[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E480-E481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE MANDATES INFORMATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. GARY A. CONDIT

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 13, 1997

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, along with our colleagues, Rob Portman, Nick 
Smith, Wally Herger, and J.C. Watts, earlier this week I introduced the 
Mandates Information Act, H.R. 1010, legislation to protect consumers, 
workers, and small businesses by enhancing the quality of Congress' 
deliberation on proposed new unfunded mandates on the private sector.
  The problem addressed by this bill is simple: Congress does not 
deliberate carefully enough before deciding whether to impose unfunded 
mandates on the private sector. Focusing almost exclusively on the 
benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little heed to, and 
sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded mandates sometimes 
impose on the very groups they are supposed to help.
  This burden is substantial. Economists of almost every stripe agree 
that the costs of unfunded mandates are primarily borne by consumers, 
workers, and small businesses. These costs take the form of higher 
prices for consumers, lower wages for workers, and hiring disincentives 
for small businesses.
  The Mandates Information Act would creates a process for the Congress 
to deliberate carefully on proposed new private-sector mandates before 
deciding whether to impose them. Specifically, the bill would direct 
the Congressional Budget Office to prepare a Consumer, Worker and Small 
Business Impact Statement for new private-sector mandates contained in 
bills reported out of committee. The bill would also establish a point 
of order against legislation containing private-sector mandates that 
exceed the $100 million cost threshold set for such mandates in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Although this point of order 
could be waived, it would ensure that Congress actually considers the 
information set forth in the Consumer, Worker and Small Business Impact 
Statement. The result will be focused, high-quality deliberation on the 
wisdom of new unfunded private-sector mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, we took a very important step in 1995 by passing the 
Unfunded Mandates Act to protect State, local, and tribal governments 
from having to pay for mandates placed on them in Washington. One of 
the unspoken truths of that act is that it has been a deterrent to 
imposing mandates. It has worked in several instances, notably keeping 
costly mandates out of the telecommunications and immigration bills.
  While we should continue to be diligent in enforcing the rules that 
relate to intergovernmental mandates, it is time to apply the same 
rules to private sector mandates. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to 
join me in support of this important legislation.

                               H.R. 1010

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Before acting on proposed private sector mandates, the 
     Congress should carefully consider the effects on consumers, 
     workers, and small businesses.
       (2) The Congress has often acted without adequate 
     information concerning the costs of private sector mandates, 
     instead focusing only on the benefits.
       (3) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced 
     availability of goods and services.
       (4) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced 
     benefits, and fewer job opportunities.
       (5) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives 
     and stunted growth.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To improve the quality of the Congress' deliberation 
     with respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by--
       (A) providing the Congress with more complete information 
     about the effects of such mandates; and
       (B) ensuring that the Congress acts on such mandates only 
     after focused deliberation on the effects.
       (2) To enhance the ability of the Congress to distinguish 
     between private sector mandates that harm consumers, workers, 
     and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Estimates.--Section 424(b)(2) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), 
     and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) the impact (including any disproportionate impact in 
     particular regions or industries) on consumers, workers, and 
     small businesses, of the Federal private sector mandates in 
     the bill or joint resolution, including--
       ``(i) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on consumer 
     prices and on the actual supply of goods and services in 
     consumer markets;
       ``(ii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on worker 
     wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and
       ``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or

[[Page E481]]

     joint resolution on the hiring practices, expansion, and 
     profitability of business with 100 or fewer employees; and''.
       (2) Point of order.--Section 424(b)(3) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(3)) is amended by adding 
     after the period ``If such determination is made by the 
     Director, a point of order under this part shall lie only 
     under section 425(a)(1) and as if the requirement of section 
     425(a)(1) had not been met.''.
       (3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates by an 
     amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 
     424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``Federal mandates by an amount 
     that causes the thresholds specified in section 424(a)(1) or 
     (b)(1)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, in the case of Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates exceeding the thresholds specified 
     in section 424(a)(1)'' after ``unless''.
       (4) Application relating to appropriations committees.--
     Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (C) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (D) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (5) Application relating to congressional budget office.--
     Section 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     658f) is amended by striking ``intergovernmental''.
       (b) Rules of the House of Representatives.--Clause 5 of 
     rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives (as 
     added by section 107 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1514)) is amended by striking ``section 
     424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``section 424(a)(1) or (b)(1)''.
       (c) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--This section is enacted 
     by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     it shall be considered as part of the rules of such House, 
     respectively, and shall supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that any unfunded mandates 
     that are determined by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office to exceed the applicable threshold under 
     section 424(a)(1) or (b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658f(a)(1), 658f(b)(1)) should be financed 
     through reduced taxes, tax abatements, or direct compensation 
     by the Federal Government.

                          ____________________