[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 79 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5429-S5430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE MANDATES INFORMATION ACT

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the 
Record an editorial by C. Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute. The editorial, which appeared in the Journal of Commerce, 
explains how the Mandates Information Act will improve the quality of 
Congress's deliberation on proposed unfunded mandates on the private 
sector.
  The editorial follows:

              [From the Journal of Commerce, June 2, 1997]

                        Passing the Budget Buck

                      (By Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr.)

       Weary of the federal government's habit of enacting popular 
     environmental and other reforms but imposing all their costs 
     on state and localities, governors and local officials 
     revolted in 1995.
       They rightly charged that for every dollar spent on federal 
     priorities, they lost the ability to control and allocate 
     their own budgets. That outcry resulted in the 104th 
     Congress's Unfunded Mandates Act.
       The legislation didn't halt unfunded public-sector mandates 
     but it did increase Congress's accountability by requiring 
     both disclosure of costs of significant mandates and explicit 
     votes on the intent to impose those costs.
       There remains a gap in the quest for accountability and 
     disclosure. Congress is still free to ignore costs when 
     enacting legislation that will impose mandates on the private 
     sector.
       Recognizing that government-imposed costs can have profound 
     economic consequences, Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., is 
     leading a new campaign to force Congress to disclose and 
     assume responsibility for private mandates through the same 
     procedure that exists for public ones.
       In an era of budget balancing, Sen. Abraham's campaign 
     assumes new importance. Costs of off-budget mandates on the 
     public now exceed $600 billion a year. That's more than one-
     third the size of the entire federal budget, greater than 
     personal income taxes, and several times the annual deficit.

[[Page S5430]]

       The danger is that, as the federal budget is cut to 
     eliminate the deficit by 2002, pressure to shift the costs of 
     favored government programs off-budget to the private sector 
     will mount.
       For example, advocates of a new federal job training 
     program could propose funding it through a Department of 
     Labor appropriation, or alternatively, through a new mandate 
     that all Fortune 500 firms provide such training. The first 
     appears on the budget, the second does not.
       With the ``Mandates Information Act of 1997,'' Sen. Abraham 
     and Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., hope to remedy today's 
     absence of disclosure and regulatory bias. They hope to 
     ensure that mandates imposing higher wages, increasing 
     unemployment, or increasing consumer prices shall no longer 
     slip through Congress unacknowledged.
       Their proposal would work by extending certain provisions 
     of the 104th Congress' popular Unfunded Mandates Act to 
     remove the arbitrary distinction between public and private 
     sector mandates.
       The Mandates Information Act would allow a single Senator 
     or House member to raise a point of order against any private 
     sector mandate costing over $100 million annually. The point 
     of order would halt further floor action until members vote 
     specifically to waive it.
       Making Congress explicitly vote on its intent to impose a 
     burden in this fashion wouldn't necessarily stop any mandate. 
     But it would allow constituents to determine where their 
     representative stood on a particular mandate.
       Cost estimates would be prepared by the Congressional 
     Budget Office prior to floor consideration for any bill 
     reported out of committee, and disclosed in a document, 
     called a ``Consumer Worker, and Small Business Impact 
     Statement.''
       The statement would include mandate impact estimates on 
     consumer prices and actual supply of goods and service in 
     consumer markets; wages, benefits and employment 
     opportunities; the hiring practices, expansion, and 
     profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
       Knowing such impacts is worthwhile. Sen. Abraham points out 
     that mandates not only result in workers losing jobs, they 
     can prevent job formation in the first place. Mandates mount 
     as a small firm grows; for example, at 15 employees, 
     mandatory compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     kicks in; at 25, the Health Maintenance Organization Act 
     does; at 50, the Family and Medical Leave Act applies.
       Sen. Abraham cites the case of Hasselbring-Clark, an office 
     equipment supply firm in Lansing, Mich. Its treasurer Noelle 
     Clark says, given the additional mandates that would 
     otherwise apply, ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49 
     (employees).''
       Since the Abraham-Condit bill merely calls for disclosure, 
     it should stand above criticism from advocates of government-
     regulation; if the majority believes it worthwhile to pass a 
     mandate in the first place, enough votes to override the 
     simply majority point of order ought to be there as well.
       The point of order enforcement mechanism for high-dollar 
     rules and the impact statement together could help make 
     Congress far more answerable for excessive mandates. That 
     could be the lasting innovation of the Mandates Information 
     Act.
       While most regulatory reforms attempt merely to require 
     agencies to police themselves better through cost-benefit 
     analysis, Sen. Abraham and Rep. Condit are bringing the focus 
     back to the real source of excessive lawmaking: 
     Congress.

                          ____________________