[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3223-H3231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 426 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3534.

                              {time}  2116


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3534) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
private sector mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Sessions in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in a bit of ecstacy, not only for the passage of 
the last bill, but to bring to this floor another very important bill 
on behalf of business and industry and all Americans, and that is H.R. 
3534, the Mandates Information Act of 1998. Today, the House will build 
on the important work that the 104th Congress began in the area of 
unfunded intergovernmental mandates and private sector mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, the House has operated under the strictures of the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act since January of 1996. It is the opinion of 
the Committee on Rules that this statute has served the House well and 
we are prepared to recommend a modest improvement on it today, one that 
affects not only the public sector, and that means towns and villages 
and cities and counties and States, but now it affects the private 
sector.
  A report from the Congressional Budget Office last year found, not 
surprisingly, that the Republican-controlled Congress has not passed 
unfunded mandates on State and local governments on the private sector. 
CBO has found in the last 2 years only 11 percent of the bills and 
amendments they analyzed contained intergovernmental mandates, and just 
2 percent contained costs exceeding the $50 million threshold into the 
law.
  On the private sector side, CBO has found that only 13 percent of the 
bills and amendments contained private sector mandates and a scant 5 
percent contained costs exceeding the $100 million threshold.
  CBO appeared before the Committee on Rules' oversight hearings on the 
operation of the law, and they testified that the goals of the law 
providing reliable information for Members and the public, as well as 
congressional accountability for passing a mandate, have largely been 
met. In other words, we succeeded in doing what we set out to do.
  Under that law, CBO has prepared these estimates for committee 
reports, and the information on public and private sector mandates has 
been available for Members when they come to this floor to vote so that 
they know what the long-range ramifications of casting that vote will 
be.
  In the opinion of the Committee on Rules, the underlying law has 
served as an effective deterrent for Congress to mandate, because of 
the point of order available on the House floor.
  There have been instances in the Committee on Rules's experience 
where a mandate on the public or private sector was discovered and the 
offending language was deleted or altered in a rule in an effort to 
address the concerns, rather than face an automatic debate on the vote 
on the floor. In other words, Congress has paid attention and they have 
not brought these unfunded mandates to the floor knowing they are going 
to have to face this test.
  The law has worked in a manner impossible to quantify in these 
instances, Mr. Chairman.
  At the close of the 104th Congress, the Committee on Rules was 
pleased to report to the House in its activity report that in the first 
year of existence of the unfunded mandate law, it could find no single 
instance in which it had waived the unfunded mandates point of order, 
not once. There were several instances in which the committee waived 
all points of order, but in those cases the committee was not aware of 
any CBO estimate of an unfunded mandate in the underlying legislation.
  In fact, in several prominent instances, such as the immigration 
reform bill, the committee waived all points of order except those 
arising under the unfunded mandate statute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules has an excellent track record of 
adherence to the principles of the unfunded mandates law in this 105th 
Congress as well. The experience of the House with the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act is illustrative of the fact that the Committee on Rules 
prefers not to waive the mandates point of order, but rather prefers to 
force the committees of jurisdiction to defend their work product on 
the floor of this House and then let the House work its will.
  With 2 years of positive experience with the unfunded mandates 
procedure in the public sector as our foundation, the Committee on 
Rules is compelled to recommend H.R. 3534 to the House as an 
improvement to our proceedings.
  Under current law, CBO is only required to estimate the direct costs 
of all Federal private sector mandates that exceed $100 million, and 
the amount of Federal financial assistance, if any, provided by the 
legislation to assist with the compliance costs.
  The bill before the House amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to 
require committee reports on bills or joint resolutions to include a 
statement from CBO estimating the impact of private sector mandates on 
consumers, on workers, on small businesses, including any 
disproportionate impact in particular regions or on particular 
industries within those regions. It would subject such legislation to a 
point of order if it is not feasible for the CBO to prepare such an 
estimate, as well.
  Current law only allows a point of order against consideration of a 
bill, joint resolution or amendment, motion or conference report if it 
exceeds $50 million in direct costs in Federal mandates on 
intergovernmental (State and local governments), unless that mandate is 
paid for with new Federal financial assistance. This bill would 
prohibit the consideration of the legislation containing private sector 
mandates whose direct costs exceed $100 million and thereby expand the 
available points of order under the landmark law.
  The bill further constrains the Chair from recognizing more than one 
point of order with respect to private sector mandates for any one 
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report. It is 
anticipated that one point of order, one 20-minute debate, and one vote 
is sufficient to encapsulate the debate on the private sector mandates 
contained in any one legislative measure.
  The bill also contains a provision during the markup of the Committee 
on Rules as an amendment by our friend, the vice chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from California

[[Page H3224]]

(Mr. Dreier) which excludes from the private sector mandates point of 
order any legislation which results in a net tax cut.
  For purposes of illustration, if the Committee on Ways and Means 
reported a bill which resulted in a net tax cut as scored by CBO and 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, a private sector mandates point of 
order would not apply because the net tax would be a decrease as 
opposed to an increase.
  However, if the Committee on Ways and Means reported a bill which 
increased mandatory spending and, in turn, provided a revenue offset 
which resulted in a private sector mandate over $100 million, a private 
sector mandate point of order would then clearly be in order.
  The bill further amends clause 5 of House rule XXIII to always make 
in order motions to strike an unfunded mandate on the intergovernmental 
and private sector side unless specifically waived by a rule from the 
Committee on Rules.

