[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3430-H3448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). 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 further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3534.

                              {time}  1606


                     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 further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3534) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed 
Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Shimkus (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, May 13, 1998, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) had been disposed of, and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
to offer an amendment to H.R. 3534, the Unfunded Mandates Information 
Act of 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill language 
which was added in committee at the last minute by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) to exempt tax revenue from the private sector 
point of order. The Dreier language ignores the spirit of this bill, 
which is to force Congress to think twice before we impose any burden 
on private companies.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire, is the amendment 
pending?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer the amendment. I have 
not offered the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank the gentleman for noticing.
  Mr. Chairman, the point of order triggers a debate and a vote on the 
question of consideration. It makes Congress take notice and make 
informed decisions about whether or not to proceed. The Dreier 
amendment changes the whole picture. It says we should ignore real 
costs to private companies and individuals as long as that revenue 
generated is fully spent in tax or tariff reductions. A tax on coal 
deserves debate on its own, but if it is coupled with a tax break for 
ethanol, it suddenly is not worth Congress' attention.
  The Dreier language says that we have to know how the revenue was 
spent before we know whether a tax or a tariff is a burden. Consider 
what that means to excise taxes like taxes on gas and tobacco, where 
many people believe that the revenue generated should be dedicated only 
to certain spending programs. If a measure increases gas taxes and 
requires that the money be spent on highway repair only, the measure 
would be subject to an unfunded mandate point of order.
  However, Mr. Chairman, if the same gas tax increase is completely 
offset by a provision to allow billionaires to avoid some kind of 
Federal tax liability, then the point of order just would not apply.
  Consider also a tobacco bill, which we may be considering some day, 
that raises cigarette taxes and spends that money to prevent teenage 
smoking or on health care costs and health care research or on aid to 
the tobacco farmer, that bill will be subject to a point of order. But, 
Mr. Chairman, under the Dreier language, if that tobacco revenue is 
given away in tax cuts rather than these programs I just enumerated, 
then the point of order just does not apply.
  I believe this approach is uneven. I believe it is arbitrary. It goes 
against the fundamental purpose of the bill, which is to make Congress 
reconsider whether it wants to impose any private sector burdens.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment 
that I am about to file and strike this language to the bill and return 
it to the original intent of the sponsors.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would 
like to engage my colleague, if I could, with a question. Is there an 
amendment that we are considering here?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. DREIER. I do not have anything to say, Mr. Chairman, until I know 
what it is.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is there, maybe the Clerk 
could read the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I guess the gentleman will be recognized 
then in support of his amendment and I would like to be heard in 
opposition to it.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Moakley

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moakley:
       On page 5, line 13, strike ``(3)'' and all that follows 
     through line 5, page 6.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I know I just gave a vivid explanation of

[[Page H3431]]

the amendment. I do not want to subject the House to it again. I know 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has good enough memory 
to remember what I said so we can address my amendment now.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not 
surprisingly, and I have a prepared statement which I know the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will understand very 
clearly.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Moakley amendment because it seeks to 
perpetuate a set of budget rules that have, for the past decade, 
dramatically shifted Federal policy in the direction of more Washington 
spending programs at the expense of tax relief for working families.
  At a time when the Federal Government is raising $500 billion more in 
revenue than was projected in the Balanced Budget Act, it is 
unconscionable our colleagues in the minority would attempt to further 
rig the rule so that those revenues which belong to hard-working 
families can be used to tax and spend our way out of a balanced budget.
  H.R. 3534 provides that if a measure contains private sector mandates 
exceeding $100 million, consideration of the measure may be subject to 
a point of order. An exception is made for legislation containing tax 
or tariff provisions which cause the $100 million threshold to be 
exceeded but result in an overall net reduction of tax or tariff 
revenue over a 5-year period, provided that the bill does not include 
other nonrevenue-related Federal private sector mandates that exceed 
that $100 million threshold. If a bill contains tax or tariff 
provisions which result in a net increase in revenues, or it contains 
nonrevenue related mandates, a point of order may still apply.
  This language is necessary, Mr. Chairman, because in the universe of 
private sector mandates, our budget rules discriminate against tax cuts 
by requiring that they be paid for by increases in other tax revenues 
or reductions in mandatory spending. In other words, our budget rules 
require us to impose mandates on the private sector as a condition of 
providing tax relief to the American people.
  In addition, given the dynamic effects of tax rate changes, I find it 
hard to believe that anyone would suggest that tax rate reductions that 
may actually raise revenue, such as the capital gains tax cut, we all 
know it has been a revenue raiser, should be treated as private sector 
mandates and subject to a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I find it 
ludicrous, but that is exactly what would happen if the Moakley 
amendment were to prevail.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to respond to some inaccuracies in the 
administration's policy statement on this bill. It states, and I quote,

       The administration is especially concerned about the 
     amendment added to the bill that would establish a point of 
     order on the use of user fees and revenues.

  Mr. Chairman, someone did not read the amendment that was adopted in 
the Committee on Rules that I offered because the point of order was 
always in the bill. The amendment that I authored in the Committee on 
Rules makes an exception to that point of order.
  The statement for the administration further goes on, and I quote,

       This amendment could delay or undermine funding for a 
     number of well-established and important programs and laws 
     that have traditionally received bipartisan support, 
     including airline, air traffic and ground safety; the 
     Superfund program; the Senate passed version of the Internal 
     Revenue Service reform bill; and legislation under 
     consideration that provides relief to tobacco farmers and 
     additional resources for public health and health research.

  Once again, Mr. Chairman, the person who wrote that statement 
obviously did not read the bill or my amendment. All H.R. 3534 says is 
that if a point of order is made, it is subject to 20 minutes of 
debate, after which the Members must vote on whether to proceed with 
consideration of the legislation. All we are doing is encouraging a 
deliberative process.
  This mechanism was crafted to ensure that the House would have 
additional information and debate time on certain Federal mandates, but 
that legislation containing such mandates could continue to be 
considered by the House if a majority so desires. The Dreier amendment, 
adopted by the Committee on Rules, does nothing to change this process.
  In other words, if Congress takes up legislation to raise tobacco 
taxes and uses that revenue to fund President Clinton's great budget 
blow-out proposals that he unveiled here in his State of the Union 
message, that legislation could be subject to a question of 
consideration. The Committee on Rules amendment did nothing to change 
that outcome. If, however, revenues from a tobacco tax increase are 
returned to working families in the form of tax relief, then the 
Committee on Rules amendment provides an exclusion from the point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, the Moakley amendment seeks to strike this taxpayer 
protection and allows legislation providing a net tax reduction to be 
subject to a point of order if it contains loophole closers or tax rate 
cuts that actually raise revenue. This will further bias our procedures 
against tax cuts and seriously undermine our efforts to simplify the 
Tax Code and provide badly needed tax relief to working families.
  For this reason and all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am going to 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I paid very close attention to my dear 
friend's explanation, but the provision of the Dreier amendment really 
distorts the underlying purpose of the unfunded mandate bill. It used 
to focus on whether or not there was a mandate. Now, under the Dreier 
amendment, it focuses on whether it is a tax bill and how the funds 
from the tax bill would be handled. If Members choose to give a tax 
break to someone else, the issue of a mandate on a private business 
does not get debated in the House.
  The purpose of the unfunded mandate bill is very simple. It calls 
upon Congress to look and see how it affects that private business. 
And, therefore, if we raise a tax on that business and we do not use it 
to help those types of businesses, but give it back in tax relief, then 
it is not an unfunded mandate but it still hurts that private person 
who we are trying to protect. This is not a tax bill, it is an unfunded 
mandate bill.
  Now, for instance, if an aviation tax increase faces a point of 
order, if money is spent to improve airports, so the aviation tax goes 
to build up the airports, put new towers in there, then a point of 
order can lie. But if this money from that aviation tax goes to the fat 
cats, no point of order.
  Gasoline tax. If the gasoline tax is used to build roads, to improve 
safety factors; point of order lies. But if we take that tax money and 
give it for some other purpose, no point of order.
  Tobacco tax. If that money is used to educate children to stop 
smoking, if that money is used to show people through all kinds of 
means how bad tobacco is for them, point of order. But if we give that 
money back as a tax rebate to the big fat cats, no point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, the Dreier amendment distorts the basis of this 
unfunded mandate bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I think the gentleman 
has really explained this very well once again. He is in favor of 
spending for a wide range of very well intentioned proposals, and I 
think a lot of these issues need to be addressed; whereas we, with my 
amendment, are focusing on this whole question of reducing the tax 
burden on working families.
  But, let me just say that I am a little confused at exactly what we 
have before us right now, because apparently, and the gentleman can 
correct me if I am wrong, but the amendment that has just been put 
forward goes much further than simply deleting the so-called Dreier 
language. It appears to me it guts the entire bill.
  Now, my friend told me that he is no longer supportive of the bill as 
he might have been in the past when we were talking earlier, but the 
way this

[[Page H3432]]

amendment has been crafted, I have just been informed that it basically 
strikes out all points of order that can be raised against private 
sector mandates. Is that the gentleman's intention?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, that is not my intention, no.
  Mr. DREIER. So the gentleman's intention is to simply to delete the 
Dreier amendment?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is all.
  Mr. DREIER. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inquire, 
then, of the Chair, if it does go beyond simply deleting the Dreier 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair cannot interpret the meaning of 
an amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just 
made my point for me. If we raise tobacco taxes to advertise to stop 
kids from smoking, a point of order would lie. But if we give tax 
rebates back, a point of order would not lie. This is not a tax bill; 
this is an unfunded mandate bill.
  But the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) makes it a tax bill. 
And this is a great loophole that we can reward our big fat cats with 
tax breaks at the expense of those youngsters that do not get the 
proper education to stop smoking.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dreier, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Moakley was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I think, once again, we are making each other's 
arguments. My friend is for tax and spend, we are for cutting the tax 
burden on working families. So we have clarified that.
  But let me just ask this question once again. Does the gentleman's 
amendment go beyond simply deleting the Dreier language that was passed 
in Committee on Rules? He has just said that is what his intent is, but 
I am continually told by our crack staff assistants around here that it 
goes well beyond that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, that is not my intent. If that is what 
this amendment does, I will pull it back and just eliminate the Dreier 
amendment. That is not my intent.
  This is not a tax and spend bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Could we clarify that before we proceed further with the 
debate?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But this is a bill that if we tax the tobacco industry, 
we should put it toward education.
  Mr. DREIER. This is a big tax and spend bill, and I would just like 
to make sure we have the right amendment before us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California will suspend. 
The time is controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley).
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Which the gentleman kindly gave to me, Mr. Chairman.
  As I said, this is not rewarding anybody, but if a private business 
has a tax put on it, it is very unfair to use that tax money to give it 
back in rebates to people in other businesses. If it is tax because of 
a certain reason, it should be used in the furtherance of that 
business.
  This is an unfunded mandate. We should not persecute people by taking 
their tax money and putting it in other places. That is all I am trying 
to say.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I want to see if I understand the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The underlying bill requires that the House pay special attention if 
there is a mandate on private enterprise.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Now, that mandate can be a new regulatory requirement or 
it can be a tax. That is a mandate that they have to pay.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand the Dreier amendment, he would say it is 
all right to put a tax on a business if we give a tax break to another 
business.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is exactly correct.
  Mr. WAXMAN. It is still a mandate on the company that has the tax 
burden. On the other hand, as I understand the Dreier amendment, if we 
put a tax burden on one enterprise in order to spend the money on some 
worthwhile purpose, as the Congress sees fit, then that would be an 
unfunded mandate and require the operation of the underlying bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dreier, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Moakley was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am overwhelmed by the gentleman from 
California's generosity.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think my friend from West Los Angeles has 
actually made a very good point. There are more than a few Members in 
this House, including the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
we have a couple of very distinguished members of the Ways and Means 
here who are looking at the idea of overhauling the Tax Code.
  And I will tell my colleagues, I hear often from the people whom I am 
privileged to represent in California that they want us to certainly 
pare back, overhaul or possibly even eliminate the Internal Revenue 
Service. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has a proposal, we have 
flat rate tax proposals, but it appears to me that if we were to 
proceed with the Moakley language deleting the amendment I offered in 
the Committee on Rules, we could not even consider a complete overhaul 
of the Tax Code, which the American people desperately want.
  And so, as my friend from California (Mr. Waxman) has just indicated, 
we have a situation here that, yes, there could be some kind of 
modification, but I think it is very troubling this would tie the hands 
of a Congress that really wants to do these kinds of things.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has 
misstated the case. This does not stop any kind of tax refund from 
going over, but the gentleman, in effect, has admitted he is making a 
tax bill out of this unfunded mandate bill, is what he is doing.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I am perplexed by my friend from California's statement 
as well. As I understand the underlying bill, it does not stop the 
Congress from doing anything. It just simply says, wait a minute, we 
want to take a look at this.
  And if we are going to put a burden on private enterprise, we want to 
have a special focus on that and make people have to debate it and vote 
on it. If we are going to put a tax increase on some business, that 
seems to me a sufficient burden that we are putting on them that we 
ought to stop and be sure that that is what we want to do.
  As I understand the Dreier amendment, which the Moakley amendment 
would strike, it would have us ignore what the burden is on a private 
business, a small business, particularly, if there is a tax break for 
someone else.


            Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Moakley

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, because of the 
conversation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I had 
to make sure I do not go beyond eliminating the Dreier amendment, to 
modify my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Moakley:
       Page 5, line 23, strike the italized words through line 4, 
     page 6.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H3433]]

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate because I would 
echo what my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), on 
this side of the aisle has had to say. Despite my deep personal 
affection for my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Rules, what 
my colleague from California points out is quite true. What, in 
essence, the Moakley amendment allows to have happen is for this 
Chamber to continue the culture of spending and raise barriers to the 
American people hanging on to more of their hard-earned money.
  Indeed, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am 
challenged and chagrined by the fact that our existing budgetary rules 
already raise so many hurdles, where if to offer tax cuts to one 
segment of the American population, we must have, in fact, revenue 
offsets.
  What we should be about in this Chamber, my colleagues, when we strip 
away all the discussion of rules, all the inside baseball, all the 
legislative minutia with which we deal here, the fact is we should make 
it easier for the American people to hang on to what they earn; and we 
should reject any language, no matter its intent, that makes it tougher 
for the American people to hold on to their hard-earned money.
  The American people are already overregulated and over taxed, and we 
must do all we can to preserve the notion that they should hold on to 
more of their money and send less of it here to Washington. 
Accordingly, my colleagues, I would ask that we reject the Moakley 
amendment, stand in favor of families, stand in favor of families 
holding on to more of their hard-earned money.
  I could not help but note the difference to hear my colleague from 
Massachusetts refer to those who might receive a tax cut as ``fat 
cats.'' I do not believe that the working family in Payson, Arizona, 
one of my friends who owns a print shop there who has a family of four 
who now, through our historic agreement to offer tax relief at a $400 
per child tax credit this year that increases to $500 next year, can be 
called a ``fat cat'' because he and his wife hold on to $1,600 dollars 
of their income to spend on their families as they see fit.
  So we are witnessing here in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, a great 
cultural and philosophical divide among those who favor the culture of 
tax-and-spend and Washington-knows-best and those of us who believe 
that no matter how well-meaning a Washington bureaucrat may be, no 
matter how well-meaning my friend on the other side of the aisle may 
be, Mr. Chairman, when this comes to our pocketbook, no matter our 
economic station in life, no one knows better how to spend for their 
family and save for their future than they do.
  That is the essence of this debate. That is why the Moakley amendment 
must be rejected, to reverse the culture of tax-and-spend and stick up 
for American families.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am certainly sorry that my colleague is challenged 
and chagrined on this. But as an original sponsor of the unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act and as a strong supporter of the Mandates 
Information Act, I support the Moakley amendment. A vote for the 
Moakley amendment is a vote to strike language that would erode the 
intent of the Mandates Information Act. So, in other words, the Moakley 
amendment is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the Mandates 
Information Act.
  It was not a part of the original Mandates Information Act, the 
language that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is 
attempting to strike. It is not supported by the business community or 
the bill's original sponsors. It was added at the last minute by the 
House leadership, apparently to serve a political objective.
  I am opposed to this because it waives the right for anyone to 
challenge a private or a public sector mandate if the bill results in a 
net tax decrease.
  So, in other words, it allows a bill to amass major tax increases as 
long as they can find some other, albeit unrelated, tax decrease to 
offset the major tax increases. That means, despite a number of tax 
increases and provisions that close tax loopholes in the 1997 Tax 
Relief Act, no one would have been able to raise a point of order on 
the revenue measures because the bill contained a net tax deduction.
  This year's highway bill, however, would have been subject to a point 
of order since there was no net tax decrease but there was an extension 
of the current Federal gasoline excise tax. Do we really want to create 
two categories of tax bills, one that is exempt and another that is 
subject to the provisions that we fought hard to include in the 
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the Mandates Information Act? I think 
not. I would be surprised if my friend and colleague would not agree 
that we should not have two separate categories of tax increases.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and restore 
the integrity and the intent of the Mandate Information Act. Let us be 
evenhanded when we deal with tax measures.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, as has been made very 
clear, that the thrust of what this amendment that I have offered is 
designed to do is to decrease that extraordinary burden on working 
families.
  I think that while there may be this view out there, my friend said 
he has been a long-time supporter of this measure, I would like to 
share with him and my colleagues a list of just a few of those people 
who have said that they support the bill as it was reported in the 
Committee with the Dreier language.
  That includes the National Governors Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the 
National Association of Counties, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the American Farm Bureau, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the 
National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, Small 
Business Survival Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, 
Associated General Contractors, American Subcontractors Association, 
National Association of Self-employed, National Association of 
Manufacturers, and on and on and on and on.
  So virtually everyone is supportive of the language as has come out. 
My friend, who has been a supporter of the bill, I appreciate it, and 
he is welcome to stand alone in favor of tax increases over tax cuts.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Well, it just seems to me that we ought to 
spotlight it when there is any tax increase. And that is what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is attempting to do, and 
that is why I support the Moakley amendment. I thank the gentleman for 
his input, though.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) for his unwavering support for the underlying legislation, 
H.R. 3534. I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 
done is an improvement to the bill, and I hope that he will reconsider 
his opposition to the Dreier addition and then in the end support us on 
final passage once we are able to defeat the Moakley amendment.
  I think this really comes down to a philosophical debate in some 
regards as to tax versus spend. But let me just make one distinction 
that has not been made clearly on the debate that I think is a logical 
distinction and the reason I think it is important to accept the Dreier 
language and not knock it out with this Moakley amendment.
  Under the budget rules that we live under, we essentially 
discriminate against tax cuts. How do we do that? If we want to reduce 
taxes under our rules that we all live under, we have to mandate. In 
other words, we have to come up with tax increases somewhere else. The 
other choice is to increase entitlement spending, which I do not

[[Page H3434]]

think anyone on the floor tonight particularly wants to do, or decrease 
entitlement spending to offset those tax cuts.
  So we are in a position now where if we want tax relief, let us say 
the capital gains differential that we put into place last year, we 
have got to go into the Tax Code and we have got to find loophole 
closures in that Tax Code that are essentially revenue raisers, which 
are, under the terms of this legislation, as was said earlier, new 
mandates. In other words, tax increases are new mandates.
  So it would be, it seems to me, illogical to say every time we want 
to give any kind of tax relief we have to mandate, as rule number one; 
and then on the other hand step in and say, and if we mandate, we are 
then subject to this mandate exercise.
  So I think this is important, and I think it makes sense. I would 
also say that we are hearing some scenarios, maybe on both sides but I 
want to focus on ones on the other side, that just are not true. The 
point has been made the other night and again today that this would 
somehow not enable us to move forward with the tobacco agreement. How 
does this change that?
  Under the legislation without the Dreier language, there would be to 
difference with regard to the tobacco legislation than there would be 
having accepted the Dreier language. So it is not going to have any 
effect on the tobacco legislation and the possibility of a cigarette 
tax.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But this does change it. It does slant it. If we do not 
have a point of order prevail against it because it is going to go back 
to some program, talking about the tobacco, that is going to stop 
smoking, a point of order is going to lie upon it. But if we are going 
to take that money and give it back as tax rebates, a point of order 
does not lie against it. And the argument is not going to be on what it 
does, it is going to be on procedure.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, this is not a mandate. This is not a point of 
order under the unfunded mandate because it says, if there is going to 
be a tax break, there is no point of order, Mr. Chairman, it gives a 
point of order.
  It does slant the debate.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would make two 
points.
  One is that my colleague should like this amendment in that case 
because it is more likely that some kind of tobacco legislation I guess 
would not get through because the point of order would lie without the 
Dreier language in both of those scenarios. The point of order would 
lie in the case where there was more spending, and the point of order 
would lie in the case where there was a net tax decrease.
  All the Dreier amendment is trying to do is, in the case where there 
is a net tax decrease, partly for philosophical reasons and partly 
because of this absurdity where we are told if we have tax decreases we 
have to mandate, so then why should the mandate be subject to this? So 
I really do not understand how it relates at all to the tobacco 
legislation.
  If anything, I would hope that my colleague would stand up and 
support the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) because he might 
help him here. He is carving out at least some area where we would not 
subject it to this information requirement.
  I would also say, to make the point that was made earlier by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), if the majority of this House 
determines that they would like to spend that money, fine. This is an 
informational process; and if in the end, after a 20-minute debate, 10 
minutes on each side, regarding this new private sector mandate or this 
new tax increase, this House determines that it is in the interest of 
the country to move forward with the legislation, we would simply vote 
by a majority vote, as we did with regard to minimum wage last year, to 
move forward with the legislation.
  So I do not understand quite what the big concern is about this 
language. I think it is logical, given our budget rules that we have to 
live under; and I would support the language and oppose the Moakley 
amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, actually, I think the gentleman from Ohio 
is disturbed with the budget act. I think we should amend the budget 
act. But do not try to straighten out the budget act with this 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Massachusetts 
offering an amendment to change the budget rules? Because I do not 
think it would be germane here. We have to live under these rules. They 
are the rules that we have.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) be given an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen. An 
additional point needs to be made, that while the administration 
opposes this bill in general, their principle objection seems to be to 
this particular provision.
  Those who want the overall bill to pass, I think it makes enactment 
problematic when this particular provision is included. So I think that 
needs to be seriously considered within the context of whether we 
should pass this particular amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to understand the point that 
you were making. You said that the budget rules require that there be a 
tax increase in order for there to be a tax decrease.
  The budget rules also require that there be some kind of spending if 
there were going to be an increase in the amount for entitlements like 
Social Security or Medicare.
  So what I do not understand is why, when we put a tax burden on a 
small business in order to raise money, that is not considered unfunded 
mandate in order to get some attention here in the House if the money 
taken from that small business is used to give, maybe, a big business a 
tax break, but it is considered unfunded mandate if you ask that 
businessman to pay more taxes and we use it to help Social Security or 
Medicare.
  I do not understand why that distinction should hold. If it is a 
burden on a business, then we ought to stop and take a look at it. 
Which is the purpose of the underlying bill?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think what the 
gentleman is saying, in essence, is that there is discrimination in 
this legislation against new spending. I guess I would answer him by 
saying, getting back to this philosophical question, you are probably 
right. We have a $5.5 trillion debt in this country. I think the 
problem that we are trying to address here is not on the tax side in 
terms of tax increases. It is more in terms of spending being out of 
control and a need to begin it get some control over the mandates on 
the private sector. That is the bias here.
  As I said earlier, there is a philosophical difference here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Portman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if you look at the 
budget rules when we are talking about taxes, this is just a carve-out 
for taxes, it just has to do with situations where you have a net 
decrease in taxes in a tax package. Right now, we are living under 
rules that I think, despite what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) may believe about those rules, we are going to continue to 
have to live under, which say that every time you want to give tax 
relief, you have to mandate. It seems to me, again, it would be absurd, 
then, to require those mandates to be subject to this if we are 
requiring ourselves to mandate.

