Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] have discussed this issue, and once again there are issues which we recommend be placed in the bill and other issues which by way of example are matters that the committee should stay. I understand the chairman of the committee has made a commitment to the gentleman from Illinois that assuming we do get to conference with the other body, that the chairman commits to try to get into report language the issues the gentleman has raised.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer brings to focus a terrible unfunded mandate that has come as a result of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. That states as follows: ``In any area that has been nominated to be a severe or extreme ozone nonattainable area, States are required to file a State compliance plan.'' Part of that plan states that any employer that has an excess of 100 employees has to file a plan that certifies that within a year or two employee trips will be reduced by 25 percent. This is known as forced car pooling. The purpose of my amendment here would be to direct that the Commission give No. 1 priority to this unfunded mandate which is costing the States millions and millions of dollars. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has cordially agreed to enter into a colloquy to show that on the employee commute option, which is part of the Clean Air Act, had we had the unfunded mandates law in effect in 1990, this would have been studied. I ask the gentleman, is that correct?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman, and then it will be my intention to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment that the gentleman form California [Mr. Riggs] and I crafted. The issue here is very simple. Regardless of the views of Members of that they know full well that this bill is going to pass, and that everybody in this body would want to make sure that those matters have the first attention of the Commission during the study of those matters that are presently in the hands of the courts or may be in the hands of the courts later on. The purpose of this amendment is to state that because litigation is existing, this means that the issue of studying unfunded mandates in those particular situations is paramount. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the Members of this body to vote in favor of the Riggs-Manzullo amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, it just goes to show the absolute necessity of passing this unfunded mandate law. Back in 1990 there would have been required a study to say what is the impact on forced car pooling on State agencies, local agencies, and on local businesses. The State of Illinois now faces tens of millions of dollars in this new unfunded mandate. It is a new age, it is a new federalism. It is a time to look at America through the eyes of those that are trying to conserve its resources. That is why I simply cannot impress upon this body the absolute necessity of passing this unfunded mandates bill.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment numbered 17.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, a balanced budget is the best way to ensure the future economic prosperity of the United States. It is a long-term solution to a long-term problem. Congress, over the past 40 years, has been full of big spenders who couldn't restrain their proclivity to spend. A balanced budget limits the powers of Government and brings stability to the budget-making process. Deficits are not a short-term trend. The Federal Government has run a deficit for 56 of the last 64 years, and the last 24 years in a row. Congress has tried to change its free-spending ways, but countless budget deals have done very little. In the 1920's, Federal spending as a percentage of GNP was 3 percent; in 1940 it was 10 percent; and in 1992 it was 22.4 percent. Eliminating the deficit is one of the most urgent priorities facing the country. We can't begin to tackle our near $5 trillion national debt until the Federal budget runs a surplus. And unless we begin to repay our debt soon, this country will be headed for a deep and prolonged economic crisis. When it comes to balancing the budget, the deficit is a convenient target for election year attacks. But when it comes to getting reelected, deficit spending is the key. Why? First, intense pressure for spending tends to override a generalized preference for fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. In the short run, deficit spending is the most painless political option and the path of least resistance. In other words, wasteful spending has a curious appeal to deficit-hostile constituents when it is in their own district. Second, intense pressure for spending tends to override the general, diffused targets of most tax increases. Tax increases are purposely spread out enough so they don't spark a Boston tea party. For Congress, it's easy to tax and easier to spend, making it almost impossible to balance the budget. Mr. Chairman, a long-term, structural response is needed to reverse a long-term, structural problem. The solution is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I don't take this step lightly, but it's one that Thomas Jefferson endorsed. An amendment reestablishes a level playing field, forcing Congress to place higher priority on balancing the budget rather than spending and taxing. It restores the Constitution's goal of limited government. Some critics of this legislation contend that it will unfairly impact Social Security. Nothing could be further from the truth. These critics say that Social Security is not part of the deficit problem. I agree completely. Social Security is soundly financed