[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3119-H3122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3534, MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 
                                  1998

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 426

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3534) to improve congressional deliberation on 
     proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Rules. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. During consideration of the bill for further amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1100

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from South 
Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and pending that, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for 
purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3534, the 
Mandates Information Act of 1998, under a completely open rule 
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. 
This is an appropriate rule, since the purpose of H.R. 3534 is to 
improve deliberation on proposed private sector mandates.

[[Page H3120]]

  Mr. Speaker, in the first 2 years that the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act went into effect, Congress passed 13 bills with private sector 
mandates costing more than $100 million. In contrast, only one bill 
passed with intergovernmental mandates, costing more than $50 million.
  To address the very clear bias against the private sector and the way 
we consider legislation containing Federal mandates, our colleagues, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), introduced H.R. 3534, the Mandates Information Act of 
1998. I want to commend them on a job well done.
  H.R. 3534 is a revised version of an earlier bill introduced by the 
same sponsors. It contains necessary safeguards to ensure that the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act procedures cannot be abused. The bill was 
further improved in the Committee on Rules last week with an amendment 
providing an exception to the point of order procedure for legislation 
that results in an overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over 
a 5-year period, and provided that the bill does not include other non-
revenue-related mandates that costs $100 million or more.
  This change is needed to address a bias in our procedures against tax 
cuts, and against efforts to overhaul and simplify the tax code.
  Mr. Speaker, the current Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not go far 
enough to discourage Congress from imposing costly mandates on the 
private sector. Such mandates cost businesses, consumers, and workers 
about $700 million annually, or $7,000 per American household. That is 
more than one-third the size of the entire Federal budget.
  These mandates are particularly burdensome on families attempting to 
climb the economic ladder, Mr. Speaker. Over the next 5 years, 3 
million people will move from welfare to private sector payrolls. Small 
businesses will provide most of those jobs, yet the imposition of new 
mandates upon existing burdens will reduce the resources available to 
create those much needed jobs.
  It is important to note that H.R. 3534 does nothing to roll back some 
of those unnecessary mandates, nor does it prevent the enactment of 
additional mandates. But it will make Congress more accountable by 
requiring more deliberation and more information when Federal mandates 
are proposed.
  Likewise, Mr. Speaker, this rule would allow us to fully deliberate 
H.R. 3534, so I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support the rule for consideration of H.R. 3534, 
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, because it is an open rule. It allows 
the Members to offer amendments.
  I just wish I could give the same unqualified support to the bill we 
are about to consider. Unfortunately, there are some troubling things 
about the bill and about the way it moved through the committee and 
onto the floor.
  My dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who is an 
expert on the rules, knows that I supported the unfunded mandate law we 
enacted just a little over 3 years ago. In fact, he and I worked 
together to fine tune the process, to make it more institutionally 
sound. So I have no quarrel with the purpose of the law, or the change 
which the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) proposed in this new bill. These changes are in 
order for Congress to do its job well.
  We need to know the costs of proposed legislation on businesses and 
on individuals, just as we do on the costs of State and local 
governments. Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged that we were already 
seeing a lot of information as a result of the 1995 bill. CBO's report 
on the financial modernization bill, which may be on the floor this 
week, contains 11 pages of detailed information on the cost to the 
private sector.
  CBO's report on the religious persecution bill, which we will 
consider later this week, puts Members on notice that it, too, will 
impose costs on private business.
  But my concern, Mr. Speaker, has always been with the point of order 
scheme developed in the original bill and continued in this one. It can 
be too easily abused and used for partisan political purposes. As we 
know, Mr. Speaker, it is not a true point of order. There is never a 
strict finding of fact.
  All a Member has to do is to claim that an unfunded mandate exists. 
That claim is enough to trigger an automatic vote on whether the House 
wants to consider the issue. In other words, Mr. Speaker, a Member can 
block consideration of an issue, whether it involves an unfunded 
mandate or not.
  I tried to stop the potential for abuse in 1995. Guess what? The very 
first time the point of order was raised it was used to avoid a 
politically charged question which did not include an unfunded mandate, 
but it was used in the most partisan possible way against the motion to 
recommit, which, as we well know, Mr. Speaker, is the only motion 
reserved solely for the minority in a House run and ruled by the 
majority.
  Mr. Speaker, Members might imagine my doubts when we started to 
extend the point of order to private sector mandates. The Committee on 
Rules heard testimony a few months ago which highlighted some of the 
potential mischief which could occur under the bill which had been 
introduced. We worked on a bipartisan basis to improve the legislation. 
We worked informally through our staffs. We had a new proposal. We had 
another hearing. I thought we had made some progress.
  Then, during the markup, just as my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) was preparing to read the motion and call for a 
vote, an amendment was dropped into my lap exempting certain tax 
revenues from the point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, under the new language, a point of order would not apply 
to a bill that includes a tax increase if the revenue is used for tax 
breaks. This issue was never raised at our hearings, it was not raised 
in the time we spent working, trying to develop a mutually agreed-upon 
improvement. It seems, once again, that politics prevailed.

