Volume 141, No. 18 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H854-H861 on Jan. 30, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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} 1800
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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole arose earlier today, the motion to limit debate on each amendment to section 4, and any
[[Page H855]] amendment thereto, to 10 minutes, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], had been agreed to.
Are there further amendments to section 4?
motion to rise offered by mr. volkmer
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
AYES--159
AbercrombieAckermanAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBecerraBentsenBermanBevillBishopBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)CardinChapmanClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConyersCostelloCoyneCramerde la GarzaDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDurbinEdwardsEngelEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHastings (FL)HilliardHincheyHoldenJackson-LeeJacobsJohnson (SD)JohnstonKanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeLaFalceLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMeehanMeekMenendezMfumeMiller (CA)MinetaMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoranNadlerOlverOrtizOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PomeroyPoshardRangelReedRichardsonRiversRoemerRoseRoybal-AllardSaboSandersSawyerSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSkaggsSlaughterSprattStarkStokesStuddsStupakTejedaThompsonThurmanTorricelliTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezViscloskyVolkmerWardWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWilliamsWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYates
NOES--266
AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBatemanBeilensonBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrowderBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestConditCooleyCoxCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDannerDavisDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDoolittleDornanDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFields (TX)FlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFoxFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGerenGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHall (TX)HancockHansenHarmanHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKingKingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLucasManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMcNultyMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MolinariMontgomeryMoorheadMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPayne (VA)PetriPickettPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRegulaReynoldsRiggsRobertsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShusterSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStockmanStumpTalentTannerTateTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThorntonTiahrtTorkildsenTorresUptonVentoVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer
NOT VOTING--9
BassBrown (CA)HastertHefnerJeffersonLeachNealRushWeldon (PA)
{time} 1820
Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1820
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise to express my concern and my sense of frustration in regard to the procedure that is now being followed in reference to this debate, and I rise as the cochairman of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus. I am not a member of the committee of jurisdiction, but I rise with a deep-seated feeling that a great majority in this House wants to finish this bill, and I would hope that we could do that.
So, in discussing this matter, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues a draft memo that came to my office last January 11. It says, ``From the Democrat leadership'': You may want to change your faxes. It says, ``First and foremost, our actions and statements must comport with and amplify our overall thematic characterizations of the Republican legislative agenda and congressional management. The arrogance and unfairness of the Republican approach during the markup has led to a shoddy product and one that may (though not all)'' not all of your caucus, ``and the members of our caucus believe contains unfair and unsound policies.
``Anger and consternation about this procedural abuse should be restated repeatedly, ``--and goodness knows my colleagues have done that--'' in the days leading up to the floor action by the leadership, using letters to the Speaker and complaining about the mistreatment of the minority, press conferences and discussions with key press people, floor statements, 1-minutes, op-eds, and other communications and techniques.''
Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues' concerns. I know they are concerned about a gag rule and fairness. Lord knows I have been concerned during my tenure when I have been a member of the minority, more especially as a member of the House Administration Committee. I remember times when we were ruled out of order and we could not even speak. I remember one time when the doors were locked and we could not even get in to conduct a hearing.
All of the debate, as of right now, is on establishing the purpose and the scope of the bill. Thirty amendments remain. Even if my colleagues do not offer amendments in the second degree, that is 5 hours of debate, 7\1/2\ hours of voting.
Now how long is long? We have not got to title I. That is the commission. That is where we go back over existing unfunded mandates and we take care of that, and that deserves debate.
Now title II is the regulatory section. Title III is the point of order section. We have not even got there yet.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has an amendment pending on clean water. We have eight. That is between seven and nine, eight amendments on clean water. The first amendment by Mr. Taylor was on clean water.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to date we have had 5 days, including 1 day of general debate, 20 hours, 168 amendments have been proposed, 16 amendments have
[[Page H856]] been considered, and 2 amendments have been passed.
We need to settle this bill. The delay, the crisis, is throughout this country in regard to the city councils, and the school boards, and every business and every farm, every entity that we have out there suffering from unfunded mandates. The Senate has passed the bill, and I must tell my colleagues, which I share their concern about minority rights and the gag rule--my word, people: 30 more amendments, 7\1/2\ hours of voting, 5 hours and we are not even to the 3 titles. How long is long?
