[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 20 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H422-H432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 36 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 36

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 350) to improve congressional deliberation on 
     proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII or section 
     306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Rules. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed 
     in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of 
     order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute for failure to comply with section 306 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 36 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, a bill 
that will expand the prior 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to improve 
congressional deliberation and public awareness on proposed private 
sector mandates.
  H. Res. 36 is a wide open rule providing 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules. The rule waives points of order 
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
306 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibiting consideration of 
legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless 
reported by the Committee on the Budget. The bill also waives points of 
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee 
report.
  The rule considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Rules, now printed in the bill, as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment which is considered as read. 
The rule provides, further, that it waives points of order against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  H. Res. 36 further allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their 
consideration. The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the 
voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the 
first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by explaining exactly what this bill will 
do. First, the bill amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to require 
committee reports to include a statement from the Congressional Budget 
Office estimating the impact of private sector mandates on consumers, 
workers and small businesses.
  Second, if the CBO cannot prepare an estimate, the bill allows a 
point of order against consideration of the bill.
  Third, if legislation contains a private sector mandate the direct 
cost of which exceeds $100 million, this bill also allows a point of 
order against consideration of the legislation. In both cases the point 
of order triggers a 20-minute debate on the costs and benefits of a 
legislative measure before the House votes to continue.
  The argument has been made that this bill will result in delaying 
tactics. Mr. Speaker, the current bill has been in effect for over 
three years and the point of order has been utilized seven times, four 
times by Republicans and three times by Democrats. That is a pretty 
good balance.
  Nonetheless, H.R. 350 constrains the Chair from recognizing more than 
one point of order with respect to a private sector mandate for any 
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report. The one 
vote limit per legislative measure should provide sufficient 
opportunity for Members to receive the best available information on 
the cost of a bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the intergovernmental mandates legislation was one of 
the first bills passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by 
President Clinton. That law, designed to provide information about 
mandates on State and local governments, passed the House with 394 
votes and has proven to be quite useful in providing accurate 
information during the course of floor debate.
  I chaired a joint hearing of the two Committees on Rules 
subcommittees on Tuesday in which we examined H.R. 350 and efforts to 
expand upon the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. We have now had 3 
full years to observe how that law has worked, and it has worked well. 
We heard from the acting director of the congressional Committee on the 
Budget who stated that the 1995 act had been a useful tool in 
congressional deliberation. The CBO director said he had been doing 
mandates estimates for years, but no one really paid any attention to 
the costs until we passed the 1995 mandates bill.
  That is all the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has done, and that is 
all that this bill will do. It will force Members to review reliable 
information from the Congressional Budget Office. This information has 
increased not only Member consciousness of the costs of legislation, 
but increased public awareness, and that is why we are here today. In 
an effort to make the original unfunded mandates legislation a more 
valuable information tool to advise Members on private sector mandates, 
the Mandates Information Act has been introduced again in this Congress 
with over 60 bipartisan cosponsors.

[[Page H423]]

  H.R. 350 was referred to the Committee on Rules, and Committee on 
Rules alone, because it is a procedures bill affecting the internal 
workings of the House and providing information to Members of Congress. 
By compelling CBO estimates and requiring a question of consideration 
on the House floor on certain legislation, this legislation should 
serve as an effective tool in increasing Congressional accountability 
by requiring Congress to be informed fully of the effects of mandates 
before enacting them into law.
  During our hearing a 32-year-old business owner who started his 
company when he was 19 years old testified, and I quote: ``I know I 
would sleep a little better at night knowing that Congress was thinking 
seriously about the cost impact of legislation on small business 
owners.'' That was all he was asking, that his elected representatives 
have some detailed information before they vote.
  The average American should be concerned about these mandates as 
well. The Committee on Rules heard from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) in which he discussed his concerns about the hidden e-rate tax 
that resulted from the FCC's interpretation of the Telecommunications 
Act. Mandates such as these which are not debated on the House floor 
continue to represent hidden taxes that consumers are forced to pay 
through increased prices or wages, reduced job opportunities and more 
red tape for businesses.

                              {time}  1015

  It is likely that during the 20 minute floor debate on the question 
of consideration, the costs and impact of a mandate will be 
highlighted, and an educated decision could be made about whether to 
pass the costs on to the U.S. consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us today is almost identical to 
the Condit-Portman Mandates Information Act of 1998, with some 
technical changes, such as additional findings and some modifications 
due to recodification. It is essentially the same bipartisan bill that 
passed the House by a vote of 279 to 132 in the last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 350 serves as a speed bump to legislation that 
allows Members time to debate the costs of a bill. It is not a 
roadblock. We will have ample time to discuss the merits of the bill 
during general debate later this morning.
  This is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that 
we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the amendments 
and the merits of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, although the idea of an unfunded mandates point of order 
is somewhat controversial, this open rule will allow Members to make 
what amendments they will, and this really deserves our full support.
  Unfunded mandates can have bad effects and they can have good 
effects. They can cost private industries millions and millions of 
dollars, but they can also help ensure the food supply is safe for 
millions of Americans.
  Each time Members of Congress vote to impose a mandate, they should 
know how much it will cost and how much it will help. For that reason, 
I support the idea behind this point of order information; this 
information never hurt anyone. But, Mr. Speaker, my sentiments stop 
short of creating a point of order, and I look forward to discussing 
the issue further during the general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Atlanta, 
the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and 
Organization for yielding me this time. I want to commend him for his 
tremendous work on this legislation.
  As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) noted, the Mandates 
Information Act was reported by the Committee on Rules last year and 
overwhelmingly approved in a bipartisan way by this House. It addresses 
a clear bias against the private sector in the way we consider 
legislation subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, legislation 
that was also reported by the Committee on Rules in 1995, and, as was 
said, overwhelmingly approved by this House.
  I also want to join, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating my colleagues, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), for once again introducing this legislation. I also want 
to commend them for their bipartisan efforts and their diligence in 
working with our Committee on Rules to ensure that the best possible 
bill was reported out by our committee.
  I agree with the sponsors that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does 
not go far enough to discourage Congress from imposing costly mandates 
on the private sector. Such mandates cost businesses, consumers and 
workers about $700 billion annually, or $7,000 per household. That is 
more than a third the size of the entire Federal budget.
  These mandates are particularly burdensome on families attempting to 
climb the economic ladder. Over the next five years, Mr. Speaker, 3 
million people will move from welfare to private sector payrolls. Small 
businesses will provide most of those jobs, yet the imposition of new 
mandates upon existing burdens will reduce the resources available to 
create these much-needed jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, it very important to note that H.R. 350 does nothing, 
absolutely nothing, to roll back some of the unnecessary mandates that 
exist, nor does it prevent in any way the imposition of additional 
mandates.
  I would like to read now directly section 2 of the bill, which reads 
as follows: ``The implementation of this Act will enhance the awareness 
of prospective mandates on the private sector without adversely 
affecting existing environmental, public health, or safety laws or 
regulations.''
  Mr. Speaker, I want to read that again, because I think it is very 
important to note that as we proceed with debate on this, that section 
2 of the bill states, ``The implementation of this Act will enhance the 
awareness of prospective mandates on the private sector without 
adversely affecting existing environmental, public health, or safety 
laws or regulations.''
  Mr. Speaker, in other words, H.R. 350 is a straightforward, common 
sense, bipartisan bill that will make Congress more accountable by 
requiring more deliberation and more information when Federal mandates 
are proposed.
  This is important because, in reality, mandates are a hidden tax that 
consumers are forced to pay through increased prices, reduced job 
opportunities and more red tape for small businesses.
  The procedures in H.R. 350 can in no way be used as a roadblock to 
legislation. Rather, they are intended to serve as a very small, 
smooth, speed bump that will allow affected groups to provide input to 
committees early in the development stage of legislation on more cost 
effective alternatives.
  It is on this point that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been so 
successful. As Jim Blum of the Congressional Budget Office noted in his 
testimony before the Committee on Rules, ``Before proposed legislation 
is marked up, committee staffs and individual Members are increasingly 
requesting our analysis about whether the legislation would create new 
Federal mandates, and, if so, whether their costs would exceed the 
thresholds set by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In many instances, 
the Congressional Budget Office is able to inform the sponsor about the 
existence of a mandate and provide informal guidance on how the 
proposal might be restructured to eliminate the mandate or reduce its 
cost.''
  He goes on to say, ``That use of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
early in the legislative process may not involve the law's formal 
procedural hurdles, but it appears to have had an effect on the number 
and burden of intergovernmental mandates in enacted legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to fully deliberate H.R. 350, 
and I am

