Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Congress Sends To White House ‘Unfunded Mandates’ Legislation Congress Would Still Be Able To Create New Programs At State, Local Expense

Heather Dewar Knight-Ridder

Congress has sent the White House the first of three bills that conservatives say will help lift the burden of federal regulations off the backs of local governments and landowners - and environmentalists say will gut existing environmental laws.

By a vote of 394-28, the House on Thursday followed in the Senate’s footsteps, overwhelmingly approving the final text of the so-called unfunded mandates bill, intended to make it harder for Congress to force new programs on state and local governments without paying for them first. The bill ironed out differences between earlier House and Senate versions.

In a speech Thursday, President Clinton called the bill “a very good thing indeed.”

Once the president signs the bill, it would be the second part of the House Republican’s “Contract With America” to become law.

The unfunded-mandates bill is part of a trio of changes environmentalists have labeled “The Unholy Trinity” because of fears that they would dramatically undercut existing protections for the nation’s water, air and wildlife.

Far from fighting the moniker, House conservatives have adopted it and have put all three measures on a fast track to become law.

Two weeks ago, the House passed a regulatory revision bill that would drastically change the way federal agencies make rules, and a private property “takings” measure that would require government agencies to pay landowners whenever environmental regulations reduce the potential value of their land by 20 percent or more. Those bills are awaiting Senate action.

Backers say the three measures would force bureaucrats to use common sense in writing rules and to pick up the check whenever their actions cost businesses and ordinary citizens money.

Opponents say they would tie up federal agencies in red tape and create a windfall for polluters, who would get paid for obeying environmental laws.

“Today we see the first leg of that so-called Unholy Trinity ready to be signed,” said Rep. Billy Tauzin, D-La. “When all three of these ideas become the law of the land, I suspect we’ll see a federal government that’s become a servant again instead of a master.”

The unfunded mandates bill is an answer to state and local governments’ bitter complaints that Congress imposes costly programs upon them without picking up the tab. One favorite example is the Clean Water Act, which requires municipal water systems to test for as many as 108 different contaminants.

Some municipal officials say they have been forced to do without higher-priority needs such as extra police protection.

The bill sent to the president will not repeal any existing mandates and will not stop Congress from creating new programs at smaller governments’ expense. It is a truth-in-spending bill that requires the Congressional Budget Office to inform Congress whenever a proposed bill would create costs of more than $50 million a year for state and local governments, or more than $100 million for private businesses.

Congress would then have three choices: to stop debate; to pay for the new program; or to order state and local governments to pay for the mandate themselves.

If Congress does none of those, smaller governments could ignore the mandate. Congress would not pay for the costs of mandates to businesses.

Tauzin, the Louisiana representative, said he believed both regulatory reform and the private property “takings” bill would pass in the Senate.

But congressional conservatives met with President Clinton a week ago and came away convinced that the president would veto the takings legislation. So Senate action on the two bills has been put on hold while conservatives try to round up enough votes to overcome a veto, and that may mean the takings bill will be rewritten, Tauzin said.

“All the co-sponsors want a bill that makes it into law, not just one that passes the House and then goes nowhere,’ he said. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near veto-proof yet. So there’s some work to be done.”