[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BART STUPAK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 19, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3534) to 
     improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
     private sector mandates, and for other purposes.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3534, the 
Mandates Information Act of 1998. This misguided legislation would 
create a road block for many environmental, worker health and safety, 
and consumer-protection legislation the House may consider in the 
future.
  H.R. 3534 allows a point of order against any bill or amendment if 
its direct costs to the private sector--either by way of regulatory 
costs or taxes--exceed $100 million.
  The current unfunded mandates law--which I support and voted for in 
1995--establishes a point of order against any bill that imposes net 
costs of more than $50 million to state or local governments. This law 
is designed to prevent Washington from passing on the cost of new laws 
and regulations to the states and local governments.
  The Mandates Information Act, however, is more broad and would 
restrict more legislation. Under this bill, for example, any 
legislation that increases taxes on gasoline, airports or tobacco--
which would be used for highway funding, airport construction, or 
reducing teen smoking--would be subject to a point of order. This bill 
would jeopardize the hard-fought BESTEA highway program, which includes 
$356 million more for my home state, and could stop the tobacco bill, 
which is being crafted with the intention of curbing teen smoking, from 
being considered when it reaches the floor.
  Another problem with this legislation is that the implementation of 
the point of order provision is uneven and arbitrary. For example, if 
Congress decides to increase the tax on tobacco products in order to 
create new programs and incentives to stop children from smoking, the 
bill would be subject to a point of order. But, if Congress passes a 
tobacco tax, and decides to use the increased revenues to pay for a tax 
break for special interests, there would be no point of order. In both 
of these examples a mandate was imposed on the private sector, but in 
only one case is the point of order imposed.
  I also find this bill unnecessary. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
already requires the Congressional Budget Office to report the private 
sector costs of legislation to Congress. Additionally, an executive 
order exists which requires federal agencies to consider private sector 
costs when drafting and implementing regulations. Congress and the 
Administration is already addressing the need to consider mandates on 
the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the objective of this legislation, which is to 
assure that Congress fully considers the mandates imposed on the 
private sector, but I disagree with the method this bill takes to 
achieve that goal. That bill creates an unnecessary obstacle for 
considering legislation and is implemented in an arbitrary way. I hope 
we can continue to work to assure that the cost of legislation on the 
private sector is considered, but urge my colleagues to reject this 
misguided bill.

                          ____________________