[[Page H424]]

looking forward to engaging in a very thoughtful debate on this 
legislation. But I want to end with a very simple message that was 
relayed to the Committee on Rules by Ryan Null, the owner of Tristate 
Electronic Manufacturing in Hagerstown, Maryland.

  He said,

       I only ask that Congress, in its wisdom, please remember 
     that it is hard enough to be an independent business owner. 
     The laws that you pass and the costs associated with them 
     have a profound effect on our bottom line. I know I would 
     sleep a little better at night knowing that Congress was 
     thinking seriously about the cost impact of legislation on 
     small business owners.

  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of 
the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but in 
strong opposition to the underlying bill. I support the rule 
wholeheartedly because it is an open rule, a rule that will allow full, 
free and democratic debate; a rule that will allow issues to be aired 
and all points of view to be heard. That is a way of doing business 
that all Members can support and that the American people can be proud 
of.
  My complaint about H.R. 350 is that it would end precisely the kind 
of open process that is governing its own consideration. With H.R. 350, 
there would never truly be an open rule again on a bill that affects 
industry.
  I am not exaggerating. An open rule means unlimited debate on every 
amendment. Yet, under H.R. 350, if any private interest opposed a bill, 
a Member could raise a point of order that could limit debate to a mere 
20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side. Raising the point of order 
requires not a shred of evidence, no evidence at all, just a mere 
assertion. You can say, ``I have got a gut feeling,'' or ``I have got a 
hunch,'' and that would trigger a point of order that would severely 
restrict debate and terminate it after only 10 minutes of argument on 
each side of the equation, 600 seconds. That is not a very good idea.
  The point of order is targeted at shutting down debate on measures 
that industry opposes, overriding whatever time has been allocated by 
the Committee on Rules.
  I think the Committee on Rules does an outstanding job, and I want to 
compliment my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, and 
the distinguished new chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier). These gentlemen do us proud in that Committee on Rules, and it 
is a pleasure to come up and testify before you and have the thoughtful 
deliberative process that goes on up there.
  I want that same thoughtful deliberative process here on the floor, 
not terminating debate after only 10 minutes, 600 seconds, on a wide 
ranging, sweeping measure that is going to impact a lot of people for a 
long time.
  I will remind my colleagues again of an example that I have used many 
times of how this could work. In 1995 a substitute was offered to the 
proposed Clean Water Act, a very important bill for America. The 
substitute was defeated, but the House had more than a day-and-a-half 
of spirited debate, debate that helped frame environmental issues for 
the rest of the year, debate that fully discussed the cost and benefits 
of clean water legislation, debate that aired every possible point of 
view. And that is what we should do in the people's House, air every 
possible point of view. We should encourage additional information, not 
restrict the input of information.
  Under H.R. 350, a Member opposed to the substitute could have raised 
a point of order that would have carried the day and shut down debate 
after only 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side, 600 seconds. Not a very 
good idea.
  Would the American people have been better served by a truncated 
debate? Would more information have been presented? Would any 
interested party have had more time to get their point of view across? 
Of course not.
  The stated goal of this bill is to provide Congress with more 
information on the cost of private mandates, and that is a goal I 
support. But you cannot provide the House with more information by 
having less debate. It just does not make sense.
  Now, I know the sponsors of the bill will argue that we cannot know 
for sure that events back in 1995 would have unfolded in just the way I 
outlined. But I ask them, if the point of order would have not been 
raised against a substitute in a very visible debate in which industry 
is investing time and money and has the votes to shut down debate, then 
when would it be used?
  Mr. Speaker, I will save the rest of my comments for general debate. 
I just want to make one final point: The debate over H.R. 350 is not 
about whether Congress should pass this or that private mandate. I do 
not like mandates, and I find particularly distasteful unfunded 
mandates. But this debate is about whether we will have fair procedures 
during debates over those mandates.
  I think debate on private mandates should be just as free, just as 
fair, just as full, just as open and just as democratic as the debate 
we will have on H.R. 350 itself.
  I urge support for this well-crafted open rule, and support for the 
amendment that I will offer to repair H.R. 350.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Pursuant to House Resolution 
36 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 350.

