House panel passes bill requiring vote on unfunded mandates to cities, states.

WASHINGTON -- Legislation designed to make Congress think twice before imposing new unfunded federal mandates on states and localities took a step forward in the House last week.

The step came when the House Government operations subcommittee on human resources and intergovernmental relations approved, by voice vote, an unfunded mandates bill similar to one passed by a Senate panel in June.

But the measure, which is praised by most state and local groups but condemned by others as a "toothless tiger," is expected to run into strong opposition in the full committee from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

The bill would require the Congressional Budget Office to conduct an analysis of future legislation to determine the cost to the states of complying with federal regulations. If the CBO determines the cost is more than $50 million annually, the committee drafting the bill must locate possible sources of funding and request them.

If the funding isn't authorized at the committee level, a separate vote on whether to impose the mandate could be demanded when the bill is considered by the full House or Senate.

The only major difference between the House bill and the Senate bill lies in a Senate requirement that the CBO analyze the cost to the private sector of complying with federal statutes.

Democrats on the House panel rejected that amendment outright, calling it an unreasonable burden on the CBO, not to mention that the CBO said it would need an extra $8 million annually to carry out the studies.

Several interest groups, including the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have praised the bill because it puts lawmakers on record as voting for, or against, passing the costs of federal legislation on to municipal governments.

But the groups say the bill needs to be changed if it is to be effective in the House. The measure would allow lawmakers to raise a so-called point of order against considering legislation that imposes a new mandate unless the CBO certifies it did not exceed $50 million or unless the committee authorizes funding to cover the costs of the mandate. But critics say the requirement is meaningless because the House routinely waives points of order.

In its current form the legislation "is a toothless tiger," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla.

Several "parity" amendments offered by Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, that were designed to add teeth to the bill were defeated along party lines because of jurisdictional questions.

The amendments would have, among other things, directed the House Rules Committee to allow the House to strike any part of a bill that constituted an unfunded mandate and directed the Rules Committee to issue a biannual report identifying all waivers of points of order.

Subcommittee chairman Edolphus Town, D-N.Y., and Waxman, the second-ranking member of the panel, argued against the amendments because, they said, they fall outside the committee's jurisdiction. It is a cumbersome process to make any changes to the House rules, and those changes must take place in the Rules Committee, Waxman said.

But, Rep. William Clinger, R-Pa., the ranking minority member of the full Government Operations Committee, argued that the amendments should be approved to encourage the Rules Committee to adopt similar amendments

The bill moved fairly easily through a Senate panel in June and has bipartisan support, said Larry Jones, lead lobbyist for the National Association of Counties.

Both President Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., have expressed support for the bill, and although nothing in Congress is ever a sure thing, that support gives the bill a very good chance of passing this legislative session, which is scheduled to end in early October, Jones said.

But Waxman said he was completely against the bill in its current form.

"The bill is philosophically flawed," Waxman said. If the purpose of the bill was to inform Congress of the costs of its legislation to the states, that's one thing, but this bill "doesn't have the purpose of giving information -- it just stops government from working," he said.

While the legislation enjoys the support of major state and local interest groups, a coalition of more than 50 groups, from the AFL-CIO to the Women's National Democratic Club, sent a letter to the committee saying the bill is unreasonable.

"The bill does not address the real issue: the fiscal crisis at the state and local levels. The bill does not truly identify the reasons for funding shortages, nor does it create a mechanism to provide needed additional resources," the letter said.

The measure is expected to be considered by the full committee in September after Congress returns from its summer recess, Jones said.

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, click here.
MORE FROM AMERICAN BANKER