[[Page H3435]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the distinction the gentleman 
is making, but if we imposed a tax on tobacco and wanted to use that 
money to help pay for Medicare, we would not have the opportunity to 
have a focus on that new tax increase.
  If we had that tax on tobacco and wanted to give a tax break to 
growers of corn, then we would say, whoa, wait a minute, we are going 
to take a special look at that tax on tobacco. That just, to me, does 
not make a lot of sense.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the converse of what the 
gentleman just explained.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment, and I do so 
out of very grave concern for the effects of the underlying legislation 
on the Aviation Trust Fund.
  The Moakley amendment would ensure that revenues raised from aviation 
users will continue to be dedicated to the purposes for which the 
Aviation Trust Fund was established, for investment in air traffic 
control, air traffic safety, air traffic security, equipment, and in 
airport capital needs. Revenues raised from aviation users under the 
concept of the Aviation Trust Fund are deposited in that trust fund. It 
is to be used solely for improvements in our air traffic control system 
and for operation and maintenance of the system.
  Air traffic controllers, air traffic safety equipment, radars, 
terminal Doppler weather radar equipment that we need in our en route 
centers for control of aircraft at high altitudes, these are very 
costly systems. They need to be updated and maintained, and the upgrade 
needs to be planned out years in advance. That is why we have this 
concept of a trust fund with a dedicated revenue stream to these 
critical investments. We have tried to strengthen the Aviation Trust 
Fund in recent years.
  There was a vote not too long ago in which we failed by only five 
votes of taking that trust fund entirely off the budget. Current 
legislation to take the trust fund off budget has 243 cosponsors; to 
make it more difficult, not less, to divert resources from protecting 
aviation safety for the American public. That is a bipartisan 
commitment.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 3534, would undermine that commitment. 
Taxes raised on the concept of this bill from the aviation industry 
could more easily be spent on tax cuts for upper income Americans of 
the top 1 percent or 2 percent of millionaires in this country than 
they could be spent on aviation investments.
  The underlying bill would mean that, if Congress moved to raise 
aviation excise taxes to improve our air traffic control system, for 
the modernization of the aircraft control system, for aviation security 
as we are now in the process of doing, a point of order could lie 
automatically against such legislation. That would be outrageous.
  If we do not change this underlying bill, if it should become law, 
and I am confident the President will veto it, we will have moved 
backward, not forward, in our efforts to modernize the air traffic 
control system. We have made a 30-year almost commitment to improving 
aviation safety, security, expanding capacity to the Nation's airports 
through the Aviation Trust Fund. It is astonishing to me to see 
legislation come up here that makes it more difficult.
  The Moakley amendment would stop that rollback, allow us to continue 
our efforts and modernize the air traffic control system, improve 
aviation safety. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I do not have any further time.
  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman 
be given 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. No, I do not seek additional time. The gentleman has 
had sufficient time to discuss the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. I wanted to clarify.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a most curious exercise. We have a bill on the 
floor which says that any time we pass a law, we have to have a special 
vote in this House as to whether we are going to consider it if it is 
going to impose any unfunded mandates on any citizen.
  That means if we are going to tighten the law with regard to 
protecting people under the Food and Drug Act from unsafe food, drugs, 
cosmetics, or if we are going to deal with the problems of Superfund or 
brownfields, or if we are going to deal with the problems of water 
pollution, because it is going to cost money, we are going to have to 
have a special vote before we can consider those questions.
  It means any time that we do something that the people want that is 
going to protect their health, safety, or welfare, or any time we are 
going to do anything that is going to make life better for the people 
of this country, we are going to stop and have to have a special vote. 
Somebody over here, I think, assumes that this is going to be very 
helpful to them politically.
  Then along comes this curious amendment which says if you are going 
to do that, you do not have to have the vote if you have a tax cut in 
the bill. That is very strange. It does not say the tax cut has to go 
to the people. We are going to pay the cost. All it says is you are 
going to have a tax cut of approximately the same amount. Hardly good 
sense. It sort of smells of blackmail or something of that kind.
  But the hard fact of the matter is, it is not going to do anything 
that is going to be of any particular merit. It is just going to have 
another vote.
  The practical result of this legislation is that, where something is 
necessary to be done, we will probably have the extra vote. The process 
will be delayed. We will have a point of order, and we will have a huge 
wrangle about it, but nobody is going to be better by the result of 
this.
  The tax cut, which supposedly, if it is going to occur, can go to 
anybody. You give it to all the millionaires and say, millionaires, you 
do not have to pay any tax; and that way, we will have benefited the 
economy to offset a change in the food and drug laws to protect people 
from unsafe food, drugs, and cosmetics.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is smart enough to have recognized 
this and to have offered an amendment which would address this. I hope 
that the House is wise enough to accept the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. It will benefit the legislation somewhat. 
The legislation will have less of a curiosity to it. It might even look 
a little better. But it is not going to benefit the operation of the 
House particularly, even as amended.
  The practical result of the amendment is going to be simply to 
eliminate a little bit of the obfuscation and, quite honestly, the 
stupidity of the bill as amended. The practical result of all this is 
going to be, however, that we are still going to have a bad bill.
  I know the House is probably going to vote for this because my 
Republican colleagues are going to go home and make speeches about it 
and tell everybody what a great job they did in amending the rules of 
the House by statute. That is a curious process, too, and I am sure 
they can explain that to their constituents, but I cannot.
  I do not think that their constituents, if they really will reflect 
on this, are going to come to the conclusion that this kind of 
convoluted relationship of a tax cut to the public interest is 
something which, in fact, is going to benefit either the country or the 
procedures of the House of Representatives.
  My counsel to the House, I know it is not going to be listened to on 
the Republican side of the aisle because they do not seem to listen to 
common sense on many days, but it is to simply observe that the 
amendment should be adopted, the bill should be rejected, and we should 
go about legislating in the fashion that hundreds of years of 
legislators have found serves the public interest without any 
nonsensical proposals of this type.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H3436]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. I 
appreciate his courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and I rise simply to respond to 
the statements that were made by the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I am very, very 
sad that he would not yield to me for a clarification.
  The statement that he made in the well was a very eloquent argument 
against the underlying unfunded mandates bill. He does not want us to 
in any way be able to zero in and target those mandates which are 
imposed by Washington, D.C. onto the private sector, small businessmen 
and women of our economy.
  He tried to say that he simply was supporting the Moakley amendment 
in opposition to the amendment that I had offered in the Committee on 
Rules. But he went much, much further than that.
  There are no tax increases in the ISTEA legislation that has moved 
forward. It seems to me that we should recognize that what the 
gentleman was trying to do was simply trying to oppose the entire 
language. What the gentleman argued would not in any way be addressed 
if we simply passed the Moakley amendment and then went ahead and 
passed the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for 
yielding so I can clarify that.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of the 
Moakley amendment to H.R. 3534. This amendment is essential in that it 
corrects several major defects that are now embedded in H.R. 3534. As a 
new Member to this House, I am acutely aware, as I know my colleagues 
are, of the ramifications of the actions that we take in this body. I 
have many problems with the main bill, H.R. 3534 and will vote against 
it. But the last minute provisions that were inserted by Mr. Dreier set 
up parliamentary procedure which favors tax cuts over using revenues 
for their intended purpose, like excise taxes, or for investing in 
national priorities.
  The new language looks at the way revenues from a program are used, 
before applying the point of order. Revenues that are used for a tax 
cut are exempted from the point of order. This exempts a whole class of 
legislation from the need to raise the private sector mandate point of 
order. For instance: a bill which increases revenues, like the gas tax, 
and requires that the money be used to repair bridges or our 
infrastructure, would be subject to a point of order. But if this same 
tax is used to reduce taxes to a billionaire to avoid a tax obligation, 
a point of order would not apply, there would be no floor discussion 
allowed for this class of loophole.
  I know that many of my constituents, our hard-pressed middle-class 
working people, know that the actual value of their wages have 
declined, during the same time that more billionaires and CEO's with 
unbelievably large salaries, have been created. These constituents 
would be very angry to learn, find it hard to believe that we would 
support a bill that does not allow discussion when tax breaks to the 
wealthy are given but forces a discussion if the tax obligation 
provides for improving the public good.
  Further, my constituents would find it alarming that a point of order 
does not apply, in other words, no debate would be allowed, if a tax 
hike is used to give a tax break to someone, and the net effect is zero 
income.
  My constituents would be enraged with another aspect of the Dreier 
amendment to H.R. 3534 that would not allow discussion if increased tax 
revenues from trust funds, like the Superfund revenues, are used on 
programs for the national welfare, but if increased tax revenues are 
used to create more loopholes which provide escape from taxes for a 
privileged few, no point of order applies.
  My small business constituents would really feel attacked by another 
aspect of the Dreier amendment which would not allow debate on mandates 
which give a tax break to someone else but increases his, a small 
businessman's, costs.
  The American people learned many lessons in the last few years. One 
of the lessons is that although we are upset by having to pay taxes, 
that taxes are essential in a complex, fast-paced country like ours. We 
value our leadership in the world; to maintain that leadership we must 
have a national Government that functions. We need to know that basic 
needs are taken care of, like our airports, our environment, our 
infrastructure. Many of these programs are paid for by special taxes 
with protected revenues, our trust accounts like Superfund, like 
airport taxes, like black lung. These trust funds would be severely 
effected by H.R. 3534 without the Moakley amendment. One of our abiding 
principles is that we must have representation with taxation. We must 
allow the same points of order to be raised when we give a tax break to 
the rich as when we promote a program for the rest of us. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Moakley amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Page 6, line 5, after ``exceeded'' insert ``or that would 
     remove, prevent the imposition of, prohibit the use of 
     appropriated funds to implement, or make less stringent any 
     such mandate established to protect human health, safety, or 
     the environment''.
       Page 6, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph 
     and renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:
       (4) Modification or removal of certain mandates.--(A) 
     Section 424(b)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting ``or if 
     the Director finds the bill or joint resolution removes, 
     prevents the imposition of, prohibits the use of appropriated 
     funds to implement, or makes less stringent any Federal 
     private sector mandate established to protect human health, 
     safety, or the environment'' after ``such fiscal year'' and 
     by inserting ``or identify any provision which removes, 
     prevents the imposition of, prohibits the use of appropriated 
     funds to implement, or makes less stringent any Federal 
     private sector mandate established to protect human health, 
     safety, or the environment'' after ``the estimate''.
       Page 6, lines 14, 16, 18, and 20, after 
     ``intergovernmental'' insert ``mandate'' and after the 
     closing quotation marks insert ``and by inserting `mandate or 
     removing, preventing the imposition of, prohibiting the use 
     of appropriated funds to implement, or making less stringent 
     any such mandate established to protect human health, safety, 
     or the environment' ''.
       Page 6, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 6, line 20, strike the period and insert``and''.
       Page 6, after line 20, insert the following:
       (v) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 
     ``and'' and by adding the following new clause after clause 
     (iv):
       (v) any provision in a bill or resolution, amendment, 
     conference report, or amendments in disagreement referred to 
     in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) that prohibits the use of 
     appropriated funds to implement any Federal private sector 
     mandate established to protect human health, safety, or the 
     environment.''.
       Page 7, line 12, strike ``one point'' and insert ``two 
     points'' and on line 14, insert after ``(a)(2)'' the 
     following: ``with only one point of order permitted for 
     provisions which impose new Federal private sector mandates 
     and only one point of order permitted for provisions which 
     remove, prevent imposition of, prohibit the use of 
     appropriated funds to implement, or make less stringent 
     Federal private sector mandates.''.

  Mr. WAXMAN (during reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment we call the ``Defense of the 
Environment Amendment.'' It is based on the bill H.R. 1404, which is 
supported by every major environmental group and the AFL/CIO. It has 
been cosponsored by nearly 100 members.
  Proponents of the underlying bill, H.R. 3534, have claimed that 
sometimes Congress does not sufficiently deliberate before enacting 
legislation. They say that sometimes an issue is so important that we 
need an extra procedural step. This procedural step or ``point of 
order'' allows any Member who identifies one of these important issues 
to immediately stop action here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and call for a brief debate and then a vote.
  The amendment I am offering is about an issue that I think deserves 
special procedural attention every bit as much as those singled out in 
this legislation and in previous legislation that we have adopted. Two 
years ago, we adopted this kind of procedure when

[[Page H3437]]

it came to imposing an unfunded mandate on State, local, and tribal 
governments.