                              {time}  1030


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 350) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
private sector mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, is a 
procedures bill designed to make Congress more accountable and provide 
Members with the most factual information possible before voting on 
legislation. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Rules and 
Organization of the House, and as chairman of that subcommittee, I am 
pleased to rise in strong support of this important bipartisan reform 
legislation.
  Two of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) were the main proponents four 
years ago of the intergovernmental mandates legislation that was one of 
the first bills passed in the 104th Congress with 394 votes from both 
sides of the aisle. Today, they both deserve great credit for their 
tireless hard work to amend that act in an effort to provide more 
accurate information to Members during the course of debate.
  The intergovernmental mandates bill provided a point of order for 
intergovernmental mandates over $50 million. This act has worked 
incredibly well. My subcommittee heard testimony from the director of 
the Congressional Budget Committee who said that he had been doing 
mandate estimates for years, but nobody really paid attention to them 
and to the costs until the 1995 mandates bill.
  Now we have the opportunity to force Members and committees to pay 
attention to the costs on businesses and consumers. The bipartisan 
Condit-Portman private mandates bill will simply force Members to 
review reliable information from the CBO. By compelling CBO estimates 
and requiring a question of consideration on the House floor on certain 
legislation, this legislation should serve an effective

[[Page H425]]

role in increasing congressional accountability by requiring Congress 
to be informed fully of the effect of mandates before enacting them 
into law.
  As I stated during the rule debate, the bill we have before us today 
is almost identical to the bipartisan bill that passed the House by a 
vote of 279 to 132 in the last Congress. And like the 65 percent of the 
Members who supported this bill last year, H.R. 350 is supported by the 
National Governors Association, the Conference of Mayors, the National 
Conference of State Legislators, the National League of Cities, the 
National Association of Counties, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National 
Federation of Independent Business, and the American Farm Bureau. The 
list goes on and on, a list which I will submit for the Record.

          Supporters of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act

       National Governors' Association, National Conference of 
     State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National 
     Association of Counties, National Taxpayers Union, U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent 
     Business, American Farm Bureau, Small Business Legislative 
     Council, Citizens for a Sound Economy, National Restaurant 
     Association, National Retail Federation, Small Business 
     Survival Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, 
     American Subcontractors Association, National Association of 
     the Self-Employed, National Association of Manufacturers, 
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National 
     Roofing Contractors Association, American Dental Association, 
     American Rental Association, Food Distributors International, 
     National Association of Homebuilders, Conference of Mayors, 
     Council of State Governors and International Managers.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by saying that although I support the idea behind 
this legislation, I just cannot support the point of order in this 
bill. Although I agree that full disclosure of unfunded mandates in the 
private sector is a good idea and can help Members make informed 
decisions, this point of order is just not the way to do it.
  While there are many situations in which Federal mandates protect the 
public, their monetary costs can be very significant. I agree that 
Members should know what they are getting into before voting to impose 
these mandates.
  Scripps-Howard Newspapers still carry the wise saying, ``Give light 
and the people will find their own way.'' Certainly, if we shed light 
on the impact that our votes will have, the quality of legislation we 
pass will also benefit. I believe there can be no harm in Members 
understanding the full impact their votes will have on State and local 
governments, private companies and even individuals.
  That having been said, Mr. Chairman, I have three main reservations 
to this bill which will prevent me from supporting it.
  First, as I have said consistently since the first unfunded mandates 
bill was passed in the 104th Congress, it is far too easy to abuse the 
point of order. Informing Members is laudable, but this unusual point 
of order is too susceptible to abuse. The majority can, and has, used 
it to silence a motion to recommit, and other legitimate amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, under this bill any Member can raise a point of order, 
get 20 minutes of debate and a vote, regardless of whether there is 
anything even remotely resembling an unfunded mandate in the bill.
  My second objection, Mr. Chairman, is the bill's tilting the playing 
field against some of our Nation's finest laws, laws to feed the 
hungry, protect public safety, protect public health, clean up 
pollution, enforce civil rights, and even compel parents to support 
their children. These laws have costs, but they also provide enormous 
benefits.
  Both the Waxman and the Boehlert amendments would help restore the 
balance between providing information about costs while keeping in mind 
the benefits of the type of legislation.
  My last objection, Mr. Chairman, is the somewhat political position 
this point of order takes on merits of tax cuts and the demerits of 
spending, regardless of whose taxes are being cut or what is being 
spent. Mr. Chairman, a bill is not necessarily bad because it requires 
someone to spend money, and a bill is not necessarily good because it 
gives someone a tax cut.
  For instance, Mr. Chairman, I think requiring polluters to clean up 
their act and stop dirtying our air and water is a good idea, even if 
it imposes a burden on some businesses. On the other hand, I think 
granting a huge tax cut to people making over $300,000 a year is just 
not a good idea.
  Under this point of order, a tax increase is exempt from being 
considered a mandate as long as it gives someone somewhere a tax cut. 
Now, I want my colleagues to listen closely to that. Under this point 
of order, a tax increase is exempt from being considered a mandate as 
long as it gives someone somewhere a tax cut.
  For instance, if a bill imposes a gas tax and uses the money to fix 
roads, it is subject to a point of order. But if a bill imposes a tax 
cut and uses the money to give railroads a tax cut, it is exempt.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this point of order is well-intentioned, 
but as I said, it could be too easily abused and it takes too strong a 
stand against bills that have the potential to do this country a great 
deal of good. I urge my colleagues to closely examine the point of 
order scheme contained in the bill and vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding time to me.
  At this time I rise in support of the Mandates Information Act. Mr. 
Chairman, the State of Ohio has been very active in the fight against 
unfunded Federal mandates. Both Mayor Lushutka of Columbus and former 
Ohio Governor, now our colleague in the other body, George Voinovich, 
fought hard for the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, which is sponsored by yet another Ohioan (Mr. Portman).
  I congratulate both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) for their hard work which has 
brought us here today to debate the merits of extended protections 
against unfunded mandates to the private sector.
  While Ohio has been a leader in the battle against the tremendous 
burdens imposed on State and local governments by Federal laws, I know 
the cries for relief that I have heard from Ohio's elected officials 
and business owners are not unique to our State. I am sure all of my 
colleagues have heard the moans and groans of their constituents every 
time Congress figures out a way to fix a problem, but turns a blind eye 
to the real world price tag.
  We must remember that our actions here have real consequences. When 
Washington's good ideas are enshrined into law, America's businessmen 
and women have to spend real time and real money out of their limited 
resources to comply. And, to ensure that their businesses stay afloat, 
these companies have to adjust and offset these new costs, which means 
higher prices for consumers, lower wages for workers, and less time on 
innovations that make American businesses competitive.
  Given these serious consequences, it seems reasonable to ask Congress 
to pause for just a moment when we are faced with broad-reaching 
legislation, to focus on the costs and benefits before we move forward 
with the legislation.
  That is what the Mandates Information Act will force us to do. It is 
really that simple. This bill does not prohibit unfunded mandates on 
the private sector. It merely gives Congress a mechanism through which 
we can acquire more information, greater deliberation, and increased 
accountability before we ask America's consumers and entrepreneurs to 
pick up the price tag.
  Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concern about this bill's 
impact on environmental legislation. Let us be clear. Nothing in this 
bill singles out the environment for prejudicial