  The Dreier amendment says that we have to know how the revenue is 
spent before we can judge whether a tax is a burden on private 
business. It bases the judgment on a simple-minded theory that every 
tax break is good and every government spending is bad.
  Think about what that means for excise taxes, like gas and tobacco. 
If a measure increases gas taxes and requires that the money be spent 
on highway construction, it is subject to a point of order. But it is 
completely offset by a provision allowing billionaires to avoid Federal 
taxes. A point of order does not apply.
  A tobacco bill that raises cigarette taxes and spends all of that 
money on programs to prevent teenaged smoking, health care costs for 
tobacco farmers, this will trigger a point of order. But if that 
revenue that is gained as a result of that bill is given away in tax 
breaks to the very wealthy, the point of order will not apply.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that my Republican colleagues really 
have not thought through this one. Why would we subject the tobacco 
bill to a point of order if the money raised is used to stop kids from 
smoking? Why would we stop a highway bill that uses the money from the 
gas tax to build and repair our roads?
  The answer, Mr. Speaker, is we should not. I will not oppose the rule 
because it does allow for the amendment process, but I will urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the bill if the Dreier amendment is not 
removed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my vice chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, a real leader in defending the economy of this country, for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I do not know whether I am 
shocked or not, but to hear my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and he is one of my best friends in this 
entire body, even though he is probably more liberal on the Democratic 
side, but he is a great congressman and I have a great respect for him, 
but I think I heard him say that

[[Page H3121]]