  Mr. Chairman, it is important for small businesses across the country 
to know that Congress is fully aware of the consequences when it 
mandates on the private sector. This bill will help us improve our own 
deliberations in this House while maintaining important institutional 
prerogatives.
  The bill before us is strongly supported by, and let me just read 
some of these organizations: the American Dental Association; the 
American Farm Bureau, which is very, very important in my district; the 
American Rental Association; the American Subcontractors Association; 
the Associated Builders and Contractors; Citizens For a Sound Economy; 
the National Association of Self-Employed, small businesses; the 
National Association of Manufacturers; the National Association of 
Wholesale Distributors; the National Federation of Independent 
Business, which is the largest organization of small businesses in this 
entire country; the National Restaurant Association; the National 
Retail Federation, and it goes on and on and on, ending up with the 
United States Chamber of Commerce in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have to tell my colleagues that years ago, 
before I came to this Congress, I was a small businessman and I started 
out from scratch. I had 5 children, and we did not have any money 
really, but we went into business and we started that business, and I 
had to work sometimes 2 or 3 different businesses, and the banks did 
not want to lend any money because we did not have established credit, 
and yet whatever available cash we had was tied up in all of these 
duplicative regulations that are piled on local businesses throughout 
this country, and it was almost impossible to get started.
  This legislation is meant to prevent that. It is meant to educate 
every Member of Congress to know exactly what he is voting for on this 
floor and how it affects that small business back in one's district 
before one casts that vote. That is how important this legislation is.
  So I would urge support for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) be permitted to take over the management of 
this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make something very, very clear. I am opposed 
to unfunded Federal mandates. I represent 23 cities and towns in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that are paying for the biggest Federal 
mandate this government has ever imposed: the cleanup of Boston Harbor. 
In the end, the Boston Harbor cleanup cost well over $3 billion; only 
19 percent of that $3 billion was paid for by the Federal Government. 
The rest of the costs had to be borne by the citizens of those 43 
cities and towns in the Commonwealth, families and businesses, and 
believe me, it was not easy.
  I know how hard it can be for communities to shoulder the cost of 
complying with governmental edicts, and I firmly belief we should keep 
those costs in mind when passing any kind of legislation. Before we 
pass a bill, we should know what the costs would be for businesses. We 
should know what the costs would be for individuals, as well as for the 
State and local governments. But, Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the 
way to do it. This bill contains language that will further gut the 
well-intentioned, unfunded mandates bill.

                              {time}  2130

  It further erodes the idea that any mandate could be harmful by 
accepting bills that raise taxes, as long as the money raised is used 
to lower taxes somewhere else.
  Contrary to what some of my colleagues may think, all government 
spending is not necessarily bad, and all tax breaks are not necessarily 
good. Under this bill, if a tax on coal revenues is coupled with a tax 
break on ethanol, it is okay. If it spends the money on miners' health 
benefits, someone can raise a point of order and someone can call 
attention to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we should decide in advance which 
types of mandates are good and should be ignored and which are bad and 
should be exposed to a point of order. Either we should request all of 
them, or we should examine none of them.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill in the present form, if the 
Dreier language is not removed. It just takes a worthwhile idea and 
pollutes it with political assumptions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Sugarland, Texas (Mr. DeLay), the 
distinguished Republican Whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me, and I appreciate all his hard work on this very important 
legislation. I rise today in support of it, and I really urge my 
colleagues it take a look at this legislation, and I hope they will 
vote for it.
  This is a small but yet a very significant step for small business. 
Basically, it says if we are going to put mandates on the private 
sector, we need to let the American people know that we are doing it. 
That is all it is. This is the same principle that we have used for the 
last 3 years for the mandates we put on State and local government. If 
we are going to make the businessmen and women of America pay for our 
good ideas, we should make certain that we have a debate on the floor 
about the merits of those ideas.
  This bill allows Members to raise a point of order against any bill 
that the Congressional Budget Office determines would cost the private 
sector more than $100 million a year. If after 20 minutes of debate the 
House decides that such a mandate is necessary, we can vote to consider 
the rest of the bill.
  I just think this is a commonsense piece of legislation, because it 
makes Members of Congress think about what they are voting for before 
they vote. It makes them think about the costs to the private sector. 
It makes them think about the potential job loss. It makes them think 
about the role of government in our society. It brings much needed 
transparency to our government.
  This is a very important piece of legislation that forces the House 
to understand what they are doing to the real people in the real world. 
I urge my colleagues to support this pro-small business piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman who just left the 
microphone. If this were the same bill that we had in the Committee on 
Rules just before the Dreier amendment was put in, I would buy it. But 
this, what it says, in effect, is that if you get money in the highway 
bill, you cannot spend it on roads, you cannot spend it on safety if it 
is over and above, but if you give a tax break back to the very rich, 
then the point of order does not apply.
  That is the part that I do not like, it is what we do when it is an 
unfunded mandate, what we do with the money. The proceeds from the 
tobacco bill cannot be used to educate children to stop smoking, but if 
we want to give it back to the tobacco companies and people who invest 
in tobacco as a tax break, that is fine.