[[Page H426]]

treatment. This bill applies to all mandating legislation across the 
board, regardless of topic, on an equal basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support informed debate and 
responsive government. We should all stand up for our constituents who 
are hard at work creating jobs and moving our economy forward by voting 
``yes'' on this important bipartisan legislation, the Mandates 
Information Act.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a new member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 350, the 
Mandates Information Act of 1999.
  Building on a very successful Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
H.R. 350 extends to small businesses the same protections Congress 
offers to State and local governments, that if the Federal Government 
mandates it, the Federal Government should pay for it.
  Throughout my career, I have been somewhat of a crusader against 
unfunded government mandates. As a former county and State legislator, 
I know too well the hidden and high costs that mandates impose on our 
Nation's local governments. Small businesses as well have been impacted 
by mandates that do not just increase the cost of doing business. 
Consumers pay a price through higher retail prices, hinder production, 
and reduce job opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's small businesses and farmers need this 
bill. We have heard from the Mom and Pop and Main Street businesses who 
have pleaded with Congress to relieve them from the burden of unfunded 
mandates, to give them the opportunity to survive, grow, and create 
jobs and opportunity for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support 
our businesses, our workers and our consumers by passing this 
legislation.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 350.
  Let me start by affirming that I support the goals of this bill. 
Those purposes are laid out in section 3 of the bill. They are, and 
this is from the actual text of the bill, providing more complete 
information about the effects of private mandates, ensuring focused 
deliberation on those effects, and distinguishing between mandates that 
harm consumers, workers and small businesses and mandates that help 
those groups.
  How could one not support those goals? I am being specific about the 
stated purposes of the bill because I will offer an amendment next 
week, and that is when we are going to continue deliberations, designed 
specifically to accomplish those goals. But what I want to focus on 
today is why H.R. 350 in its current form in many ways is at odds with 
those goals, and indeed at odds with fundamental notions of fairness 
that should govern this House.
  H.R. 350 would undermine the fairness of House procedures and fail to 
achieve its goals because it is based on numerous faulty assumptions.

                              {time}  1045

  Let me enumerate some of them. The bill assumes that radically 
reducing the time to debate a bill or amendment will somehow provide 
Congress with more information. After all, the bill creates a point of 
order designed to cut off debate before it would end under normal House 
procedures. I fail to see how short debate will yield more information.
  The bill assumes that baseless assertions, gut feelings, hunches, can 
provide useful information for congressional decision-making. After 
all, H.R. 350 requires no evidence at all to raise the point of order. 
A Member could claim that a bill was going to cost industry a lot of 
money, even if the Congressional Budget Office had determined 
otherwise.
  So we are not going to be dealing with the facts as presented by the 
Congressional Budget Office if they do not coincide with the opinion of 
the person raising the point of order, we are going to be dealing with 
his gut feeling, his hunch; not a very good idea. I fail to see how 
assertions that are not grounded in evidence will improve debate.
  The bill assumes that more informed debate means that Congress should 
be more concerned with costs than benefits. After all, the only place 
the bill mentions benefits is in one finding that suggests that 
Congress has paid too much attention to benefits. I fail to see how 
favoring one side of the cost-benefit ratio will improve our decisions.
  The bill assumes that up to this point, Congress has never fully 
considered or debated the potential cost of its actions on industry. 
After all, that is why proponents of H.R. 350 say it is needed. Yet, 
look at the examples they give, such as minimum wage. Has Congress 
debated the minimum wage without discussing its potential cost? Of 
course not. I fail to see why we need to solve a problem that simply 
does not exist.
  The bill assumes that up to this point industry has not been able to 
get its views heard on Capitol Hill. After all, why else would H.R. 350 
provide industry with a legislative tool that would be denied to its 
consumers, communities, and employees? I fail to see any evidence that 
industry has not had the commitment and personnel and financial 
resources to get its point of view heard.
  That is as it should be. We should consider industry's point of view, 
but how about everybody else? What about all those consumers that are 
impacted by decisions that industry makes?
  The bill assumes that it is fair to skew House rules so those on one 
side of an issue can stifle the voices on the other side. After all, 
that is the effect of the point of order. Those supporting measures 
designed to protect the environment, to protect health, to protect 
safety, could have debate on their proposals short-circuited by this 
new point of order.
  I fail to see why that is either fair or necessary. No bill based on 
such faulty assumptions should be passed by this House. If we want to 
provide fuller and more accurate information for congressional debate 
and ensure that Congress has more focused debate on costs, we can do so 
without stifling debate, as my amendment will demonstrate.
  H.R. 350 in its current form will not lead to more or better informed 
debate in this House. Rather, it will cripple our ability to fair, 
full, open, and democratic debate. That is something that should 
trouble every Member of this body.
  Remember, the issue here is not whether to support a particular 
private mandate, but whether we will have open debate on private 
mandates. I look forward to presenting my amendment next week, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) by way of Massachusetts.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished 
leader of the Committee on Rules. As he knows, I am proud of that 
circuitous route to the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and applaud the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for their work on this issue.
  I was just speaking with the gentleman from California about our 
joint efforts more than 5 years ago to raise the issue of unfunded 
Federal mandates to the attention of this body. As one of the first 
acts of the 104th Congress, we passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 
which required a point of order on such legislation. But at the time we 
missed a golden opportunity to address the issue of private sector 
mandates.
  During the debate on the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I offered an 
amendment to include the private sector as part of CBO's cost analysis 
in the procedural point of order. Unfortunately, as it was not part of 
the original bill that had the new House leadership's blessing, and was 
not part of the Republican Contract With America, I think that is the 
only reason it was not passed when it should have been as part of the 
larger package of legislation.
  I argued at the time that we were creating a double standard between 
mandates on the public sector and

