Zoe Lofgren: “I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed…”

“I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs.”