With all due respect, with all due respect, and I mean this very sincerely, people crawl out of train wrecks faster than you people consider bills.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes as I announce to the Members of this body and their families that everybody should be prepared to remain here tonight in session until we complete this section of the bill irrespective of the number of votes, procedural or substantive. We will remain here tonight until we finish this section of the bill.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we are debating this piece of legislation. We are moving along very judiciously. We have had Members, as a matter of fact, who have several amendments; they have offered to put those amendments en bloc, as the other side very well knows. We have been cooperative in any way that we can.
The interesting thing about this is that we are going to rush to judgment about the amendments that we have. We have a gag rule that has been imposed upon us tonight. We find ourselves without the ability--we found ourselves without the ability in committee to offer amendments, and now we have the gag rule.
Now everybody is talking about, ``Why don't we go on?'' It is because we want to get this thing done, and we want to do it right. We want to be able to deliberate in the fashion that everybody is supposed to be accustomed to in this House of Representatives.
This is a deliberative body, not one that is not deliberative. I say to my colleagues, ``When you can't deliberate in committee, you have to deliberate on the floor.''
Further, this bill will not become effective until October 1995. If they were in such a hurry to get this done, why are they making the effective date 10 months from now?
It seems to me something is wrong with that kind of thinking, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who raised the question about why we are moving the way we are, I want to go back to the comment made by the gentlewoman from Illinois: This is a deliberative body.
We have been on this bill 2 weeks. There is no national emergency that says that we have to finish this in another week. What they are are national imperatives that are reflected in the amendments by the people who have been duly represented from constituencies across this country.
Now, if in fact we are going to play games about how long we take to do a bill, then perhaps we ought to do as the distinguished gentleman from Texas said. Let us just go on ad infinitum. I mean that is why we are here anyway. It was not this side's decision to start at 5 p.m., and quite frankly, as my colleagues know, I hear the debate on both sides of the aisle regarding this. I think we ought to move forward, and I would sincerely appreciate if the minority would stop suggesting that Members in the minority should have no rights at all to offer amendments, or to debate those amendments, or to debate aspects of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is a process that has been going on long before any Member in this body ever got here, it will go on long afterward, and I would hope and expect that we could move forward with some sense of fairness and some sense of understanding that people on this side of the aisle have a right to offer amendments and have every right to expect that those amendments are going to be debated. The constituencies that sent them here expect that also.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, it appeared to me to be quite obvious that, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania who made the earlier motion would now move that there be no limitation to amendments, that we could proceed with the amendments in order, and I do not think we would have any of this stuff, and we could get out of here a lot earlier than otherwise.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. There is no limitation on amendments. All we have said is that there is a limitation on debate time.
Mr. VOLKMER. Ten minutes on each amendment. If the gentleman would withdraw that and make a motion that there would be no limitation on amendments, on time limits on amendments, then I think we--we have already spent over an hour and have not got through the first amendment.
{time} 1830
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I know we are all trying to be as fair as we possibly can. With all sincerity, we put out an open rule on this bill because we did not want it to be a closed rule. We did not want to gag Members on either side of the aisle. Regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, you are entitled to be heard. And in putting the open rule out, we have given you the opportunity to offer whatever amendments you want to. But there is a time constraint, and I will say to my good friend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], and he is a good friend, we have a contract to abide by. We are going to get these rules through this Congress.
With 5 days acting on the bill, significant amendments on both sides of the aisle can be offered to these four sections, and there has been ample opportunity. All we are saying now is we have to move on. We cannot continue another 5 days on this issue.
The suggestion was made to me that we go upstairs and put out a closed rule, because we have spent 5 days on this issue. And I personally opposed that. I do not think we should do that, because you should have ample opportunity to be heard.
But as we progress now, after 5 days, we are going to move on to title I probably at 2 o'clock in the morning, and then we will give ample debate on title I. But at some point you will have to limit debate on title I. We have to move through this bill because we have other important issues to come before us.
It does not matter that this bill has an effective date of next October. The fact is the American people want us to pass this bill. The Governors' Association, the school boards, as the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts] has mentioned, the local governments that I served in, they wanted to know that we are going to pass this before final action is taken on the balanced budget amendment.