[[Page H427]]

mandates on the private sector. The line between the private and public 
sector is oftentimes very blurred. Private companies now compete 
successfully to offer services once provided exclusively by State or 
local governments. Privatization has been successful in the fields of 
transportation, environmental services, health services, education, 
water and electric utilities.
  Without today's legislation we would be perpetuating a procedural 
situation where, under the House rules, we can debate a Clean Air Act 
amendment or a new medical waste disposal mandate's impact on a 
municipal power plant or on a public hospital, but ignore its impact on 
a private utility or privately-owned hospital.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more than 1,800 municipal, 900 rural electric 
cooperatives, and 60 State power plants. Should these power plants be 
treated differently on a new Clean Air Act requirement than the 220-
plus investor-owned electric power companies? That does not make any 
sense.
  Should we craft a Federal policy affecting 16 million working 
Americans, in other words, the 4\1/2\ million that are employed by 
State governments and the 12 million local employees, without knowing 
what the impact will be on the 100 million workers employed in the 
private sector? I do not think so.
  With enactment of today's legislation we will be closing this double 
standard. We all need to be held accountable for legislation we support 
or oppose, regardless of whether it imposes a cost on the public or the 
private sector. Today will help give Congress the tools and the 
accountability it needs to know the potential economic impact of all 
the legislative proposals on the private sector as well.
  I would also want to express my appreciation to the authors of this 
legislation for including a provision making a technical correction to 
the original Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. This provision addresses a 
problem we have encountered with CBO's scoring of State and local 
mandates.
  The correction is necessary because CBO has determined that any new 
entitlement program mandate is exempt from the Unfunded Mandate Reform 
Act's point of order procedure if there is sufficient flexibility 
within the entitlement program to offset the new mandate's new State 
and local costs.
  For example, on June 10 of 1996 CBO ruled that a point of order would 
not exist for a proposed cap on Federal Medicaid contributions to 
States and any other mandatory Federal aid programs except food stamps. 
The effect of this interpretation was to exempt more than two-thirds of 
all grant-in-aid, the mandatory entitlement programs, from coverage 
under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  What may appear to be an optional Federal mandate program from CBO's 
perspective, such as expanding Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and 
children, is not an optional program from the State's perspective. The 
States cannot cut back, and we would not want them to cut back, 
programs for pregnant women and children in order to pay for some other 
program that we newly mandate under the Medicaid program.
  Section 5 of this bill would correct this interpretation problem by 
adding a few simple words to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to clarify 
that any cut or cap of safety net programs constitutes an 
intergovernmental mandate, unless State and local governments are given 
new or additional flexibility and the authority to offset that cut or 
cap.
  This provision has been endorsed by every one of the five major State 
and local organizations. I am glad it is included. I am glad this 
legislation is finally coming forth. It is important that we treat the 
public and the public sectors in a balanced, equitable manner. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend 
from Georgia for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of this 
effort to expand the accountability of our Federal government, 
something all Americans are interested in.
  H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act, is based on the very simple 
yet powerful truth that more information is better than less in a 
democracy. We have proposed this legislation in the interest of making 
the public more aware of what we do in this body, specifically in 
bringing light to the often hidden costs of the laws that we pass.
  We took a major step in this direction in 1995 when we implemented 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, as it is known, requiring 
public disclosure and debate on matters that involve Federal mandates 
on State and local governments.
  At our Committee on Rules joint subcommittee hearing on this bill a 
few days ago, James Bloom presented the Congressional Budget Office's 
1998 report on UMRA, how it was going, replete with information about 
the types of mandates proposed and considered by this Congress last 
year and the very real cost consequences of those provisions for State 
and local governments, and there were some.
  In my view, in that compendium of information we got from CBO and in 
CBO's analysis of our actions, it demonstrates that UMRA is working as 
intended. In other words, it is a good piece of legislation. We have 
more information now than ever before, and the public has a benchmark 
by which to judge what it is we do and how much it costs.
  Now we are completing the UMRA process, applying the same type of 
procedural checklist and sunshine accountability to matters involving 
mandates on the private sector. This bill is good news for our small 
businesses and for our entrepreneurs, and it is also good news for 
consumers. It will help the public and the Congress focus attention on 
the question of cost, reminding us that for every good idea, there can 
be, regrettably, unintended and sometimes expensive negative 
consequences that we should be aware of. It arms all of us with more 
information about the by-product of the actions we take here in our 
legislation, and that is good news for a democracy.
  While I understand the concerns expressed by my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) with regard to this bill, I see 
this bill as a positive contribution to the legislative process, and I 
see it from the perspective of the Committee on Rules, where we deal 
with legislative process.
  I believe this is a bill that will not hamper our ability to pass 
good, thoughtful, and deliberative, responsible legislation. On the 
contrary, I think it will focus on cost and accountability, which is 
something we care about.
  I commend the bipartisan sponsors of this bill, especially the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Condit). I urge support of this legislation. I do this in good 
conscience as a sound environmentalist from southwest Florida.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to discuss an amendment 
that I will offer to this legislation next week. The Mandates 
Information Act that is under consideration would create a new 
procedural hurdle for Congress when attempting to place any new 
mandates on the private sector. These new mandates could be increasing 
the minimum wage, controlling pollution, ensuring workers' safety. 
These are proposals that would be subject to this procedural step 
before we enact any of these ideas.
  Unfortunately, this legislation is not balanced. It creates 
procedural protections against new requirements on business, but offers 
no protections against repealing existing requirements that serve 
important and popular public interest purposes.
  I will offer an amendment which will give the public interest the 
same procedural protections that are given to industry. I will offer 
the defense of the environment amendment, which is based on H.R. 525, 
the Defense of the Environment Act. I introduced H.R. 525 yesterday 
with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Dick Gephardt), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), and 80 of our colleagues. The

[[Page H428]]

Defense of the Environment Act is supported by every major 
environmental group.
  The defense of the environment amendment will simply ensure that the 
Mandates Information Act offers the same procedural protections for 
removing requirements that protect our environment, the public health 
or safety, as for consideration of new mandates on the private sector. 
This is common sense, and it addresses not just a theoretical problem 
but a very real, serious problem with the way the Congress has set 
environmental policy over the last 4 years.
  During the last two Congresses, the democratic process has been 
circumvented through the use of anti-environmental riders. These riders 
have been attached to must-pass legislation, and have often been 
enacted without any serious debate or a separate vote.

