive. Existing 
mandates on State and local governments will be examined by the 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR]. ACIR is 
charged to study these mandates and make recommendations to Congress, 
within a year, on mandates that can be consolidated, modified, or 
repealed.
  Finally, title II of the conference report requires Federal agencies, 
when issuing new rules that will cost State and local governments or 
the private sector $100 million, to perform a detailed cost-benefit 
analysis before promulgating the final rule.
  Now let me describe the significant changes that resulted from the 
conference
 committee. Although S. 1 and H.R. 5 were very similar, there were 
several differences between the two bills. The main differences between 
the two bills were as follows: Judicial review, the CBO threshold for 
estimates of private sector mandates, congressional reconsideration of 
mandates that fail to receive adequate funding, and applying the point 
of order provision to appropriation bills.

  S. 1 contained no judicial review of title II requirements dealing 
with the cost-benefit analyses that Federal agencies are to perform 
before issuing new regulations containing significant mandates on State 
and local governments and the private sector. H.R. 5 allowed judicial 
review of these actions. The conference report contains judicial 
review, but it only allows petitioners to compel agencies to perform 
the required analysis. Furthermore, courts are not allowed to judge the 
adequacy of the agency's estimates or question their methodology. The 
judicial review provision in the conference report also does not allow 
petitioners to say, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect the rule. I 
believe that this should allay the fears that many Members in this body 
had about this legislation spawning an endless stream of litigation. On 
the other hand, I want my colleagues to realize that regulated entities 
will still have full judicial review that is granted under the 
underlying statute that authorizes that rulemaking. So I believe that 
this judicial review provision suits the needs and concerns of both 
sides of this issue.
  S. 1 contained a $200 million threshold for CBO cost estimates of 
mandates affecting the private sector. H.R. 5 contained a $50 million 
threshold. After much debate, we decided to split the difference. The 
conference report contains a $100 million threshold of CBO estimates 
for mandates affecting the private sector.
  S. 1 contained a provision, inserted by Senator Robert Byrd, that 
provides for congressional reconsideration of underfunded mandates. 
H.R. 5 contained no such provision. The conference report contains the 
Byrd amendment. Under this proposal, a Federal agency, within 30 days 
of the beginning of fiscal year, must inform Congress that it has 
sufficient funds to implement a mandate or provide legislation 
recommendations to scale back an underfunded mandate in order to meet a 
partial level of funding. Both of these determinations must be ratified 
by Congress within 60 days of its submission by the Federal agency. If 
the Congress fails to act within this 60-day time period, then the 
mandate shall be ineffective for that fiscal year. Under section 
425(a)(2)(B)(iii)(III) of the conference report, if Congress does not 
act within 60 calendar days when an agency submits either a statement 
that the amount appropriated is sufficient to carry out the mandate, or 
legislative recommendations for implementing a less costly mandate, the 
mandate will cease to be effective. It is the intent of the managers on 
the part of the House that, in the House of Representatives, the 60-
calendar-day period be a continuous period that would not be disrupted 
by a sine die adjournment. While this provision was not a part of the 
original House bill, it was my opinion that this provision makes the 
bill stronger, and I advocated for its inclusion in the conference 
report.
  Finally, S. 1 contained a provision that would allow Members to 
strike mandates
 contained in appropriation bills. H.R. 5 contained no such provision. 
While House rules already prohibit legislating on an appropriations 
bill, it was the sense of the House conferees that this provision made 
sense and should be adopted. The conference report contains a provision 
whereby Members in either the House or Senate may strike mandates 
contained in appropriations bills.

