In the last issue of County News, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced its findings of its recently published report titled, "The Experience of the Congressional Budget Office During the First Year of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act." I wanted to update you on NACo's assessment of the study.
As many of you know, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) established new procedures designed to ensure that Congress fully considers the potential effects of unfunded federal mandates before imposing them on state, local and tribal governments, or the private sector. Among other reforms, those procedures call for the CBO to provide statements to authorizing committees about whether reported bills contain mandates, and, if so, what their costs would be.
In 1996, CBO completed cost estimates of 718 bills and legislation affecting state and local governments. Out of the 718 government impact bills, 69 contained mandates and only 11 cost more than the $50 million threshold that would trigger a point-of-order procedure. Of these, seven were in the minimum wage bill and the other four were amended to reduce the mandate below $50 million. This threat of a point-of-order on the floor gives new enforcement powers to the law and has changed the congressional response to mandates.
For state and local mandates, 10 percent were cost estimates requested by members before committee action, and five percent after action. This demonstrates, we think, a heightened awareness by Congress regarding new mandates both before and after committee action. The CBO report reflects this greater sensitivity to unfunded mandates.
What this report means, in a nutshell, is that Congress is sensitized to unfunded mandates - chairs of committees and subcommittees raise questions regarding mandates on a regular basis before a bill moves to the floor.
Regardless of what CBO finds and Congress does, however, we have to continue to make our case against unfunded mandates. We also have to be watchful - congressional faces change every two years. As newcomers are sworn in, we must make sure they are aware of, and educated on, the burden of unfunded mandates. The law passed in 1995 is only as good as state and local officials make it.
NACo is the only public interest group that currently has a plan in place that will enable us to have a rapid response by engaging our members in figuring costs of mandates - NACo's Cost Estimation Network.
This network has been instituted to assure that the legislative victory has lasting meaning. We collect mandate cost data from counties across the country and offer the data for consideration in the legislative process, hopefully limiting Congress's ability and desire to impose new unfunded mandates upon us. We must continue to make unfunded mandates a priority and institute mechanisms to figure costs and devise strategies to fight against mandates.
One great concern of mine is that Congress is not exercising its appropriate oversight responsibility over agencies. Therefore, the current Administration is not fully complying with UMRA provisions (The law states that before an agency can impose a regulation, it is supposed to complete a cost estimate, just as Congress must.) I, along with other executive directors of the associations representing state and local elected officials (Big 7), have requested a meeting with Vice President Al Gore to ask him, specifically, the pointed question of why the agencies are not complying with UMRA.
Over the next six months, tremendous pressure will be put on the new
Congress as they debate a balanced budget. This includes the pressure to
shift the burden of some programs away from Congress to counties and states.
NACo will, and elected officials at the county level must, continue to be
watchful of mandates as these pressures mount.