[[Page H3225]]

  If that is fair, Mr. Chairman, if that is equitable, then I have 
missed something along the line.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight obviously in support of H.R. 
3534, the Mandate Information Act of 1998. This is not a new idea, it 
is an old idea with a little different twist. It still requires 
accountability and openness.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules explained the bill very well, 
talked about the $100 million threshold, the fact that if you reach a 
$100 unfunded mandate that there is a point of order process. That is 
basically what this bill does, it allows us to have a debate.
  As we hear discussion about this tonight and tomorrow, Members are 
going to hear that this unfunded mandate bill will set us back, that it 
will destroy some of the things that we have done, say in the 
workplace, safety in the workplace, et cetera.
  That is not true. This bill does not turn anything back. It simply 
requires us to be accountable and responsible for the unfunded mandates 
we place on the private sector. That is what this bill does. It 
requires us to have an open debate. We cannot take away the mandate 
with that debate. We still have a vote after we call the point of 
order.
  What this simply does, it is a very simple idea, it just gives us 
more information that Members can make an informed decision about a 
mandate on the private sector.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), who is the cosponsor and has been the lead person on the 
other side of the aisle in this area for unfunded mandates, not only in 
the private sector but for State and local government. I want to thank 
him for all the work that he has done.
  I want to also say tonight we will hear two proposals, two amendments 
to this bill. I support those amendments. The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) will have an 
amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will have an 
amendment. I encourage us to accept those amendments. I think they 
improve the bill.
  This bill is about information, about the Members getting more 
information. It is about openness, about fairness and accountability, 
and Members should not let anyone tell them any different. We ought to 
look at the amendments that are going to come up. They may improve the 
bill. We ought not to be fearful to support those amendments if they 
improve the bill.
  But this is a simple idea. If we cannot pass this simple idea to hold 
ourselves accountable, to hold ourselves accountable for the mandates 
we place on the private sector; that we cannot say, we voted for that, 
and we voted for that with full information, that we knew what the cost 
was going to be, then we are going to have a difficult time doing any 
kind of reforms in this House, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to my friend and 
hallmate, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the lead 
author of this measure who has worked long and hard on not only this 
issue, but the unfunded mandates that were imposed on State and local 
governments.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding time to me, and for all his help in getting us to 
this point. I also want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gary Condit), who has been my partner on this and also on the private 
sector mandates fight.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really legislation that builds on what we did 3 
years ago, in 1995 in the public sector side. Let me try to put it in 
some context. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon) has 
already mentioned this.
  Three years ago we said we were going to stop public sector mandates. 
We passed legislation which required that three things be done: number 
one, there be a cost analysis done of every new public sector mandate; 
number two, there be a debate on the floor that any Member of Congress 
could insist on by a process called a point of order; and number three, 
there would be a vote, an actual vote by a majority of this House.
  By a simple majority we could decide to go ahead with the 
legislation, notwithstanding the mandate. But at least we would then 
have a clear understanding of what the costs were, all the information 
that we did not have previously. In the end we would come up with 
better legislation.
  It has actually worked to curtail these public sector mandates. I 
think 394 Members of this Congress voted for that bill, after a lot of 
controversial amendments were offered. In the end I think we convinced 
most people, and they were right, it has worked. This simply builds on 
that. This says, now let us shift to the private sector.
  In the last legislation, again, the 1995 legislation, we were able to 
get into the legislation that the Congressional Budget Office, which 
does the analysis on the public sector side, would also analyze the 
private sector mandates, if they exceeded a threshold which was twice 
the public sector threshold, $100 million rather than $50 million.
  What we were not able to get in the last legislation 3 years ago was 
the ability to come to this floor and to raise that point of order, to 
actually put some teeth in that analysis, and to enable Members of 
Congress to take a careful look at those costs and then decide whether 
they wanted to move forward with the legislation, notwithstanding those 
costs.
  We are taking that next important step tonight. We did not do it last 
time, frankly, because this was a pretty controversial idea. It was 
precedent-setting. It turns out it worked, and now we are doing what I 
think is the next logical thing, which is to move to the private sector 
side.
  It is not going to stop all mandates, just as our public sector bill 
in 1995 did not stop all public sector mandates. It has curtailed them. 
Incidentally, it has not curtailed them just because we have had these 
debates on the floor. It has been done in a very responsible way, at 
the committee level, because the committees have been forced to work 
with State and local government to come up with new ways to get things 
through this Congress that in fact do represent the will of this 
Congress, but to not send an unfunded requirement down on our State and 
local governments. That is what this would do also, this legislation, 
if we can get it passed tonight and get it enacted into law.
  There are a lot of debates that are going to take place over the next 
couple of hours tonight and then tomorrow on various amendments and on 
various interpretations of the bill. My good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) a little while ago made the statement, and 
I tried to write it down as he said it, I may have gotten it wrong, 
correct me, he said that proceeds from the tobacco bill cannot be used 
to help children if this passes.
  Of course, that is not true. Proceeds from the tobacco bill, if we do 
a tobacco bill, if it has a tobacco tax in it, can certainly be used 
for whatever purpose this Congress thinks they should be used for. By a 
simple majority vote this Congress will decide whether in fact a new 
mandate, if it is a tobacco tax, it is a new mandate, whether that 
should indeed be something we want to do. What is wrong with that? What 
is wrong with a little openness and accountability around here?
  So I know we are going to have a lot of debates. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is going to make some very legitimate 
points about the impact of this legislation on various areas of our 
government, particularly labor, environment, and so on. His particular 
concern, I think, is going to be on the so-called Dreier amendment, 
which was accepted in the Committee on Rules.
  I want to be very clear about this. All it says is that we have a 
debate on it. If in the end, because there is a tobacco tax that is not 
offset by tax cuts somewhere else or tax relief somewhere else, 
therefore, this legislation goes into effect, all we are saying is we 
are going to have a debate on the merits of this and then vote.
  The point is a very simple one. All we are saying is that we want the 
opportunity, just as we have in the public sector, to begin to 
legislate with better