  These were the main differences between S. 1 and H.R. 5. I would also 
like to report that the final conference report contains several 
amendments that were adopted by the House. The conference report 
contains a version of an amendment added by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] that excludes title II of the Social 
Security Act from the bill. The conference report contains the 
amendment added by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] that 
requires agencies, when considering options in their rulemaking 
proceedings, to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome option or explain why it did not. Finally, the conference 
report contains the amendment added by the gentlelady from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] that requires OMB to report on compliance with title II 
provisions to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank, several people who had a 
hand in getting us to the point where we are today. I would like 
[[Page H3308]] to thank Chairman Clinger, who has been a leader on this 
issue; Representative Rob Portman, who has done much of the nuts and 
bolts work on this issue; Representative Tom Davis, whose insights into 
the workings of local government have been invaluable; my cochairman in 
the unfunded mandates caucus, Representative Pat Roberts; 
Representative Jim Moran, a longtime champion of this issue; 
Representative Pete Geren, who has worked with my office extensively; 
and the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, and Rules Committee 
chairman who allowed me to participate in this conference. I would also 
like to thank the Senate conferees: Senators Glenn, Exon, Roth, 
Domenici, and Kempthorne. I know I am probably forgetting a few people 
who certainly deserve the recognition.
  In closing Mr. Speaker, let us ring in a new and meaningful 
relationship with our State and local government brethren. Let us pass 
the conference report on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], another stalwart soldier in 
this effort.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to extend congratulations to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and all of our colleagues who played a role 
in bringing about this very, very important success.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say specifically that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, the gentleman from Ohio, Rob Portman, and 
the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, and all of the people who have 
been involved in a bipartisan way in addressing this issue are to be 
congratulated.
  Rather than going through the litany of the people who have been 
involved in this issue here, I would like to talk about a couple of 
people who specifically raised issues of concern to me at the local 
level.
  I, just about 15 minutes ago, got off the phone with the mayor of the 
city of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan. He is absolutely ecstatic. He is 
ecstatic at the passage of this for several reasons. When one looks at 
what he describes, and sometimes we do not always agree with this, as 
well-intentioned Federal mandates, the cost for the city of Los Angeles 
for the Clean Water Act is over $3 billion over a 5-year period. The 
cost of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is $112.7 million 
over a 5-year period; the ADA, it is $1.2 billion over a 5-year period. 
The Fair Labor Standards Act is $80.3 million over a 5-year period.
  These are the kinds of constraints that we are imposing on local 
elected officials, and I am happy to say that based on what this 
conference has done, we are finally turning the corner on that. In 
fact, what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is really history in 
that it is the first time in 40 years that a Republican majority is 
actually bringing down a conference report. It could not happen on a 
better piece of legislation.
  Adoption of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act marks the beginning of 
an entirely new era of the relationship between State and local 
governments and the Federal Government. State and local officials now 
will have a seat at the table every time we here in the Congress write 
a law, or an agency writes a rule or regulation that imposes new 
burdens on them.
  Since the historic first election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, 
those of us on this side of the aisle, as well as many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, have been working to restore the 
balance of power to take back, bring back to States and local 
communities, the power as it was envisioned in the Constitution, and of 
course, specifically, the 10th amendment.
  In fact, I will never forget here on the West Front of the Capitol 
when Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address said ``The Federal 
Government did not create the States, the States created the Federal 
Government.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this piece of constitutional history has 
often been lost with the proliferation of unfunded mandates. Since 
1980, Congress, Federal agencies, and even the courts have imposed 
hundreds of unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. 
Compliance with just 10 of those mandates will cost cities alone $54 
billion between 1994 and 1998.
  The result has been fewer resources at the local level to deal with 
local problems, such as fighting crime, paving roads, maintaining 
parks, and recreational facilities, and cleaning up the local 
environmental problems.
                              {time}  1400

  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act will finally put the brakes on 
Washington's runaway power grab and regulatory excesses. It makes it 
harder for Congress to pass feel-good legislation while passing the 
buck to State and local governments. No longer will Congress be playing 
the role of drunken sailors having a good time while recklessly running 
up a tab at State and local taxpayer expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 1 is a stronger bill than the one that we passed here 
in the House. It is going to go a long way towards bringing about the 
level of accountability that we need. I congratulate all my colleagues 
that have been involved in this process.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank my dear friend the gentleman from New 
York for yielding time to me.
