Summary:

All articles in House section

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - January 20, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H416-H449] UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. {time} 1027 In the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, January 19, 1995, all time for general debate had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 104-2 is considered by titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Each of the first four sections and each title are considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read. The Clerk will designate section 1. The text of section 1 is as follows: H.R. 5 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995''. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? The Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is as follows: SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and tribal governments; (2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities; (3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal programs containing Federal mandates affecting States, local governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by-- (A) providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and (B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to the attention of the Senate [[Page H417]] and House of Representatives before the Senate and House of Representatives votes on proposed legislation; (4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular instance; (5) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal mandates; (6) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and tribal governments, by-- (A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to enable the elected and other officials of States, local governments, and tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are developing regulations; and (B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments, and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring that small governments are given special consideration in that process; (7) to establish the general rule that Congress shall not impose Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates; and (8) to being consideration of methods to relieve States, local governments, and tribal governments of unfunded mandates imposed by Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes and regulations. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? {time} 1030 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we are right now working on an arrangement under which my amendment would be withdrawn to this section. I ask unanimous consent to take my amendment out of order at a later time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not quite hear the gentleman's unanimous-consent request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] asked that his right to offer his amendment be protected. He is not quite ready for section 2 and wishes to preserve his right to offer his amendment. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? amendment offered by ms. lofgren Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: In section 2(7), before this semicolon insert the following: ``, and that congress shall not impose any Federal mandate on a State (including a requirement to pay matching amounts) unless the State is prohibited under Federal law from requiring, without consent of a local government, that the local government perform the activities that constitute compliance with the mandate''. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time, en bloc. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to find out which amendments the gentlewoman proposes to offer en bloc. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a- vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study, and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of local governments. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I would really prefer that they be offered separately because we are dealing there with three different sections, and one of them actually, I understand, was to title III, and we are presently dealing with section 2. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16 days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates. One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am offering are part of the effort to improve this bill. In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served, even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at the Federal level. It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the responsibility for actually paying for what you do. While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail. However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded to local governments are Federal programs. Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to avoid in this bill. Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem. In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County, NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised locally is available for local priorities. Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain. Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non- Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And, frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for local governments will get much worse. The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when Federal matching programs are at issue. All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is another reason why the American people have more confidence in the government that is closest to them. [[Page H418]] If we are to ameliorate the terrible problems that face our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen right in a community with local leadership. The American people understand this and so should we. If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change. The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching- fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] insist on his point of order? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I withdraw my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point or order. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, just briefly I would say I certainly am sympathetic with what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I think we have all been frustrated with the fact that the Federal Government has sort of willy- nilly imposed requirements, mandates on States who in turn pass them through to State and local governments. But I do think that this is in effect giving the States a veto power in effect over what we can do here. I think we have extended the reach of what we are trying to do in this legislation much further than I think the intent is, which is not certainly to give the States veto powers in this instance. So for that reason I would have to oppose the amendment. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is in dealing with the coalitions that put this together, including State governments and local governments together, and this of course cuts right through that coalition and breaks it up. There is a huge problem with States mandating on localities, and a number of States in fact have moved to rectify this over the last years, the State of Florida being one, where by referendum the citizens there have stopped the unfunded mandate flow to local governments. {time} 1040 The commission is going to be able to look at this under this legislation, come back and report to Congress, and at that point, I think we will have a basis on which to operate. I think although the purpose is good here, this is probably premature at this point, and for that reason I think it should be defeated. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this purpose in the amendment. I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state. It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the local government. So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a misleading statement in the purposes clause. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true partnership. I think it would be a terrible mistake. Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the commission in looking at this issue. I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level, of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the local governments. I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it. I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this issue. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of those constraints on local governments. But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government is the proper place to do that. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these are Federal programs imposing what would [[Page H419]] be interpreted as a mandate at the State level, and it is for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although, as I said, I am very sympathetic with it. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of this. I think this amendment really highlights one of the concerns that we have, and that is to some extent some of the duplicity of the Governors who have come here and talked about unfunded mandates and the burdens that the Federal Government pushes on to the Governors, even if it is for a local purpose and a Federal purpose, and then those very same Governors turn around, do the same to local government in their States. They accept responsibility. Then they decide they cannot handle the financial aspects of it, they turn around to the counties. In our own State of California, in this last year, we have watched the Governor come and scoop up local revenues, take them to the State level, and then tell the counties that they had an additional burden for mental health and health care of individuals and for probation and all these other programs. They said you have to take care of it, but the money has now gone to the State. That historically has happened in State after State after State. Yet these Governors come to the Federal legislature somehow wanting us to believe that they have clean hands when they come before us and suggest they would never think of such a thing as an unfunded mandate. Yet everybody here who has worked in local government knows it happens to you each and every day. In California they are so brazen, when the legislature passes an unfunded mandate, they pass boilerplate language that says, ``Under S.B. 90, this is not an unfunded mandate, and do it anyway.'' And that is the situation that the gentlewoman from California is trying to get at is that it is not good enough, if you believe in this arrangement that you are talking about in this legislation. All you have really done now is made things more difficult for the most local forms of government as they continue to receive these State unfunded mandates, if you will, as the States continue to agree with the Federal Government about the purposes of these programs. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because if we are really writing this bill to lower the costs of mandates for localities, we just have to recognize that much of these costs are really State mandates, and when States mandate that localities do certain kinds of services without providing those kinds of funds, you do have the passthrough effect that just simply does not make a lot of good sense. If we are serious about having mandates not imposed on people that are unfunded, then support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. point of order Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman previously spoken on the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so forth. I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress, mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and mandating what the townships do and so on. I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State. It is a flat prohibition. As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the purpose of the legislation. Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with the rest of the legislation as I read it. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them today. I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of America. {time} 1050 But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out I think this is one of the pitfalls with the legislation that we have before us. It sort of is the blame game in terms of one unit of government, local, the county governments, and States blaming the other for the challenges and unpleasantness and dilemmas that they face. I think that is one of the problems inherent in this legislation that we have before us with regard to mandates. I was listening to a debate on public television which my colleague from California was involved in, Mr. Miller, with the Governor of Ohio, and all of the problems of taxation issues in that State were basically left at the doorstep of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress. Inherent in this is some of that same aspect. I think, clearly as we deal with Federal law, as States deal with State law, as ordinances in counties deal with the various laws that they have, the issue is there has to be a consideration of the requirements, the expectations that we have, realistically at all of these levels. Quite candidly, as I had stated yesterday on the floor, I think too often the representation is one of confrontation rather than cooperation. Inherent in our basic documents in the form of Government that we have is the understanding that there is cooperation between the States, between the Federal Government, between the various counties and local governments that make up the response and service to the people that we represent. Unfortunately, I think that this legislation does not, as it is now drafted, come to grips with that. I think it puts in place unrealistic expectations and requirements that simply add layer after layer of bureaucracy. It is as if we are now going to have, instead of working through the local police and State police powers, we are going to have Federal marshals reoccur in these instances. I think it offers real problems. I think this amendment in the purposes clause is coherent and appropriate. I am surprised the major sponsors of this are reluctant to accept this as one of the purposes, because one of [[Page H420]] the purposes is, obviously, to try to develop this cooperative attitude, to have a two-way street with regard to the type of responsibilities and roles of local governments as they relate to the States. We all understand in our Constitution the unique difference between powers reserved to the States, solely reserved to the States, and the local governments really are not even recognized in that. They are an artifice, in fact, of the States themselves. And, of course, they differ from State to State. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has expired. (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to summarize by saying that I think that accepting this as a purpose in terms of recognition and really the complaint and the growth of this has been from the grassroots. It has not--the States are late to this particular process, and I think, in most instances, wrong when we are talking about grants in aid, talking about entitlements, the sort of extraordinary basis. Most of those programs are, in essence, voluntary. In any case, I think this points up the nature of the problem. I am, you, know stunned that there is no recognition or acceptance, at least in the purposes of this, as a problem, and I think the gentlewoman has a good point here, and I hope the Members would agree. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield? Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly to say that the objection here is not the intent of what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish. It is beyond what we have in this bill, which is a point of order would lie against this. This is an absolute veto over the power of us to do anything in this regard. So it is an extension. Let me assure the gentlewoman, though, that in the proposal I think she is going to offer later in the day relating to the same issue, I think we could be very helpful in that regard, and I think that makes better sense than what we are dealing with here. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and we are going in the right direction to get the desired result. I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, was unfunded mandates. They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee. Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do have to have accounting for the dollars. But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this process. We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates. I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's further amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will stand and be counted. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] insist on his point of order? Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute maximum vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, noes 267, not voting 10, as follows: [Roll No. 22] AYES--157 Abercrombie Ackerman Baesler Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bishop Bonior Borski Boucher Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Clay Clayton Clyburn Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Costello Coyne Danner de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Doyle Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Holden Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Moakley Mollohan Montgomery Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Pickett Pomeroy Poshard Rahall Rangel Reed Richardson Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sanders Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Sisisky Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn NOES--267 Allard Andrews Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr [[Page H421]] Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dooley Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Martini McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Minge Molinari Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Sabo Salmon Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--10 Archer Ehrlich Flake Gibbons Levin Lincoln Reynolds Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Yates {time} 1117 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Levin for, with Mr. Ehrlich against. Messrs. SALMON, COLEMAN, LIGHTFOOT, KLINK, McINTOSH, and PETERSON of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. THOMPSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. VISCLOSKY, McHALE, and TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. {time} 1120 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and also the ranking member from the minority party, the gentlewoman from Illinois. We have come to an arrangement whereby I will be withdrawing amendment No. 12. I would like to then move amendment No. 13. That amendment has been agreed to by all sides. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: In section 102(a), after paragraph (1) insert the following new paragraphs (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (2) investigate and review the role of unfunded State mandates imposed on local governments, the private sector, and individuals; (3) investigate and review the role of unfunded local mandates imposed on the private sector and individuals; At the end of section 102, add the following new subsection: (e) State Mandate and Local Mandate Defined.--As used in this title: (1) State mandate.--The term ``State mandate'' means any provision in a State statute or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on local governments, the private sector, or individuals, including a condition of State assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary State program. (2) Local mandate.--The term ``local mandate'' means any provision in a local ordinance or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on the private sector or individuals, including a condition of local assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary local program. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work in front of us so I will not debate this. I would like to thank the parties on both sides of the aisle for this amendment being agreed to and would ask for its favorable consideration. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for offering this. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. This amendment will allow the Commission that is overseeing to make a report to the Congress within 1 year, to come back and look not only at the effect of Federal mandates on State and local governments but also be able to look at the mandates that States can put on local governments and local governments put on individuals. That would be part of their overall report, as they come back to us. This will allow that Commission the opportunity to address those issues, which I think is very important. Mandates that are crippling localities today do not all emanate from the Federal Government. A lot of this is trickled down from the States to local governments as well. This amendment really will allow the Commission to report and give us a data base where we can proceed accordingly. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment. But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that and study these matters and report back to us. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made from the gentleman from Virginia. I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do have constant communication with States and localities. There will be an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as consistent with the points that he was just making. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is consistent with the points. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we might make some of these programs work better. The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation, not [[Page H422]] to apply a cookie-cutter approach, not to be unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in Washington without communicating to States and localities. If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of federalism. {time} 1130 Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concern about the Commission and the ACIR as being the proper receptacle. There will be an amendment offered in this regard. The Senate has already made that change. I think this will be an addition to the bill which will be very helpful. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up, Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the time very briefly to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for his input into this type of legislation for these good many past years. The gentleman is recognized as a former mayor of Alexandria, who did an outstanding job while mayor of Alexandria, and has through the years worked with these kinds of problems and is very knowledgeable and to the impact that Federal mandates, State mandates, and others have on local government. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for all the work that he has done on this type of legislation. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice of the gentleman from Missouri, and I appreciate it. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a brief minute. Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working together. In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and agree with his comments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is as follows: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act-- (1) the terms ``agency'', ``Federal financial assistance'', ``Federal private sector mandate'', ``Federal mandate'' (except as provided by section 108), ``local government'', ``private sector'', ``regulation'' or ``rule'', and ``State'' have the meaning given those terms by section 421 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and (2) the term ``small government'' means any small governmental jurisdiction as defined in section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If there are no amendments to section 3, the Clerk will designate section 4. The text of section 4 is as follows: SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION. This Act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or a proposed or final Federal regulation, that-- (1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals; (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status; (3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided by the Federal Government; (4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any State, local government, or tribal government or any official of such a government; (5) is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations; (6) the President designates as emergency legislation and that the Congress so designates in statute; or (7) pertains to Social Security. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? amendments offered by mr. taylor of mississippi Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and 132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr. Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132 since last night. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``, or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or,'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the Committee on Rules and the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule so all points of view could be heard as we try to perfect this legislation. I think that is the key word, is that we are trying to perfect this legislation, not to defeat it, because it is a good bill. We are here today discussing unfunded mandates because in previous years Congress has hastily passed laws without regard to their effect on State and local governments. Laws that we thought would help people actually hurt them, because we did not take the time to see them through. We appear to be doing that again today. I offer an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, to help prevent this mistake from recurring. This amendment will provide for the protection of public health by including sewage treatment regulation in the language of the bill. Our citizens pay taxes and they want to see positive results. They receive instant gratification when local governments pave the streets, improve the quality of the drinking water, or increase police protection to provide a highly visible deterrent to crime. Mr. Chairman, wastewater is a different matter. While sinks, showers, and commodes are draining properly, people do not care where it goes as long as it goes away. Therein lies the problem. It does not go away. It is discarded into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans that carry the stench, the germs, the filth, to some other community downstream. The Mississippi River drainage basin services 41 percent of the mainland United States. This includes 31 States as well as two Canadian Provinces, an area of 1.5 million square miles. It is the largest drainage basin of the country and is inhabited by 80 million [[Page H423]] Americans and over 2 million Canadians. This means that any untreated waste, waterborne disease or filth which enters any body of water in dozens of States will eventually flow past my State and many of your States. Mr. Chairman, surface filth flows past cruise ships and waterfront recreational areas in towns like Natchez and Vicksburg. Waterborne diseases end up in the drinking water of hundreds of cities who rely on the Mississippi River for their water supply. Small towns, cities, and even large metropolitan areas like New Orleans rely on the Mississippi River for their drinking water. However, closer to home, those of us who live in Alexandria, VA, should be aware that our drinking water is one tidal cycle away from the wastewater discharge of the city of Washington, DC. If Washington, DC, chooses not to treat its sewage because the mandates have been lifted, it is going in our drinking water tomorrow. It does not stop there, Mr. Chairman. The most productive commercial shrimping, fishing, and oystering industries in the world are found in the Mississippi River basin. Oysters, for examples, are filter feeders. They pump gallons of water through their bodies every day, and they retain any pollutants in that water. The crabs and shrimp and oysters that are harvested in front of my home town in Bay St. Louis, MS, live in those waters, but they end up on your dinner plates. As Members can see, there are some things that originate locally but affect us nationally. Just as our Nation should never force its unfunded and unsolved problems on the local communities, nor should the local communities pass their unsolved problems on to communities downstream, and in turn, back to our Nation. {time} 1140 I agree that we have to get a handle on Federal mandates, but to throw them all out makes no sense at all. After all, we could have chosen to be city councilmen, we could have chosen to be State senators, but we chose to be national lawmakers because there is a time and a place for this Nation to make laws to help all of us, to see to it that some of us do not hurt all of us. The unfunded mandates bill is wise in that we should always know the cost of these laws, but there is a time and a place. After all, when you think about it, the Ten Commandments is an unfunded mandate. My concern is that since there were no hearings on the bill, clear and concise language needs to be included to ensure that we are not undoing present laws. These laws exist for a good reason. I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut out. The biggest issue we faced back then was upgrading the Bay St. Louis sewage treatment plant. Had it not been for Federal mandate, that all-Democratic board would never have voted to clean up our city's wastewater treatment. It is just that simple. The citizens do not see the reward. The problem is passed downstream. It is just not fair that my city should poison any other city's drinking water, and it is just not fair that some other city like New York should poison New Jersey and that Connecticut should poison the folks downstream from them. Chicago's drinking water ends up in the Mississippi River. It goes to Natchez, it goes to New Orleans, and when the spillway is open, it flows in front of my house. I have made what I think is a reasonable request of the chairman of this committee, to see to it that when the Clean Water Act is finally reauthorized, because it has not been reauthorized, that this somehow does not be considered a new mandate, and because Federal funds are going to be cut, and they will be cut when we pass the balanced budget amendment, that the provisions of the bill that say when we cut back on Federal fundings, that the locals no longer have to abide by the law, do not apply to this law, because this is the kind of law that we need to keep on the books. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so reluctantly, because the gentleman from Mississippi and I have had discussion about this problem that he faces, and it is a real one, but I think that the point needs to be made here that on many of the items we are going to be dealing with this morning and this afternoon asking for exemptions for various statutes from the provisions of this legislation are all well-intentioned. In fact, many of these are programs that clearly are very valuable programs, ones that provide for the health, safety, and environment of the country. But what we are saying here is we are not saying they should be exempt from consideration as to the cost. What is the cost of imposing a mandate, implementing this legislation, and that is what we are asking for, an analysis of the cost. To exempt out an entire program, meritorious as it may be, should not exempt it from a fair consideration of the cost involved in a mandate involved in connection with that legislation. That I think has to be stressed. This is not a bill that is retroactive. It is not going to in any way abrogate any of the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The gentleman does point out the Clean Water Act is in limbo. It has not been reauthorized. It is going to be reauthorized. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has indicated that that is an early subject for reauthorization. In an attempt to respond to the gentleman from Mississippi's concern, we did adopt an amendment to the bill which we think does address the concerns that he had, and is concern was that where you have legislation where the authorization has expired, that there be recognition that any mandates included in that legislation when it is reauthorized, if there is a gap between the time it expires and the time it is reauthorized, that any mandates included in that would not be affected by the reauthorization, would not, in other words, be treated as new mandates. They would be considered as a carryover from the existing legislation. Our intent there was to make it very clear that we are in no way trying to look back and eliminate mandates that were imposed in previous legislation. That was not the intent, and we hope that the language in 425(e) which does represent that adjustment would address the concern. We think the gentleman's concerns are well-founded, but we do think that this language addressed those concerns and says the Clean Water Act and the mandate that are imposed under the Clean Water Act and will be imposed again when the Clean Water is reauthorized in the next month or so would continue, and the same restrictions that exist on upstream communities now will continue and not be affected. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. And I must indicate that I am going to probably oppose most of these statute-specific amendments to this bill because again I would say most of them are very valuable pieces of legislation, but they should not just because of that, because they are so meritorious, be totally exempt from consideration as to the costs that they impose on local governments. I must oppose the amendment. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. If I have time, I would be happy to yield. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule. That in itself is certainly a step in the right direction. We have had this discussion both in publicly and privately. I remain unconvinced that the language that you inserted is clear enough to keep a high-priced lawyer from going to the different cities and different States and saying, ``If you fix your sewage treatment plant, you're going to spend millions of dollars. Why don't you put me [[Page H424]] on a retainer for $10,000 and I'll keep this tied up in court for so long that it will be past your administration. It will be someone else's problem until you get it fixed.'' But we all know it is not someone else's problem. It is someone downstream's problem. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for the sake of the people in this ro