and runs a surplus require a balanced budget does not change Social Security in any way. Current laws on the books that protect Social Security would not be changed by the amendment. For example, Social Security is exempt from across-the-board budget cuts. The trust fund is already excluded from deficit calculations. The amendment does not change those laws in any way. Taking Social Security and other worthy problems off-budget under the amendment would open up a loophole to evade the intent of the proposal. It would set a precedent for other Government programs to simply by shifting enough Government programs into off-budget accounts. This would only make matters worse. I'm sure you wouldn't do this with your own check book. That's why I don't want to make an exception for the Government. In fact, a constitutional amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget is critical to the long-term health of Social Security, forcing Congress to bring the deficit to zero so future politicians will not be tempted to cover our Nation's huge debt with the Social Security surplus set aside for the baby-boomer generation. Mr. Chairman, since I took office, I have had the courage to consistently vote against wasteful spending over 300 times to cut $175 billion. Unfortunately, most of Congress did not agree. If we do not respond to our long-term problem with a long-term solution, large Federal deficits and low private saving will lead to increasingly costly and precarious dependence on foreign capital, and less investment to modernize and expand the economy. All this will result in smaller gains in productivity and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, Congress must vote for the balanced budget amendment to save future generations from this unconscionable economic burden.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any amendment that would exempt the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws from the unfunded mandates. Mr. Chairman, I represent the 16th District of Illinois. One of our counties is McHenry County, part of the Chicago metropolitan statistical area. That area has been denominated as a severe ozone nonattainment area, which means that any company which has in excess of 100 employees is forced to carpool. It is called employee commute option. This is a mandate from the U.S. Congress through the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act. The CRS has put out a report showing a cost-benefit analysis. The EPA administrator herself, Carol Browner, stated in a meeting this past week here on Capitol Hill that as far as she is concerned and as far as Mary Nichols is concerned, and Mary Nichols is the assistant EPA Administrator, that car pooling simply does not work under any circumstances. It is not proved to be cost efficient. But we are stuck with it. It is in the law. To exempt the Clean Air Act from the unfunded mandates bill simply is saying we are going to take a bill, a provision of a law, that does not work, but because it relates to environmental quality, therefore, it should not be looked at with the scrutiny of an unfunded mandate. The Chicago Tribune this past Saturday headlined, ``U.S. Car Pool? Never Mind.'' This is the EPA administrator urging Members of Congress to ignore an existing statute. The only think we can do at this point, aside from opening up the Clean Air Act, is to ask that the Clean Air Act, along with other statutory enactments, be looked at by the Unfunded Mandates Commission for the purpose of saying this simply does not work, we should do away with it, and allow people the ability to drive to work as opposed to being forced to carpool.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to take action on an issue that we are all concerned with--unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments and the private sector. H.R. 5 restricts the ability of the Federal Government to impose unfunded mandates on State and local governments, and private-sector entities, without providing the necessary funds to fund them. Specifically, the bill establishes a Commission on Unfunded Mandates to make recommendations about existing mandates; requires Federal agencies to develop procedures to minimize unfunded mandates and to publish cost-benefit analyses of any new regulations expected to cost States and localities, or the private sector, more than $100 million annually; requires the Congressional Budget Office to prepare cost estimates of proposed mandates and requires congressional committees to report whether the mandates will be funded or unfunded; and establishes automatic points of order against legislation imposing unfunded mandates greater than $50 million. I have heard from State, county, municipal officials, and employers in my home State of Illinois about this issue. These people live with the effects of unfunded mandates everyday. They see the costs in their communities every day in houses priced out of reach for first time homebuyers, in libraries reducing hours or closing doors entirely, and in the trade-offs that they have to make between police officers, health inspectors, firemen, refuse services, and every increasing taxes on their constituencies. For local and State governments, this is not a theoretical political science discussion--it determines in large measure how they do their job. I am proud to come to the floor today and voice my support for H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. I care about this issue because I firmly believe that the Federal Government should have a limited role in our lives. Before being elected to Congress, I was a family lawyer in a small town for over 20 years. I had the opportunity to see up close and personal how my community was