  I want to congratulate all who have played a role in bringing this 
conference committee forward. When we announced the formation of our 
little band of conservative Democrats called the Coalition, we promised 
America two things. We promised America that we would stand to do the 
right thing regardless of party or partisanship. We also promised we 
would try to deliver big bipartisan support for issues of importance to 
the American public. We delivered on this promise. This bill is hugely 
supprted--360 Members of this House voted for it, 91 Members of the 
Senate voted for the conference report. Why? Because it is good and 
right for the country. While we are not worried about who gets 
particular credit for it, it is important today to remember that it was 
one of our members, in fact one of our officers in the coalition, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] who first created this notion 
that Congress ought to speak very clearly, that unfunded mandates are 
wrong, and that we ought to avoid them in the future if we are to have 
the right kind of relationship between Federal, State, and local 
governments.
  It was the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] who put together 
the caucus in this House of Democrats and Republicans who brought this 
issue to the point where it has come today, where the President of the 
United States has announced publicly he is ready to sign this bill into 
law. To the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and to all of the 
members of that caucus, Democrat and Republican, to all who have joined 
in this House to make this a huge bipartisan victory for the American 
public, I think this is a day of celebration and cheer.
  I again want to congratulate our friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], for having the courage years ago before anyone 
was ready to rally behind this cause to make this his No. 1 cause in 
the Congress and to bring us to this point of victory in the House, in 
the Senate and eventually as I said with the Presidential signature for 
the American people.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis], a freshman Member of our leadership team on 
unfunded mandates and one who shares the victory we celebrate today.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee for 
yielding to me and I appreciate all the work he has done in this, 
finessing it through the committee and through the conference, and I 
agree with him, I think we have a better report and a better bill now 
at the end of this process than when we started out, and that is with 
the help of a lot of people.
  This is the successor to the Kempthorne-Condit bill that was up last 
time before the House and Senate and got watered down. We appreciate 
the strong leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] 
during the last session and continuing in this session to help bring 
this about, and to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], 
he was really the intellectual leader of this as we moved through some 
of the fine-tuning of this 
[[Page H3309]] legislation in explaining it and working out some of the 
fine points in the conference, to Christine Simmons from the committee 
staff. She did an outstanding job of coordinating and putting this 
together. Our thanks to her, as well as John Bridgeland from 
Representative Portman's staff, Steve Jones from Representative 
Condit's staff, Vince Randazzo from Representative Dreier's staff, and 
Chip Nottingham from my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating clearly, this is not, as far as 
I am concerned, a debate about the merits of any Federal mandate. This 
is strictly a question of who pays, what are the benefits relative to 
cost, what is the impact on local priorities, and what is our 
flexibility in carrying out mandates in the most efficient way.
  As the Congress knows, the ability of the Federal Government, even 
with its vast resources, is limited, and the Congress each day faces 
difficult decisions about ordering priorities and determining what 
services can be funded.
  This is exactly the same problem faced by local governments and State 
governments with one difference. No one can superimpose on Congress 
spending priorities or costs beyond those which the Congress is willing 
or able to support. But that has not been the case at the local level, 
because their priorities and needs are often being pushed further to 
the side by the increasing burden of funding mandates laid down on them 
by both Federal, and in many cases, their own State governments.
  Mr. Speaker, during the past decade, unfunded Federal mandates have 
literally grown out of control, and today counties are spending more of 
their locally raised revenues to comply with these mandates than they 
receive in Federal aid.
  A recent study of the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations 
found that in the decade between 1981 to 1991, Congress enacted 27 laws 
imposing one or more new unfunded mandates. This compares with 36 such 
laws enacted during the previous 50 years, and Congress enacted an 
additional 13 new mandates in 1993 alone.
  Mr. Speaker, Mandate Watch, a bimonthly publication of the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, confirms there is no end in sight to 
these mandates, and just this past Congress, 156 new mandates were 
introduced. Localities are becoming totally consumed by Federal 
mandates, and essential local services, as a result, suffer 
tremendously, and locally elected leaders will be reduced to the role 
of back-door tax collectors if this is not stopped.
  I want to say this has never been a partisan bill outside of the 
Beltway. I think with the closure we have had in this conference 
report, working together in a bipartisan fashion, as the gentleman from 
California noted, there is no end to what we can accomplish in this 
Congress.