                              {time}  1700

  The bill before us would expand the application of these procedural 
protections to requirements on the private sector.
  The ``Defense of the Environment Amendment'' would build on this 
legislation to offer special protection to issues of great importance 
to the American people, requirements established to protect public 
health, safety and the environment.
  This amendment would help guard against Congress repealing current 
environmental and public health protections without adequate 
consideration. Over the years, we have seen that when Congress 
legislates in a deliberate, collegial, bipartisan fashion, we are able 
to enact public health and environmental laws that work well and are 
supported by environmental groups and by the business community.
  However, sometimes the democratic, small ``d,'' democratic process is 
obstructed and anti-environmental riders are attached to Appropriations 
bills or other ``must-pass'' pieces of legislation. Often this happens 
with absolutely no debate or consideration by the Committee of 
jurisdiction. These anti-environmental riders, some of which have 
become law, have increased clear-cut logging in our National Forests, 
crippled protection of endangered species, stalled the Superfund 
program, backslid on energy efficiency standards and blocked the 
regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water.
  Those are some of the examples of riders that passed. Now let me give 
you some examples of riders that were attached to legislation that were 
later taken out. They were not made into law, but, nevertheless, we did 
not get a special opportunity to deliberate clearly and understand that 
we were going to reduce protection of the environment.
  We have had riders that would have opened up the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, without a chance for a separate vote. 
We have had a rider that prohibited the regulation of arsenic in 
drinking water without a separate vote. We have had riders that halted 
implementation of the Clean Air Act's operating permit program without 
a separate vote and terminated the environmental enforcement attorneys 
at the Department of Justice, with no special focus on this issue. We 
have had riders that exempted oil refineries and cement kilns from air 
toxic standards and exempted specific polluters from environmental 
laws, such as a rider that would have exempted an industrial facility 
in Kalamazoo, Michigan, from Federal water pollution control 
requirements, again without a separate opportunity to examine that 
issue.
  What I am offering by way of an amendment to this bill is a procedure 
that is designed to shine light on these stealth attacks on our 
environmental laws. This amendment would not prohibit Congress from 
repealing or amending any environmental law, but would simply allow a 
debate and a vote before Congress acts. That is what the underlying 
bill does for new mandates on private enterprise, just as previous 
legislation called for this special sunshine for provisions that would 
mandate additional requirements on State, local, and tribal 
governments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the environment is just as important to the 
American people as unfunded mandates. The environment is just as 
important for special procedural attention as new requirements that 
raise taxes or otherwise place mandates on the private sector. Let us 
pass this amendment and ensure Congress thinks before repealing 
critical public health and environmental protections.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an affirmative vote for this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that like my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I share representation of the 
Los Angeles area with him and I am very sensitive and concerned about 
environmental quality, both in California and throughout this country 
and throughout the world, and I will say that I would do nothing 
whatsoever that would in any way jeopardize or endanger environmental 
quality in this country.
  All we are saying with the underlying language here is we would look 
at the perspective imposition of mandates on the private sector, and we 
will have a 20-minute debate and we will be able to look specifically 
at that mandate, and we will be able to then proceed with an up or down 
vote here.
  I think it needs to be very clear, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit) and I pointed out in a ``Dear Colleague'' the 
other day, that this underlying bill itself will not end private sector 
mandates, just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which we passed has 
not ended public sector mandates.
  It will, however, force the Congress to consider the effects of 
mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, including any 
disparate impact on particular regions of the country or industries, 
and to work with the private sector to establish our public policies in 
the most efficient and cost effective manner. That is what the whole 
goal of this bill is designed to address.
  This bill cannot be used to block a vote on environmental health and 
safety mandates. A point of order is subject, as I said, to the 20 
minutes of debate, after which the Members must vote on whether to 
proceed with consideration of the legislation.
  This mechanism was crafted to ensure that the House would have 
additional information and debate time on certain Federal mandates, but 
that legislation containing such mandates could continue to be 
considered by the House, if a majority so desires.
  This is clearly, Mr. Chairman, about having accurate information. 
There are some horror stories that have been brought to our attention 
here. In 1993, the Department of Transportation considered promulgating 
hazardous material regulations for the shipping of butter and salad 
oil. The plan would have required 24 hours of hazardous material 
classroom and field training for workers who responded to butter or 
salad oil spill emergencies. In November of 1995, Congress approved 
legislation requiring Federal agencies charged with the regulation of 
oil to treat animal fats and vegetable oils differently from toxic 
chemicals. Under the Waxman amendment, that legislation would have been 
subject to a point of order, which seems to me to be very preposterous.
  Mr. Chairman, while the Clean Water Act requires a waste treatment 
facility to submit a simple form stating that a fence restricts access 
by the public, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires an 
additional 25 pages detailing the fence design, the location of the 
posts and gates, a cross-section of the wire mesh and other minor 
technical matters. One facility had to submit a six-foot stack of 
supporting documents with its permit application. Under the amendment 
we are considering right now by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), legislation to streamline this paperwork process and save 
hundreds of trees would be subject to a point of order.
  So all we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is we want the House to 
deliberate, but we do not want to move ahead with this sort of tactic 
which, I think, would jeopardize the goal of the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Waxman amendment 
and in strong opposition to the underlying bill.
  The Republican majority has become quite adept over the last few 
years in carrying out their anti-environmental agenda by tacking riders 
on to appropriation measures and other unrelated bills. This stealth 
approach allows them to claim a clean environmental record without 
necessarily cleaning up the environment. In fact, in many instances, 
they are doing quite the opposite.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill was brought to the floor with at least three anti-
environmental riders relating to paving our

[[Page H3438]]

parks and allowing big oil companies to rob American taxpayers for the 
use of public lands for private financial gain.
  The Waxman amendment would establish a point of order and allow for 
the opportunity for debate and a vote on provisions like these that 
would weaken current environmental law. In this way, we would be able 
to put an end to the stealth attack on the environment and instead 
debate these issues out in the open, as all business should be 
conducted in this House.
  Unfortunately, however, even if the Waxman amendment passes, this is 
still an incredibly bad bill, and I would still urge my colleagues to 
vote against the bill. The bill is, again, just another attempt to 
block the open consideration of vital environmental worker safety and 
human health legislation.
  An incredible concept, this bill establishes a new point of order 
against legislation based on the cost to the private sector. What this 
means is the cost of any legislation to private companies would be 
universally considered by Congress as more important than any benefits 
of that legislation to human health, worker safety or the environment.
  For example, and I use the Clean Water Act because the gentleman from 
California used it, if we were to try to bring the Clean Water Act to 
the floor under the new rules established by this bill, it would be 
subject to a point of order. In order to avoid having to be recorded as 
voting against a good environmental bill like the Clean Water Act, 
under this bill Members could simply vote not to consider the Clean 
Water Act at all; or, even worse, in order to have the Clean Water Act 
considered, the American taxpayer would have to foot the bill for 
cleaning up our Nation's waters and not the polluters.
  But it gets even crazier, and this goes back to the Moakley 
amendment. This bill makes it so revenues raised for a certain purpose 
cannot be used for that purpose unless there are equivalent tax cuts 
included in the bill, regardless of where those tax cuts are taken. 
That means, for example, that if a bill includes a tax on chemical and 
petroleum products, I will use the example of the Superfund tax, and 
the revenue created is to be used for cleaning up toxic waste sites, 
that bill would be subject to a point of order. However, if the same 
bill included an equivalent tax break for the wealthy, there would be 
no point of order. In my opinion, this makes no sense. It is obviously 
weighed heavily procedurally against any environmental initiatives.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Waxman 
amendment. Even if the Waxman amendment passes, I still urge my 
colleagues to vote against the bill. It is bad, extremely unwarranted, 
and it would drastically change the way we do business in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman obviously is against the 
bill. If someone supports this bill, because they think it makes sense 
to have a point of order and a focus and a debate and then a vote 
before we put a mandate on a private business, I think, for the same 
arguments, it is important to have a point of order, an opportunity for 
a debate and a vote when it comes to an environmental issue, especially 
if we are going to have something snuck into a bill that would remove 
some environmental protection.
  So on the same logic for those who support the bill, for education, 
for an opportunity to have some sunshine about what we are to do and 
clear deliberation before we do it, I think we ought to have this 
amendment. It is consistent with the bill.
  Whether one is against the bill, but also for those for the bill, I 
think this amendment goes well with this legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3435, but equally 
strong support against the amendment of the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman), which I think will seriously gut this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I used to be an independent businessman and I used to 
be a former local official with the local government, and I can tell 
you unfunded Federal mandates are real, they do have an impact, and 
generally they harm the folks back home.
  I think that everybody understands these mandates are sort of a 
hidden tax. They fall on business, they fall on consumers, and I think 
we need an effective deterrent. In the 104th Congress we started this 
process, and we dealt with the public sector. After a lot of 
refinement, thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and some others, we have got a 
much improved bill now for the private sector which will do the same 
thing.
  I think that H.R. 3435 in its present form supplies more information 
to Members on the impact of what these mandates are all about without 
enabling those intent on dilatory mischief. I think that is where we 
are right now, frankly. Essentially it would permit the House to have a 
separate debate and vote on whether or not it wants to impose a private 
sector mandate greater than $100 million. That is reasonable, I think 
it is appropriate, it is good government, and I cannot see the problem.
  Now, I have heard many environmental groups are opposed to this bill 
and support the Waxman amendment. I am an environmentalist. I have 
served on very distinguished environmental groups and boards, the 
National Audubon Society at the national level, and I have done local 
things and State things. I have my fingerprints all over environmental 
legislation, in Florida and elsewhere. I am certainly not going to sell 
out on the environment.
  But I think it is pretty clear that what we have got here is somehow 
we are trying to bring the environment into this, that it is going to 
be a casualty because we are going to deal with unfunded mandates in 
the private sector. By some great, long stretch, we are no longer going 
to be able to have environmental legislation, because, somehow or 
other, we are going to weaken benefits to health, safety or 
environmental standards.
  I think H.R. 3435 establishes a mechanism for Members to receive 
objective cost information that CBO can provide, and then have a debate 
and a vote on that particular issue. That is what we tried to do in 
this.
  As I say, it has been much crafted, and I think they have it right. I 
know they have a lot of good folks over at CBO that could do a lot of 
things, they are very talented, but I do not think they have anything 
in terms of structure or expertise to begin to quantify the nature of 
``benefits.''

                              {time}  1715

  Balancing the merits of potential mandates with the overall benefits 
to Americans is important if we know what the benefits are. I think we 
have set up the normal debate process to do that in this particular 
legislation. I frankly think that transparency is great. We are going 
to let the sun shine in. We should welcome it.
  I do not think the Waxman amendment, no matter how well intended, is 
really about protecting the environment. I think it tends more to be an 
obstruction and probably more in the line of going back to some other 
legislation we have seen which has been litmus test type legislation, 
which simply says one cannot do anything with private property rights 
because somehow or other it therefore makes all other environmental 
legislation unenforceable, too expensive, too extreme or something 
along those lines.
  My line on the environment is this: This is a country that is going 
to take care of the environment, but this is also a country that is 
going to protect private property rights. It says so in the 
Constitution of the United States of America, which is where I am 
standing right now.
  I do not believe either the private property people or the 
environmental people are ever going to win the whole battle. It is 
going to take working cooperation between the two. I think the working 
cooperation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has shown that the environmental 
interests in this bill have been properly balanced. I am convinced, 
having sat on the Committee on Rules, that we got it right. I do not 
think the environment comes out second best anywhere along the line.