All Members know that and are very much aware of that. So time is of the essence. We have to pass this bill, and we are going to do it one way or another. We will do it all with your cooperation.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would submit the debate that has gone on has been on both sides of the aisle here in terms of Republicans using their time. Furthermore, I would suggest my information was there was no discussion with the minority when the motion was made today with regard to limiting amendments and the time for amendments on title IV. There is no consultation here, there is no bipartisan effort to work on this bill; that is, both in the actions of the committee and on this House floor tonight. When
[[Page H857]] you start at 5 p.m., who starts at 5 p.m. with their workday and expects to get their job done?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows for several days negotiations have been going on between myself, the manager of the bill, between the minority leader on your side, trying to get you to come up with the significant amendments and have you offer them, but we have not been able to get anyplace. We have been trying. But we are going to remain as open and fair and accountable as we can, but it is up to you. It is up to you. If you want to cooperate, we will stay that way. If you do not, again I have to remind you, we are going to put this bill through in the next 48 hours.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand guerrilla tactics. See, some of my good friends are smiling on that side of the aisle. I remember when we were in the minority. Sometimes there were closed rules and sometimes the rights of the minority--we were then the minority--were violated, and we had to do something. So I understand that. I understand that.
But our side has pledged and the Committee on Rules chairman has just stated that we wanted to be as fair as possible and have open rules. And toward that end, you have an open rule before you right now and there has been debate going on ad infinitum on this particular piece of legislation.
But let me just tell you, I serve not only on the old Committee on Government Operations, but also the Committee on International Operations, the former Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it has been my observation, and I think the observation of everybody in the majority, that every single dilatory tactic that can be employed is being employed to slow down the progress on the Contract With America. It is very evident. And I think anybody who watches the deliberations of this body knows that every one of these tactics are being employed. Every one of these tactics are being employed, not because you have alternative ideas that are good for America but because you do not want the Contract With America, which is supported by probably 75 percent of Americans, to be heard on this floor. The American people need to know that, and they will know that, the people of this country will see that very, very clearly.
So I would just like to say to those of you who suffered in this last election and do not apparently have any ideas with which to do combat with the Contract With America that it would be in your interests to let open rules come down in an orderly manner, and conduct the business of this House. If you do not do that, we are going to get the Contract With America to this floor, and they are going to be voted on. If we have to stay here every night for months on end, we are going to get that done. And the American people, when they see the tactics you are employing to slow down what they wanted and what they elected us to do, it is going to cost you even more dearly in 1996.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I appreciate his remarks and certainly appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I recognize that to a large extent his desire to not go back and close this rule is sincere, and I appreciate that. But we have engaged in a process of who can out-talk who, and we have not done one amendment.
When the other side won the vote to allow us to move ahead with the 10-minute procedure, that would have taken place, had not the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] gotten up and began to read and suggest over here we were doing something. I would think after this maybe we could go into the next amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was a great speech, but actions speak louder than words, and anybody watching these proceedings knows what you are doing.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further substantive amendments to section 4?
amendments offered by mr. borski
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments which were printed in the Record as amendments numbered 35 and 36.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Borski:
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) establishes or enforces any condition or limitation on the addition into waters of the United States of pollutants that are--
(A) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects; or
(B) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans--
(i) cancer or teratogenic effects; or
(ii) serious or irreversible--
(I) reproductive dysfunctions;
(II) neurological disorders;
(III) heritable genetic mutations; or
(IV) other chronic health effects.
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) establishes or enforces any condition or limitation on the addition into waters of the United States of pollutants that are--
``(A) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects; or
``(B) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans--
``(i) cancer or teratogenic effects; or
``(ii) serious or irreversible--
``(I) reproductive dysfunctions;
``(II) neurological disorders;
``(III) heritable genetic mutations; or
``(IV) other chronic health effects.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] is recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1840
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I believe unreasonable unfunded mandates should not be sent to local governments.
Congress should not require unfunded mandates without careful consideration and deliberation.
But there are issues--major and significant issues--on which the Federal Government has a truly legitimate role in setting nation-wide standards.
Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act has been one of the great successes of modern America in cleaning up our Nation's waters and in protecting the health of the American people.
Is it unreasonable for us to set limits and restrictions on the dumping of pollution in our Nation's waterways?
The Federal Government for more than two decades has paid part of the cots of cleaning up the waters.
It is true that we have set standards and only paid part of the cost. We have not paid all of the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to protect the American people. It has been a cost-sharing program.
The alternatives to Federal action to limit water pollution are unacceptable. Local governments could also set the standards necessary to protect human health and then pay 100 percent of the cost.
It would be cheaper for local governments to set standards that do not protect the health of the American people, but I do not believe that local governments officials would choose a policy that would not protect the health of their residents. However, if local governments might choose to set lower standards for water pollution to save money, shouldn't the Federal Government have some role in protecting human health?