  The good news here is today that when we work with the administration 
and work in a bipartisan way across party lines, the seemingly 
insurmountable becomes conquerable and that is where we are with this 
legislation today.
  I just want to note in the end that this bill is about 
accountability, making Members of Congress stand up and cast a recorded 
vote on all substantial mandates with the full knowledge of their 
costs. This is a very, very important precedent for our future. I think 
taxpayers are tired of routinely paying for unintended consequences 
that should be easily foreseeable by Federal lawmakers.
  This legislation, I think, will bring that into focus. My thanks to 
all members involved in this process. This is a great day for State and 
local officials as they take a look at their plates over the next few 
years as we reduce the burdens we put on them, and a great day for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman, the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and everybody who had 
something to do with this bill.
  Federal mandates and regulations had much to do with injuring and 
almost destroying the steel industry. Right now the coal industry is 
banging around trying to find an opportunity, and I think Congress has 
showed some eminent good sense in in fact addressing this bill.
  I am pleased that my one amendment had stayed in the bill that 
basically deals with the issue that on the advisory commission, they 
say that they shall review the role of Federal mandates and their 
impact on a competitive balance between State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector and consider the views of and the 
impact on working men and working women in these same matters.
  Let me say this, that, Congress, this is a long time overdue. Every 
piece of legislation we pass should be directed at what is the status 
of jobs as it is in direct relationship to the legislation that is 
being passed. In the past, Congress had the greatest of intentions but 
with those great intentions there have been accompanying loss of jobs 
and it made little sense to me. I thank those for supporting it.
  But my second amendment dealt specifically with section 202(a)4 that 
basically talked about the effect on the national economy, the effect 
on productivity, economic growth, and productive jobs, and my amendment 
said also the effect on benefits and pensions. There was some concern 
about germaneness and a broad-ranging view of this but I would like now 
to ask the chairman of the committee, is it not a fact under section 
202(a)4 that those particular areas can be addressed in these matters 
once the review of such mandates are in fact applied?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Let me say I commend the gentleman for the contribution 
he made to this bill because he did, took a great interest and had a 
very helpful contribution. We were unfortunately unable to sustain all 
of his amendments in the conference report.
  But in answer to the gentleman, yes, they would certainly not be 
precluded. That would certainly be within the ambit of the things they 
could consider.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the gentleman, I appreciate his support, and I 
encourage support of the conference report.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations 
and a valued Member of Congress.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report 
on the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I commend the sponsors of 
the legislation, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who serves as the distinguished chairman of 
our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for their efforts in 
bringing this important measure to the floor at this time.
  I support S. 1 because it effectively addresses congressional 
accountability. The Congress, by this bill, will be far more 
accountable than ever before. This body will no longer be able to 
casually approve legislation in Washington and then send the burdensome 
bills to our home districts in the form of future increases in State 
and local taxes. This legislation will enable Members to more fully 
analyze the possible future consequences of new mandates by requiring 
the Congressional Budget Office to prepare cost estimates of proposed 
mandates in pending legislation. By approving this bill we are 
demonstrating to our Governors, our mayors, and city officials that we 
will duly consider the budgetary burdens they face when they struggle 
to alter their budgets to respond to the cost of any additional Federal 
mandates.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to forge a fairer 
partnership 
[[Page H3310]] with our State and local governments by supporting this 
important measure.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  [Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend the gentleman from New York for yielding 
me the time.
  I am wondering if I could ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to 
answer a few questions.
  I think that the conference report from my vantage point is a much 
better bill than the original bill but I still have some fears and some 
questions, particularly with regard to ecological concerns, clean 
water, clean air. For instance, in the rescissions bill that was just 
passed, we took away $1.3 billion from the States from the safe 
drinking water revolving fund. If we are going to continue to do things 
like that and take money away from the States that we gave them to pay 
for things, my big fear is that we then say, well, we are not funding 
this and therefore it can't happen and therefore all the progress we 
have made in terms of clean water, clean air will never be able to be 
funded. Therefore, the Federal Government stepping in and forcing these 
things will just be rendered impotent and we will not have them. I 
wonder if the gentleman could allay my fears about that.
  Mr. CLINGER. To this extent, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman understands that this is only prospective in its application. 