[[Page H3439]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman misunderstands the 
amendment. The underlying bill requires that we give a focus of 
attention before we go to mandate something on business, and that makes 
sense in and of itself, but we are saying before we do something like 
have an amendment that opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or 
halts the limitation of a Clean Air Act provision, that we also have a 
chance to look at that and vote on it separately.
  Otherwise what I fear is that anti-environmental provisions will be 
wrapped up in a bill and we will not be able to have a chance to look 
at it and consider it and then vote on it. Just as I think a lot of 
people will worry that an unfunded requirement on business would be 
wrapped up in a bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goss was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the distinguished gentleman 
is saying. I understand, and I do not want to get into opening up this 
whole debate because we could go on endlessly doing that and we only 
have a minute. The point I would simply make is that the gentleman is 
trying to shift the burden with his amendment.
  I do not think the burden should be shifted. I think we have it right 
to say that the unfunded mandate should be recognized for what it is 
and dealt with for what it is in fair debate. The gentleman wishes, by 
his amendment, to shift the burden to prove the other part of that. I 
think the reason we are putting the legislation out is to get the 
burden the way we want it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the point that I am making is that just as 
it is important to have a focus on an unfunded mandate and a chance for 
the House to consider it, it is just as important to have the focus on 
the environmental issue and give the House a chance to debate and vote 
on it separately. I want the two to be treated equally, and I do not 
think that they are at odds with each other.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe that the 
formula that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Condit) have come up with in fact does that. It 
just proves it shifts the burden in the debate, that is all.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are tremendous parts in H.R. 3534. I think we do 
need to look at all the information when we make decisions. But the 
only problem is that we have seen some really terrible examples where 
something came through on a rider. I want to speak about these riders.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a terrible rider that went through on our 
forests, and we were told all sorts of things, but it was just stuck on 
a bill, 1030 one night. Here it came, nobody debated it, nobody had had 
a hearing on it, and some of us fought it, and we lost. And that rider 
has cost my district, it has cost the Northwest. It has cut trees on 
steep slopes, and from that cutting, again, nobody discussed it, nobody 
had a hearing on it, from that cutting we have had flooding, we have 
had deaths as a result of that clear-cutting on areas that were 
unstable.
  So I want to talk a little bit about why it is important that we talk 
about the environment and we understand that it is great to get the 
costs from the CBO, it is great to know what the mandate will cost us. 
But I think what we do not get if we do not have full debate is we do 
not hear what the benefits will be from an environmental law. So I want 
to talk about the benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, on the Columbia River we have lost hundreds and 
thousands of salmon, and it is going to cost us a lot of money, a lot 
of money to bring those salmon back. But what is the benefit if we 
spend that money? What is the benefit of the Federal laws that are 
going to require us to bring those salmon back? Well, let me tell my 
colleagues some of the benefits.
  One of the benefits is that economists now predict that if we brought 
the runs back to the Columbia River, we could create 40,000 family wage 
jobs, 40,000 family wage jobs. Let us be able to discuss that. Let us 
not just say it is going to cost X millions of dollars to do something; 
let us say what is it going to do for that environment in that economy, 
to bring back certain jobs that the environmental laws are going to 
allow us to do.
  So I think again the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is right, 
that what we want to do is have full debate; we want to make sure that 
the cost and the benefits are reviewed.
  We have heard that there is no way we can quantify benefits. I 
disagree with that. We know, we know that the Pacific Northwest has 
lost $13 billion because we have lost salmon. Finally we have some 
Federal laws that are going to make us rebuild those runs, and those 
fishing families in my district who have lost their boats, lost their 
homes, lost their livelihood, for a moment we are going to have a 
little look at the benefit, the benefit to our economy.
  So I am going to support the Waxman amendment because it makes sense. 
Let us not in this body, the people's House, let us not pass laws in 
the dead of night, let us not do these quick fixes that really do not 
fix anything.
  A recent poll in the Pacific Northwest has shown that the number one 
issue, not the number one environmental issue, the number one issue for 
the people of the Northwest is the environment and protection of the 
environment. So by golly, I say that my constituents deserve the right 
to hear that other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to end by saying let us support the rider 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Let us not pass 
H.R. 3435 until we have some cost-benefit analysis.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, this 
well-intended effort by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) I 
think just does not work in the context of this legislation. I think it 
has very serious problems. CBO cannot do the analysis. The gentleman is 
in the Chamber, and I hope he will listen to some of my concerns and 
perhaps answer some of them.
  Not only does it substantially increase CBO's workload, and we have 
talked to CBO about this, and also degrade its ability to do its core 
function, which its core function is budget analysis and mandate 
analysis. That is what they do. That is what the Congressional Budget 
Office is all about. But also, CBO just cannot add anything new to this 
debate. They cannot do the benefit analysis that the gentlewoman just 
talked about prior to my taking the mike. They analyze cost 
information. They do not do noneconomic benefit analysis.
  If the goal here is to prevent efforts to weaken or remove mandates, 
then Members should simply vote against such proposals on the floor. I 
can recall very well those riders coming up and a lot of debate right 
here in the well of the House on that, and that is fine. The purpose of 
the point of order in the underlying legislation is to give Members the 
opportunity to consider private sector mandates, hidden mandates in the 
legislation, and to get information on those mandates from the experts 
at CBO that can objectively provide that information. This is an 
objective informational requirement. And these are mandates and 
information that we do not otherwise systematically consider.
  That is the way this legislation has been drafted. If the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and others would like to add some rider 
legislation, maybe they can spend the next year as we spent the last 
year, putting something together that makes sense on riders, but it 
does not fit with this legislation. It creates another point of order 
that I think is so vaguely defined that it could be used to hold 
practically any bill up. I have a lot of questions with it.
  Let me just ask a few right now. The Waxman amendment, as drafted, 
has a lot of flaws that do not work with the underlying bill and it has 
some very serious implications that just have not

[[Page H3440]]

been thought through. Who determines whether the mandate is weakened or 
not? Let me just go through these questions, if I might. Is that driven 
by reduction in direct or indirect costs to the private sector?
  What if the private sector becomes more efficient in implementing 
mandates, which happens all the time. Look at all the environmental 
legislation that was talked about here earlier today. The private 
sector is learning to meet the same goals with fewer resources. With 
less of a burden on the private sector, is that a reduction in the 
mandate? The way I read the legislation, it would be, because it is a 
reduction in cost.
  Does that trigger this legislation, even though the goals are still 
being met? Is there any credit given when the net costs are less 
because the private sector is being more efficient? Is that requirement 
lessened? I just think these questions have not been thought out.
  The threshold. There is no threshold in this legislation. How much 
costs have to be reduced for this to apply? As I read the legislation, 
if the costs are reduced by $1, if it is $1 less, then that is somehow 
a reduction in the mandate and there is no threshold. As we know, in 
the underlying legislation we purposely worked through this. We have a 
$100 million threshold before the information requirement even applies 
on the private sector mandates.
  I guess the bottom line is, this is a well-intended effort by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) I am sure, and I know he is 
well-intended on the environment, but if there is any lesson we can 
draw from the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995, it is that we need 
to define the terms very carefully. The Parliamentarian's Office, the 
Congressional Budget Office will tell us that.
  The reason it has worked over the last 3 years is we took our time, 
we defined the terms. I think in the estimation even of those who voted 
against the legislation, some of whom are here today, it has worked 
very well. Why? Because at the committee level, the committees have 
dealt with the mandates to try to lesson the mandates and come up with 
the most cost-effective way to meet the same targets. That is what is 
likely to happen on this legislation.
  If we go ahead with the Waxman amendment, it is my concern, very, 
very strong concern, that we are going to essentially have an 
unworkable piece of legislation that will not work in the way that the 
Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995 works and the way that this bill is 
intended after a year's worth of drafting.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to both of my 
colleagues from California. I will first yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), who is standing.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the gentleman 
that we removed the requirement that the gentleman has in his 
underlying bill to have the Congressional Budget Office analyze the 
costs.
  All that the CBO would do would be to identify the provision, and in 
identifying that provision, it allows a Member to make the point of 
order for consideration. We do not block any actions, we only ask that 
they give consideration to that issue. There is no cost that CBO would 
have to incur in analyzing this provision.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find that hard to 
believe. I do not know how the Congressional Budget Office is going to 
determine, in these complicated situations, whether in fact there has 
been a reduction in the requirement. I talked earlier about the lack of 
a threshold, for instance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Portman was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for additional time simply to yield 
to my colleague from California (Mr. Condit).
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Waxman 
amendment, but not the intent of my colleague and my friend.
  The purpose of this bill is to provide an informed debate and to 
oversee often what are hidden costs to a new regulation. Should the 
same consideration be given to the impact on health, safety of workers 
and our environment? Absolutely. We ought to have all the facts before 
us before we make a decision as it relates to those issues.
  But this amendment, frankly, goes a little bit too far in that I do 
not think that it is perfected and well thought out. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) mentioned that it does not have a threshold. That 
means that we could make any minor change and we could have a point of 
order. In the unfunded mandate part of this on the business or the 
private sector, we would at least have a $100 million threshold. It has 
to be some kind of significant action before one can make a point of 
order.

                              {time}  1730

  Under the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), it could be anything, anything that they determine to have any 
kind of negative impact, they could have a debate and call for a point 
of order. I think that is unnecessary. I think that delays the process.
  In addition to that, we were very careful. There was some 
consideration given whether or not you could have a point of order on 
every section of a bill, how many times you could do the point of 
order. It was the decision of the Committee on Rules, and I think a 
good one, that we do it one time, each bill. We did not want to be 
dilatory. We did not want to delay the process. This would create 
another point of order. I think that is unnecessary.
  I think we ought to work on the suggestion of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman). I absolutely think we ought to take those 
things into consideration, but this is not the bill to do it on. This 
has not been thought out well enough for us to amend this bill, to 
change this bill and make it head in a little different direction. This 
is about information, and I would encourage my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle to vote against the Waxman amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment, and I want 
to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), 
and I am pleased that he understands the wisdom of what the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) wants to do.
  I think my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), made a 
wonderful point that I hope was not lost, that all mandates or anything 
else, any laws, are not just reckoned in costs in dollars. She pointed 
out loss of life and loss of things that are irreplaceable, priceless.
  I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is doing a good 
thing here, because he wants to protect the public health and the 
environment. I do not support the types of order that the underlying 
bill creates.
  I understand what they are for. They are designed to sensitize 
Members to the effects of the proposed legislation, but I believe most 
of us in the House already understand the implications, and this type 
of emphasis is largely unneeded. In my district, my constituents keep 
me well-informed about how proposed private sector mandates will affect 
their business.
  However, if we are going to expand this type of point of order, we 
should tag for Members bills that have the effect of reducing the 
protection of public health and the environment. The sick, the 
disabled, the young cannot be expected to monitor the legislation in 
the same fashion as large corporations. If public health protections 
for them are to be weakened, we ought to be sure that all the Members 
who vote for that weakening have that fact brought to their attention.
  Similarly, our Nation's air, water, soil, forest, wilderness and 
wildlife cannot speak for themselves. Again, every Member should know 
when casting his or her own vote that environmental protections will be 
lessened.
  Unhappily, over the last 3 years many bills would have been subject 
to that point of order. For example, in the last Congress I fought a 
bill that would have frozen new regulations that were designed to 
protect the public from

[[Page H3441]]

bacteria-contaminated meat and poultry, from Cryptosporidium in 
drinking water, and from lead in imported foods. These issues are 
becoming more and more important to the American public.
  Perhaps a specific point of order would have helped convince the 
majority in Congress that their votes against my amendment and for that 
bill put the health and lives of thousands of Americans at risk.
  The current majority has led a relentless assault on the environment 
since taking over the Congress. Without regard to the impact on 
citizens and the environment, the full House of Representatives has 
approved measures designed to relax and to roll back existing 
environmental regulations and to halt Federal agency rulemaking 
designed to protect our national heritage.
  The House went so far as to pass legislation to stop the listing of 
endangered species and passed a bill to weaken dramatically the Clean 
Water Act. Measures to allow clearcutting in our Federal forest lands 
led to a massacre of healthy trees with a so-called salvage rider, and 
the Congress continues to consider legislation to have taxpayers 
reimburse polluters for cleaning up the toxic waste sites and to cut 
the funding for Federal land acquisition.
  The threat to our landmark environmental laws has been real. Perhaps 
this health, safety, and environmental point of order would have caused 
Members to take a second look at the bills that weakened these 
important provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to continue on this route of bringing 
special attention to the effect of certain kinds of bills, I believe 
that the degradation of public health, safety and environmental 
protections deserves this special attention, too. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I rise in strong 
support of the Waxman amendment. I think it is an important amendment, 
and I think it is consistent with the underlying debate that requires 
the Congress of the United States to pay particular attention to the 
cost of unfunded mandates and the cost of our actions around here. I 
think it is just as important and every bit as important that we do the 
same thing with respect to the environment.
  The problem is that, time and again in this Congress, we have seen 
matters of the environment come before this Congress with little or no 
debate, and in some instances with no underlying hearings, to be thrust 
upon the House of Representatives, very often from the Senate, from 
time to time in the appropriations bills as matters of riders that deal 
with the fundamental and basic underlying environmental laws of this 
country, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the questions of 
Superfund or brownfields cleanup, forest safeguards, the Forest 
Practices Act, the mining laws of this country, and multi-million 
dollar subsidy issues.
  Time and again, these matters have been brought to this floor with no 
provisions in the rules for debate. Very often now, we find that they 
are hidden away in the report language, so we cannot even get at them 
on the floor of the House of Representatives. We cannot get a vote on 
these matters. We very often are limited in our time to discuss them. 
Yet, they have huge impacts on the environment of this country. That is 
why we need the Waxman amendment, so we will have an opportunity to 
discuss these in the daylight.
  There is a reason why these changes in environmental law are not 
brought before the Congress in a freestanding bill that is brought out 
here under a rule so it can be debated and voted up-or-down. It is 
because the legislation cannot support that, or the majority party does 
not want to be identified in that action. But if you can tuck them away 
in a larger bill, if you can put them into a must-pass appropriations 
bill, if you can get them into a bill at the end of the session, fine, 
they are willing to do it, with total disregard for the impact to the 
environment and notice to our colleagues here in the House of 
Representatives.
  That is why the Waxman legislation is so terribly important. This is 
not a contest between unfunded mandates and the environment. In many 
instances, these two situations rise separate of one another. But this 
is about whether or not, as we do the people's business here, we will 
have the opportunity to raise these issues and to have a free and fair 
and open debate.
  In the history of this Congress over the last several years, that 
simply has not been the case. That is why we have to ask for this. Our 
colleague, the gentlewoman (Ms. Furse) raised the issue of the forest 
rider, a forest rider that went through this House with little or no 
debate, only to do a great deal of devastation.
  We have seen on now three different occasions where similar riders 
have been approached, to be put on legislation coming before the House 
of Representatives. Our constituents are now spending billions of 
dollars a year to go back and to correct some of these incredible 
environmental insults that have taken place with respect to water 
quality, with respect to the cleanliness of water, with respect to the 
Forest Practices Act and to the Endangered Species Act.
  In the committee on which I serve, the Committee on Resources, time 
and again we see legislation coming from that committee that wants to 
legislatively state that this piece of legislation or this action to be 
taken by the Federal Government, by a private party or somebody else 
is, in fact, sufficient under the Endangered Species Act, it is 
sufficient under the National Environmental Protection Act. They want 
to do that by fiat, with no debate, no discussion, just declare the 
action sufficient.
  Historically, when we have done that, we have had to go back and 
spend millions of dollars to make up for the mistakes.
  Now we see legislation on our committee where they want to seek 
waivers of the Clean Water Act, wholesale waivers of the Clean Water 
Act, and then they will be brought out here in suspension, they will be 
brought out with little or no debate. The Waxman amendment is an 
opportunity to give the environment the kind of priority that the 
American people attach to this subject.
  As we know, in poll after poll after poll the overwhelming majority 
of Americans consider themselves environmentalists. They consider the 
environment very important. If we even ask them the question of 
comparing and contrasting it to the health of the economy, they want 
the environment taken care of. That is what the American people want. 
That is what most Members of this House say they want, but that is not 
what happens in the House of Representatives. That is what brings about 
the necessity of the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment 
as part of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment, and certainly defense 
of the environment is something we all should be hailing. This Mandates 
Act of 1998 is a simple bill that extends to the private sector an 
information process currently employed to assist in understanding the 
impact of national policy upon State and local government that already 
is in law.
  Currently, when Congress is considering a legislative provision that 
imposes unfunded mandates on State and local governments, we are 
required to subject that proposal to extensive study and open debate. 
This measure, H.R. 3534, extends the requirement to unfunded mandates 
imposed on the private sector.
  For the record, Mr. Chairman, I note that this is opposed by some 
potent groups such as the AFL-CIO and a slew of environmental 
organizations. A concern clearly persists about whether advocates are 
interested in the information for good-faith analysis, or whether this 
is a clever means to tie the legislative process into knots and make it 
more difficult for Congress or for this legislative body to act.
  This measure, however, is not flawed beyond repair. Our colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has impressive 
environmental credentials, is offering an important