My amendment would exempt any bill establishing limits on the addition of health-threatening pollutants into the waters.
These health effects would be only the most serious, such as cancer, birth and young infant defects, major reproductive problems, nerve system damage, and genetic damage.
Mr. Chairman, there is truly widespread support to reduce unfunded mandates but there is no evidence the American people want to increase the risk of the serious health problems caused by water pollution.
The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 because of the urgent and immediate need to begin a national program of cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and streams.
We were faced with a national crisis of polluted waters that threatened the Health of the American public.
The Clean Water Act has shown a solid record of achievement as we have successfully reduced pollution into the waters. The Environmental Protection Agency's water quality inventories show an ever-increasing percentage of waters that have achieved their cleanup goals.
I urge the Members of this House not to place the Clean Water Act--
and the health of the American people--on the chopping block.
We should be cutting back on unfunded mandates but we should not destroy our ability to protect the health of the American people.
I appreciate the committee chairman's concern to keep this law as simple as possible. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any exceptions. The bill as reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight already has seven exceptions.
Why do we have those seven exceptions that are already in the bill if we want no exceptions?
We have those exceptions because the authors of the bill believe those purposes are important enough that bills on those subjects should not be delayed with an additional point of order.
I am saying that laws concerning the control of water pollution that could have a serious and adverse impact on human health should also be exempted from this special new requirement.
We are creating two different rules for legislation on this House floor. Some bills face tougher requirements than others.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment attempts to get legislation protecting human health into the easier category for floor consideration that has already been established by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
We must act like legislators--Members of the United States House of Representatives--and stand behind legislation that will protect the health of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to exempt water pollution laws that protect human health from this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I represent Punxatawney, PA, and in about 3 or 4 days we will be celebrating Groundhog Day. And some years ago there was a movie called Groundhog Day in which the same day was repeated over and over and over again.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is an analogy here to what we have been doing in the Committee of the Whole, because a number of these amendments are in fact repetitive. We have dealt with at least one amendment having to do with the Clean Water Act and with its reauthorization, and that was earlier in our debate. There are at least eight more pending in that regard.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would call the attention of the Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to a statement by President Clinton made to the Governors just within the last 2 or 3 days in which he said,
We are strongly supporting the move to get unfunded mandates legislation passed in the Congress, and we are encouraged by the work that was done in the United States Senate where, as I remember, the bill passed 86 to 10. After a really open and honest discussion of all appropriate amendments, the legislation is now moving through the House.
I am not sure that he was aware how slowly it was moving. I think there are about 100 amendments pending, he said, but I think they will move through it in a fairly expeditious way, just as the Senate did.
So I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed the suggestion of their President to move this bill as expeditiously as possible. This, again, is an amendment that deals with a very, very important piece of legislation. It deals with a very important issue. The only question is, does it rise to any higher level of concern than all of the other exemptions that we have been considering.
Again, this is not a retrospective look. It is only prospective. It will not affect anything that is presently on the books, nor should it. But it does say that if we are going to enact additional requirements under the Clean Water Act, then we should at least consider the cost to those who are going to be imposed upon.
Mr. Chairman, I would plead with the Members to defeat this amendment and recognize that the Governors, the county commissioners, all of our State and local officials are crying out for relief from unfunded mandates.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the Portland metropolitan area which has a problem with combined sewer overflows and the cost of clean-up is estimated at $1 billion. But Portland area residents, the State and the city governments are not urging us to roll back the Clean Water Act. In contrast to what heard today, public opinion poll after public opinion poll ranks clean water as the top priority for the northwest.
The answer does not lie in forsaking fundamental values. Instead we must update and reprioritize our budget priorities.
We should spend, in my opinion, less on cold war weapons and more on domestic priorities.
I support the Borski amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, under this bill the Congress will still have the authority to pass the legislation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants. We still have that authority. We have not given that up at all. We will simply have the cost in front of us before we move ahead and, before we say to our localities that we are going to pass the bill to them and shift the tax burden from the progressive income tax to local property taxes, we are going to understand what that bill is. Before we say that this amendment is more important than local education projects, than local police protection, we are going to have a cost done so that this body can appropriately consider it.
We can still address the clean water that the gentleman is concerned about. This does not affect any existing mandate whatsoever. I think that needs to be clarified. We still have that flexibility, but we are going to know the cost first.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], who is wearing the pride of the Super Bowl victors on his shirt. I would remind the gentleman that the Eagles defeated the 49ers 40 to 8.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Borski amendment. This amendment assures that we do not cripple our future efforts at protecting the basic rights of our constituents.