In other words, we are not, in effect, looking back at all of the 
cornerstones of environmental legislation, clean air, clean water, safe 
drinking water that are in place.
  We do also provide that a point of order would lie against an 
authorization within an appropriations bill. The other provision is 
that if in fact there is a mandate that is imposed but there is not 
sufficient funds to deal with it, the agency imposing the mandate or 
the regulation would make recommendations as to how they would deal 
with that if there are not sufficient funds. Congress would then have 
an opportunity to weigh in on that and must approve whatever downsizing 
or change that might be imposed by the agency.
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that given the 
present mood and the budget cutting freezes we have in this Congress, 
my fear is that the things we are used to seeing in terms of progress 
on clean water and clean air will just dissipate and we will not be 
able to do those things in the future.
  I want to also ask the gentleman, he said it was prospective, how do 
we handle reauthorizations in this bill?
  Mr. CLINGER. Reauthorization, if there are no additional new mandates 
imposed as a result of a reauthorization of an existing program, it 
would have no effect at all. It is only where there would be an 
additional or added mandate that would exceed the threshold limit that 
this thing would kick in. So in terms of existing regulations and 
existing mandates within the Clean Water Act, for example, which is one 
we would be considering presumably this year, it would have no effect.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me. It is because of him that I rise to speak here 
today.
  The former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Towns], brought his then committee to Harrisburg about 2 years ago 
to the capital city of Pennsylvania for a hearing, at which time local 
legislators and local representatives of other municipal subdivisions 
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gave us a torrent of laments and 
complaints about the very subject matter which we discuss here today.
  We did an odd thing then, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] did 
and the rest of us who attended that hearing. We promised these State 
legislators and the municipal subdivision officers and officials that 
we were going to return to Washington and do something about unfunded 
mandates.
  I cannot believe it. We are here reporting to them through our 
deliberations on the floor that we actually fulfilled the promise that 
we made that day. And it was not just a wild political type of 
atmosphere in which we made promises as politicians. These were 
reserved and concerned public officials in Pennsylvania who one after 
another sought our help.
  Today we are delivering that package of assistance to the local 
township officials, local officials all over, not just Pennsylvania, 
all over the Nation, and it is a happy day for us.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York for allowing me to join 
that meeting in Harrisburg, and I now thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for being from Pennsylvania and assisting us to come to 
the floor today with this finality of splendor in bringing about change 
that the local public officials so wanted.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time.
  I would like to encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this bill 
because I think it is a much better bill after conference than it was 
when it left here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Martini], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, as a former elected county official. I 
rise today in strong support of the conference report on unfunded 
mandates. As a result of an annual deficit of $200 billion and a $4.5 
trillion national debt, Congress too often in the past shifted the 
burden of unfunded Federal mandates on States and municipalities. With 
today's passage of this bill I am proud to say that we are now shifting 
accountability back to where it belongs, here in Congress.
  By passing this legislation we are restoring the faith and trust in 
Congress by our State and local governments. Too often the Federal 
Government has frustrated State and local officials in their efforts to 
deal with their local problems. Too often the Federal Government has 
mandated inflexible solutions, which has made the situation worse, and 
too often we have neglected the needs and concerns of our localities.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our word and changing the way 
government does business. We are putting the people back in charge, and 
that is the way it should be. The American people have demanded change 
and we are standing firm and delivering. Unfunded mandates reform is 
the first building block in establishing a better future for America.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] another freshman member of the 
committee and very helpful member.
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman 
Clinger for his outstanding leadership on this legislation. This 
passage of unfunded mandate reforms shows we are committed to making 
Government smaller, less costly, and more efficient.
  The bill will block consideration of any unfunded mandates, which I 
know as a former county commissioner has crippled budgets in the past 
and will now be a new reality of change.
  The bill requires the Federal agencies to develop proceeds to 
minimize unfunded mandates and to publish cost-benefit analyses.
  It provides relief to taxpayers. At present State and local 
governments and ultimately taxpayers pay the price for heavy-handed 
mandates dictated by Congress and Washington bureaucrats. Ten unfunded 
mandates alone already on the books will cost cities an estimated $54 
billion from 1994 to 1998. Taxpayers cannot afford them.