[[Page H3226]]

information, and therefore, to legislate more wisely in this place.
  With regard to the tobacco example, I will just say, if this Congress 
in fact looks at the tobacco bill that has a tax increase, it is 
considered a mandate, one Member of Congress can raise his or her hand, 
force a point of order on it, and then by a simple majority we can 
determine whether that is the appropriate thing to do. That does not 
stop it, that simply forces us to be more accountable.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Condit) 
again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for working with us, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Chairman Solomon), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
David Dreier), to perfect this legislation over the last few months.
  It is very important legislation. That is why it is supported by so 
many groups around the country. It will help consumers, it will help 
particularly small businesses, and it will help to create more jobs in 
this country. I want to thank again the Committee on Rules for allowing 
us to get this to the floor, because they have a lot on their agenda.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his outstanding 
explanation. He is completely right, there would be a point of order 
raised on that tax bill. But if they allocated that money to a tax 
break, there would not be a point of order. It is only if they wanted 
to spend it to educate the smokers, or if they wanted to spend it on 
stopping kids from smoking, that is when the mandate would kick in. But 
if somebody allocated that money as a tax break, there would be no 
point of order the against the mandate.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, maybe we should back up a second to 
explain what the amendment is. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) is here, who is going to explain it later, I am sure. But in 
this legislation there is one provision that came out of the Committee 
on Rules which says that in the case of tax legislation that is on the 
floor of the House, where there is a net tax decrease, in other words, 
where there is tax relief, that the point of order would not apply.
  Why? One, taxes are different than requirements.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would stop right there, 
that is what I am talking about. If there was some money there and they 
decided, the majority party decided to give that back in a tax break, 
rather than educate smokers, there would be no violation of the 
unfunded mandate. I would ask the gentleman, am I correct?
  Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
the single point of order which is able to be raised under this 
legislation, which is the consolidation of whatever private sector 
mandates are there, would not be able to be raised in a case where 
there was not a tax increase, because there is not a tax increase. So 
that is the one exception to this bill, where it would be raised.
  In the gentleman's case, I would say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that this will in every other case apply, 
this legislation. In the case that the gentleman has brought forward, 
which is the case where that tax increase would be used to fund 
government programs, there would be a point of order to be raised.

                              {time}  2145

  But it would simply be a simple majority. If the Dreier legislation 
were not part of this legislation, the same thing would happen. In 
other words, all the Dreier amendment does is it takes the cases where 
there is no tax increase and says, we shall not apply this point of 
order which can be overridden by simple majority vote.
  I do not now how the Dreier amendment affects your example one way or 
the other. In any case, there would be a point of order on the scenario 
that you have laid out.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. We can debate this when my amendment comes up. I thank 
the gentleman for his explanation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in 1992-1993, I introduced 
unfunded mandates legislation. This was during the time when the 
Democratic Party was in the majority. I could not get it out of the 
Government Operations Committee. My friend and colleague from 
California, I am sure, recalls that he also had unfunded mandates 
legislation which suffered the same fate. Then when the Republican 
majority took over the Congress, it, of course, became the first 
legislation to be enacted.
  At that time, when that bill was debated, I had an amendment. That 
amendment was designed to correct an oversight which was that it did 
not include private sector mandates. It only applied to public sector 
mandates. It did not get included because the House leadership did not 
give its stamp of approval at that time, and it was not part of the 
Republican contract on America. So it did not get the votes necessary 
for adoption.
  The legislation that we are considering today does just what that 
amendment was designed to do. It is the same amendment. That is why I 
support this rule and this bill because it does correct something that 
was left unfinished when we passed the original unfunded mandates 
legislation.
  My original legislation actually only required that if it is an 
unfunded mandate, that you come up with the actual cost that is being 
passed on to States and localities and the private sector. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) went further and required a 
point of order, which is ultimately what got legislated.
  There is one other aspect, though, of the unfunded mandates issue 
which pertains to a public sector mandate, and that affects 
particularly the Medicaid program. We will address that when the Davis-
Moran amendment is raised, and I know that that will have the full 
support of this body as well.
  Again, this is a bill that will correct what was unfinished the last 
time we had unfunded mandates legislation, and I think that the rule 
and the bill will undoubtedly get passed overwhelmingly.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a very able member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill but particularly to converse with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on the issue of his concern about tax 
reductions.
  The goal of this bill is to put in place a far more accountable 
process in regard to government's mandating of expenses on other levels 
of government, which we did in the past, and now in the private sector. 
It comes from very deep bipartisan concern with government's rather 
casual attitude toward the costs of the legislation that it is passing 
and the way those costs tend to be borne by others than themselves in 
society.
  When we cut taxes, on the other hand, when we give a tax break, we 
are essentially talking about how we use our own resources, so we are 
mandating a cost on ourselves and we are paying for it by foregoing 
revenues that we would otherwise collect. So I do not think that the 
issue is the same when we forgo revenue through a tax break as the 
underlying issue that this mandates bill seeks to address.
  If we choose to spend our revenues by collecting them and then 
appropriating them, that is one thing. If we choose to spend our 
revenues by, in a sense, granting a tax exemption, that is also our 
right. But that is a separate issue from the issue that this bill 
addresses, which is making us accountable and making visible the costs 
that will follow from the responsibilities that we are imposing on our 
society.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, say for instance the gentlewoman is a 
corporation. She gets taxed. Then someone raises a point of order and 
someone says, well, we will give it back as a tax relief.