the Republican majority had not given this thought.
  Mr. Speaker, I came here 2 years before Ronald Reagan, and then 
fought, along with others, to bring Ronald Reagan here so we could 
start the Reagan revolution. But I have been giving this thought for 20 
years, because I was a small business man in upstate New York, had 
several businesses, as a matter of fact, all successful.
  When I started out I did not have any money. We started from scratch, 
my wife and I and five children. I was working three different jobs. I 
can recall going to the bank, and the bank would not loan me $50,000 to 
get going. Then when I did get going, I saw all these regulations that 
were out there, both on local governments and on the private sector. I 
said to myself, one of these days, if I ever get to Congress, we are 
going to do something about that.
  Four years ago, did we ever do something about it. I also served as a 
town supervisor, that is like a town mayor, for 5 years, and as a 
county legislator, and as a State legislator. Time after time after 
time we would see these Federal Government regulations piled on not 
only the public sector but the private sector. On the public sector, it 
just drove taxes skyrocketing, so people living on fixed incomes could 
not even live in their homes. They could not pay the taxes.
  In the private sector, small business men like me had to take so much 
of whatever little cash we had, and we had to divert that from 
expanding our businesses into paying all these extra costs from these 
Federal regulations.
  So 4 years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. David Dreier) and 
myself and others, we implemented the unfunded mandate legislation on 
the public sector. Now we are following through, after giving it a lot 
of thought and a lot of hearings, and listening to both sides. We have 
decided it is the right thing to do.
  So here we have this legislation before us, and now, before this 
Congress ever effects any kind of legislation that is going to increase 
taxes on the American people, take more money out of their pockets, we 
are going to have a debate about that. We are going to have a debate on 
this floor set aside just to discuss what the fiscal ramifications are, 
not only on the public sector but on the private sector. That is what 
this debate is all about.
  I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), we 
have given it 20 years of hard thought. Now is the time to go. Let us 
go. Let us pass the Dreier amendment and pass this legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be with my chairman, and if 
he would listen for a moment, maybe I can show him the error of his 
ways.
  I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I am ready, 
willing and able to vote for the unfunded mandate bill, but can the 
gentleman tell me why a point of order would lie against a bill that is 
going to spend money to stop kids from smoking, but yet if we use that 
same money to give it back to the very rich as a tax break, a point of 
order would not lie? Can the gentleman just explain that to me?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman, any 
time we are going to raise taxes on the American people, there is going 
to be a net increase in taxes. The American people are already taxed 
too much. We ought to have that debate. Do not pick out these 
heartrending situations. Let us bring that up. If that were the case, 
then let us debate it on the floor, so all the American people know 
about it. That is all we are asking.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. This is all we are trying to do about it is debate it on 
the floor. This amendment was dropped in at the last minute. I am ready 
to vote for the unfunded mandate bill, I think it is a good idea. But I 
cannot see why, if the money from the taxes is given back as tax 
rebates to the very rich, no point of order would lie against it, but 
if it is used to educate children, to stop children from smoking, a 
point of order lies.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is very clear that my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
very concerned about the idea of an overall tax cut, and in spending 
more time looking at the Dreier amendment, I think people have found 
that clearly, if we look at a question like capital gains, we have 
found within the past several weeks that reducing the top rate on 
capital gains has actually increased the flow of revenues to the 
Federal Treasury.
  When we have a broad bill, a bill that is actually cutting taxes, if 
there is some adjustment in there, for example, if we were looking at 
tax simplification, which this Republican Congress is focusing 
attention on, the idea of a flat tax, the idea of a consumption tax, an 
overhaul of the present tax code, if we look at the grand scheme of 
things there, and there is some modification which would have the 
slightest increase in some area, and I know my friend, as is so often 
the case from the other side of the aisle, is perpetuating the class 
warfare of the poor versus the rich, us versus them, but the fact of 
the matter is that there is even a minor technical correction in there.
  All we are saying is that the overall bill cuts taxes. Let us be in 
favor of reducing that burden on working people in this country. That 
is the reason we are going ahead with this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have no problem with 
the bill. It is the amendment that will not allow monies derived from 
gas taxes to be spent on improving roads, the point of order lies 
against it; improving safety in the roads, a point of order lies 
against it, but it does not lie if the money is given back as a tax 
rebate. That is wrong.
  Mr. DREIER. If my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, would 
further yield, I would simply say that clearly there is nothing in the 
Dreier amendment that prevents us from having a debate and having a 
discussion on this issue. We are doing that right now, and I think we 
will continue to.
  The question really will come down to a very simple and basic point. 
My friends on the other side of the aisle support tax increases. Those 
on this side of the aisle are passionately committed to reducing that 
tax burden.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MOAKLEY. We can have the fight on taxes in another bill. But this 
amendment specifically says a point of order will lie against a bill if 
monies raised from tobacco, the sale of tobacco or cigarettes, if that 
money is spent to educate youth or to have stop-smoking programs, but 
yet if this money is sent back in the form of tax rebates, there is no 
point of order. Nobody is going to explain that problem to me. It 
cannot be explained away.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Condit), who was the originator of the basic bill, which is a good 
bill.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I am going to 
encourage everyone to vote in favor of the rule. This is an open rule 
and for those Members who think that this is not perfection and they 
want to change the bill or have a suggestion that is a good idea, they 
ought to come to the floor and do that, and then we will have the 
opportunity to vote on their idea.
  I do want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), for his leadership and his 
effort in bringing this to the floor. I would like as well to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his efforts in the 
subcommittee for bringing this to the floor, and certainly I want to 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
whom I respect and admire, for his leadership. I thank him very much 
for his help and, hopefully, we will take up his suggestion as it 
relates to the Dreier amendment a little bit later in the debate, 
either today or tomorrow.
  I just want to say, the intent of this bill is about information. 
That is, to give the Members of this House more