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - January 20, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H416-H449] UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. {time} 1027 In the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, January 19, 1995, all time for general debate had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 104-2 is considered by titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Each of the first four sections and each title are considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read. The Clerk will designate section 1. The text of section 1 is as follows: H.R. 5 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995''. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? The Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is as follows: SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and tribal governments; (2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities; (3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal programs containing Federal mandates affecting States, local governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by-- (A) providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and (B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to the attention of the Senate [[Page H417]] and House of Representatives before the Senate and House of Representatives votes on proposed legislation; (4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular instance; (5) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal mandates; (6) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and tribal governments, by-- (A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to enable the elected and other officials of States, local governments, and tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are developing regulations; and (B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments, and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring that small governments are given special consideration in that process; (7) to establish the general rule that Congress shall not impose Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates; and (8) to being consideration of methods to relieve States, local governments, and tribal governments of unfunded mandates imposed by Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes and regulations. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? {time} 1030 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we are right now working on an arrangement under which my amendment would be withdrawn to this section. I ask unanimous consent to take my amendment out of order at a later time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not quite hear the gentleman's unanimous-consent request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] asked that his right to offer his amendment be protected. He is not quite ready for section 2 and wishes to preserve his right to offer his amendment. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? amendment offered by ms. lofgren Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: In section 2(7), before this semicolon insert the following: ``, and that congress shall not impose any Federal mandate on a State (including a requirement to pay matching amounts) unless the State is prohibited under Federal law from requiring, without consent of a local government, that the local government perform the activities that constitute compliance with the mandate''. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time, en bloc. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to find out which amendments the gentlewoman proposes to offer en bloc. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a- vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study, and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of local governments. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I would really prefer that they be offered separately because we are dealing there with three different sections, and one of them actually, I understand, was to title III, and we are presently dealing with section 2. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16 days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates. One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am offering are part of the effort to improve this bill. In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served, even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at the Federal level. It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the responsibility for actually paying for what you do. While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail. However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded to local governments are Federal programs. Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to avoid in this bill. Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem. In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County, NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised locally is available for local priorities. Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain. Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non- Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And, frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for local governments will get much worse. The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when Federal matching programs are at issue. All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is another reason why the American people have more confidence in the government that is closest to them. [[Page H418]] If we are to ameliorate the terrible problems that face our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen right in a community with local leadership. The American people understand this and so should we. If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change. The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching- fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] insist on his point of order? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I withdraw my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point or order. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, just briefly I would say I certainly am sympathetic with what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I think we have all been frustrated with the fact that the Federal Government has sort of willy- nilly imposed requirements, mandates on States who in turn pass them through to State and local governments. But I do think that this is in effect giving the States a veto power in effect over what we can do here. I think we have extended the reach of what we are trying to do in this legislation much further than I think the intent is, which is not certainly to give the States veto powers in this instance. So for that reason I would have to oppose the amendment. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is in dealing with the coalitions that put this together, including State governments and local governments together, and this of course cuts right through that coalition and breaks it up. There is a huge problem with States mandating on localities, and a number of States in fact have moved to rectify this over the last years, the State of Florida being one, where by referendum the citizens there have stopped the unfunded mandate flow to local governments. {time} 1040 The commission is going to be able to look at this under this legislation, come back and report to Congress, and at that point, I think we will have a basis on which to operate. I think although the purpose is good here, this is probably premature at this point, and for that reason I think it should be defeated. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this purpose in the amendment. I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state. It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the local government. So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a misleading statement in the purposes clause. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true partnership. I think it would be a terrible mistake. Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the commission in looking at this issue. I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level, of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the local governments. I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it. I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this issue. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of those constraints on local governments. But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government is the proper place to do that. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these are Federal programs imposing what would [[Page H419]] be interpreted as a mandate at the State level, and it is for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although, as I said, I am very sympathetic with it. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of this. I think this amendment really highlights one of the concerns that we have, and that is to some extent some of the duplicity of the Governors who have come here and talked about unfunded mandates and the burdens that the Federal Government pushes on to the Governors, even if it is for a local purpose and a Federal purpose, and then those very same Governors turn around, do the same to local government in their States. They accept responsibility. Then they decide they cannot handle the financial aspects of it, they turn around to the counties. In our own State of California, in this last year, we have watched the Governor come and scoop up local revenues, take them to the State level, and then tell the counties that they had an additional burden for mental health and health care of individuals and for probation and all these other programs. They said you have to take care of it, but the money has now gone to the State. That historically has happened in State after State after State. Yet these Governors come to the Federal legislature somehow wanting us to believe that they have clean hands when they come before us and suggest they would never think of such a thing as an unfunded mandate. Yet everybody here who has worked in local government knows it happens to you each and every day. In California they are so brazen, when the legislature passes an unfunded mandate, they pass boilerplate language that says, ``Under S.B. 90, this is not an unfunded mandate, and do it anyway.'' And that is the situation that the gentlewoman from California is trying to get at is that it is not good enough, if you believe in this arrangement that you are talking about in this legislation. All you have really done now is made things more difficult for the most local forms of government as they continue to receive these State unfunded mandates, if you will, as the States continue to agree with the Federal Government about the purposes of these programs. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because if we are really writing this bill to lower the costs of mandates for localities, we just have to recognize that much of these costs are really State mandates, and when States mandate that localities do certain kinds of services without providing those kinds of funds, you do have the passthrough effect that just simply does not make a lot of good sense. If we are serious about having mandates not imposed on people that are unfunded, then support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. point of order Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman previously spoken on the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so forth. I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress, mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and mandating what the townships do and so on. I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State. It is a flat prohibition. As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the purpose of the legislation. Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with the rest of the legislation as I read it. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them today. I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of America. {time} 1050 But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out I think this is one of the pitfalls with the legislation that we have before us. It sort of is the blame game in terms of one unit of government, local, the county governments, and States blaming the other for the challenges and unpleasantness and dilemmas that they face. I think that is one of the problems inherent in this legislation that we have before us with regard to mandates. I was listening to a debate on public television which my colleague from California was involved in, Mr. Miller, with the Governor of Ohio, and all of the problems of taxation issues in that State were basically left at the doorstep of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress. Inherent in this is some of that same aspect. I think, clearly as we deal with Federal law, as States deal with State law, as ordinances in counties deal with the various laws that they have, the issue is there has to be a consideration of the requirements, the expectations that we have, realistically at all of these levels. Quite candidly, as I had stated yesterday on the floor, I think too often the representation is one of confrontation rather than cooperation. Inherent in our basic documents in the form of Government that we have is the understanding that there is cooperation between the States, between the Federal Government, between the various counties and local governments that make up the response and service to the people that we represent. Unfortunately, I think that this legislation does not, as it is now drafted, come to grips with that. I think it puts in place unrealistic expectations and requirements that simply add layer after layer of bureaucracy. It is as if we are now going to have, instead of working through the local police and State police powers, we are going to have Federal marshals reoccur in these instances. I think it offers real problems. I think this amendment in the purposes clause is coherent and appropriate. I am surprised the major sponsors of this are reluctant to accept this as one of the purposes, because one of [[Page H420]] the purposes is, obviously, to try to develop this cooperative attitude, to have a two-way street with regard to the type of responsibilities and roles of local governments as they relate to the States. We all understand in our Constitution the unique difference between powers reserved to the States, solely reserved to the States, and the local governments really are not even recognized in that. They are an artifice, in fact, of the States themselves. And, of course, they differ from State to State. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has expired. (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to summarize by saying that I think that accepting this as a purpose in terms of recognition and really the complaint and the growth of this has been from the grassroots. It has not--the States are late to this particular process, and I think, in most instances, wrong when we are talking about grants in aid, talking about entitlements, the sort of extraordinary basis. Most of those programs are, in essence, voluntary. In any case, I think this points up the nature of the problem. I am, you, know stunned that there is no recognition or acceptance, at least in the purposes of this, as a problem, and I think the gentlewoman has a good point here, and I hope the Members would agree. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield? Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly to say that the objection here is not the intent of what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish. It is beyond what we have in this bill, which is a point of order would lie against this. This is an absolute veto over the power of us to do anything in this regard. So it is an extension. Let me assure the gentlewoman, though, that in the proposal I think she is going to offer later in the day relating to the same issue, I think we could be very helpful in that regard, and I think that makes better sense than what we are dealing with here. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and we are going in the right direction to get the desired result. I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, was unfunded mandates. They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee. Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do have to have accounting for the dollars. But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this process. We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates. I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's further amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will stand and be counted. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] insist on his point of order? Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute maximum vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, noes 267, not voting 10, as follows: [Roll No. 22] AYES--157 Abercrombie Ackerman Baesler Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bishop Bonior Borski Boucher Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Clay Clayton Clyburn Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Costello Coyne Danner de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Doyle Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Holden Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Moakley Mollohan Montgomery Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Pickett Pomeroy Poshard Rahall Rangel Reed Richardson Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sanders Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Sisisky Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn NOES--267 Allard Andrews Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr [[Page H421]] Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dooley Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Martini McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Minge Molinari Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Sabo Salmon Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--10 Archer Ehrlich Flake Gibbons Levin Lincoln Reynolds Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Yates {time} 1117 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Levin for, with Mr. Ehrlich against. Messrs. SALMON, COLEMAN, LIGHTFOOT, KLINK, McINTOSH, and PETERSON of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. THOMPSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. VISCLOSKY, McHALE, and TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. {time} 1120 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and also the ranking member from the minority party, the gentlewoman from Illinois. We have come to an arrangement whereby I will be withdrawing amendment No. 12. I would like to then move amendment No. 13. That amendment has been agreed to by all sides. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: In section 102(a), after paragraph (1) insert the following new paragraphs (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (2) investigate and review the role of unfunded State mandates imposed on local governments, the private sector, and individuals; (3) investigate and review the role of unfunded local mandates imposed on the private sector and individuals; At the end of section 102, add the following new subsection: (e) State Mandate and Local Mandate Defined.--As used in this title: (1) State mandate.--The term ``State mandate'' means any provision in a State statute or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on local governments, the private sector, or individuals, including a condition of State assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary State program. (2) Local mandate.--The term ``local mandate'' means any provision in a local ordinance or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on the private sector or individuals, including a condition of local assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary local program. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work in front of us so I will not debate this. I would like to thank the parties on both sides of the aisle for this amendment being agreed to and would ask for its favorable consideration. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for offering this. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. This amendment will allow the Commission that is overseeing to make a report to the Congress within 1 year, to come back and look not only at the effect of Federal mandates on State and local governments but also be able to look at the mandates that States can put on local governments and local governments put on individuals. That would be part of their overall report, as they come back to us. This will allow that Commission the opportunity to address those issues, which I think is very important. Mandates that are crippling localities today do not all emanate from the Federal Government. A lot of this is trickled down from the States to local governments as well. This amendment really will allow the Commission to report and give us a data base where we can proceed accordingly. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment. But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that and study these matters and report back to us. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made from the gentleman from Virginia. I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do have constant communication with States and localities. There will be an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as consistent with the points that he was just making. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is consistent with the points. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we might make some of these programs work better. The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation, not [[Page H422]] to apply a cookie-cutter approach, not to be unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in Washington without communicating to States and localities. If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of federalism. {time} 1130 Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concern about the Commission and the ACIR as being the proper receptacle. There will be an amendment offered in this regard. The Senate has already made that change. I think this will be an addition to the bill which will be very helpful. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up, Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the time very briefly to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for his input into this type of legislation for these good many past years. The gentleman is recognized as a former mayor of Alexandria, who did an outstanding job while mayor of Alexandria, and has through the years worked with these kinds of problems and is very knowledgeable and to the impact that Federal mandates, State mandates, and others have on local government. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for all the work that he has done on this type of legislation. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice of the gentleman from Missouri, and I appreciate it. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a brief minute. Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working together. In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and agree with his comments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is as follows: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act-- (1) the terms ``agency'', ``Federal financial assistance'', ``Federal private sector mandate'', ``Federal mandate'' (except as provided by section 108), ``local government'', ``private sector'', ``regulation'' or ``rule'', and ``State'' have the meaning given those terms by section 421 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and (2) the term ``small government'' means any small governmental jurisdiction as defined in section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If there are no amendments to section 3, the Clerk will designate section 4. The text of section 4 is as follows: SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION. This Act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or a proposed or final Federal regulation, that-- (1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals; (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status; (3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided by the Federal Government; (4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any State, local government, or tribal government or any official of such a government; (5) is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations; (6) the President designates as emergency legislation and that the Congress so designates in statute; or (7) pertains to Social Security. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? amendments offered by mr. taylor of mississippi Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and 132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr. Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132 since last night. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``, or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or,'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the Committee on Rules and the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule so all points of view could be heard as we try to perfect this legislation. I think that is the key word, is that we are trying to perfect this legislation, not to defeat it, because it is a good bill. We are here today discussing unfunded mandates because in previous years Congress has hastily passed laws without regard to their effect on State and local governments. Laws that we thought would help people actually hurt them, because we did not take the time to see them through. We appear to be doing that again today. I offer an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, to help prevent this mistake from recurring. This amendment will provide for the protection of public health by including sewage treatment regulation in the language of the bill. Our citizens pay taxes and they want to see positive results. They receive instant gratification when local governments pave the streets, improve the quality of the drinking water, or increase police protection to provide a highly visible deterrent to crime. Mr. Chairman, wastewater is a different matter. While sinks, showers, and commodes are draining properly, people do not care where it goes as long as it goes away. Therein lies the problem. It does not go away. It is discarded into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans that carry the stench, the germs, the filth, to some other community downstream. The Mississippi River drainage basin services 41 percent of the mainland United States. This includes 31 States as well as two Canadian Provinces, an area of 1.5 million square miles. It is the largest drainage basin of the country and is inhabited by 80 million [[Page H423]] Americans and over 2 million Canadians. This means that any untreated waste, waterborne disease or filth which enters any body of water in dozens of States will eventually flow past my State and many of your States. Mr. Chairman, surface filth flows past cruise ships and waterfront recreational areas in towns like Natchez and Vicksburg. Waterborne diseases end up in the drinking water of hundreds of cities who rely on the Mississippi River for their water supply. Small towns, cities, and even large metropolitan areas like New Orleans rely on the Mississippi River for their drinking water. However, closer to home, those of us who live in Alexandria, VA, should be aware that our drinking water is one tidal cycle away from the wastewater discharge of the city of Washington, DC. If Washington, DC, chooses not to treat its sewage because the mandates have been lifted, it is going in our drinking water tomorrow. It does not stop there, Mr. Chairman. The most productive commercial shrimping, fishing, and oystering industries in the world are found in the Mississippi River basin. Oysters, for examples, are filter feeders. They pump gallons of water through their bodies every day, and they retain any pollutants in that water. The crabs and shrimp and oysters that are harvested in front of my home town in Bay St. Louis, MS, live in those waters, but they end up on your dinner plates. As Members can see, there are some things that originate locally but affect us nationally. Just as our Nation should never force its unfunded and unsolved problems on the local communities, nor should the local communities pass their unsolved problems on to communities downstream, and in turn, back to our Nation. {time} 1140 I agree that we have to get a handle on Federal mandates, but to throw them all out makes no sense at all. After all, we could have chosen to be city councilmen, we could have chosen to be State senators, but we chose to be national lawmakers because there is a time and a place for this Nation to make laws to help all of us, to see to it that some of us do not hurt all of us. The unfunded mandates bill is wise in that we should always know the cost of these laws, but there is a time and a place. After all, when you think about it, the Ten Commandments is an unfunded mandate. My concern is that since there were no hearings on the bill, clear and concise language needs to be included to ensure that we are not undoing present laws. These laws exist for a good reason. I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut out. The biggest issue we faced back then was upgrading the Bay St. Louis sewage treatment plant. Had it not been for Federal mandate, that all-Democratic board would never have voted to clean up our city's wastewater treatment. It is just that simple. The citizens do not see the reward. The problem is passed downstream. It is just not fair that my city should poison any other city's drinking water, and it is just not fair that some other city like New York should poison New Jersey and that Connecticut should poison the folks downstream from them. Chicago's drinking water ends up in the Mississippi River. It goes to Natchez, it goes to New Orleans, and when the spillway is open, it flows in front of my house. I have made what I think is a reasonable request of the chairman of this committee, to see to it that when the Clean Water Act is finally reauthorized, because it has not been reauthorized, that this somehow does not be considered a new mandate, and because Federal funds are going to be cut, and they will be cut when we pass the balanced budget amendment, that the provisions of the bill that say when we cut back on Federal fundings, that the locals no longer have to abide by the law, do not apply to this law, because this is the kind of law that we need to keep on the books. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so reluctantly, because the gentleman from Mississippi and I have had discussion about this problem that he faces, and it is a real one, but I think that the point needs to be made here that on many of the items we are going to be dealing with this morning and this afternoon asking for exemptions for various statutes from the provisions of this legislation are all well-intentioned. In fact, many of these are programs that clearly are very valuable programs, ones that provide for the health, safety, and environment of the country. But what we are saying here is we are not saying they should be exempt from consideration as to the cost. What is the cost of imposing a mandate, implementing this legislation, and that is what we are asking for, an analysis of the cost. To exempt out an entire program, meritorious as it may be, should not exempt it from a fair consideration of the cost involved in a mandate involved in connection with that legislation. That I think has to be stressed. This is not a bill that is retroactive. It is not going to in any way abrogate any of the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The gentleman does point out the Clean Water Act is in limbo. It has not been reauthorized. It is going to be reauthorized. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has indicated that that is an early subject for reauthorization. In an attempt to respond to the gentleman from Mississippi's concern, we did adopt an amendment to the bill which we think does address the concerns that he had, and is concern was that where you have legislation where the authorization has expired, that there be recognition that any mandates included in that legislation when it is reauthorized, if there is a gap between the time it expires and the time it is reauthorized, that any mandates included in that would not be affected by the reauthorization, would not, in other words, be treated as new mandates. They would be considered as a carryover from the existing legislation. Our intent there was to make it very clear that we are in no way trying to look back and eliminate mandates that were imposed in previous legislation. That was not the intent, and we hope that the language in 425(e) which does represent that adjustment would address the concern. We think the gentleman's concerns are well-founded, but we do think that this language addressed those concerns and says the Clean Water Act and the mandate that are imposed under the Clean Water Act and will be imposed again when the Clean Water is reauthorized in the next month or so would continue, and the same restrictions that exist on upstream communities now will continue and not be affected. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. And I must indicate that I am going to probably oppose most of these statute-specific amendments to this bill because again I would say most of them are very valuable pieces of legislation, but they should not just because of that, because they are so meritorious, be totally exempt from consideration as to the costs that they impose on local governments. I must oppose the amendment. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. If I have time, I would be happy to yield. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule. That in itself is certainly a step in the right direction. We have had this discussion both in publicly and privately. I remain unconvinced that the language that you inserted is clear enough to keep a high-priced lawyer from going to the different cities and different States and saying, ``If you fix your sewage treatment plant, you're going to spend millions of dollars. Why don't you put me [[Page H424]] on a retainer for $10,000 and I'll keep this tied up in court for so long that it will be past your administration. It will be someone else's problem until you get it fixed.'' But we all know it is not someone else's problem. It is someone downstream's problem. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for the sake of the people

Summary:

All articles in House section

