[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              RULES CHANGE

                                 ______


                           HON. DEAN A. GALLO

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 9, 1994

  Mr. GALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution that 
would change the Rules of the House to require that every authorization 
and revenue bill be accompanied by a Congressional Budget Office 
``Employment Impact Statement'' that would analyze the impact of that 
bill on both public and private sector employment. I believe this is an 
action which is long overdue.
  For too long, members of Congress have been asked to vote for 
legislation that changes the tax code or authorizes the creation of new 
government programs, policies, and mandates without having any 
definitive information on the impact of that legislation on jobs and 
the economy.
  Just as CBO now tells us what the cost of legislation is to the 
Treasury, so too should we know the cost of legislation to the economy 
and people's jobs.
  We also need to know whether the bills we are voting on grow the 
economy--or just grow the government.
  There is no getting around the fact that everything we do here has an 
impact on the ability of the economy to create and sustain jobs. It's 
about time we stop acting in an information vacuum.
  Over the last several years we have seen the law of unintended 
consequences come into effect--to the detriment of working Americans.
  For example, in 1990 Congress decided it would raise revenue and soak 
the rich by instituting a so-called luxury tax on boats. At the time, 
some members of this House--including this one--opposed this measure 
out of concern that it would destroy jobs in the boat building and boat 
selling industries. Those who were in favor of this tax dismissed our 
arguments, suggesting we were just trying to protect wealthy taxpayers.
  As it turned out, however, we were right--the luxury tax destroyed 
thousands of jobs in the boating industry--most of them blue collar. 
Once the ``unintended consequences'' of this action became known, the 
rush to repeal this jobs-destroying tax took off like a cigarette boat 
at full throttle.
  If a CBO Employment Impact Statement had been prepared in 1990, the 
destruction of these thousands of jobs could have been averted. Instead 
of putting people on the unemployment line, we would have kept them on 
the production line.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this important change to the 
Rules. Enactment of my resolution can only improve the quality of our 
decision-making--and who would argue with that.

                          ____________________