  They also impose heavy burdens on the private sector. These 
additional 
[[Page H3311]] costs are passed on to consumers in higher prices.
  The cost of complying with all Federal regulations is conservatively 
estimated at $600 billion per year, most of which falls on the private 
sector with this reform.
  And we will finally say we will decrease the cost of doing business 
which will help to save jobs in the private sector and help Americans. 
This is particularly true of small business which creates most of the 
jobs we have in the country.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote unanimously.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume just to say I think this is a historic piece of 
legislation. It is going to be the first step in reordering the 
relationship between Federal and State and local governments. It is 
going to substantially restructure that relationship and, I think, 
restructure it in a way that is for the best.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this conference report.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly voted in favor of the House 
version of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--H.R. 5. With less 
reluctance, but with continuing reservations, I rise today in support 
of the House-Senate conference agreement, House Report 104-76.
  I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with several of the 
provisions of the bill. I have enumerated the specific ways in which 
the people of my district stand to be hurt by provisions of this 
legislation. And I know that not all of my concerns have been fully 
addressed. For instance, the bill as drafted by the conference 
committee will create a discrepancy in the playing field between the 
private and public sector.
  But in many ways, the conference report has addressed some of my 
deepest misgivings about the bill. The limitations placed upon 
judiciary review are fair and balanced. The provisions on judiciary 
review that were agreed to in conference will not cause a backlog of 
litigation. It will allow regulatory agencies to perform their proper 
functions efficiently. Furthermore, because the conference report was 
the product of a much greater deliberative effort that was the original 
House version of HR 5, the new bill is much more clear in describing 
the terms under which a point of order may be raised against new 
regulation.
  Finally, I am pleased to see that the language of the conference 
report pays specific attention to the needs of border communities like 
the district I represent. Control of our borders is a Federal 
responsibility, and this bill pays much needed consideration to that 
fact. This new provision creates hope that border communities may no 
longer be saddled with the disproportionate burdens of federal 
regulations.
  The process of relieving States, localities, tribal governments, and 
private corporations of their increasingly heavy federal regulatory 
burden deserves our attention and commitment. The Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act will be a useful instrument in achieving this purpose. 
Unfortunately, good tools in the wrong hands have the potential to 
create undesirable results. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that I 
will fight any efforts to use this legislation as a tool against the 
regulations that help to ensure public health and safety. I will 
express my opposition to any use of this legislation against the safety 
of workers. Furthermore, I will oppose the efforts of those Members who 
will try to use this legislation as a defense for their indefensible 
efforts to gut important environmental regulations. This law creates a 
powerful new legislative tool, and I would like to help to ensure that 
it is used wisely in the hands of this body.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on S. 1. I voted against H.R. 5, the original House-passed version of 
this bill, and would like to explain to the House why I support this 
bill.
  The basic purpose of unfunded mandate relief legislation is sound and 
important. Almost everyone agrees that something must be done to 
address the increasing burdens that the Federal Government places on 
State and local governments. I was proud to support unfunded mandate 
legislation in the 103d Congress and I voted for the Moran substitute 
to H.R. 5. And now, I support this bill, because it has been stripped 
of the excesses of the original House version.
  One of the major problems that I had with H.R. 5 was the abuse of the 
legislative process which brought the bill to the floor. We didn't have 
1 minute of hearings in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, 
which had primary jurisdiction over the bill and on which I serve. It 
is largely because of this abuse that the conference committee took 7 
weeks to come to agreement. On a noncontroversial bill such as this, 
the conference usually takes days, not weeks, and I am pleased that the 
conference process was a deliberative one.
  Mr. Speaker, several major changes were made by the conference 
committee which have made S. 1 truly bipartisan legislation and much 
closer in content to the bill reported out of the Government Operations 
Committee last year. First and foremost, the conference severely 
limited the right of judicial review applicable to regulations falling 
under this act. This is a vital difference. Under the House version of 
this bill, special interests and industries would have been able to tie 
up those regulations and rules for years. Executive agencies would thus 
have been unable to carry out the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, and other laws that protect public health and welfare.
