The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNFUNDED MANDATES AND CBO ESTIMATES” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E426-E427 on March 22, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNFUNDED MANDATES AND CBO ESTIMATES
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 21, 1996
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is intended to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation by providing the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation. The Congressional Budget Office is directed by that statute to help in developing such information.
I am concerned that the Congressional Budget Office estimate received by the International Relations Committee on the conference report on H.R. 1561, the America Overseas Interest Act, was not helpful in meeting the purpose of the law.
My concerns are detailed in the exchange of letters that follows.
U.S. Congress
Congressional Budget Office
Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the request of your staff, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the Conference Report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, as reported on March 8, 1996. The bill would consolidate various foreign affairs agencies, authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies, and address other matters in foreign relations.
The bill would impose no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by Public Law 104-4 and would have no direct budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal governments.
We are preparing a separate federal cost estimate for later transmittal.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Pepper Santahicia, for effects on state, local, and tribal governments; and Eric Labs, for impacts on the private sector.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum,
(For June E. O'Neill, Director).
____
U.S. Congress, Committee
on International Relations,
Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.June E. O'Neill,Director, Congressional Budget Office,Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. O'Neill: I write to register my concern with your letter of March 12, in which you provided a partial Congressional Budget Office estimate on the conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. I also would like a copy of your complete cost estimate on the conference report.
I have two major concerns with your March 12 letter.
First, you addressed the letter only to the ``unfunded mandates'' estimate required by P.L. 104-4 (the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995''). It would be more useful to Members to have the cost estimate for an entire bill or conference report submitted at once. Separating CBO estimates on different issues in the same bill and supplying such estimates at different times leaves CBO vulnerable to question about its procedures, and diminishes its helpfulness for Members.
Second, I also question the ``unfunded mandates'' estimate you provided. You state that H.R. 1561 ``would impose no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by Public Law 104-4 and would have no direct budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal governments.'' In my view, this assertion is not supportable when applied to several specific provisions in the conference report. These four provisions are:
Section 1104: Requires the President to certify: (1) that either Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Indonesia keep refugee camps open or that Vietnam will expand its refugee interview programs; and (2) that any Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Laotians who cite the Lautenberg provisions (automatically allowing in refugees from certain countries) will be allowed into the United States without having to provide any additional proof.
Section 1253: Prohibits use of Department of State funding
(migration and refugee assistance) for the involuntary return of any person claiming a well founded fear of persecution.
Section 1255: Adds to the definition of a refugee anyone who claims he or she is a victim of or has good reason to believe he or she may become the victim of coercive population control practices.
Section 1256: Prohibits State Department funds (migration and refugee assistance) to be used to ``effect the involuntary return'' of any person to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe they are in danger of being subjected to torture.
These four provisions have the potential of greatly expanding the states' burden of caring for refugees. Today, states pay on average at least $3,000-4,000 to support one refugee for a year. These financial responsibilities apply to every new refugee introduced into a state's population. Even if states are able to step out of some existing responsibilities, they cannot do so immediately. Changing regulations, adopting new laws, negotiating with the federal government, takes time. And when the groups of people who qualify for state benefits is changed, litigation will almost always result.
It seems to me that all four provisions create a strong likelihood of increased costs to states that could easily reach the $50 million threshold set by the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1985. If states may be subject to increased costs as a result of these provisions, the provisions will have a
``direct budgetary impact.'' And if the federal government is imposing new financial burdens for states, it is creating unfunded mandates.
Given the difficulty in analyzing precisely costs in areas with a large number of unknown factors, such as how many individuals might enter the United States if these provisions were to become law, I do not think it possible to conclude in absolute terms that these four provisions do not impose direct budgetary impacts on state governments and do not create unfunded mandates.
The recently enacted Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is intended specifically ``to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation'' by ``providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation.'' I did not find your March 12 letter helpful in meeting the purpose of this law.
Sincerely,
Lee H. Hamilton,Ranking Democratic Member.
____________________