[[Page H3122]]

information so they can make a better decision on public policy. It is 
about information. It is about accountability. I want to assure 
everyone, this will not stop unfunded mandates. It will simply require 
a debate when there is an unfunded mandated and a point of order is 
made. We then can make a decision by a vote whether or not we want to 
stop an unfunded mandate with the point of order process.
  So really this is a pretty simple idea. It just requires us to get 
the information and then be held accountable for how we respond to that 
information.
  I would encourage Members to vote for this rule, and if they have a 
suggestion on how we can improve this idea, this simple idea, come over 
here, present their ideas, and then we will vote it up or down.
  With that, I want to thank my colleagues for giving us this 
opportunity. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), who has been a leader in the unfunded mandates effort for his 
involvement, for his help and his assistance.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the rule passes. I think the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) is exactly correct, that we 
should debate the amendments on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the lead author on this 
legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Let me say, I appreciate the words from the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Condit), who is the lead sponsor; I am his cosponsor, on this. 
This thing is just common sense, good government.
  I applaud the Committee on Rules for two reasons, one, for coming up 
with an open rule. I think it is as fair a rule as we are going to get. 
I think we will have a lively debate on a number of amendments that 
will be offered on the floor. We may have some debate on the 
legislation itself, the basic bill, one aspect of it, and that is 
healthy and that is good.
  One of best things about this is it gives us an opportunity to talk 
about an important issue which is, how does this Congress go about 
determining whether to impose a mandate, in this case, on the private 
sector. We did this in the public sector 3 years ago; now it is time to 
talk about the private sector.
  My view is that we ought to do it in a much more informed way, 
knowing what the costs are, having an honest debate about that and 
then, in the end, determining by a majority vote whether in fact to 
proceed with legislation that imposes new burdens, particularly on 
smaller businesses. Where the burden is on the business, it is on the 
workers whose job opportunities are reduced; and it is on the consumer, 
all of us whose pocketbooks are affected. So I want to applaud the 
Committee on Rules for the open rule and the full and open debate I am 
sure we are going to have on this.
  Second, I want to commend them for working with us to perfect this 
legislation and, frankly, to move the legislation forward. There is a 
lot going on right now in this Congress despite what we might hear out 
there, and the agenda is busy. There are a lot of different items the 
Committee on Rules is taking up. This one is in their jurisdiction, and 
they were willing to put it, frankly, on the front burner and deal with 
it in an expeditious manner, I think again not only to move it forward, 
but to improve it.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I want 
to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for 
moving this process forward. I look forward to the debate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from greater metropolitan San Dimas, and my equally good friend from 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for their graciousness in allowing me 
to speak this morning on this subject. Obviously, I think it is an 
important issue.
  I think this is a good rule, an open rule. I congratulate the 
leadership for these open rules, especially on things like the Mandates 
Information Act of 1998.
  I think this bill takes the next step on the issue of unfunded 
mandates that we need to take. It recognizes the need for greater 
accountability in this Congress for the impact that our actions have on 
the lives of real people outside the Beltway. Those are the people we 
work for.
  In the 104th Congress, the new majority broke ground on this subject, 
implementing changes in our House rules to make sure that Members are 
aware of the fiscal impact on State and local governments of 
legislation when we pass it. At that time, we included illustrative 
provisions relating to so-called, quote, ``private sector mandates'' or 
``Federal actions and requirements'' that impose significant costs on 
elements of the private sector.
  Today we move that commitment on private sector mandates to a par 
with what we are already doing vis-a-vis the public sector. It makes 
sense. It is what we said we were going to do.
  This legislation is technical, and it sounds a little complicated, 
but what it really boils down to is a straightforward concern to 
American businessmen, consumers, workers, taxpayers, that is, all of us 
across the country.
  The Congress should take prudent steps and exercise due diligence in 
passing laws that impact upon the lives and pocketbooks of average 
citizens in reasonable ways only. Sometimes there are real costs 
associated with legislative changes, costs that may not always be 
obviously stated in the text of a bill or even realized. Sometimes, 
believe it or not, we have unintended negative consequences from some 
of our legislation.
  This legislation sets up a process to force some added scrutiny and 
hopefully ensure that we minimize costly, unintended consequences. I 
have long supported this type of change because it strengthens 
accountability and promotes sunshine, two fundamental principles of 
government that should be the hallmark of everything we do.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as has been said probably most eloquently by 
the gentleman from South Boston, this is an open rule. For that reason, 
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________