                              {time}  1100

  There are many examples of these anti-environmental riders. From 
blocking the regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water 
to delaying our efforts to clean up air pollution in the national 
parks, riders have touched upon every aspect of the environment.
  The Defense of the Environment Amendment will ensure that we can have 
appropriate debate and a separate vote on these anti-environmental 
riders.
  Let me give an example of why this legislation should be balanced 
with the addition of my amendment. If this legislation were enacted 
tomorrow, there would be a new procedural protection to prevent 
Congress from requiring polluters to tell the public more about 
pollutants they are emitting into their communities if that were being 
offered sometime in legislation. However, there would be no protections 
against repealing the existing right to know requirements.
  I can understand why business would support this approach, but it is 
not fair to the American people. My amendment is designed to help 
prevent these stealth attacks on our environmental laws. It would not 
offer protection against every environmental rider, but it is a 
sensible first step. It would protect our clean air laws, our clean 
water laws, our toxic waste laws.
  This amendment would not prohibit Congress from repealing or amending 
any environmental law. It places no new burdens on business, State, or 
individual or Federal agency. It would simply bring an informed debate 
and accountability to the process.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the American people want 
Congress to protect public health and the environment. The environment 
is just as important as an unfunded mandate, whether it be an unfunded 
mandate on another government agency or an unfunded mandate on private 
business. These issues all ought to have the same focus of attention 
that will allow us a chance to debate the issue and have a separate 
vote.
  Over the years, we have seen when Congress legislates in a 
deliberate, collegial, bipartisan fashion, we are able to enact public 
health and environmental protections that work well and are supported 
by both environmental groups and by business.
  I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and guarantee that 
Congress does not unknowingly jeopardize America's public health and 
environment. They will not do so unknowingly if we at least can have a 
chance to debate the issue and have a separate vote before we proceed 
to do something that is going to be anti-environmental without a chance 
to give a focus of attention on it. That is no different than the 
opportunity to give a spotlight on an issue that is an unfunded mandate 
on American business.
  I urge support of this amendment when it comes up next week when the 
bill is considered.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney), a new Member of this body.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express what a great joy it is for me to come 
to the well of the House for the first time and speak in support of 
such important legislation, on one that highlights our commitment to 
keeping Federal mandates off the backs of our hardworking citizens, one 
that promotes a more open Congress that makes the most informed 
decisions possible, and one that raises the level of accountability of 
our elected representatives for the mandates they impose on our 
business men and women and on our local communities.
  For these reasons, I rise in strong support of the Mandates 
Information Act and commend the bipartisan sponsors of this bill and 
the Committee on Rules for bringing this legislation to the floor 
today.
  My past experience as a labor commissioner in New York State has 
taught me the hard lessons and the burdensome costs of regulations on 
people and on jobs in my State. In 3 years of steadfast work in 
unraveling the web of State regulations, we were able to alleviate $1.7 
billion in compliance costs to New Yorkers, staggering costs to 
businesses, farmers, and individuals that were never envisioned when 
the regulations were first enacted and that cost my State hundreds and 
thousands of jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, the same principles apply here today. In the rush to 
achieve the benefits of society envisioned in all legislation, it is 
too easy to ignore the cost of such mandates.
  Let us not kid ourselves. These regulations are hidden taxes on 
businesses and individuals. We owe it to the citizens to know in 
advance the hidden costs to the public of any legislation before this 
Congress and to have an honest, focused debate on those costs before 
they are imposed on the American people. This bill ensures that 
happens.
  I am proud to urge my colleagues' support on this common sense bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to rise and 
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), my friends, once again, as I did 
during the rules debate, for their very fine work on this important 
issue.
  I, too, like my friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the Vice Chairman of the Committee on Rules, consider myself to 
be an environmentalist, and I believe that we will be able, as we move 
ahead with this measure, to have a very fair and balanced debate on 
environmental issues as they come forward. That is the idea.
  All we are doing with this measure is we are triggering a process 
whereby questions can be raised and a debate can take place and then a 
decision will be made by this institution which will, again, as I said 
during both the Committee on Rules and during the debate earlier, it 
will make all of us accountable for whether or not we proceed with the 
imposition of what could be a very, very costly mandate.
  We had some very interesting testimony that took place up in the 
Committee on Rules, and I would like to share a couple of quotes from 
the testimony by Ryan Null, who is the owner of Tristate Electronic 
Manufacturing. I quoted him during the Committee on Rules' debate. I 
have just a couple of other quotes that I would like to use, and then 
we are looking forward anxiously to the great words of the movers of 
this effort, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Condit).
  Mr. Null said in his testimony, ``The government requirements that a 
small business must comply with range from retirement plans and OSHA 
requirements to ever changing environmental regulations. While these 
regulations may have originated with good intentions, the costs of 
implementation for a small business is truly overwhelming. Federal 
mandates and regulations are a constant hurdle for my business.''
  Mr. Chairman, he goes on to say ``Government mandates not only take 
away valuable time and resources from my small business, but ironically 
some government regulations go so far as to provide disincentives for 
my company to grow. I find it hard to understand how the lawmakers in a 
country who pride itself on being the land of opportunity and free 
enterprise pass laws

[[Page H429]]

that are anti-growth and anti-business. These government mandates seem 
to defy common sense. For example, if the Family and Medical Leave Act 
were to apply for my business, we would be weighed down by an 
unworkable administrative and financial burden. Legislative proposals 
in the past have proposed to lower the small business exemption to 25 
employees. With the threat of legislation that would expand the Family 
and Medical Leave Act, I feel as a protective measure I should probably 
hold off hiring any new employees.''

