[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.
____________________