  Another major change is the acceptance by the conference of the so-
called Byrd amendment, which gives Congress a role when annual 
appropriations do not fully cover State and local costs in complying 
with a mandate. Under the report, agency determinations as to how to 
rachet-down the mandate are now subject to congressional approval, 
preserving an important power of the legislative branch.
  The conference committee on S. 1 is to be commended for its diligence 
and bipartisanship. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act has been cleansed 
of many of its more extreme provisions and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today this House will pass the conference 
report on S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. We addressed 
some complicated and important issues in the House-Senate conference. 
I, therefore, wanted to take a moment to discuss in some detail two of 
the more significant issues.
  First, judicial review. The House-passed version of the bill had 
almost full judicial review of agency compliance with all title II 
requirements. The Senate-passed version precluded judicial review 
entirely. Going into the conference, then, we had diametrically opposed 
positions on this issue and much work to do if an agreement was going 
to be reached.
  Many of the House conferees, and some in the Senate, were very 
concerned that agencies would not comply with the requirements of title 
II if there was no enforcement mechanism. The history of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, which specifically precluded court review of agency 
action, in part prompted our concern that, without judicial review, 
factors that Congress made relevant to the rulemaking process would be 
totally ignored by agencies. And, in fact, that is what has happened 
under regulatory flexibility.
  To address this concern, I insisted, together with other House 
conferees, that the conference agreement had to maintain some court 
review of agency action to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
title II. We began to explore areas of mutual agreement on judicial 
review.
  House and Senate conferees agreed that title I, which addresses 
internal procedures of the House and Senate, should clearly not be 
subject to court review. We also agreed that the provisions regarding 
the review of existing mandates outlined in title III should not be 
subject to court review. We also came to a threshold agreement that 
certain key requirements in title II should be subject to such review 
to ensure that agencies were acting in accordance with congressional 
intent.
  Our first effort to reach agreement focused on clarifying the 
requirements of title II and identifying those that involved relatively 
objective analysis. We also identified those provisions that were 
central to the rulemaking process with respect to mandates. In the end, 
we reached agreement that the requirements of sections 202 and 203(a) 
(1) and (2) would be subject to court review.
  S. 1 permits a court, pursuant to section 706(1) of the 
Administrative Procedures Act, to compel an agency to prepare, as a 
threshold matter, the cost/benefit analyses and other estimates, 
descriptions, statements, and plans contemplated by sections 202 and 
203(a) (1) and (2) of title II. Any aggrieved party will have up to 180 
days after the final rule is promulgated, or the shorter time period, 
if any, specified in the underlying statute to which the S. 1 
requirements relate, to bring
 an action under 706(1). I believe that this right will give agencies 
an incentive to meet these requirements before the final rule is 
promulgated. The threat of litigation should be enough of a hammer.

  In order to address the concern that S. 1 not unreasonably spawn 
litigation or result in an unjustified delay of the implementation of 
Federal policy, S. 1 does not permit the courts to stay, enjoin or 
invalidate the agency's rule for a failure to meet, or for doing an 
inadequate job meeting, the specified requirements of S. 1. The 
conference report also makes it clear, consistent with current caselaw, 
that once the agency performs the analysis, a court is not to 
substitute its judgment for that of the agency's--not to second 
[[Page H3312]] guess the data used, the methodologies involved or the 
manner in which the analysis was performed.
  S. 1 does not permit a court, when acting pursuant to the review 
permitted under the underlying statute, to consider any information 
generated by an agency in accordance with the requirements of S. 1--the 
cost/benefit analysis for example--as part of the entire record in 
determining whether the agency rulemaking record supports the rule 
under the ``arbitrary and capricious'' or ``substantial evidence'' 
standard--whichever is applicable. A court can not use a failure to 
meet these requirements adequately or at all as the sole basis for 
staying, enjoining or invalidating the rule, but a court could consider 
these factors as part of the mix when considering the entire rulemaking 
record. Thus, a court could review under section 706(2) of the 
Administrative Procedures Act the entire rulemaking record that 
includes information by the agency generated because of the 
requirements of S. 1.