  There is very clear evidence, Mr. Chairman, that the continued 
imposition of mandates without having this institution be accountable 
are very costly and, as Mr. Null said, anti-growth and can jeopardize 
the future of the small business sector of our economy.
  So I hope very much that we will see passage of this thoughtful 
measure and we will look forward again to the consideration of 
amendments next week.
  But I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), 
my colleagues on the Committee on Rules who have come here, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) especially, who made his maiden 
speech on this issue, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and others who have come forward to work on behalf 
of it.
  I look forward to seeing this bipartisan measure being one of the 
first very important items to come out of this historic 106th Congress.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), a cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me make a comment about 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been very supportive and 
a leader in the unfunded mandate issue, and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier who, from the outset, has been committed 
to the unfunded mandate issue.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his leadership and his 
patience with us to craft a piece of legislation that is bipartisan and 
hopefully will pass this House and the other body.
  Also to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) who has worked very 
hard with us to craft this legislation. I would also extend my thanks 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) on the Committee on Rules on our side of the aisle 
for allowing us to be here today and for their help and support to 
allow us to have this debate.
  Let me just say from the outset, H.R. 350, the Mandate Information 
Act of 1999, this bill does not stop legislative mandates. Let me 
repeat that. The bill does not stop mandates. If this body chooses to 
pass a mandate on local business, small business, large business, 
whoever, they can do so.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this bill does. It is really simple. 
All the bill does is allow us to accumulate more information for the 
Members of this House, for us to ask that we do an analysis by CBO of 
the cost of the mandate. That is simply what it does. It allows us to 
have more information so we hopefully can make better decisions on 
behalf of the people that we represent.
  The other thing it does is it requires us to have accountability for 
that decision. Time and time again, we pass mandates, unfunded mandates 
sort of in the dead of night. People do not know what they cost, 
exactly what they do, who they impact, or what the consequences are. We 
know the cost. Then we have to make the decision whether or not the 
cost and the benefit match up.
  That is what this bill does. It is cost benefit. It states what the 
cost is. It gives us that information. It gives us time to debate it. 
Then we have to make the decision and be accountable for whether or not 
we want to place that mandate in effect, whether we want to pass it 
legislatively and pass it on to the consumer and to the business that 
is affected.
  So let me say that that is all it does. For someone to get up here 
and say to you that this stops the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking 
Water Act or the Clean Air Act or any of that stuff, that is just not 
correct.
  As a matter of fact, we passed an unfunded mandate bill in 1996, 1995 
that took effect in 1996, on local and State government. We have raised 
the point of order seven times on this floor. Some of those points of 
order and some of those issues were quite controversial.
  Take the minimum wage. The wisdom of this House was we are going to 
proceed with the mandate. Every time the point of order has been 
brought up on this floor, we have proceeded on with the mandate. The 
House thought in its wisdom that it was worth us continuing.
  So for people to say it is going to stop this legislation, that 
legislation, that is not factually correct. The record does not prove 
that. The mandate bill in existence today does not prove that.
  We have proceeded, after a brief debate and after more information, 
we have proceeded on. We have gone on and passed the mandate by this 
House. So that is just not correct.
  What the bill does is allow us to make a point of order on a mandate 
that exceeds $100 million, requires CBO to do the accounting of that. 
That is basically all this bill does.

                              {time}  1115

  It also puts the private sector on an even footing with local and 
State government, and I think that is a good thing for this House to 
do. It encourages the committees to try to figure out a way to mitigate 
the mandate. I do not know what can be wrong with any of that.
  There is an argument that maybe this will delay, be a delaying 
tactic, a dilatory tactic or what have you. We all know in this House 
if somebody wants to delay or be dilatory, they can do that. One can 
move to adjourn, can do a variety of different things. This is not the 
intent of this bill at all. The intent of this bill is to provide 
Members more information. More information.
  Now, this bill comes out here under an open rule. Next week we will 
have some amendments to the bill. We should have a good, healthy debate 
about those amendments. That is the fair and reasonable thing to do. 
Why should we not have 20 minutes to debate what the cost of an 
unfunded mandate is on the private sector? Why should we not do that? 
That provides information to the Members. They can make a better, 
informed decision on behalf of the people that elect them. I encourage 
my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats both, to support this bill. If 
a Member wants to support the mandate after we have had the debate, 
that is fine, they can do that. This does not stop them from doing 
that, but they should not be opposed to us finding out what the cost is 
and the consequences of the mandate as well as all the other impacts 
that it has and providing more information to themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is 
a bipartisan piece of legislation. We have worked it through. It is 
something that did not just come up. We have worked on this for a 
couple of years. I would encourage all Members to support the bill.
  Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today. My 
colleague Rep. Rob Portman and I introduced the Mandate Information Act 
of 1998 to follow up on the success of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
of 1995. This act has successfully focused more attention on the fiscal 
impacts of legislation on the public sector by raising awareness of 
unfunded mandates on state and local governments.
  This atmosphere of awareness has been fostered by the point of order 
procedure established under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Under this 
process, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs of 
intergovernmental mandates within a bill. If the costs of the 
intergovernmental mandates exceed the statutory threshold of $50 
million, any member may raise a point of order against the bill by 
citing the offending provision of the bill.
  The Unfunded Mandate Reform act also directed the Congressional 
Budget Office to estimate the costs to the private sector. Estimated 
costs to the private sector exceeding the statutory threshold of $100 
million were included in a committee's report accompanying a reported 
bill. The bill before you today, the Mandate Information Act of 1999, 
would extend a similar point of order procedure to the private sector.

[[Page H430]]

