[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.
____________________