[[Page H3227]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) has expired.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  So we say, well, instead of putting it into the company, we are going 
to give a tax break to other people. The company still pays that tax. 
It is a way of taxing people.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the company does not have 
the right to give a tax break. The company must pay the taxes that we 
require them to pay.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, the mandate is the same, whether they get 
taxed to build roads or they give it back as a tax break, that company 
we are trying to protect is still getting the same tax.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, they are still getting taxed exactly the same. The 
goal of this bill is to make evident the costs we are imposing on the 
society, whether it is on another level of government or a private 
sector entity or an individual, the costs that we are imposing on them 
to carry out a public benefit. And I think all the vote on the House 
floor does, when the point of order is raised, is to make clear that I 
agree that this level of cost for a small businesses is worth it for 
our society to achieve a certain common goal. That is accountability.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The small businessperson still gets taxed.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Absolutely.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But the reason for this mandate is to stop this spending 
to take place, stop penalizing small companies. But if we say, we are 
going to tax them and then someone says, well, a point of order, and 
then someone says, we will give it back as a tax break, that company is 
still paying the tax even though that is going back as a tax break 
rather than going into the industry it is supposed to police.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), author of a very important amendment 
which we intend to accept.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will address my amendment a 
little later. Let me say, taxes are pretty straight forward, put a tax 
on business or people, and unfunded mandates are hidden taxes.
  The purpose of this is to let the public know and Members recognize 
when they are putting these mandates, unfunded mandates, that have the 
effect of being hidden taxes on companies just as we have done on local 
governments. Unfunded mandates over the last decade drove up the cost 
of local governments by the tens of billions of dollars.
  Congress passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in 1995, because 
Congress for too long prior to that had been passing the bills and then 
passing the buck on to the localities who would then have to either 
raise local taxes. And generally these were property taxes, sales 
taxes, much more regressive taxes than the Federal income tax, or, in 
some cases, if they were financially strapped, these unfunded mandates, 
in driving up the cost of local government, they would have to 
substitute Washington's priorities for their own priorities.
  We felt that was wrong and, as a Congress, by overwhelming majorities 
2 years ago, 3 years ago were able to pass unfunded mandates reform. 
And only 5 times in the last Congress, 5 times were objections, points 
of order even raised on the House floor. At least in two of those 
cases, we proceeded, after voting to overrule the point, not to sustain 
the point of order.
  This bill takes unfunded mandate reform to the next level, as the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just talked about, something we 
would have liked to have done 3 years ago, but some Members thought it 
was too ambitious or even too radical. Now that we have had some 
experience dealing with State and local governments, I think we are 
more comfortable. Unfunded mandates, though, to America's businesses 
often lead to higher prices for American consumers, and they will now 
be subject to points of order if the cost to American businesses are 
over $100 million.
  Remember, American businesses are now engaged in a global economy. We 
are competing against Japanese companies, German companies, Mexican 
companies, Chinese companies. If Congress wants to add additional 
mandates on American businesses, often these mandates will not apply to 
these foreign businesses as they manufacture goods. That has the effect 
of raising America's businesses' costs, of making them less 
competitive, leading to job losses or, in many cases, driving jobs 
offshore. That has the net effect of unfunded mandates on American 
business.
  There may be times and there may be circumstances and there may be 
priorities where we as a Congress decide it is important to do this 
because of what we are trying to accomplish. But this at least allows 
Members to not only recognize what those costs are, but to have an 
affirmative vote ongoing and moving forward with this cost. This is an 
important step for America's businesses, something that has been 
addressed widely by a number of business organizations and, I might 
also add, by State and local government organizations.
  Finally, let me just note, Congress does not lose any flexibility to 
enact any of these mandates, but we will have the information before 
us. We will have to act in an affirmative manner, recognizing that we 
are imposing basically a hidden tax or an unfunded mandate on these 
businesses.
  I am proud to be here tonight and support my friend in this 
legislation and hope the House will act favorably on it. I will address 
my amendment during the amendment period.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains for general debate on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 9 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I only wish that a number of Members and colleagues were watching 
this debate. I think this is an important bill. By definition, points 
of order stifle debate. The reason a Member raises a point of order is 
to short-circuit debate on a bill or amendment. That is why I oppose 
this bill. No one ever raises a point of order to extend debate.
  Yes, the point of order created by H.R. 3534 would prompt 20 minutes 
of debate, 10 on each side. But the reason for the point of order is to 
prevent the much greater debate that would otherwise occur.
  Let us take the example of the Saxton-Boehlert substitute to the 
Clean Water Act. A point of order against the amendment would have 
granted 20 minutes of debate, but without that point of order, we had a 
day and a half of debate, a full debate that would not be able to occur 
under this bill.
  There are lots of other examples. Proponents argue in effect that a 
point of order would not limit debate if it were defeated. But surely 
proponents are not working for this bill on the assumption that points 
of order would never prevail. What the bill does is skew the discussion 
by requiring an official objective estimate of costs but no similar 
information on benefits. If Members truly believe that benefits can 
never be quantified, then it is curious that Congress would have spent 
so much time pushing for cost-benefit analysis.
  However, my main objection to H.R. 3534 is the point of order, not 
the additional cost analysis called for in the bill. It is just that 
the way the bill dismisses benefits is a sign that it is designed to 
help only one side in the debate, not to provide balance.
  Can anyone think of a bill that has gone through Congress in which 
the costs on the private sector were not debated?
  The impact of H.R. 3534, whatever its sponsors' intent, is not to 
ensure that industry's view is heard but, rather, that it has a greater 
chance of prevailing. Even more importantly, however, the primary 
threat of 3534 is not the point of order once the bill reaches the

