[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E760]
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, May 9, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
was intended to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed 
legislation by providing information about the nature and size of 
possible mandates in those proposals. The Congressional Budget Office 
is directed by that statute to help in developing such information.
  I wrote to the Congressional Budget Office to express my concerns 
about serious problems with the unfunded mandates information CBO 
provided on the conference report on H.R. 1561, the American Overseas 
Interest Act. That correspondence appears in the Congressional Record 
of March 22, 1996, at E426.
  I would now like to submit the CBO response to my earlier letter. I 
am pleased that CBO acknowledges that it would be more useful to the 
Congress for CBO to provide the full cost estimate for any bill at one 
time, rather than in select parts, and that three of the four 
provisions in the conference report on H.R. 1561 would, in fact, 
increase costs to the States. I hope that in the future CBO will 
include such information in a single estimate at the time a bill is 
under consideration.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 1996.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on International 
         Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: I am writing in response to your letter 
     of March 20, 1996, concerning CBO's intergovernmental 
     mandates cost statement for the conference report on H.R. 
     1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Years 1996 and 1997. Our mandates statement concluded that 
     the conference report contained no intergovernmental mandates 
     as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
     (Public Law 104-4).
       In your letter, you raised two major concerns about CBO's 
     estimate. First, you suggested that separating the mandates 
     cost statement from the federal cost estimate for a bill or 
     conference report diminishes the usefulness of the 
     information for Members. I fully agree. As a general rule, 
     CBO attempts to send out all information on a bill--the 
     federal cost estimate, the intergovernmental mandate 
     statement, and the private sector mandate statement--at the 
     same time. Sometimes, however, we cannot complete all those 
     statements at once, and in the interest of providing 
     information in a timely manner, we send them separately.
       Second, you questioned CBO's conclusion that H.R. 1561 
     would impose no intergovernmental mandates. Because the 
     definition of mandate in Public Law 104-4 is a narrow one, a 
     bill can increase costs for states and localities without 
     imposing a mandate upon them. In fact, H.R. 1561 is just such 
     a case. As you suggest, states would face additional costs if 
     more refugees enter the United States and receive benefits 
     from AFDC, Medicaid, or other public programs. CBO's estimate 
     should have indicated the likelihood of such costs, even 
     though they would not be the direct result of new mandates 
     imposed on the states.
       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act defines a federal 
     intergovernmental mandate as any provision in legislation, 
     statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty 
     upon state, local, or tribal governments, except as a 
     condition of federal assistance or a duty arising from 
     participation in a voluntary federal program. Under the act, 
     a provision that relates to large federal entitlement grant 
     programs constitutes a mandate only if that provision would 
     increase the stringency of conditions of assistance to state, 
     local, and tribal governments under those programs, and only 
     if the affected governments lack authority under that program 
     to amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to 
     continue providing required services that are affected by the 
     provision. Furthermore, section 4 of Public Law 104-4 
     specifically excludes from CBO's analysis certain kinds of 
     legislative provisions, including any provision that ``is 
     necessary for the national security or the ratification or 
     implementation of international treaty obligations.''
       Three of the provisions cited in your letter as having the 
     potential to expand the states' burden of caring for refugees 
     (sections 1104, 1253, and 1255) do not meet the definition of 
     an intergovernmental mandate in Public Law 104-4. These 
     provisions relate instead to the operation of the State 
     Department's refugee and migration assistance programs. While 
     states would face additional costs if more refugees and 
     asylees are allowed to remain in this country, these costs 
     would result either from state public assistance requirements 
     that are not controlled by the federal government, or from an 
     increase in the number of people eligible for federal 
     entitlement programs. Because the bill would not increase the 
     stringency of conditions for these entitlement programs, 
     these provisions do not constitute mandates under the law.
       Section 1256, the remaining provision of the conference 
     agreement cited in your letter, falls within the section 4 
     exclusion, because it is necessary for the implementation of 
     the international obligations of the United States under the 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Therefore, pursuant to the 
     provisions of the act, CBO did not analyze its potential 
     impact on state, local, and tribal governments.
       Please let me know if you have further questions or 
     concerns about this estimate or about the implementation of 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The CBO staff contact is 
     Pepper Santalucia.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
     Director.

                          ____________________