being destroyed by unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate from the Federal Government. When I came to Washington in 1992, I came committed to doing what I could to end this unprecedented, unwarranted, and unfunded intrusion by the Federal Government into the affairs of local government. While this bill does not repeal previously enacted mandates, at least it starts us on the path toward putting procedural roadblocks to unfunded Federal mandates. This legislation is desperately needed because the Federal Government must adopt a coherent and fair policy regarding unfunded Federal mandates. That policy should be that the Federal Government should fund its mandates. That policy should further reflect the philosophy that if the Federal Government is going to weigh in on a problem or issue and propose remedies and requirements, then the Federal Government must set priorities and find a way to pay for them. H.R. 5 embodies this philosophy. If adopted, it will establish a new, more responsible relationship between Washington and State and local governments that says the Federal Government will provide them with the necessary resources whenever it asks them to meet or satisfy any Federal standard. That is why the enactment of this bill is so important. You can imagine my surprise when this bill is described as radical and revolutionary. One opposition group describes it as an effort to roll back most of the great social gains our Nation has made in the past 50 years. It isn't and it won't--and the people who oppose our bill know it. What is truly radical is the way Congress currently handles mandates. There is no authorization and appropriation process, and therefore no priorities are set. Over 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers figured out that there would be more good ideas than money. Unfortunately, a number of my colleagues have not. When Washington faces a serious problem, it only has three options available to it. It can increase revenues to fund new programs. It can eliminate old programs to fund new ones. Or it can pass on the costs of new programs to others: State and local governments. This is just a form of indirect taxation. Guess which one is most politically expedient in Washington, DC? Unfunded Federal mandates are also the most expensive way to accomplish these good and sometimes not so good ideas. There is no incentive to discover the most cost-effective way to implement a program if some one else is paying for it. In fact, the regulations can be as cumbersome and inefficient as the Federal bureaucracy wants because they are not responsible for compliance. State and local governments are. Washington gets to feel good--and local governments get to pay the tab. It is like your friend making a big show of buying your dinner at a fancy restaurant, but when the bill comes, he is nowhere to be found, and you get stuck with the tab. Around the Nation, some State legislatures have begun convening joint sessions with their Federal representatives, asking them to explain the how and why of their positions and their voting record on mandate issues. Even the news media is beginning to cover this issue. It does not have, as Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell puts it, the sexiness of many other issues, but its impact cannot be understated. However, our day has come. If the new Congress is going to show real leadership, this bill must pass. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and oppose all weakening amendments.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today is truly a landmark day in the history of this country. On November 8, the citizens spoke out against big government and unfunded mandates. We have a unique opportunity to curtail many, if not all, unfunded mandates this Congress. One key mandate is the employee trip reduction contained in the Clean Air Act of 1990. If you thought the electorate was angry in November, wait until they hear about this restriction on their ability to drive their own car to work. The employee trip reduction, known also as the employee commute option, requires businesses with over 100 employees in certain areas to force their employees to carpool to work. Thus, the employee commute option is really a misnomer, because if the States do not enforce this mandate, they stand to lose much needed highway funding. In my own State of Illinois, that is $700 million in the balance. In other words, implement mandated carpooling, or else. That's not much of an option. Affected areas are designated ``severe'' nonattainment regions based on 1987-1988-1989 statistics, even though recent data shows these regions have cleaned-up their air before these mandates take effect. The bill I am introducing today allows the States to decide if they want carpooling to be part of their clean air plan. It will not change the goals of the Clean Air Act but simply gives States the option to utilize carpooling as a tool to help clean the air in their specific region. My legislation sends a message to the EPA that the voters voiced back in November--we need common sense and flexibility in the law. In Illinois, it is estimated that this mandate alone will only reduce air pollution levels by an average of 1 percent. That small percentage has a price tag estimated at $200 million for businesses to enforce. This is a huge price tag, for a very small benefit. There are cheaper and better ways to achieve the same goals, but the States should have the flexibility to figure that out. Please join me and the many Members who have cosponsored my bill in giving the States back the authority to improve their own air quality. Cosponsor and pass my bill to make the employee commute option truly an option.