[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 41 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E426-E427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNFUNDED MANDATES AND CBO ESTIMATES

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 21, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
is intended to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed 
legislation by providing the development of information about the 
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation. The Congressional 
Budget Office is directed by that statute to help in developing such 
information.
  I am concerned that the Congressional Budget Office estimate received 
by the International Relations Committee on the conference report on 
H.R. 1561, the America Overseas Interest Act, was not helpful in 
meeting the purpose of the law.
  My concerns are detailed in the exchange of letters that follows.


[[Page E427]]


                                                     U.S. Congress


                                   Congressional Budget Office

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the request of your 
     staff, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the 
     Conference Report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, as reported on 
     March 8, 1996. The bill would consolidate various foreign 
     affairs agencies, authorize appropriations for the Department 
     of State and related agencies, and address other matters in 
     foreign relations.
       The bill would impose no intergovernmental or private 
     sector mandates as defined by Public Law 104-4 and would have 
     no direct budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal 
     governments.
       We are preparing a separate federal cost estimate for later 
     transmittal.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Pepper 
     Santahicia, for effects on state, local, and tribal 
     governments; and Eric Labs, for impacts on the private 
     sector.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
     (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
                                                                    ____

                                          U.S. Congress, Committee


                                   on International Relations,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.
     June E. O'Neill,
     Director, Congressional Budget Office,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. O'Neill: I write to register my concern with your 
     letter of March 12, in which you provided a partial 
     Congressional Budget Office estimate on the conference report 
     on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. I also would like a copy of your 
     complete cost estimate on the conference report.
       I have two major concerns with your March 12 letter.
       First, you addressed the letter only to the ``unfunded 
     mandates'' estimate required by P.L. 104-4 (the ``Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act of 1995''). It would be more useful to 
     Members to have the cost estimate for an entire bill or 
     conference report submitted at once. Separating CBO estimates 
     on different issues in the same bill and supplying such 
     estimates at different times leaves CBO vulnerable to 
     question about its procedures, and diminishes its helpfulness 
     for Members.
       Second, I also question the ``unfunded mandates'' estimate 
     you provided. You state that H.R. 1561 ``would impose no 
     intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by 
     Public Law 104-4 and would have no direct budgetary impacts 
     on state, local, or tribal governments.'' In my view, this 
     assertion is not supportable when applied to several specific 
     provisions in the conference report. These four provisions 
     are:
       Section 1104: Requires the President to certify: (1) that 
     either Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Indonesia keep 
     refugee camps open or that Vietnam will expand its refugee 
     interview programs; and (2) that any Vietnamese, Cambodians, 
     or Laotians who cite the Lautenberg provisions (automatically 
     allowing in refugees from certain countries) will be allowed 
     into the United States without having to provide any 
     additional proof.
       Section 1253: Prohibits use of Department of State funding 
     (migration and refugee assistance) for the involuntary return 
     of any person claiming a well founded fear of persecution.
       Section 1255: Adds to the definition of a refugee anyone 
     who claims he or she is a victim of or has good reason to 
     believe he or she may become the victim of coercive 
     population control practices.
       Section 1256: Prohibits State Department funds (migration 
     and refugee assistance) to be used to ``effect the 
     involuntary return'' of any person to a country where there 
     are substantial grounds to believe they are in danger of 
     being subjected to torture.
       These four provisions have the potential of greatly 
     expanding the states' burden of caring for refugees. Today, 
     states pay on average at least $3,000-4,000 to support one 
     refugee for a year. These financial responsibilities apply to 
     every new refugee introduced into a state's population. Even 
     if states are able to step out of some existing 
     responsibilities, they cannot do so immediately. Changing 
     regulations, adopting new laws, negotiating with the federal 
     government, takes time. And when the groups of people who 
     qualify for state benefits is changed, litigation will almost 
     always result.
       It seems to me that all four provisions create a strong 
     likelihood of increased costs to states that could easily 
     reach the $50 million threshold set by the Unfunded Mandates 
     Act of 1985. If states may be subject to increased costs as a 
     result of these provisions, the provisions will have a 
     ``direct budgetary impact.'' And if the federal government is 
     imposing new financial burdens for states, it is creating 
     unfunded mandates.
       Given the difficulty in analyzing precisely costs in areas 
     with a large number of unknown factors, such as how many 
     individuals might enter the United States if these provisions 
     were to become law, I do not think it possible to conclude in 
     absolute terms that these four provisions do not impose 
     direct budgetary impacts on state governments and do not 
     create unfunded mandates.
       The recently enacted Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
     is intended specifically ``to assist Congress in its 
     consideration of proposed legislation'' by ``providing for 
     the development of information about the nature and size of 
     mandates in proposed legislation.'' I did not find your March 
     12 letter helpful in meeting the purpose of this law.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Democratic Member.

                          ____________________