[[Page H3442]]

amendment. His defense of the environment amendment would extend the 
requirements of study and open debate to proposals in Congress that 
affect the environment.
  While the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
would only affect environmental proposals directly related to the work 
of the private sector, it would unquestionably benefit our 
constituents, our communities, and our children.
  The fact of the matter is that Congress too often has a problem with 
special interests successfully attaching anti-environmental riders to 
appropriations bills and unrelated measures that must pass. This 
circumvents the deliberation and debate that is needed to understand 
the ramifications.
  The fact is that deliberate consideration of policy has been 
homogenized these past years, to the point where we have budget, tax, 
authorization, appropriation, all in one measure, with no chance to 
debate, to discuss, no hearings, no public participation or 
understanding. It is a bad process, and it translates into bad policy.
  Just the most recent emergency spending measure signed by the 
President includes provisions which would allow the construction of a 
six-lane highway through the congressionally designated Petroglyphs 
National Monument. There are other provisions that allow oil companies 
who have and will drill on public lands to avoid fair compensation to 
the American taxpayer.
  In the past, our riders have been used to irresponsibly expand the 
anti-environmental salvage logging program that some of my colleagues 
spoke of, stall efforts to clean up toxic waste, and block regulation 
of radioactive contaminants in drinking water, and even derail studies 
that provide the information to craft environmental policy.
  It is apparent, Mr. Chairman, why the advocates want to duck debating 
and voting upon these provisions. The reason is, they lose. They could 
not prevail on the merits. But that is just one of the kickers of 
working in a congressional circumstance, where the anti-environmental 
minority of the majority is able to forcefeed bad policy, special 
interest provisions, into must-pass legislation.
  That is why the Waxman amendment would help check this. It would not 
place any burdens on business. It would not even prevent us from 
repealing environmental laws if that is the judgement of the majority. 
It just requires that we debate and vote on significant legislative 
provisions that are going to affect our environment.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman. Voting against this Waxman 
amendment sends our constituents around the Nation a very important 
message. It speaks louder than all the rhetoric. That message will be 
that the regular democratic process does not matter when Members of the 
House are making decisions that could affect our environment; if 
Members vote no, that they would not want to be held accountable for 
these riders but choose to remain handicapped by burying the 
controversy in the excuse that they had no choice.
  Today we have a choice to empower ourselves. Let us stop the assault 
on the environment, let us stop the assault on the legislative process, 
let us stop making excuses, and support the Waxman amendment to H.R. 
3534. It is good for democracy, the environment, and our stewardship, 
and the legacy we leave to future generations.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just bring up a point, I spoke a minute ago 
and I wanted to talk a little bit about the intent of this bill. The 
intent of this bill is to provide information to the Members about the 
cost of an unfunded mandate on the private sector.
  Since I have been here, maybe it was different when some of the other 
Members, they have been here, maybe they found it a little bit 
different. But I have found that when someone introduces a piece of 
legislation and it goes through the process, that they are introducing 
that legislation and it is passed out of committee and gets to this 
floor because somebody thinks it has a benefit to this country. We 
clearly debate the benefit. I mean, the benefit is espoused by the 
author of the bill. If it gets out of committee, it is espoused by the 
committee members, the chairman of the committee, everyone clearly 
understands that there is a so-called benefit.
  Some Members may disagree and say, well, it really does not do that, 
but there is a debate. We do spend a lot of time talking about the 
benefit.
  What we do not talk about and what we do not focus on is the hidden 
cost and who is going to pay that cost. And what the unfunded mandate 
bill does is focus on that. It requires this body to spend a little bit 
of time to take a look at what the cost is, who is going to pay the 
cost. It is sort of a cost-benefit analysis, and I think everything 
that we do should have a cost-benefit analysis to it. But that is what 
this bill does. It provides position. It focuses on that hidden cost 
that we do not talk about too much because we do not want the people to 
know that we are putting a mandate on that ultimately is going to cost 
them some money, cost a business some money. And we know who they are 
going to pass it on to, to the consumer and the taxpayer.
  That is what this is about today. Do not let anyone else move us in a 
different direction. If we want to talk about the environmental and 
work programs and all of that, that is fine. We ought to do that. But 
we ought to do that in a thoughtful way and a comprehensive way, like 
we have done the unfunded mandates bill. We ought to go through the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), 
cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made a great 
point, which is the underlying intent of this legislation in sunshine. 
It is trying to get at these private sector unfunded mandates. It is 
not about the merits or demerits of any new environmental legislation, 
any new civil rights legislation. It is about having information on 
something that is now a hidden tax on the American people, something we 
ought to know about.
  As I said earlier, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and I 
worked for a year on this, working with CBO, working with the 
Parliamentarian's office, working folks that actually have to make this 
place work day to day, as we did with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act 
3 years ago that dealt with State and local government mandates.
  We have come up with what we think is a balanced approach that 
actually works because CBO can do this. They can assess the cost. What 
they cannot do and, again, to reiterate what my colleague from 
California just said, what they cannot do is they cannot assess the 
benefits. The Waxman legislation is well-intended. Again, he may want 
to spend some time putting together something more thoughtful that 
deals with riders, but this is not the right place or time for this 
legislation. It will not work. This amendment will not work in the 
context of the bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) 
just explained.
  I just feel very strongly that it is time for us to be more 
accountable around here. It is time for us to have good government. It 
is time for us to know what we are doing. It is time for us to 
legislate with good information.
  That is all this says. Just as in the case of the Unfunded Mandate 
Relief Act of 3 years ago, we will still continue to mandate when it is 
the will of this Congress and in the public interest to do so, but we 
will do so with information we do not have now. So I want to commend my 
colleague from California (Mr. Condit) for working on this legislation 
so hard over the last year. He is the lead sponsor of this legislation. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Waxman amendment and to move on to 
final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) will be postponed.

[[Page H3443]]

                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 8, after line 11, add the following new subsection:
       (d) Annual CBO Reports.--Within 90 calendar days after the 
     end of each fiscal year, the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall transmit a report to each House of 
     Congress of the economic impact of the amendments made by 
     this Act to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 on 
     employment and businesses in the United States.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of debate on each 
side of this issue. A lot of it makes sense. A lot of it is analytical 
on what may be, what might be, what could have, what should have.
  My amendment is just a straightforward little piece of legislation 
that says, if this becomes law, what we are debating today, that we do 
not guess what the impact will be, that there shall be a report to the 
Congress explaining in detail what the impact of this legislation is on 
our business, industry and jobs. It is straightforward. It is not real 
fancy. But after it is over and we begin to compile all of the data 
subsequent to this legislation, we will have someone to report to us 
and give us the impact as it truly affects and if in fact at that point 
whether the Congress should either fine tune it, scrap it or enhance 
it. Very simple and straight forward, I would hope that the committee 
would accept it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to advise the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio, whose championship of workers rights is well 
known, that I see no reason not to accept this amendment. I think it 
causes no problem. I would not oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 5, line 21, strike ``amendment''.
       Page 6, strike lines 15 and 16 and in lines 17 and 19 
     redesignated clauses (iii) and (iv) as (ii) and (iii) 
     respectively.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very 
simple. I want to preserve the ability of the House to have open 
debate.
  H.R. 3534 is advertised as an effort to ensure that the House has 
adequate debate on important issues. But its actual effect in some 
cases would be just the opposite. This bill would ensure that no 
amendment that any segment of industry opposed could ever be debated 
for more than 20 minutes. That is right. No amendment that any segment 
of industry opposed could ever be debated for more than 20 minutes. 
There would never be such a thing as an open rule again.
  Why do I say that? It is not just hyperbole. Under this bill, any 
Member could raise a point of order against any amendment because he or 
she believed that it would cost industry more than $100 million. No 
proof is necessary. It could just be a gut reaction. Simply raising the 
point of order would stop all debate and put the question before the 
House.
  A point of order could also be raised if the Congressional Budget 
Office had not completed a mandate analysis of the amendment. Even 
though CBO virtually never does such an analysis, there simply is no 
time for this to happen.
  But the sponsors of the bill will say that their free-ranging 
industry-based point of order creates no problem because the House can 
overrule it. But let us take a very real and typical example.
  Three years ago during the Clean Water Act debate in 1995, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and I offered a substitute. That 
substitute engendered a lengthy debate, it went over to the second day, 
that changed some views about the bill and aired many concerns, even 
though the substitute eventually lost. I might point out that when we 
went into this, the initial check said we did not have 100 votes. We 
ended up with 185 votes. If the debate went longer, we might have 
prevailed.
  Guess what would have happened under H.R. 3534? We would have had 
exactly 10 minutes to put forth our views on such a complicated, far 
ranging, important issue.
  What is the excuse that is given for limiting debate so sharply? Why 
do we want to stifle discussion in a society that prides itself on a 
marketplace of ideas and in a body that the Constitution designed for 
maximum airing of issues? The reason is that some segments of industry 
do not win every single legislative battle. Guess what? No one does.
  The sponsors say their concern is that industry's viewpoint is not 
heard. But does anyone actually believe that industry lacks political 
clout on Capitol Hill? Just take a look at H.R. 3534. We were 
interested in finding a compromise on this bill, and we worked very 
hard to effect a compromise. But some industry groups objected to 
compromise so the negotiations ended. So industry was able to block a 
compromise on a bill that is premised on the idea that industry has no 
clout on Capitol Hill. That is a rather telling irony.
  With my amendment, the bill will still give industry additional tools 
to fight private mandates, tools that other interest groups lack. They 
will still have new points of order available against bills, conference 
reports, motions and resolutions. All my amendment does is remove the 
provision of the bill that creates a brand new point of order against 
amendments. As I have said, that provision of the bill will effectively 
shut down all debate.
  I am not arguing that Congress never imposes mandates that are a bad 
idea. We do it on occasion and we should not do it. I am not arguing 
that industry is always wrong and that their adversaries are always 
right. Industry is oftentimes right and their adversaries are 
oftentimes wrong.
  Indeed, I am a sponsor of a Superfund reform bill that business 
groups large and small have embraced and the environmental groups have 
questioned. But I do not believe that we should restructure the rules 
of the House so that one side has the upper hand in every single 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me make two final points. First, 
private sector mandates are different from intergovernmental mandates 
in many ways but in one in particular. States and localities do not 
have the clout on Capitol Hill that industry does. States and 
localities needed new tools to get their views across. That is hardly 
the case with industry.
  Finally, this is not just an environmental matter. Yes, the new rules 
set up under H.R. 3534 would have made it tougher to pass a Clean Air 
Act and the Clean Water Act and other landmark bills, but as the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) pointed out last week during debate on 
H.R. 3534, we will also make it hard to pass a bill to help HMO 
patients and to control big tobacco. Remember, the points of order in 
this bill are available if even just a single industry has a complaint 
with a bill or amendment.
  I urge support for my amendment. It is reasonable. It is the middle 
ground. It will give industry additional clout on Capitol Hill without 
shutting down the amendment process. If you believe in open debate, 
vote for my amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 
I would like to ask my colleague from New York, if this amendment were 
to pass, would the bill be acceptable to the gentleman?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, no, as a matter of fact, I have some 
complaints with the bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. So this would not make the bill acceptable to 
the gentleman?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. It would not. It would improve the bill, but it would 
not make it acceptable in its present form.