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - January 20, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H416-H449] UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. {time} 1027 In the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, January 19, 1995, all time for general debate had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 104-2 is considered by titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Each of the first four sections and each title are considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read. The Clerk will designate section 1. The text of section 1 is as follows: H.R. 5 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995''. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? The Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is as follows: SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and tribal governments; (2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities; (3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal programs containing Federal mandates affecting States, local governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by-- (A) providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and (B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to the attention of the Senate [[Page H417]] and House of Representatives before the Senate and House of Representatives votes on proposed legislation; (4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular instance; (5) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal mandates; (6) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and tribal governments, by-- (A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to enable the elected and other officials of States, local governments, and tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are developing regulations; and (B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments, and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring that small governments are given special consideration in that process; (7) to establish the general rule that Congress shall not impose Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates; and (8) to being consideration of methods to relieve States, local governments, and tribal governments of unfunded mandates imposed by Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes and regulations. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? {time} 1030 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we are right now working on an arrangement under which my amendment would be withdrawn to this section. I ask unanimous consent to take my amendment out of order at a later time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not quite hear the gentleman's unanimous-consent request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] asked that his right to offer his amendment be protected. He is not quite ready for section 2 and wishes to preserve his right to offer his amendment. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? amendment offered by ms. lofgren Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: In section 2(7), before this semicolon insert the following: ``, and that congress shall not impose any Federal mandate on a State (including a requirement to pay matching amounts) unless the State is prohibited under Federal law from requiring, without consent of a local government, that the local government perform the activities that constitute compliance with the mandate''. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time, en bloc. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to find out which amendments the gentlewoman proposes to offer en bloc. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a- vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study, and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of local governments. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I would really prefer that they be offered separately because we are dealing there with three different sections, and one of them actually, I understand, was to title III, and we are presently dealing with section 2. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16 days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates. One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am offering are part of the effort to improve this bill. In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served, even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at the Federal level. It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the responsibility for actually paying for what you do. While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail. However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded to local governments are Federal programs. Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to avoid in this bill. Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem. In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County, NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised locally is available for local priorities. Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain. Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non- Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And, frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for local governments will get much worse. The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when Federal matching programs are at issue. All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is another reason why the American people have more confidence in the government that is closest to them. [[Page H418]] If we are to ameliorate the terrible problems that face our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen right in a community with local leadership. The American people understand this and so should we. If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change. The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching- fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] insist on his point of order? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I withdraw my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point or order. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, just briefly I would say I certainly am sympathetic with what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I think we have all been frustrated with the fact that the Federal Government has sort of willy- nilly imposed requirements, mandates on States who in turn pass them through to State and local governments. But I do think that this is in effect giving the States a veto power in effect over what we can do here. I think we have extended the reach of what we are trying to do in this legislation much further than I think the intent is, which is not certainly to give the States veto powers in this instance. So for that reason I would have to oppose the amendment. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is in dealing with the coalitions that put this together, including State governments and local governments together, and this of course cuts right through that coalition and breaks it up. There is a huge problem with States mandating on localities, and a number of States in fact have moved to rectify this over the last years, the State of Florida being one, where by referendum the citizens there have stopped the unfunded mandate flow to local governments. {time} 1040 The commission is going to be able to look at this under this legislation, come back and report to Congress, and at that point, I think we will have a basis on which to operate. I think although the purpose is good here, this is probably premature at this point, and for that reason I think it should be defeated. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this purpose in the amendment. I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state. It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the local government. So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a misleading statement in the purposes clause. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true partnership. I think it would be a terrible mistake. Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the commission in looking at this issue. I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level, of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the local governments. I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it. I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this issue. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of those constraints on local governments. But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government is the proper place to do that. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these are Federal programs imposing what would [[Page H419]] be interpreted as a mandate at the State level, and it is for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although, as I said, I am very sympathetic with it. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of this. I think this amendment really highlights one of the concerns that we have, and that is to some extent some of the duplicity of the Governors who have come here and talked about unfunded mandates and the burdens that the Federal Government pushes on to the Governors, even if it is for a local purpose and a Federal purpose, and then those very same Governors turn around, do the same to local government in their States. They accept responsibility. Then they decide they cannot handle the financial aspects of it, they turn around to the counties. In our own State of California, in this last year, we have watched the Governor come and scoop up local revenues, take them to the State level, and then tell the counties that they had an additional burden for mental health and health care of individuals and for probation and all these other programs. They said you have to take care of it, but the money has now gone to the State. That historically has happened in State after State after State. Yet these Governors come to the Federal legislature somehow wanting us to believe that they have clean hands when they come before us and suggest they would never think of such a thing as an unfunded mandate. Yet everybody here who has worked in local government knows it happens to you each and every day. In California they are so brazen, when the legislature passes an unfunded mandate, they pass boilerplate language that says, ``Under S.B. 90, this is not an unfunded mandate, and do it anyway.'' And that is the situation that the gentlewoman from California is trying to get at is that it is not good enough, if you believe in this arrangement that you are talking about in this legislation. All you have really done now is made things more difficult for the most local forms of government as they continue to receive these State unfunded mandates, if you will, as the States continue to agree with the Federal Government about the purposes of these programs. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because if we are really writing this bill to lower the costs of mandates for localities, we just have to recognize that much of these costs are really State mandates, and when States mandate that localities do certain kinds of services without providing those kinds of funds, you do have the passthrough effect that just simply does not make a lot of good sense. If we are serious about having mandates not imposed on people that are unfunded, then support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. point of order Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman previously spoken on the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so forth. I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress, mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and mandating what the townships do and so on. I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State. It is a flat prohibition. As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the purpose of the legislation. Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with the rest of the legislation as I read it. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them today. I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of America. {time} 1050 But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out I think this is one of the pitfalls with the legislation that we have before us. It sort of is the blame game in terms of one unit of government, local, the county governments, and States blaming the other for the challenges and unpleasantness and dilemmas that they face. I think that is one of the problems inherent in this legislation that we have before us with regard to mandates. I was listening to a debate on public television which my colleague from California was involved in, Mr. Miller, with the Governor of Ohio, and all of the problems of taxation issues in that State were basically left at the doorstep of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress. Inherent in this is some of that same aspect. I think, clearly as we deal with Federal law, as States deal with State law, as ordinances in counties deal with the various laws that they have, the issue is there has to be a consideration of the requirements, the expectations that we have, realistically at all of these levels. Quite candidly, as I had stated yesterday on the floor, I think too often the representation is one of confrontation rather than cooperation. Inherent in our basic documents in the form of Government that we have is the understanding that there is cooperation between the States, between the Federal Government, between the various counties and local governments that make up the response and service to the people that we represent. Unfortunately, I think that this legislation does not, as it is now drafted, come to grips with that. I think it puts in place unrealistic expectations and requirements that simply add layer after layer of bureaucracy. It is as if we are now going to have, instead of working through the local police and State police powers, we are going to have Federal marshals reoccur in these instances. I think it offers real problems. I think this amendment in the purposes clause is coherent and appropriate. I am surprised the major sponsors of this are reluctant to accept this as one of the purposes, because one of [[Page H420]] the purposes is, obviously, to try to develop this cooperative attitude, to have a two-way street with regard to the type of responsibilities and roles of local governments as they relate to the States. We all understand in our Constitution the unique difference between powers reserved to the States, solely reserved to the States, and the local governments really are not even recognized in that. They are an artifice, in fact, of the States themselves. And, of course, they differ from State to State. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has expired. (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to summarize by saying that I think that accepting this as a purpose in terms of recognition and really the complaint and the growth of this has been from the grassroots. It has not--the States are late to this particular process, and I think, in most instances, wrong when we are talking about grants in aid, talking about entitlements, the sort of extraordinary basis. Most of those programs are, in essence, voluntary. In any case, I think this points up the nature of the problem. I am, you, know stunned that there is no recognition or acceptance, at least in the purposes of this, as a problem, and I think the gentlewoman has a good point here, and I hope the Members would agree. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield? Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly to say that the objection here is not the intent of what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish. It is beyond what we have in this bill, which is a point of order would lie against this. This is an absolute veto over the power of us to do anything in this regard. So it is an extension. Let me assure the gentlewoman, though, that in the proposal I think she is going to offer later in the day relating to the same issue, I think we could be very helpful in that regard, and I think that makes better sense than what we are dealing with here. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and we are going in the right direction to get the desired result. I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, was unfunded mandates. They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee. Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do have to have accounting for the dollars. But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this process. We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates. I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's further amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will stand and be counted. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] insist on his point of order? Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute maximum vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, noes 267, not voting 10, as follows: [Roll No. 22] AYES--157 Abercrombie Ackerman Baesler Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bishop Bonior Borski Boucher Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Clay Clayton Clyburn Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Costello Coyne Danner de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Doyle Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Holden Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Moakley Mollohan Montgomery Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Pickett Pomeroy Poshard Rahall Rangel Reed Richardson Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sanders Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Sisisky Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn NOES--267 Allard Andrews Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr [[Page H421]] Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dooley Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Martini McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Minge Molinari Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Sabo Salmon Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--10 Archer Ehrlich Flake Gibbons Levin Lincoln Reynolds Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Yates {time} 1117 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Levin for, with Mr. Ehrlich against. Messrs. SALMON, COLEMAN, LIGHTFOOT, KLINK, McINTOSH, and PETERSON of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. THOMPSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. VISCLOSKY, McHALE, and TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. {time} 1120 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and also the ranking member from the minority party, the gentlewoman from Illinois. We have come to an arrangement whereby I will be withdrawing amendment No. 12. I would like to then move amendment No. 13. That amendment has been agreed to by all sides. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: In section 102(a), after paragraph (1) insert the following new paragraphs (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (2) investigate and review the role of unfunded State mandates imposed on local governments, the private sector, and individuals; (3) investigate and review the role of unfunded local mandates imposed on the private sector and individuals; At the end of section 102, add the following new subsection: (e) State Mandate and Local Mandate Defined.--As used in this title: (1) State mandate.--The term ``State mandate'' means any provision in a State statute or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on local governments, the private sector, or individuals, including a condition of State assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary State program. (2) Local mandate.