[Pages H854-H861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--266

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Upton
Vento
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--9

Bass
Brown (CA)
Hastert
Hefner
Jefferson
Leach
Neal
Rush
Weldon (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.

[[Page H858]]

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:

[Roll No. 60]

AYES--114

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
[[Page H860]] Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--312

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
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
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--8

Brown (CA)
Harman
Hastert
Hefner
Jefferson
Leach
Neal
Weldon (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

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--263

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
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
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
[[Page H861]] Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--9

Brown (CA)
Burton
de la Garza
Harman
Hastert
Hefner
Jefferson
Neal
Weldon (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.

____________________