Watson Coleman: “I reluctantly voted in favor of the House version of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--H.R. 5. With less reluctance, but…”

“I reluctantly voted in favor of the House version of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--H.R. 5. With less reluctance, but with continuing reservations, I rise today in support of the House-Senate conference agreement, House Report 104-76. I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with several of the provisions of the bill. I have enumerated the specific ways in which the people of my district stand to be hurt by provisions of this legislation. And I know that not all of my concerns have been fully addressed. For instance, the bill as drafted by the conference committee will create a discrepancy in the playing field between the private and public sector. But in many ways, the conference report has addressed some of my deepest misgivings about the bill. The limitations placed upon judiciary review are fair and balanced. The provisions on judiciary review that were agreed to in conference will not cause a backlog of litigation. It will allow regulatory agencies to perform their proper functions efficiently. Furthermore, because the conference report was the product of a much greater deliberative effort that was the original House version of HR 5, the new bill is much more clear in describing the terms under which a point of order may be raised against new regulation. Finally, I am pleased to see that the language of the conference report pays specific attention to the needs of border communities like the district I represent.”