--The term ``local mandate'' means any provision in a local ordinance or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on the private sector or individuals, including a condition of local assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary local program. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work in front of us so I will not debate this. I would like to thank the parties on both sides of the aisle for this amendment being agreed to and would ask for its favorable consideration. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for offering this. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. This amendment will allow the Commission that is overseeing to make a report to the Congress within 1 year, to come back and look not only at the effect of Federal mandates on State and local governments but also be able to look at the mandates that States can put on local governments and local governments put on individuals. That would be part of their overall report, as they come back to us. This will allow that Commission the opportunity to address those issues, which I think is very important. Mandates that are crippling localities today do not all emanate from the Federal Government. A lot of this is trickled down from the States to local governments as well. This amendment really will allow the Commission to report and give us a data base where we can proceed accordingly. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment. But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that and study these matters and report back to us. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made from the gentleman from Virginia. I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do have constant communication with States and localities. There will be an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as consistent with the points that he was just making. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is consistent with the points. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we might make some of these programs work better. The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation, not [[Page H422]] to apply a cookie-cutter approach, not to be unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in Washington without communicating to States and localities. If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of federalism. {time} 1130 Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concern about the Commission and the ACIR as being the proper receptacle. There will be an amendment offered in this regard. The Senate has already made that change. I think this will be an addition to the bill which will be very helpful. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up, Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the time very briefly to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for his input into this type of legislation for these good many past years. The gentleman is recognized as a former mayor of Alexandria, who did an outstanding job while mayor of Alexandria, and has through the years worked with these kinds of problems and is very knowledgeable and to the impact that Federal mandates, State mandates, and others have on local government. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for all the work that he has done on this type of legislation. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice of the gentleman from Missouri, and I appreciate it. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a brief minute. Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working together. In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and agree with his comments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is as follows: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act-- (1) the terms ``agency'', ``Federal financial assistance'', ``Federal private sector mandate'', ``Federal mandate'' (except as provided by section 108), ``local government'', ``private sector'', ``regulation'' or ``rule'', and ``State'' have the meaning given those terms by section 421 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and (2) the term ``small government'' means any small governmental jurisdiction as defined in section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If there are no amendments to section 3, the Clerk will designate section 4. The text of section 4 is as follows: SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION. This Act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or a proposed or final Federal regulation, that-- (1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals; (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status; (3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided by the Federal Government; (4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any State, local government, or tribal government or any official of such a government; (5) is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations; (6) the President designates as emergency legislation and that the Congress so designates in statute; or (7) pertains to Social Security. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? amendments offered by mr. taylor of mississippi Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and 132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr. Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132 since last night. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``, or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or,'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the Committee on Rules and the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule so all points of view could be heard as we try to perfect this legislation. I think that is the key word, is that we are trying to perfect this legislation, not to defeat it, because it is a good bill. We are here today discussing unfunded mandates because in previous years Congress has hastily passed laws without regard to their effect on State and local governments. Laws that we thought would help people actually hurt them, because we did not take the time to see them through. We appear to be doing that again today. I offer an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, to help prevent this mistake from recurring. This amendment will provide for the protection of public health by including sewage treatment regulation in the language of the bill. Our citizens pay taxes and they want to see positive results. They receive instant gratification when local governments pave the streets, improve the quality of the drinking water, or increase police protection to provide a highly visible deterrent to crime. Mr. Chairman, wastewater is a different matter. While sinks, showers, and commodes are draining properly, people do not care where it goes as long as it goes away. Therein lies the problem. It does not go away. It is discarded into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans that carry the stench, the germs, the filth, to some other community downstream. The Mississippi River drainage basin services 41 percent of the mainland United States. This includes 31 States as well as two Canadian Provinces, an area of 1.5 million square miles. It is the largest drainage basin of the country and is inhabited by 80 million [[Page H423]] Americans and over 2 million Canadians. This means that any untreated waste, waterborne disease or filth which enters any body of water in dozens of States will eventually flow past my State and many of your States. Mr. Chairman, surface filth flows past cruise ships and waterfront recreational areas in towns like Natchez and Vicksburg. Waterborne diseases end up in the drinking water of hundreds of cities who rely on the Mississippi River for their water supply. Small towns, cities, and even large metropolitan areas like New Orleans rely on the Mississippi River for their drinking water. However, closer to home, those of us who live in Alexandria, VA, should be aware that our drinking water is one tidal cycle away from the wastewater discharge of the city of Washington, DC. If Washington, DC, chooses not to treat its sewage because the mandates have been lifted, it is going in our drinking water tomorrow. It does not stop there, Mr. Chairman. The most productive commercial shrimping, fishing, and oystering industries in the world are found in the Mississippi River basin. Oysters, for examples, are filter feeders. They pump gallons of water through their bodies every day, and they retain any pollutants in that water. The crabs and shrimp and oysters that are harvested in front of my home town in Bay St. Louis, MS, live in those waters, but they end up on your dinner plates. As Members can see, there are some things that originate locally but affect us nationally. Just as our Nation should never force its unfunded and unsolved problems on the local communities, nor should the local communities pass their unsolved problems on to communities downstream, and in turn, back to our Nation. {time} 1140 I agree that we have to get a handle on Federal mandates, but to throw them all out makes no sense at all. After all, we could have chosen to be city councilmen, we could have chosen to be State senators, but we chose to be national lawmakers because there is a time and a place for this Nation to make laws to help all of us, to see to it that some of us do not hurt all of us. The unfunded mandates bill is wise in that we should always know the cost of these laws, but there is a time and a place. After all, when you think about it, the Ten Commandments is an unfunded mandate. My concern is that since there were no hearings on the bill, clear and concise language needs to be included to ensure that we are not undoing present laws. These laws exist for a good reason. I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut out. The biggest issue we faced back then was upgrading the Bay St. Louis sewage treatment plant. Had it not been for Federal mandate, that all-Democratic board would never have voted to clean up our city's wastewater treatment. It is just that simple. The citizens do not see the reward. The problem is passed downstream. It is just not fair that my city should poison any other city's drinking water, and it is just not fair that some other city like New York should poison New Jersey and that Connecticut should poison the folks downstream from them. Chicago's drinking water ends up in the Mississippi River. It goes to Natchez, it goes to New Orleans, and when the spillway is open, it flows in front of my house. I have made what I think is a reasonable request of the chairman of this committee, to see to it that when the Clean Water Act is finally reauthorized, because it has not been reauthorized, that this somehow does not be considered a new mandate, and because Federal funds are going to be cut, and they will be cut when we pass the balanced budget amendment, that the provisions of the bill that say when we cut back on Federal fundings, that the locals no longer have to abide by the law, do not apply to this law, because this is the kind of law that we need to keep on the books. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so reluctantly, because the gentleman from Mississippi and I have had discussion about this problem that he faces, and it is a real one, but I think that the point needs to be made here that on many of the items we are going to be dealing with this morning and this afternoon asking for exemptions for various statutes from the provisions of this legislation are all well-intentioned. In fact, many of these are programs that clearly are very valuable programs, ones that provide for the health, safety, and environment of the country. But what we are saying here is we are not saying they should be exempt from consideration as to the cost. What is the cost of imposing a mandate, implementing this legislation, and that is what we are asking for, an analysis of the cost. To exempt out an entire program, meritorious as it may be, should not exempt it from a fair consideration of the cost involved in a mandate involved in connection with that legislation. That I think has to be stressed. This is not a bill that is retroactive. It is not going to in any way abrogate any of the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The gentleman does point out the Clean Water Act is in limbo. It has not been reauthorized. It is going to be reauthorized. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has indicated that that is an early subject for reauthorization. In an attempt to respond to the gentleman from Mississippi's concern, we did adopt an amendment to the bill which we think does address the concerns that he had, and is concern was that where you have legislation where the authorization has expired, that there be recognition that any mandates included in that legislation when it is reauthorized, if there is a gap between the time it expires and the time it is reauthorized, that any mandates included in that would not be affected by the reauthorization, would not, in other words, be treated as new mandates. They would be considered as a carryover from the existing legislation. Our intent there was to make it very clear that we are in no way trying to look back and eliminate mandates that were imposed in previous legislation. That was not the intent, and we hope that the language in 425(e) which does represent that adjustment would address the concern. We think the gentleman's concerns are well-founded, but we do think that this language addressed those concerns and says the Clean Water Act and the mandate that are imposed under the Clean Water Act and will be imposed again when the Clean Water is reauthorized in the next month or so would continue, and the same restrictions that exist on upstream communities now will continue and not be affected. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. And I must indicate that I am going to probably oppose most of these statute-specific amendments to this bill because again I would say most of them are very valuable pieces of legislation, but they should not just because of that, because they are so meritorious, be totally exempt from consideration as to the costs that they impose on local governments. I must oppose the amendment. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. If I have time, I would be happy to yield. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule. That in itself is certainly a step in the right direction. We have had this discussion both in publicly and privately. I remain unconvinced that the language that you inserted is clear enough to keep a high-priced lawyer from going to the different cities and different States and saying, ``If you fix your sewage treatment plant, you're going to spend millions of dollars. Why don't you put me [[Page H424]] on a retainer for $10,000 and I'll keep this tied up in court for so long that it will be past your administration. It will be someone else's problem until you get it fixed.'' But we all know it is not someone else's problem. It is someone downstream's problem. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for the sake of the people in this ro

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - January 20, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H416-H449] UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5. {time} 1027 In the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, January 19, 1995, all time for general debate had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 104-2 is considered by titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Each of the first four sections and each title are considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read. The Clerk will designate section 1. The text of section 1 is as follows: H.R. 5 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995''. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? The Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is as follows: SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and tribal governments; (2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities; (3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal programs containing Federal mandates affecting States, local governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by-- (A) providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and (B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to the attention of the Senate [[Page H417]] and House of Representatives before the Senate and House of Representatives votes on proposed legislation; (4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular instance; (5) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal mandates; (6) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and tribal governments, by-- (A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to enable the elected and other officials of States, local governments, and tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are developing regulations; and (B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments, and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring that small governments are given special consideration in that process; (7) to establish the general rule that Congress shall not impose Federal mandates on States, local governments, and tribal governments without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates; and (8) to being consideration of methods to relieve States, local governments, and tribal governments of unfunded mandates imposed by Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes and regulations. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? {time} 1030 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we are right now working on an arrangement under which my amendment would be withdrawn to this section. I ask unanimous consent to take my amendment out of order at a later time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not quite hear the gentleman's unanimous-consent request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] asked that his right to offer his amendment be protected. He is not quite ready for section 2 and wishes to preserve his right to offer his amendment. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? amendment offered by ms. lofgren Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: In section 2(7), before this semicolon insert the following: ``, and that congress shall not impose any Federal mandate on a State (including a requirement to pay matching amounts) unless the State is prohibited under Federal law from requiring, without consent of a local government, that the local government perform the activities that constitute compliance with the mandate''. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time, en bloc. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to find out which amendments the gentlewoman proposes to offer en bloc. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a- vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study, and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of local governments. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I would really prefer that they be offered separately because we are dealing there with three different sections, and one of them actually, I understand, was to title III, and we are presently dealing with section 2. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16 days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates. One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am offering are part of the effort to improve this bill. In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served, even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at the Federal level. It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the responsibility for actually paying for what you do. While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail. However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded to local governments are Federal programs. Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to avoid in this bill. Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem. In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County, NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised locally is available for local priorities. Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain. Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non- Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And, frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for local governments will get much worse. The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when Federal matching programs are at issue. All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is another reason why the American people have more confidence in the government that is closest to them. [[Page H418]] If we are to ameliorate the terrible problems that face our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen right in a community with local leadership. The American people understand this and so should we. If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change. The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching- fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] insist on his point of order? Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I withdraw my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point or order. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, just briefly I would say I certainly am sympathetic with what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I think we have all been frustrated with the fact that the Federal Government has sort of willy- nilly imposed requirements, mandates on States who in turn pass them through to State and local governments. But I do think that this is in effect giving the States a veto power in effect over what we can do here. I think we have extended the reach of what we are trying to do in this legislation much further than I think the intent is, which is not certainly to give the States veto powers in this instance. So for that reason I would have to oppose the amendment. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is in dealing with the coalitions that put this together, including State governments and local governments together, and this of course cuts right through that coalition and breaks it up. There is a huge problem with States mandating on localities, and a number of States in fact have moved to rectify this over the last years, the State of Florida being one, where by referendum the citizens there have stopped the unfunded mandate flow to local governments. {time} 1040 The commission is going to be able to look at this under this legislation, come back and report to Congress, and at that point, I think we will have a basis on which to operate. I think although the purpose is good here, this is probably premature at this point, and for that reason I think it should be defeated. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this purpose in the amendment. I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state. It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the local government. So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a misleading statement in the purposes clause. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true partnership. I think it would be a terrible mistake. Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the commission in looking at this issue. I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level, of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the local governments. I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it. I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this issue. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, too, am very sympathetic with the statements made by my new local elected official background colleague from California. But I, too, am concerned, as my friends have said, that this could actually be perceived as the Federal Government imposing a mandate, and it strikes me that as we look at the mandates which have been imposed from the State level into local governments, it is true that they have been very onerous, and it is obvious that local elected officials want to do everything they possibly can to dramatically reduce the imposition of those constraints on local governments. But it seems to me that for Washington to actually dictate that in any way to the State level would be a mistake. While I am sympathetic with the goal, I do not believe that relying on the Federal Government is the proper place to do that. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will simply say that I do have concerns about what would be still interpreted as the Federal Government being involved, even though these are Federal programs imposing what would [[Page H419]] be interpreted as a mandate at the State level, and it is for that reason that I am inclined to oppose the amendment, although, as I said, I am very sympathetic with it. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of this. I think this amendment really highlights one of the concerns that we have, and that is to some extent some of the duplicity of the Governors who have come here and talked about unfunded mandates and the burdens that the Federal Government pushes on to the Governors, even if it is for a local purpose and a Federal purpose, and then those very same Governors turn around, do the same to local government in their States. They accept responsibility. Then they decide they cannot handle the financial aspects of it, they turn around to the counties. In our own State of California, in this last year, we have watched the Governor come and scoop up local revenues, take them to the State level, and then tell the counties that they had an additional burden for mental health and health care of individuals and for probation and all these other programs. They said you have to take care of it, but the money has now gone to the State. That historically has happened in State after State after State. Yet these Governors come to the Federal legislature somehow wanting us to believe that they have clean hands when they come before us and suggest they would never think of such a thing as an unfunded mandate. Yet everybody here who has worked in local government knows it happens to you each and every day. In California they are so brazen, when the legislature passes an unfunded mandate, they pass boilerplate language that says, ``Under S.B. 90, this is not an unfunded mandate, and do it anyway.'' And that is the situation that the gentlewoman from California is trying to get at is that it is not good enough, if you believe in this arrangement that you are talking about in this legislation. All you have really done now is made things more difficult for the most local forms of government as they continue to receive these State unfunded mandates, if you will, as the States continue to agree with the Federal Government about the purposes of these programs. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because if we are really writing this bill to lower the costs of mandates for localities, we just have to recognize that much of these costs are really State mandates, and when States mandate that localities do certain kinds of services without providing those kinds of funds, you do have the passthrough effect that just simply does not make a lot of good sense. If we are serious about having mandates not imposed on people that are unfunded, then support the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. point of order Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman previously spoken on the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so forth. I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress, mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and mandating what the townships do and so on. I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State. It is a flat prohibition. As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the purpose of the legislation. Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with the rest of the legislation as I read it. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California. Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them today. I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of America. {time} 1050 But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out I think this is one of the pitfalls with the legislation that we have before us. It sort of is the blame game in terms of one unit of government, local, the county governments, and States blaming the other for the challenges and unpleasantness and dilemmas that they face. I think that is one of the problems inherent in this legislation that we have before us with regard to mandates. I was listening to a debate on public television which my colleague from California was involved in, Mr. Miller, with the Governor of Ohio, and all of the problems of taxation issues in that State were basically left at the doorstep of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress. Inherent in this is some of that same aspect. I think, clearly as we deal with Federal law, as States deal with State law, as ordinances in counties deal with the various laws that they have, the issue is there has to be a consideration of the requirements, the expectations that we have, realistically at all of these levels. Quite candidly, as I had stated yesterday on the floor, I think too often the representation is one of confrontation rather than cooperation. Inherent in our basic documents in the form of Government that we have is the understanding that there is cooperation between the States, between the Federal Government, between the various counties and local governments that make up the response and service to the people that we represent. Unfortunately, I think that this legislation does not, as it is now drafted, come to grips with that. I think it puts in place unrealistic expectations and requirements that simply add layer after layer of bureaucracy. It is as if we are now going to have, instead of working through the local police and State police powers, we are going to have Federal marshals reoccur in these instances. I think it offers real problems. I think this amendment in the purposes clause is coherent and appropriate. I am surprised the major sponsors of this are reluctant to accept this as one of the purposes, because one of [[Page H420]] the purposes is, obviously, to try to develop this cooperative attitude, to have a two-way street with regard to the type of responsibilities and roles of local governments as they relate to the States. We all understand in our Constitution the unique difference between powers reserved to the States, solely reserved to the States, and the local governments really are not even recognized in that. They are an artifice, in fact, of the States themselves. And, of course, they differ from State to State. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has expired. (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to summarize by saying that I think that accepting this as a purpose in terms of recognition and really the complaint and the growth of this has been from the grassroots. It has not--the States are late to this particular process, and I think, in most instances, wrong when we are talking about grants in aid, talking about entitlements, the sort of extraordinary basis. Most of those programs are, in essence, voluntary. In any case, I think this points up the nature of the problem. I am, you, know stunned that there is no recognition or acceptance, at least in the purposes of this, as a problem, and I think the gentlewoman has a good point here, and I hope the Members would agree. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield? Mr. GOSS. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly to say that the objection here is not the intent of what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish. It is beyond what we have in this bill, which is a point of order would lie against this. This is an absolute veto over the power of us to do anything in this regard. So it is an extension. Let me assure the gentlewoman, though, that in the proposal I think she is going to offer later in the day relating to the same issue, I think we could be very helpful in that regard, and I think that makes better sense than what we are dealing with here. Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I think the chairman has laid it out well. I, too, am a mayor and former county chairman, and I understand the problem of these mandates. I think we have crafted a way here, and we are going in the right direction to get the desired result. I am particularly mindful of the two very great benefits we are going to get out of this legislation when we are through with it after this very open debate that we are having, is we are going to start having price tags and start having accountability. Both of those are tremendous pluses. We are also going to have trouble with what are the priorities and how much are we going to spend? I think that is the essence of democracy. I think we set up a pretty good system. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, was unfunded mandates. They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee. Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do have to have accounting for the dollars. But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this process. We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates. I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's further amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will stand and be counted. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] insist on his point of order? Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute maximum vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, noes 267, not voting 10, as follows: [Roll No. 22] AYES--157 Abercrombie Ackerman Baesler Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bishop Bonior Borski Boucher Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Clay Clayton Clyburn Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Costello Coyne Danner de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Doyle Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Holden Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Moakley Mollohan Montgomery Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Pickett Pomeroy Poshard Rahall Rangel Reed Richardson Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sanders Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Sisisky Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn NOES--267 Allard Andrews Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr [[Page H421]] Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dooley Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Martini McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Minge Molinari Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Sabo Salmon Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--10 Archer Ehrlich Flake Gibbons Levin Lincoln Reynolds Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Yates {time} 1117 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Levin for, with Mr. Ehrlich against. Messrs. SALMON, COLEMAN, LIGHTFOOT, KLINK, McINTOSH, and PETERSON of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. THOMPSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. VISCLOSKY, McHALE, and TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. {time} 1120 Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and also the ranking member from the minority party, the gentlewoman from Illinois. We have come to an arrangement whereby I will be withdrawing amendment No. 12. I would like to then move amendment No. 13. That amendment has been agreed to by all sides. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah: In section 102(a), after paragraph (1) insert the following new paragraphs (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (2) investigate and review the role of unfunded State mandates imposed on local governments, the private sector, and individuals; (3) investigate and review the role of unfunded local mandates imposed on the private sector and individuals; At the end of section 102, add the following new subsection: (e) State Mandate and Local Mandate Defined.--As used in this title: (1) State mandate.--The term ``State mandate'' means any provision in a State statute or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on local governments, the private sector, or individuals, including a condition of State assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary State program. (2) Local mandate.--The term ``local mandate'' means any provision in a local ordinance or regulation that imposes an enforceable duty on the private sector or individuals, including a condition of local assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary local program. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work in front of us so I will not debate this. I would like to thank the parties on both sides of the aisle for this amendment being agreed to and would ask for its favorable consideration. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for offering this. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. This amendment will allow the Commission that is overseeing to make a report to the Congress within 1 year, to come back and look not only at the effect of Federal mandates on State and local governments but also be able to look at the mandates that States can put on local governments and local governments put on individuals. That would be part of their overall report, as they come back to us. This will allow that Commission the opportunity to address those issues, which I think is very important. Mandates that are crippling localities today do not all emanate from the Federal Government. A lot of this is trickled down from the States to local governments as well. This amendment really will allow the Commission to report and give us a data base where we can proceed accordingly. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this addresses many of the concerns of the gentlewoman from California that she had raised on the first amendment. But instead of putting these into the purpose clause, where I do not believe it belongs, it puts it where the Commission can look at that and study these matters and report back to us. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I seek recognition to speak on behalf of the comments that were made from the gentleman from Virginia. I do think it is terribly important to set up a structure where we do have constant communication with States and localities. There will be an amendment coming up subsequently where we will ask the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to set up that structure. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, if he sees this as consistent with the points that he was just making. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is consistent with the points. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support that. I think it is terribly important, with all of these issues that come before us, that we not operate in a vacuum, that we in fact be guided by State and local leaders to tell us what is working and what is not and how we might make some of these programs work better. The real motivating force behind this whole unfunded mandate legislation is existing law and existing regulations. So we could accomplish the most by communicating with the people who are most adversely impacted, working with the executive branch to figure out how to most efficiently carry out the original intent of the legislation, not [[Page H422]] to apply a cookie-cutter approach, not to be unreasonable, not to be unilateral in our decisionmaking up here in Washington without communicating to States and localities. If we can do that, and I think the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is the ideal group to do that because it is bipartisan, it is fully representative of States and localities, then I think we will have accomplished the principal objective of this legislation, which is that kind of communication within the context of federalism. {time} 1130 Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concern about the Commission and the ACIR as being the proper receptacle. There will be an amendment offered in this regard. The Senate has already made that change. I think this will be an addition to the bill which will be very helpful. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When title I of this bill comes up, Mr. Chairman, I plan to, and in fact I think the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and several others, I am one of the sponsors as well of an amendment that will clarify that ACIR would carry out that function. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the time very briefly to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for his input into this type of legislation for these good many past years. The gentleman is recognized as a former mayor of Alexandria, who did an outstanding job while mayor of Alexandria, and has through the years worked with these kinds of problems and is very knowledgeable and to the impact that Federal mandates, State mandates, and others have on local government. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for all the work that he has done on this type of legislation. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice of the gentleman from Missouri, and I appreciate it. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for a brief minute. Mr. Chairman, as we try to sort out the federalism, the different functions of the State, the Federal Government, and the local governments, I believe that the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations will play a more crucial role as a result of this amendment offered today. I think this goes for all of us in government working together. In that regard I think we are prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and agree with his comments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is as follows: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act-- (1) the terms ``agency'', ``Federal financial assistance'', ``Federal private sector mandate'', ``Federal mandate'' (except as provided by section 108), ``local government'', ``private sector'', ``regulation'' or ``rule'', and ``State'' have the meaning given those terms by section 421 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and (2) the term ``small government'' means any small governmental jurisdiction as defined in section 601(5) of title 5, United States Code, and any tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If there are no amendments to section 3, the Clerk will designate section 4. The text of section 4 is as follows: SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION. This Act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or a proposed or final Federal regulation, that-- (1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals; (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status; (3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided by the Federal Government; (4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any State, local government, or tribal government or any official of such a government; (5) is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations; (6) the President designates as emergency legislation and that the Congress so designates in statute; or (7) pertains to Social Security. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? amendments offered by mr. taylor of mississippi Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 131 and 132, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Mr. Chairman, I understand Nos. 41 and 42 have been changed to 131 and 132 since last night. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``, or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or,'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph: (8) provides for protection of public health through effluent limitations (as that term is defined in section 502(11) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(11)). Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the Committee on Rules and the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule so all points of view could be heard as we try to perfect this legislation. I think that is the key word, is that we are trying to perfect this legislation, not to defeat it, because it is a good bill. We are here today discussing unfunded mandates because in previous years Congress has hastily passed laws without regard to their effect on State and local governments. Laws that we thought would help people actually hurt them, because we did not take the time to see them through. We appear to be doing that again today. I offer an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, to help prevent this mistake from recurring. This amendment will provide for the protection of public health by including sewage treatment regulation in the language of the bill. Our citizens pay taxes and they want to see positive results. They receive instant gratification when local governments pave the streets, improve the quality of the drinking water, or increase police protection to provide a highly visible deterrent to crime. Mr. Chairman, wastewater is a different matter. While sinks, showers, and commodes are draining properly, people do not care where it goes as long as it goes away. Therein lies the problem. It does not go away. It is discarded into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans that carry the stench, the germs, the filth, to some other community downstream. The Mississippi River drainage basin services 41 percent of the mainland United States. This includes 31 States as well as two Canadian Provinces, an area of 1.5 million square miles. It is the largest drainage basin of the country and is inhabited by 80 million [[Page H423]] Americans and over 2 million Canadians. This means that any untreated waste, waterborne disease or filth which enters any body of water in dozens of States will eventually flow past my State and many of your States. Mr. Chairman, surface filth flows past cruise ships and waterfront recreational areas in towns like Natchez and Vicksburg. Waterborne diseases end up in the drinking water of hundreds of cities who rely on the Mississippi River for their water supply. Small towns, cities, and even large metropolitan areas like New Orleans rely on the Mississippi River for their drinking water. However, closer to home, those of us who live in Alexandria, VA, should be aware that our drinking water is one tidal cycle away from the wastewater discharge of the city of Washington, DC. If Washington, DC, chooses not to treat its sewage because the mandates have been lifted, it is going in our drinking water tomorrow. It does not stop there, Mr. Chairman. The most productive commercial shrimping, fishing, and oystering industries in the world are found in the Mississippi River basin. Oysters, for examples, are filter feeders. They pump gallons of water through their bodies every day, and they retain any pollutants in that water. The crabs and shrimp and oysters that are harvested in front of my home town in Bay St. Louis, MS, live in those waters, but they end up on your dinner plates. As Members can see, there are some things that originate locally but affect us nationally. Just as our Nation should never force its unfunded and unsolved problems on the local communities, nor should the local communities pass their unsolved problems on to communities downstream, and in turn, back to our Nation. {time} 1140 I agree that we have to get a handle on Federal mandates, but to throw them all out makes no sense at all. After all, we could have chosen to be city councilmen, we could have chosen to be State senators, but we chose to be national lawmakers because there is a time and a place for this Nation to make laws to help all of us, to see to it that some of us do not hurt all of us. The unfunded mandates bill is wise in that we should always know the cost of these laws, but there is a time and a place. After all, when you think about it, the Ten Commandments is an unfunded mandate. My concern is that since there were no hearings on the bill, clear and concise language needs to be included to ensure that we are not undoing present laws. These laws exist for a good reason. I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I was a city councilman when Federal revenue sharing funds were cut out. The biggest issue we faced back then was upgrading the Bay St. Louis sewage treatment plant. Had it not been for Federal mandate, that all-Democratic board would never have voted to clean up our city's wastewater treatment. It is just that simple. The citizens do not see the reward. The problem is passed downstream. It is just not fair that my city should poison any other city's drinking water, and it is just not fair that some other city like New York should poison New Jersey and that Connecticut should poison the folks downstream from them. Chicago's drinking water ends up in the Mississippi River. It goes to Natchez, it goes to New Orleans, and when the spillway is open, it flows in front of my house. I have made what I think is a reasonable request of the chairman of this committee, to see to it that when the Clean Water Act is finally reauthorized, because it has not been reauthorized, that this somehow does not be considered a new mandate, and because Federal funds are going to be cut, and they will be cut when we pass the balanced budget amendment, that the provisions of the bill that say when we cut back on Federal fundings, that the locals no longer have to abide by the law, do not apply to this law, because this is the kind of law that we need to keep on the books. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so reluctantly, because the gentleman from Mississippi and I have had discussion about this problem that he faces, and it is a real one, but I think that the point needs to be made here that on many of the items we are going to be dealing with this morning and this afternoon asking for exemptions for various statutes from the provisions of this legislation are all well-intentioned. In fact, many of these are programs that clearly are very valuable programs, ones that provide for the health, safety, and environment of the country. But what we are saying here is we are not saying they should be exempt from consideration as to the cost. What is the cost of imposing a mandate, implementing this legislation, and that is what we are asking for, an analysis of the cost. To exempt out an entire program, meritorious as it may be, should not exempt it from a fair consideration of the cost involved in a mandate involved in connection with that legislation. That I think has to be stressed. This is not a bill that is retroactive. It is not going to in any way abrogate any of the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The gentleman does point out the Clean Water Act is in limbo. It has not been reauthorized. It is going to be reauthorized. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has indicated that that is an early subject for reauthorization. In an attempt to respond to the gentleman from Mississippi's concern, we did adopt an amendment to the bill which we think does address the concerns that he had, and is concern was that where you have legislation where the authorization has expired, that there be recognition that any mandates included in that legislation when it is reauthorized, if there is a gap between the time it expires and the time it is reauthorized, that any mandates included in that would not be affected by the reauthorization, would not, in other words, be treated as new mandates. They would be considered as a carryover from the existing legislation. Our intent there was to make it very clear that we are in no way trying to look back and eliminate mandates that were imposed in previous legislation. That was not the intent, and we hope that the language in 425(e) which does represent that adjustment would address the concern. We think the gentleman's concerns are well-founded, but we do think that this language addressed those concerns and says the Clean Water Act and the mandate that are imposed under the Clean Water Act and will be imposed again when the Clean Water is reauthorized in the next month or so would continue, and the same restrictions that exist on upstream communities now will continue and not be affected. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. And I must indicate that I am going to probably oppose most of these statute-specific amendments to this bill because again I would say most of them are very valuable pieces of legislation, but they should not just because of that, because they are so meritorious, be totally exempt from consideration as to the costs that they impose on local governments. I must oppose the amendment. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLINGER. If I have time, I would be happy to yield. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule. That in itself is certainly a step in the right direction. We have had this discussion both in publicly and privately. I remain unconvinced that the language that you inserted is clear enough to keep a high-priced lawyer from going to the different cities and different States and saying, ``If you fix your sewage treatment plant, you're going to spend millions of dollars. Why don't you put me [[Page H424]] on a retainer for $10,000 and I'll keep this tied up in court for so long that it will be past your administration. It will be someone else's problem until you get it fixed.'' But we all know it is not someone else's problem. It is someone downstream's problem. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for the sake of the people