[[Page H3228]]

floor. The problem is that the availability of a point of order will 
make it harder to affect the bills before they come to the floor 
because committees will want to avoid points of order. This will 
prevent many amendments from getting a full hearing.
  If proponents believe that general debate allows enough time for any 
Member disagreeing with industry to get his point across, why is that 
not true for industry's proponents as well? Why does industry need a 
point of order to bolster its side in an argument? Think of the 
existing laws that H.R. 3534 would have made more difficult to 
negotiate and to pass, including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air 
Act. Think of the pending legislation before Congress this year. I am 
talking about tobacco. I am talking about a patient Bill of Rights. 
This bill will place roadblocks in front of that legislation.

                              {time}  2200

  I do not believe that Congress should pass mandates on industry 
without full discussion. I do not object to Congress having full and 
fair information, like the CBO scoring of private mandates already 
required by current law. I do object to a bill whose only possible 
impact is to shortcircuit any debate on any bill or amendment that 
industry might oppose.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things the gentleman 
said that seem inconsistent to me. The gentleman just said a moment ago 
that he was happy to support something that forces us to understand 
what the costs are to new legislation on the private sector, and then 
the gentleman said but he would not want a point of order.
  Let me be clear. This point of order is not the kind of point of 
order that we would normally have where we simply come to the floor, 
raise a point of order, and that stops the legislation if it is 
approved. This permits a debate precisely for the reason the gentleman 
stated earlier. We get 10 minutes on each side to be able to debate the 
question as to whether we should proceed on the legislation. The 
precise question the gentleman is raising.
  The argument that some Members will make, which might include the 
gentleman on environmental legislation, from the way I am hearing what 
he is saying, would be we need a full debate on this question.
  Mr. GANSKE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the point is this: That 
a point of order brought on this would allow only 20 minutes of debate, 
10 minutes per side, on a complicated issue that really should not be 
limited by that time limit.
  I am fine with the analysis. I have voted for that in the past. It is 
the point of order that I think tilts the side too much to one side to 
prevent legislation from being fully debated. And that is why I have to 
oppose this amendment or this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
let me just make the point that what we do here, I guess the gentleman 
and I have a different view of this place. The gentleman's sense, as I 
have tried to write down what he said, is there has never been 
legislation around here where the costs have not been fully debated. I 
do not know that there is any legislation, including the banking bill 
we just passed, where we ever understand what the full costs are, 
whether it is to the public sector or the private sector.
  Maybe the gentleman's staff reads all the legislation and gives him a 
cost breakdown, but mine certainly does not, and I do not know that 
that is true of any other Member. What we need is to have some debate 
on the cost, because the rest of the debate is always about the 
benefits.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, when legislation is debated on the floor 
of the House, the legislation is debated because someone has a good 
idea. It is a great sounding idea.
  We talk a lot about the benefits, and we do it continually. What we 
do not talk about is the cost to the private sector and to the public 
sector. This simply permits the Congress to focus on that issue and 
then determine in its will by a simple majority vote whether to proceed 
with the legislation or not.
  So this is good government. It is accountability that will get at 
exactly what the gentleman earlier stated was his objective, which was 
to be fully informed about the cost of the legislation.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. GANSKE. I appreciate the intent of this legislation, but I think 
the effect, because of the time limits on a point of order, would be to 
limit debate on a lot of bills.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to congratulate the prior speaker on his analysis and I agree with him. 
I think he did a wonderful job.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I thought that my friend agreed with the bill, with the 
exception of the Dreier amendment that was in here.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to suggest to the gentleman from California if he would just take the 
Dreier amendment out, we can wrap it up tonight.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to point out that the gentleman from Iowa, with whom the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has just agreed, was actually disagreeing with the whole 
thrust of the legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond that I believe the gentleman said that the other side of the 
aisle does not give enough time, and I agree with him. Twenty minutes 
is not enough time on this.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3534, the 
Mandates Information Act of 1998. I want to thank the Rules Committee 
Chairman and Vice-Chairman for bringing this bill to the floor under an 
open rule and for their commitment to pass this legislation.
  This bill is a new version of an old idea, which will yield the same 
results--accountability and openness. This bill is similar to H.R. 
1010, the Mandates Information Act of 1997, which I introduced on March 
11, 1997. These bills were introduced as a follow-up to the successes 
we have had with the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  As you are aware, the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act required the 
Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of unfunded mandates a 
bill would place on both local governments and the private sector. 
These cost estimates are required to be included in the committee's 
report which accompanies a bill reported to the House.
  The law also established a point of order procedure for bills 
imposing a mandate on local governments in excess of $50 million. The 
Mandates Information Act of 1998 will establish a similar point of 
order procedure for bills containing an unfunded mandate on the private 
sector in excess of $100 million.
  The Mandates Information Act of 1998 has been modified to address the 
concerns raised by the House Rules committee that the point of order 
procedure would be used as a delaying tactic and could impede the 
legislative process. The new version of the Mandates Information Act 
would allow Members of Congress to raise a single point of order 
against a bill or amendment containing a mandate in excess of $100 
million. It is important to note that this bill would not affect a 
Member's ability to raise a separate point of order if the 
Congressional Budget Office failed to adequately estimate the impacts 
of a private sector mandate. Nor does H.R. 3534 prevent Members from 
raising multiple points of order against a bill containing 
intergovernmental mandates.
  Tonight we will hear arguments that this bill is an assault on the 
environment, health and worker safety. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be 
further from the truth. H.R. 3534 cannot be used to block important 
environmental health and safety regulations. H.R. 3534 is simply a way 
to guarantee an accurate and informed debate on the costs of proposed 
mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support information and 
accountability by supporting the Mandates Act of 1998.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
H.R. 3534.
  Just as this great body voted in 1995 to release state and local 
governments from the stranglehold of unfunded federal mandates, we must 
vote today to free our private sector as well.
  Our booming economy thrives on the ability of our private sector to 
continue flourishing.