As we learned so dramatically in Milwaukee, when over 100 individuals died because of waterborne bacteria, pollutants in our water can have serious adverse health effects. If we support the Borski amendment, we will be able to respond to new and serious threats to human health.
If we do not adopt this amendment, government will be far less able to respond and will be far slower in responding to new and serious waterborne threats to human health.
To me, this is what the amendment is all about. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Borski amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of Mr. Borski's amendment.
The Borski amendment assures that we do not cripple our future efforts at protecting the basic health rights of our constituents. As we learned so dramatically in Milwaukee when over 100 individuals died because of waterborne bacteria, pollutants in our water can have serious adverse health effects.
I congratulate my colleague for having the foresight to be willing to assure our ability to continue to protect our constituents from water pollution which may cause significant and serious health problems.
[[Page H859]] Both this floor and the Transportation Committee have been the scene of spirited debate over what is the proper level of protection of the environment. Although we Members may differ on how we answer that question, I do not believe that we have ever differed on the need to preserve basic human health from the most serious adverse effects of pollution.
The protection of human health should not be considered an unfunded mandate. In fact, one of the primary responsibilities of State and local government is to assure the protection of the health of their citizens. Fortunately, in the area of clean water, Congress has been funding the efforts of State and local governments in protecting citizens from pollution. Over $60 billion has been provided to date and I fully expect funding to continue.
However, we should not be so foolish to believe that State and local governments would not take steps to protect human health but for the requirements of the Clean Water Act. For example, 100 years ago Chicago took steps as bold as to reverse the flow of the Chicago River in support of public health.
The world we live in is more complex than that which existed in the last century, we do not know what the next century will bring. If we support the Borski amendment, we will be able to respond to new and serious threats to human health. If we do not adopt this amendment, government will be far less able to respond, and will be far slower in responding, to new and serious waterborne threats to human health. That is what this amendment is all about.
I urge my colleagues to support the Borski amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has the right to close.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the gentleman did not reference the Redskins' performance this year, but we are coming back.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania providing this legislation not apply to regulations protecting U.S. waters and pollutants of toxic waste.
Day after day after day, like ground-hog day in that movie, we are having the Chesapeake Bay polluted, one of the greatest estuaries of this world. We need to stop it. The Federal Government has taken substantial steps toward that end.
I think it is appropriate to say in this instance, because of the critical nature of the problem that we confront with respect to the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways of this Nation, that this is not the type of unfunded mandate, that, in fact, yes, it is costly to clean up our waste, but it is not so costly that the cost downstream and in the long run is not far greater.
{time} 1850
Mr. Chairman, I think that is what the gentleman's amendment speaks to, and I rise in its support.
Mr. Chairman, do we need to curb the ease by which we pass unfunded mandates on to State and local governments? Yes we do.
However, it is important to recognize that there are many present mandates which the Federal Government imposes and which my constituents would not want abolished.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania providing that this legislation not apply to regulations protecting U.S. waters from pollutants and toxic waste.
The transformation of the Chesapeake Bay from its dismal state a decade ago into the more healthy estuary in the world is a perfect example of what the shortsighted impact of this legislation could be. We cannot move backward on the Chesapeake Bay.
We must guarantee that individual localities not be able to dump waste into waters and destroy the very environment that is enjoyed by people across the entire mid-Atlantic region and whose health our coastal economics depend upon.
It is imperative that the future impact of H.R. 5 not jeopardize the successes of several environmental, safety, and health standards that the American people depend upon and support.
Unfunded mandate legislation cannot and should not result in unintended consequences.
Mr. Chairman, we have a Contract With America. It is the contract that we have made together to provide protections and safeguards for our environment, our workers, and our health.
I agree with my colleagues who support this measure that we must more carefully judge the requirements we impose. However, in the rush to legislate we must ensure that we are not rushing to abdicate important protections that the American people want and expect.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I have any time remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment attempts to get legislation protecting human health in an easier category for floor consideration than has already been established by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to exempt water pollution laws to protect human health from this bill.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of a water bill and sewer bill from the city of Albuquerque from this month that was sent to a constituent. For his sewer charge, it shows: base charge, $13.08; unfunded Federal mandate to remove ammonia, $12.15. In other words, a Federal requirement to remove one product from the sewer system is equal in cost, to the residents I represent, to their whole base charge for all of the other costs of running the sewer system.
Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that in this or in other instances, upon a careful analysis, costs like this must be borne? I think the possibility certainly exists. I do agree with the other side, of course, on the importance of cleaning up our water, but who has measured this? Who has measured from the Federal Government whether in fact doubling the cost of the sewer rates to the residents of Albuquerque is, in fact, what is needed to keep this water at an appropriate level of toxic pollution control?
Mr. Chairman, my point is that this bill would require that kind of accounting, that kind of accountability, and that is why the gentleman's amendment should be rejected.
amendment offered by mr. volkmer to the amendments en bloc offered by mr. borski
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer to the amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Borski:
At the end of the amendments add the following: ``V. Reproductive disorders.''
Mr. CHAIRMAN. There is no debate in order on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Volkmer) there were--ayes 42, noes 78.
recorded vote
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
announcement by the chairman
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Chair an- nounces that pursuant to clause 2(c), rule XXIII, he will reduce to 5 minutes any recorded vote on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Borski] following the vote on the amendment thereto offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, noes 312, not voting 8, as follows:
AYES--114
AbercrombieAckermanBarciaBecerraBentsenBishopBoniorBrown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)ClayClaytonClyburnColemanCollins (MI)ConyersCoyneDannerDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonEngelEshooEvansFarrFazioFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFrank (MA)FurseGejdensonGephardtGibbonsGreenHastings (FL)Hilliard
[[Page H860]] HincheyHoyerJackson-LeeJohnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonKanjorskiKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KildeeKlinkLaFalceLantosLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcKinneyMeehanMeekMfumeMiller (CA)MinetaMinkMollohanNadlerOrtizOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)PelosiRangelReedReynoldsRichardsonRiversRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSlaughterStarkStokesStuddsStupakThompsonThorntonTorresTorricelliTownsTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerWardWatersWatt (NC)WiseWoolseyWynnYates
NOES--312
AllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBeilensonBereuterBermanBevillBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCardinCastleChabotChamblissChapmanChenowethChristensenChryslerClementClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)Collins (IL)CombestConditCooleyCostelloCoxCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisde la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoggettDooleyDoolittleDornanDoyleDreierDuncanDunnDurbinEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFattahFawellFields (TX)FlanaganFogliettaFoleyForbesFordFowlerFoxFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFrostFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenwoodGundersonGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJacobsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKapturKasichKellyKennellyKimKingKingstonKleczkaKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLoweyLucasLutherManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMcNultyMenendezMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MingeMoakleyMolinariMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtonOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPayne (VA)Peterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRegulaRiggsRobertsRoemerRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceSprattStearnsStenholmStockmanStumpTalentTannerTateTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThornberryThurmanTiahrtTorkildsenTraficantUptonVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWolfWydenYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Brown (CA)HarmanHastertHefnerJeffersonLeachNealWeldon (PA)
{time} 1911
Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendments was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, noes 263, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
AYES--162
AbercrombieAckermanBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBeilensonBentsenBermanBevillBishopBoniorBorskiBoucherBrown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)CardinClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConyersCostelloCoyneDannerDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoyleDurbinEngelEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFogliettaFordFrostFurseGejdensonGephardtGibbonsGonzalezGordonGreenGutierrezHastings (FL)HilliardHincheyHoldenHoyerJackson-LeeJacobsJohnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonKanjorskiKapturKennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLantosLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMeehanMeekMenendezMfumeMiller (CA)MinetaMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMontgomeryMoranMurthaNadlerOberstarObeyOlverOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)PelosiPomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedReynoldsRichardsonRiversRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSkaggsSlaughterSprattStarkStokesStuddsStupakTaylor (MS)ThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTorricelliTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerWardWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWilliamsWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYates
NOES--263
AllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrewsterBrowderBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCastleChabotChamblissChapmanChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestConditCooleyCoxCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFields (TX)FlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKennedy (MA)KimKingKingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLucasManzulloMarkeyMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMcNultyMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MolinariMoorheadMorellaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOrtizOrtonOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPayne (VA)Peterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRiggsRobertsRoemerRogers
[[Page H861]] RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShusterSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStockmanStumpTalentTannerTateTauzinTaylor (NC)TejedaThomasThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenUptonVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Brown (CA)Burtonde la GarzaHarmanHastertHefnerJeffersonNealWeldon (PA)
{time} 1919
Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up