[[Page H3444]]

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has some 
merit with this, although the experience on this legislation with 
unfunded mandates, as it pertains to State and local government, has 
not raised the specter of problems that the gentleman from New York 
suggests in his comments here where we have had the opportunities, 
through amendment, to raise these objections.
  I think over a total of five times this was raised in the last 
Congress, and it has not been dilatory, has not deprived this body of 
the opportunity to debate fully the merits and allow the House to 
debate the particular mandate on the merits.
  The theory of this bill, the actual practice we have seen in the 
unfunded mandates bill that has worked well, is to give committees an 
incentive to do their work up front before bills ever reach the floor. 
By making points of order not apply to amendments sends the message 
that it is all well and good to do the work on the floor and not in the 
committee. That is a concern.
  I think the gentleman does raise some interesting points that have 
intrigued me, that, should we accept this amendment, that in point of 
fact in a number of instances we might be able to have a more full and 
straightforward debate on the amendment.
  The question is, if this is a gutting amendment, which is what I am 
afraid the gentleman is indicating to me, I would be prone to be 
against it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
it is not a gutting amendment. I would classify it as a perfecting 
amendment because I really think that we should have full and open 
debate on some sensitive issues here on the floor of the House. We 
should not limit debate to 10 minutes simply because one Member might 
have a gut feeling. Sometimes gut feelings are correct. I agree with 
that.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. But the burden would be on the Member who 
raises the objection to show the $100 million threshold as being met. 
They would have to come armed with those costs and do their homework 
ahead of time.
  This could not be raised in a willy-nilly fashion without the 
appropriate substantive work showing that this would have a $100 
million cost impact on American businesses.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. We would not have scoring of amendments. That is the 
problem. We would not have the time to do that. When we have extended 
debate on a very controversial item, sometimes during the debate, in 
the course of that debate proponents or opponents bring out something 
that prompts an individual to draft an amendment that might be an 
amendment to improve a bill.
  But the fact of the matter is, if someone has the gut feeling, as I 
pointed out, and not facts but just a gut feeling that it might, might, 
have the imposition of a new mandate on business, they could just raise 
a point of order. We would debate it for 10 minutes and 10 minutes only 
and that would be the end of it, and then the House would vote up and 
down based on very limited debate.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I share the gentleman's concern. That has not 
been our experience, of course, with the unfunded mandates bill as it 
applies to State and local government.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. But it is a different set of issues.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. It is very much the same set of issues, but it 
does not mean that it could not happen and this body would be deprived 
of that. And so, for that reason, at this point I am trying to draw the 
gentleman out a little bit further in terms of his other concerns with 
this bill that could be perfected in a way that he could address this 
and support the legislation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I think we should have more balance in this whole 
approach to things. I think if we have mandates on the one side, we 
should have mandates on the other, if we run that risk.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Well, let me just reply to that. We can do 
that, but CBO cannot really address anything but the fiscal costs. The 
benefits are really not within their purview. It is not within their 
expertise. This has not been something we have traditionally assigned 
them to do.
  That is what makes the gentleman from California's amendment more 
difficult to put in this body, although I think that the goal of it is 
one which I can sympathize with.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his comments and appreciate 
them.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say this 
amendment is a little contrary to the underlying purpose of this 
legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising the 
questions, and I would ask the author of the amendment, again, what he 
would do in a situation where we had a manager's amendment on the 
floor, where we had a substitute amendment?
  This is a loophole big enough to drive a very large semi trailer 
through, because we could essentially put all the mandates in the 
manager's amendment or the substitute amendment and it would have 
gotten around the informational requirements in the legislation.
  I wonder if the gentleman has thought through that scenario or that 
possibility and what his response would be.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Indeed, I have. I have spent a lot of time anticipating 
that.
  Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman from Virginia will continue to yield, I 
know the gentleman is very engaged in this legislation and spent a lot 
of time on it, and I would like to hear what he thinks.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. One of the things I have done, in terms of talking 
about tractor trailers, I have offered an amendment to another bill 
that would limit the size of tractor-trailers on our Nation's highways 
for safety.
  Mr. PORTMAN. That is along the lines we tried to do earlier in 
changing the subject, but keeping on the subject of mandates, 
seriously, I wonder if the gentleman has a response to that concern.
  Mr. CONDIT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and the lead sponsor 
of the legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) for 
yielding.
  I would like to give the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) the 
opportunity to discuss the possibility that if we were not to permit 
the informational requirement to apply to any amendments, would we not, 
in effect, circumvent the intent of the legislation by having an 
amendment which is in essence the legislation, such as a manager's 
amendment, which sometimes we do consider on the floor, or a substitute 
amendment for the legislation, and if he had any ideas as to how 
perhaps his amendment could be altered to take into account that 
possibility.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman from Ohio, 
the manager's amendment would be okay, because that comes from outside 
the committee. But I am talking about in the Committee of the Whole, 
when we offer amendments, I think we should have the opportunity when 
amendments are offered to have a full and open airing, pros and cons. 
That helps me in making up my mind as we are dealing with some of these 
very important topics.
  But I think the gentleman will concede that one Member, based upon a 
gut reaction or an instinct, and often gut reactions and instincts are 
correct but often they are not, could raise a point of order against 
the amendment, and then the Chair would automatically have to limit 
debate to 10 minutes and there would be a vote. And I would be called 
upon, as would the gentleman would be called upon and our colleagues 
would be called upon to make a decision on a very important amendment 
with very limited input, and I do not want that. I want to expand the 
knowledge that we have as a base to make decisions.

[[Page H3445]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I understand what the gentleman is trying to get at, and 
certainly agree that that is a concern.
  I would also remind the gentleman that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis) has already mentioned that our experience in the Unfunded 
Mandate Relief Act of 1995, which has been in place for almost 3 years, 
is in fact what happens is at the committee level we come up with 
better legislation. And that indeed when we talk about the mandate, and 
this is public sector mandates, albeit it is 10 minutes on each side, 
the debate tends to be about whether to move forward with the 
legislation because of the benefits. In other words, we do not just 
focus on the cost.
  So I would say it has not been a problem in our experience with the 
Unfunded Mandates Relief Act that passed 3 years ago that dealt with 
the public sector. With the private sector, there may be the 
possibility for some additional concerns.
  I also would remind the gentleman that with regard to private sector 
mandates, two things are different. One is that the threshold is raised 
to $100 million from $50 million, so it will apply to fewer mandates. 
Second is that one must consolidate the point of order.
  In other words, we cannot have a point of order on every private 
mandate that is in a piece of legislation or, for that matter, in an 
amendment. Instead, we have to consolidate all of those various point 
of order mandates into one point of order and then have the debate. 
That is to avoid the dilatory tactics that some were concerned about 
with regard to this legislation.
  So it is a little different from that, in a sense provides even more 
safeguards, but if the gentleman would be willing to talk about the 
possibility of taking out of consideration these broad-based amendments 
that would, in effect, be the legislation, maybe there is a way we can 
resolve this.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to accept a perfecting 
amendment dealing with a manager's amendment so that the gentleman's 
concern would be addressed.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back to my colleague 
from California, who is again the lead sponsor of this legislation, to 
get his thoughts.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentleman from Ohio. I do have a problem with the manager's amendment. 
If we come in with a very broad amendment, we could undercut the very 
intention of the unfunded mandate legislation in that if it did not 
qualify for a point of order, it could put all kinds of mandates and 
costs on. And that would become a little unworkable, I think.
  If we could perfect this so that we were talking about other 
amendments, I certainly would be open.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is referring to other than 
the manager's amendment?
  Mr. CONDIT. Other than the manager's amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if he wants to 
work that language out right now, I would be glad to accept that.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I appreciate and say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, that 
I rise in opposition to his amendment although I can see where he would 
like to go with this amendment. And I would think that we could work 
something out if we had time to work something out.
  But I have to say that the gentleman's amendment guts this bill. It 
completely guts the intent of this bill. The whole intent is to provide 
some process by which we can bring to the light of day a visible 
opportunity to discuss the fact that what we do in this Chamber has a 
direct impact on the private sector of this country. That is what this 
is about.
  If we have a situation here where the gentleman's amendment became 
part of the bill, then there is no use of having debate, because we 
could play all kinds of shenanigans with a bill to try to put the House 
in the position of not implementing the intent of this bill, because 
all we have to do is pull the substantive stuff out of a bill, offer it 
as a committee substitute or as a manager's amendment, and we negate 
the whole reason for the bill.
  So I just hope that we can work with the gentleman. I think there is 
a way that we can work this out. I understand and sympathize with the 
gentleman from New York that he does not want to stifle debate. Nor do 
I. But I would say to the gentleman from New York that we could 
probably fashion an amendment that looks at, say, for instance, 
amendments that are not printed in the Record or amendments that are 
just brought to the floor ad hominem. But to exclude all amendments 
from a bill slows down and violates the spirit of debate.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, we have agreed, we have 
agreed based upon the colloquy I had with the gentleman from Ohio, to 
include the manager's amendment in the exemption.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I understand, and appreciate the 
gentleman trying to work with us. I appreciate that offer. But there is 
also committee substitutes, where a committee would bring to the floor 
and the opportunity for a committee.
  I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules is coming to the floor. 
He understands what this does to the Committee on Rules and the ability 
to manage debate on a bill on the floor. The gentleman's amendment not 
only creates huge loopholes in this bill, we might as well not even 
have the bill. But if we could narrow it down to a specific type of 
amendment, then maybe we could work with the gentleman and even accept 
his amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If my colleague will continue to yield, I would like to 
point out this is not, as it has been characterized, a gutting 
amendment. What we are trying to do is ensure that an amendment 
proposed on the floor has a full and open airing so that our colleagues 
will have the benefit of the thinking of the proponent and the 
opponents of the amendment. The bill's resolutions, as provided for in 
the base bill, would still be subject to a point of order.
  The fact of the matter is, characterizing something as a gutting 
amendment does not, in fact, mean it is a gutting amendment. That is 
not my intent, to gut the bill. My intent is to improve the bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for the 
bill, but the way we read it, and certainly the way the Committee on 
Rules reads it and the Committee on Rules staff reads it, is that the 
gentleman's amendment is so broad and includes so much that it, in 
effect, does kill the entire intent of the bill and the whole reason 
for the bill.
  So unless we can work something out, I would urge our Members to vote 
against the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this amendment happens to be a very good 
friend of mine. His district borders mine. But I just have to severely 
admonish him for bringing this kind of amendment to the floor.
  The gentleman represents a district just like mine. I have more small 
businesses in my district up and down the Hudson Valley and the 
Catskill Mountains, the Adirondack Mountains, probably than any of my 
colleagues. But all of my colleagues have literally thousands of small 
businesses. If my colleagues have been a town mayor, as I have, or a 
town supervisor or a county legislator or even a State legislator, they 
know what Federal mandates do to small businesses.
  First of all, if we do it to the public sector, to the towns and the 
villages and the cities and the counties, we raise property taxes. We 
have got people living on fixed incomes that cannot afford to pay the 
taxes today on their property. We fixed that several years ago, because 
we said if we were going to levy a Federal mandate on local governments 
that forces up real estate taxes, then we would have to come on this 
floor and we would have a separate vote, just so that the American 
people can see what we are doing and, more

[[Page H3446]]

than that, Members themselves can see what they are doing. Because if 
we have not served in local government or county government, sometimes 
we may not know what that is. So now that is taken care of.
  Now let us take a look at the small businesses. I will never forget 
when I was a small businessman just starting out, and I had a wife and 
five children, and we could hardly make it as it was because my wife 
and I chose to have her stay home with those children all the time they 
were growing up, and it was rough. And every time I turned around it 
seemed like we had either the State government or the Federal 
Government coming in with some kind of a mandate that took money out of 
my business which we did not even have, and we had to give it to the 
government to pay for those Federal mandates. Well, if we had had this 
kind of a rule on the floor back 30 years ago, I probably would have 
been a lot more successful than I am.
  And all we are saying today is that in the private sector, if we want 
to vote to levy a mandate on the private sector, on private businesses, 
then we ought to have a separate debate on it on the floor here, just 
sort of like we are doing right now. Now, what is wrong with that? What 
is wrong with it is nothing.
  My good friend comes in here and, unlike the public sector, now he 
wants to do something to the small businessman.