[[Page H3229]]

We must ensure that government does not impede this development.
  I have received letters in support of this legislation from all 
groups involved in our growing economy: consumers, taxpayers, farmers, 
and small businesses.
  I would like to emphasize that this latter group, in particular, 
succeeds or suffers in direct proportion to the increased government 
mandates placed on it. Federal mandates discourage development of small 
businesses and start-ups, the most valuable, yet most vulnerable engine 
furthering growth and job creation in our economy.
  We have voted time and time again over these past few years to lessen 
the government burdens on this sector.
  This legislation represents the next logical step in making this body 
more cognizant of the impact of our actions on our developing economy.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in the bill is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered as an original bill for further 
amendment and is considered read.
  The text of H.R. 3534, as amended by the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Rules, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3534

       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 
     1998''.

     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) when applicable, 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 joint resolution on the hiring 
     practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses 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) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph 
     (3); and
       (B) inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would increase the direct costs of 
     Federal private sector mandates (excluding any direct costs 
     that are attributable to revenue resulting from tax or tariff 
     provisions of any such measure if it does not raise net tax 
     and tariff revenues over the 5-fiscal-year period beginning 
     with the first fiscal year such measure affects such 
     revenues) by an amount that causes the thresholds specified 
     in section 424(b)(1) to be exceeded; and''.
       (4) Application relating to appropriations committees.--(A) 
     Section 425(c)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``except''.
       (B) Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (iii) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental''; 
     and
       (iv) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental''.
       (5) Threshold burden.--(A) Section 426(b)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``legislative'' before ``language''.
       (B) Section 426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 
     425 or subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``part 
     B''.
       (6) Question of consideration.--(A) Section 426(b)(3) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 425 or subsection (a) of this 
     section'' and inserting ``part B''.
       (B) Section 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``, except 
     that not more than one point of order shall be recognized by 
     the Chair under section 425(a)(1) or (a)(2)'' before the 
     period.
       (7) 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(c) of 
     rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by striking ``intergovernmental'' and 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a demand for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
     Davis):
       Page 8, after line 11, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATE.

       Section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``the provision'' after ``if'';
       (2) in clause (i)(I) by inserting ``the provision'' before 
     ``would'';
       (3) in clause (i)(II) by inserting ``the provision'' before 
     ``would''; and
       (4) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``that legislation, statute, or regulation 
     does not provide'' before ``the State''; and
       (B) by striking ``lack'' and inserting ``new or expanded''.

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 3534, the Unfunded Mandates Information Act of 1998.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply serve as a clarification of 
the