  If the underlying statute specifically precludes an agency from 
examining costs and benefits in connection with the promulgation of the 
rule, then the requirements of S. 1 do not have to be met. If the 
underlying statute is silent or contemplates some analysis, however, an 
agency would have to meet the requirements of S. 1, or fail to do so at 
its own hazard, when promulgating a rule. The requirements of S. 1 are 
additional factors that Congress has made relevant to the rulemaking 
process for significant mandates. These factors should be considered by 
agencies and the analysis contemplated should be performed. A court can 
review agency action with respect to these requirements in connection 
with the review permitted under the underlying statute.
  I believe this is sensible judicial review that strikes the right 
balance. S. 1 does not change the landscape of review under the 
underlying statute--we can not do that in this law. S. 1 also should 
not result in a delay of the implementation of Federal policy. The 
judicial review provided under S. 1 ensures, however, that agencies 
will meet the specified requirements of title II so that agencies 
consider these critical factors before promulgating rules implementing 
significant mandates.
  It is also important to note that in addition to judicial review, the 
conference agreement includes congressional oversight, both on the 
least burdensome option requirements and
 each of the requirements in title II. Under section 205(c), the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall no later than 1 
year after enactment certify to Congress, with a written explanation, 
Agency compliance with the least burdensome option requirements. 
Section 208 also provides that the Director of OMB shall annually 
submit to Congress a written report detailing compliance with the 
requirements of title II.

  Second, the Byrd amendment. I believe this provision will be helpful 
to State and local governments. Essentially, it requires an agency 
reestimate of the actual costs of mandates, after consultations with 
State and local governments, whenever appropriations in a fiscal year 
are less than the CBO estimated costs of such mandates. Agencies can 
submit a statement to Congress saying that such mandate can be 
implemented for the amount provided--perhaps as a result of decreased 
costs resulting from new technology--or can submit legislative 
recommendations. In any case, the mandate is ineffective for such 
fiscal year unless Congress acts within 60 calendar days after the 
statement or recommendations are submitted to Congress.
  What was sometimes a long and difficult conference has come to an end 
now. The Founders intentionally designed one of the most inefficient 
machines for legislating and for good reason. Having taken the time to 
craft careful legislation based on sound policy, I think the final 
product is an improvement over the respective House and Senate-passed 
bills.
  This is a truly historic day. By enacting the Unfunded Mandate Reform 
Act of 1995, we launch yet another chapter in the new federalism, where 
State and counties and cities and towns are recognized as our partners 
in governing and are given the freedom to meet the needs of the 
citizens they serve. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch advocate of State 
rights, was right when he said, ``I believe the States can best govern 
our home concerns.'' This bill will help them do just that. I was 
honored to be a part of that effort.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. I am particularly grateful that the 
conferees accepted an amendment from the other body's version of the 
legislation, authored by my colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham.
  This amendment further defined an unfunded Federal mandate as any 
action that reduces or eliminates money authorized for controlling U.S. 
borders or reduces or eliminates reimbursement for costs associated 
with the severe problem of illegal immigrations.
  Florida, like other States, is burdened by the costs of illegal 
immigration. The drain on our State's resources has been devastating; 
affecting every aspect of State and local services. By including this 
provision in the conference report, we are saying emphatically that the 
Federal Government must take responsibility for its laws.
  In closing Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and praise the 
efforts of my colleague Senator Bob Graham. His commitment to this 
issue led to its final inclusion in the conference report. I would like 
to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Condit, who served as one of 
the conferees. Mr. Condit and I have worked together on the issue of 
illegal immigration over the past 2 years and because of his efforts, 
this provision was included in the final report. Once again, I urge 
support of the conference report.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 394, 
nays 28, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 252]

                               YEAS--394

     Abercrombie
     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
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     [[Page H3313]] Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--28

     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     Fields (TX)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Miller (CA)
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Quillen

                              {time}  1441

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Cubin for, with Mr. Johnston against.

  Messrs. FATTAH, FOGLIETTA, and VISCLOSKY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                     motion offered by mr. clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Clinger moves that the House recede from its amendment 
     to the title.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________