                              {time}  1815

  He wants to say that if anybody brings an amendment on this floor and 
offers it to a bill, that that does not count because it was not in the 
bill in the first place. Well, my colleagues, that is a gutting 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, two things. One, I have served in local 
government as a former county executive, so I know whereof he speaks. 
Secondly, I am not suggesting that proposed mandates are good or bad. 
Some are good. Some are bad.
  The only thing I am trying to protect is the opportunity for full and 
open debate on the floor of the people's House. What could be wrong 
with that?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because the gentleman 
knows that if his amendment goes through, there will never be that 
debate on the mandate itself. And that is where we missed the boat all 
these years. We need to have that 20-minute debate so it sets the 
parameters so we know what we are going to vote on.
  Like, right now, how many Members are on this floor right now? Maybe 
25, if that. Where are the other 400 Members? They have no idea what is 
going on here. And nine times out of ten, when we come to a bill with 
an unfunded mandate in it, they are not going to know what they are 
voting on over here.
  All we are saying is, let us have a rollcall and get the Members over 
here, and let us point out the mandate that is coming to them. And then 
all the time they are considering the merit of the bill, then they will 
keep in mind that there is a mandate out there. The gentleman knows 
that is exactly how it works.
  I am Chairman of the Committee on Rules. I have been a member of that 
Committee for 10 years. I know the rules of this House. And I would 
tell the membership, on behalf of local businesses across this Nation, 
if they vote for the Boehlert amendment, they are voting to gut this 
legislation. And I would be tempted to pull the legislation and take it 
off the floor if that were the case.
  Please come over here and vote no on the Boehlert amendment. Vote for 
small businesses that create 75 percent of all the new jobs in America 
every single year.
  All the kids graduating from high school this coming month in June, 
all of them graduating from college, 75 percent of those jobs being 
offered to those kids are going to be from small businesses; and this 
will help to keep those small businesses profitable so they can hire 
them. Vote no on the Boehlert amendment, and then let us pass this 
measure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House resolution 426, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Becerra

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Becerra:
       Page 6, line 5, after ``exceeded'' insert ``or that would 
     remove, prevent the imposition of, prohibit the use of 
     appropriated funds to implement, or make less stringent any 
     such mandate established to protect civil rights''.
       Page 6, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph 
     and renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:
       (4) Modification or removal of certain mandates.--(A) 
     Section 424(b)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting ``or if 
     the Director finds the bill or joint resolution removes, 
     prevents the imposition of, prohibits the use of appropriated 
     funds to implement, or makes less stringent any Federal 
     private sector mandate established to protect civil rights'' 
     after ``such fiscal year'' and by inserting ``or identify any 
     provision which removes, prevents the imposition of, 
     prohibits the use of appropriated fund to implement, or makes 
     less stringent any Federal private sector mandate established 
     to protect civil rights'' after ``the estimate''.
       Page 6, lines 14, 16, 18, and 20, after 
     ``intergovernmental'' insert ``mandated'' and after the 
     closing quotation marks insert ``and by inserting mandate or 
     removing, preventing the imposition of, prohibiting the use 
     of appropriate funds to implement, or making less stringent 
     any such mandate established to protect civil rights' ''.
       Page 7, line 12, strike ``one point'' and insert ``two 
     points'' and on line 14, insert after ``(a)(2)'' the 
     following: ``with only one point of order permitted for 
     provisions which impose new Federal private sector mandates 
     and only one point of order permitted for provisions which 
     remove, prevent imposition of, prohibit the use of 
     appropriated funds to implement,or make less stringent 
     Federal private section mandates.''.

  Mr. BECERRA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me explain my amendment briefly.
  We have entered into a debate through the amendment by my colleague 
and friend from California (Mr. Waxman) on the issue of what happens 
when a particular bill or a piece of legislation has the effect of 
weakening protections for the environment or public health and safety, 
and we had some discussion on that amendment.
  If my colleagues look at the legislation that we are discussing now 
and we now relate that same type of debate or discussion on the issue 
of civil rights, what we find is that this legislation actually would 
permit, permit, this Congress to establish laws that will weaken our 
current civil rights protections that we provide to the American 
public.
  Let me give my colleagues a quick example of what I mean.
  In both fair employment and housing law, there are exemptions made 
for small businesses. A small business is defined as having fewer than 
15 employees. If we have legislation which attempted to broaden the 
definition of a small business to, say, 50 employees, in other words, 
something more than 15 employees, what we would do is we would now be 
excluding from civil rights laws and protections a whole array, many, 
many more businesses that now have up to 50 employees. Where, right 
now, under current law, those businesses that have between 16 and 50 
employees would have the civil rights laws in the books applied to 
them; with this legislation, that would no longer be the case.
  I do not believe it is the intent of the authors of this legislation 
or of anyone in this Congress to weaken civil rights protections for 
the elderly, for the infirm, the disabled, for minorities that have 
been discriminated over the past, other people based on religion. I do 
not believe that is the intent of this Congress. Yet the legislation, 
as it is written, would allow that to happen.
  Why do I say that? Well, if my colleagues recall when we had the 
debate on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,

[[Page H3447]]

when it was passed last session, a number of us raised this concern 
that we would make it nearly impossible to enforce and protect civil 
rights laws, constitutional protections and other matters with the 
legislation had it been drafted back then a couple years ago.
  We got included in the legislation the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
legislation that, in essence, said, we cannot apply this unfunded 
mandates law on bills that try to enforce constitutional rights of 
individuals or attempt to establish or enforce any statutory rights 
that prohibit discrimination. So no points of order would lie against 
legislation that tried to do exactly that, enforce constitutional 
rights or establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit 
discrimination.
  But we have a situation here where now we are not necessarily trying 
to enforce the law. In this case, if legislation comes forward which 
tries to diminish the impact of that law, weakening that law, as the 
example I gave before where we went from considering a small business 
to mean only 15 or fewer employees in a business to now 50 or fewer 
employees in a business, by weakening that law, what we have done is 
weakened civil rights protections.
  I do not believe that that is the intent of this legislation and its 
sponsors. I would hope that Congress would not intend to go in that 
direction. And I offer this amendment to try to address that concern 
and hope that it can be unanimously accepted by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could give one last example to, hopefully, make 
this as clear as possible.
  Right now, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA, a 
disabled individual who may have to use a wheelchair is entitled to be 
able to access a public place. And if there is a business that wants to 
open itself up to the public, it must also make itself available to 
disabled who are in wheelchairs.
  Well, if we had legislation that attempted to remove the ramp-access 
requirements for disabled, that currently would not be protected under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This legislation would now make it 
possible to remove those standards and weaken the laws.
  So, for those reasons, I would ask Members to consider this amendment 
and adopt it unanimously.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the 
amendment. We are just looking at the language over here.
  But, in essence, what this does, as I see it, is it builds on the 
Waxman amendment we debated previously regarding the environment and 
says that, with regard to any civil right or constitutionally protected 
right where there is a lessening of some requirement, that there be a 
point of order.
  Again, it is not what this legislation is about. We specifically in 
the legislation, the underlying bill, which is the Unfunded Mandates 
Relief Act of 1995, exclude all civil rights, all constitutionally 
protected rights. And that is very clear. And I think that carve-out 
was appropriate, although it was debated, as some will remember, 3 
years ago; and I think that is appropriate.
  What this legislation would purport to do or this amendment would 
purport to do is to go well beyond that and say that, any time there is 
a determination by somebody that there has been a diminution of some 
kinds of rights, then there be a point of order.
  Again, it may be a good idea to do if the gentleman would like to sit 
down and work on some legislation. It took Mr. Condit and I about a 
year to come up with this legislation on private-sector mandates. There 
might be some way to do it. But it does not fit into this legislation.
  CBO is not able to do this. It is not their job. They do cost 
analysis and budget. That is who we are relying on here.
  And if we learned anything in the experience of the Unfunded Mandates 
Relief Act over the last 3 years, and it has worked well, it is that we 
need to clearly define the terms. We need to have the minimum of 
ambiguity and the maximum of clear, concise definitions to be able to 
make this work right so that at the committee level we come up with 
better legislation that does not mandate on State and local government 
and now with this legislation mandate on the private sector without 
fully understanding the cost and coming up with the least costly way to 
achieve the same results.
  I would just say to the gentleman it is an interesting idea. Maybe 
there is some legislation that could be crafted to achieve his 
objective. But this is not the place to do it.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in 
opposition to this amendment. We were very sensitive to this issue. We 
did exempt it out of the bill. The civil rights issue was exempted out 
of the bill.
  After our last experience about 3 years ago, we had a healthy debate 
about it and we tried to be conscientious about it and be sensitive. My 
colleague is right. It was not our intent to change the civil rights 
law, to do anything to weaken them; and I do not believe that is the 
intent of anybody in this room.
  So I would oppose the amendment. Although I would tell my colleague 
from California, I would be delighted if he has got a proposal like the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that we can perfect and work on. 
I am open to do that. But I think today to bring this up, it does not 
fit with what we are doing. And our efforts I think are honorable in 
saying that we exempt this, and our commitment to the gentleman to try 
to work out a solution is there.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), for yielding; and I also thank my friend from California 
(Mr. Condit) for his words.
  I appreciate what the gentleman from California has just said. And I 
agree. I do not think it is the intent of anyone, whether it is the 
sponsors or anyone who would vote on this legislation, to diminish, to 
weaken civil rights protections.
  But I think, and we can always sit down and discuss this further. I 
believe if we read closely what is clearly covered under the law under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and what the legislation we have 
before us do in tandem is it would permit legislation that would weaken 
civil rights protections.
  Because the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act only spoke about laws that 
establish or enforce; it did not talk about laws that weaken. So laws 
that weaken are permitted to go through this process without coverage 
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time for a moment, let us back up and talk 
about the fundamental philosophy on this legislation. This is with 
regards to new mandates on business. The previous legislation was new 
mandates on the public sector.
  We chose to carve out the situation of constitutionally protected 
rights or civil rights. In other words, even if there is a new mandate 
on the public sector, it is not subject to this informational 
requirement if it relates to civil rights. In other words, it is a 
carve-out; it protects it.
  The gentleman just made the assertion that somehow this legislation 
could affect civil rights law negatively by diminishing civil rights. 
It would have no impact on that. This legislation would not apply. In 
fact, this legislation goes out of its way to make sure that we are not 
going to put any barriers in place of any kinds of civil rights.
  There is a legitimate debate we would have as to whether we should 
have excluded included all civil rights from the requirements on this 
bill. After all, it is just informational. But we thought civil rights 
is so important and it is defined as constitutionally protected rights 
that we did not subject it to the information requirements in this 
legislation.
  The situation that the gentleman is describing of diminishing civil 
rights simply would not be affected by this legislation one way or the 
other.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Portman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)

[[Page H3448]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra).

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I do not think we 
will need the time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is 
irrelevant to what we are debating today because it does not affect a 
diminution of civil rights one way or the other; and, specifically, 
civil rights were excluded from the requirement of information that is 
in the legislation.
  Mr. BECERRA. But if we gauge in a discussion and find that the 
legislation does affect and the law as it exists does affect those 
civil rights protections, would the gentleman be willing, or I ask the 
two sponsors, will they be willing to then incorporate language to make 
sure that we do not weaken civil rights protections.
  Mr. PORTMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) has expressed 
my views on this; we are happy to sit down and have a dialogue about 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: The amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); 
and the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment, As Modified, Offered By Mr. Moakley

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 233, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Baesler
     Bateman
     Clay
     Crane
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Inglis
     Johnson (WI)
     Livingston
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Paxon
     Rogan
     Ryun
     Schumer
     Shuster
     Skaggs

                              {time}  1853

  Messrs. McINTOSH, WELDON of Florida, SPRATT and FORBES changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GORDON, SPRATT and STUPAK and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall no. 156, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall no. 156, I 
was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''

                          ____________________