[[Page H3230]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, of which I was a primary sponsor in the 
104th Congress. This amendment is necessary due to the Congressional 
Budget Office's interpretation of an important provision of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in a way that is inconsistent with the 
intent of Congress. The CBO interpretation has a significant impact on 
the States.
  The definition of ``Federal Intergovernmental Mandate'' as drafted 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was specifically intended to 
include Medicaid and other large entitlement programs and efforts to 
impose new Medicaid mandates without new flexibility.
  However, when asked to review the President's proposal for a cap on 
the Federal share of Medicaid spending per beneficiary, CBO determined 
that the proposal did not contain a mandate as defined by UMRA, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. According to CBO, this was because States 
currently have the flexibility to amend their own financial and 
programmatic responsibilities by reducing some optional services or by 
choosing not to serve some local optional beneficiaries.
  This interpretation is at odds with congressional intent. In passing 
UMRA, Congress intended that the flexibility required under clause (ii) 
be new flexibility, concomitant with the mandate-imposing legislation, 
for States to amend their responsibilities to provide ``required 
services'', not optional services. However, because the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, as passed, does not say new flexibility 
specifically, CBO believes its interpretation is consistent with the 
law as written.
  My amendment is supported by Ohio Governor George Voinovich, the 
National Governors' Association, the Council of State Governments, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of 
Counties, and the National League of Cities.
  As a former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I 
recognize the incredible burdens placed on States and localities by 
unfunded mandates, of which I just spoke during the general debate, and 
I would urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to having an opportunity to pass an 
amendment that I thought should have been passed back in January of 
1995, that I had offered then, I think probably it helps in a 
Republican Congress to have a Republican offeree, and I trust that this 
bill will pass, although I suspect that there will be more opposition 
to it than is present here tonight.
  This is also an opportunity to correct a technical problem that we 
have encountered with the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of 
State and local mandates. That is why I urge everyone to support the 
Davis-Moran amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think this has the best of all 
worlds, according to the gentleman from Virginia. This has the Moran 
intellect and the Davis name, and when we put the two together, from 
what I hear the gentleman saying, it is a ``can't lose'' amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that was not 
exactly the point I was trying to make, but I am certainly willing to 
let that stand in the record if my friend and colleague wants to 
suggest that.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is known not only by his name 
but by his intellect, and I am more than happy to join him in this 
amendment. I was actually referring in a more general way. I was not 
suggesting that the only way we could get our amendment passed was if 
it had the gentleman's name on it. The gentleman has worked very hard 
on this, but I will now amplify some of the points that the gentleman 
made.
  The reason why the amendment is necessary is because the 
Congressional Budget Office determined that any new Federal mandates in 
the area of entitlement programs are not subject to the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act's point of order procedure if there is sufficient 
flexibility in the affected entitlement program to offset the new State 
and local costs.
  The best example of this is on June 10th, 1996, when CBO ruled that a 
point of order would not exist for a proposed cap on Federal Medicaid 
expenditures and any other mandatory Federal aid programs except food 
stamps. The effect of this interpretation is to exempt more than two-
thirds of all granted aid. In other words, all the mandatory 
entitlement programs from coverage under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.
  What may appear to be an optional Federal mandate program from CBO's 
perspective, such as, for example, expanded Medicaid coverage to 
pregnant women and children, is not an optional program from the 
State's perspective. I do not know of any State willing to reduce 
Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and children in order to help 
offset the cost of new Federal mandates.
  Our amendment would correct this implementation problem by adding a 
few simple words to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to clarify that 
any cut or cap of safety net programs constitutes an intergovernmental 
mandate unless State and local governments are given new or additional 
flexibility and the authority to offset the cut or the cap.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the five major State and local 
organizations. It ought to be supported. I urge all my colleagues to 
support it, and, again, I am honored to be able to offer it in 
coordination with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis).
  I will conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, feeling as though I have 
given my cosponsor more than sufficient recognition.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment, as long as it does not lead the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to come out in opposition of the 
amendment.
  So I am going to proceed, and I will assure the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that I 
will withdraw my name and I will, in fact, not support the amendment if 
it in any way jeopardizes the support of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would just go a little 
further and remove the amendment that has his name on it, I would be 
very happy to support everything.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We could call it the Moran-Davis, Davis-Moran, 
Dreier-Moakley unity bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friends for 
their contribution. It seems to me that we have bipartisan agreement on 
the measure and I strongly support it.
  The brief statement that I would like to provide here, Mr. Chairman, 
states that under section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act, 
Federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid, child nutrition, and 
foster care are considered unfunded intergovernmental mandates if 
Congress imposes new conditions, places caps on funding, or cuts 
funding without giving the States the authority to adjust those 
changes. Although this was the clear intent of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, the Congressional Budget Office has used a different 
interpretation which undermines the act. Specifically, CBO contends 
that UNRA's language does not specify new authority and that States 
already have sufficient authority or options to adjust to any cut or 
cap to an entitlement program except for the food stamp program.
  The Davis-Moran amendment clarifies that any funding cut or cap is 
considered a new mandate unless the States are given new or additional 
flexibility to adjust their programmatic or financial responsibilities 
in order to offset the additional mandate costs.
  I believe it is a very important amendment, and I will clearly 
support

[[Page H3231]]

it and urge my colleagues to join in doing the same.
  Mr. CONDIT. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak in 
favor of the amendment.
  I want to rise and show my support for the amendment, and I would 
like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for being on their toes and being 
on guard for State government.
  This is an amendment that is needed for the State governments, and I 
just commend them and congratulate them for doing this.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words just briefly again to commend sponsors of this amendment.
  We did work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) last time 
around and were not able to do what really should have been done, it 
turned out. This is a needed technical correction really to the 1995 
legislation, because it clarifies the intent of the original act to 
make it clear that State and local government could be given newer, 
expanded authority to meet their programmatic responsibilities if 
additional costs were imposed on them through entitlement reform.
  So I want to thank the authors of the amendment and also echo what 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) has said and issue my strong 
support.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would just like to offer an addendum to the very thoughtful list of 
supporters that was provided by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis), and say that I suspect not many Members are aware of the fact 
that the International City-County Management Association, which is 
headed by Gary Gwinn, also strongly supports the Davis-Moran amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Portman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sessions, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3534) to 
improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector 
mandates, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________