  Since the enactment of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in January of 
1996, a point of order against legislation exceeding the 
intergovernmental threshold of $50 million has been raised a total of 
seven times. Please keep this number in mind, when opponents of 
extending the same point of order procedure to the private sector make 
claims that dilatory ruin will fall upon the proceedings of the House.
  In fact, in response to criticism that the Mandate information Act 
would open the door to dilatory tactics from both sides of the aisle, 
last year we agreed to limit the number of points of order allowed to 
be raised against a bill or amendment to one.
  In addition to extending the point of order procedure to the private 
sector, our bill will also ask the Congressional Budget Office to 
evaluate a bill's impact on consumer prices, worker wages, worker 
benefits and employment opportunities. CBO is also directed to assess 
the effect of the private sector mandates on the profitability of 
businesses with 100 or fewer employees. This will be important 
additional analysis for members when the congressional Budget office 
can make these assessments.
  Perhaps former Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
Mr. James Blum, best described the practical impact of the bill when he 
appeared before the Rules Committee last year. Mr. Blum stated, ``From 
the CBO's vantage point, UMRA has worked quite well. Both the demand 
for and the supply of information on the costs of federal mandates have 
increased since the act took effect. Moreover, committee staffs and 
individual Members are increasingly requesting our opinion before 
committee markups on whether proposed legislation would create any new 
federal mandates, and if so, whether their costs would exceed the 
thresholds set by UMRA. In many instances, CBO is able to inform the 
sponsor about the existence of a mandate and provide informal guidance 
on how the proposal might be restructured to either eliminate the 
mandate or reduce its costs.''
  Basically, the implication has been an increased consciousness of the 
costs of intergovernmental mandates and fostered greater collaborations 
between committees and CBO on how to mitigate those costs. This, ladies 
and gentlemen, is what the Mandates Information Act is all about. More 
information is better.
  Members, who do not have the luxury of sitting on every committee and 
subcommittee while legislation is being crafted, will be provided with 
additional information under the provisions of this bill. Contrary to 
what some critics claim, the premise of this bill is to get more 
detailed information into the hands of members and ultimately the 
voters. This measure will ensure both costs and benefits are weighed 
before consideration.
  Some have claimed the Mandates Information Act is silent on benefits. 
This is simply untrue. These critics should think back to the enactment 
of the original Unfunded Mandate Review Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). 
The act specifically directs committees to include in their reports 
accompanying a bill, ``a qualitative, and if practicable, a 
quantitative assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the 
Federal mandates (including the effects on health and safety and the 
protection of the natural environment).''
  Another important provision of the Mandates Information Act clarifies 
the interpretation of an intergovernmental mandate when proposals to 
change large entitlement programs are scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office. Section five of our bill makes this important change.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 350.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for working with us, for his patience and his good work here 
today on the floor. I am pleased again to join the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit) who is the lead sponsor of this legislation. 
Last year, by a nearly two-thirds bipartisan majority, this House voted 
to support H.R. 3534, legislation nearly identical to the bill that we 
are talking about this morning, H.R. 350. It is based, as the gentleman 
from California just said, on a very simple concept. That is, that we 
want to provide more information and more accountability to Congress as 
it considers unfunded mandates, which are really hidden taxes, this 
time on the private sector.
  About 3\1/2\ years ago, 394 Members of this House and 91 Senators 
voted to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. We 
have heard about UMRA this morning. That is really the basis upon which 
we are moving forward today.
  UMRA ensured that for the first time ever, before the House voted on 
legislation, the House would have three things: One, new cost 
information on the public sector; that is, mandates on State and local 
government but also on the private sector, on the information side. And 
then, very importantly, with regard to the public sector mandates; that 
is, the mandates on State and local government, there would also be a 
separate debate on whether or not to impose the mandate and a vote. 
Now, that is the accountability measure in the legislation. It does not 
mean we never mandate on State and local government. In fact, since 
that time we have mandated, but after considering it. What it does mean 
is we get a lot better legislation on the floor, legislation that is 
more cost effective, legislation that goes through the committee 
process in a way that takes into account the costs of mandates. 
Committees end up either funding the mandates or they end up deciding 
the mandates have to be in the legislation and that the other purposes 
of the legislation, the benefits outweigh those mandates so it goes to 
the floor, anyway. In the end again we get more information, we get 
separate debate and we get accountability.
  I think the most important point to make this morning probably is 
that it has worked. We have an excellent record. I think even those few 
Members of this body who chose to vote against that bill 3\1/2\ years 
ago would agree, it has worked. We have not had the scenarios played 
out that we have heard about today that could possibly happen with this 
new piece of legislation. The practical impact has been to force 
committees to address the mandate issue long before bills reach the 
House floor.
  Let me give my colleagues one example. The first time it came up was 
the telecommunications bill. The telco bill was in conference, the 
conferees were poised to send to the floor a significant new mandate on 
local government, on our municipalities. The municipalities caught wind 
of that. They came to the unfunded mandate champions on the floor of 
the House and there was a decision made to raise the point of order. 
The conferees then took it upon themselves to work hard to come up with 
language that solved the problem so that when the legislation came to 
the floor, there was not more acrimony, there was less, because we had 
a better bill on the floor. It was good for this House, it was good for 
the institution, and in the end it was good for the taxpayers and the 
consumers. The process worked.
  In other cases like the minimum wage increase, the point of order was 
raised on the floor. In fact I think I was the one that raised that 
point of order, forcing debate over the mandate and the costs that it 
imposed, significant new costs on the private sector, also the public 
sector. It was roundly defeated, as I recall. But the point of order, 
although it failed, did bring out the information that the body needed 
to hear. The same was true on the Yucca Mountain bill. Some of my 
colleagues may remember that. The point of order was raised. It was not 
passed, but again the information was provided to the Members.
  UMRA has given State and local governments a very valuable tool, to 
get mandate information out, to get the issue considered and addressed 
at the committee level before it reaches the floor, and if that fails, 
to ultimately force a debate on the floor. But it is also flexible 
enough to permit Congress, as the gentleman from California just said, 
to pass legislation that does indeed impose new mandates when the 
merits of the bill override the negative impact of the mandates.
  Unfortunately due to the political realities of passing what was at 
that time precedent-setting legislation a few years ago, we were not 
able to offer all the same procedural protections to the private 
sector. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the 
Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) who have led the efforts to include 
the private sector. They have put a lot of hard work into the bill and 
they have taken what is the next logical step, to offer not all but 
similar protections to the private sector.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who was 
speaking earlier today. He and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) 
have been supportive of perfecting UMRA through this legislation. They 
have

[[Page H431]]

done a great job of coming up with legislation that State and local 
governments strongly support that makes clear that when those State and 
local governments are given new or expanded authority to meet the 
programmatic responsibilities if additional costs were imposed on them 
through entitlements reform, they could indeed change the way they do 
business. This is very important to State and local government. We have 
worked closely with them on that aspect of this legislation and I want 
to thank them for their support.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) made a great point earlier 
today about privatization with regard to the private sector side of 
this. Again I want to thank him for his support not just of perfecting 
UMRA but also of this legislation, H.R. 350.
  Let me just take a second to review how these procedures work in the 
House because we have had a lot of debate this morning, but we need to 
back up and talk about what it actually results in. Just as in the case 
of UMRA, any Member can upon consideration of legislation raise a point 
of order if there is an unfunded mandate. That results in a 20-minute 
debate on the question of whether the House should continue to consider 
the legislation notwithstanding the unfunded mandate, this time on the 
private sector. Again, much more importantly, we believe the 
possibility that this could occur will force the committees to do their 
best to minimize new mandates, to make legislation more cost effective.
  The process of this debate and vote is a far more significant tool as 
UMRA has already proven with the public sector mandates than simply 
requiring the committees to include the CBO estimate in the committee 
report which currently exists under UMRA. In fact, on Tuesday, before 
the Committee on Rules, CBO testified that since UMRA was enacted, 
quote, demand and supply for information about the costs of Federal 
mandates has increased, and in many instances CBO has been able to 
provide informal guidance on how the proposal might be restructured to 
eliminate the mandate or to reduce its costs. Again that is the point. 
Ask CBO, they will tell you, it has worked.

  A lot of Members have talked this morning who want to offer 
amendments to in essence gut this bill and have said that they are 
supportive of reducing or eliminating mandates on the public sector and 
reducing them on the private sector. That is what this is all about. We 
have reached that balance in this legislation over a couple of year 
period, working with the Committee on Rules, the parliamentarian, 
working with the committees, working with the Congressional Budget 
Office. This legislation creates the right incentive; that is, to 
address mandates even before they reach the floor.
  If the rule waives the point of order, then a Member can raise a 
point of order against the rule. That has been done. The House votes 
and that is it. The rule can pass and the bill moves forward without 
the ability to raise the mandates question again with a point of order 
on the bill. So once they had that vote on the rule, that is all they 
get, assuming the Committee on Rules does waive the mandates point of 
order.
  There are a few differences between UMRA, again the public sector 
bill, and this new private sector bill that ought to be focused on, 
each of these put in place with the encouragement of the Committee on 
Rules and others to ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily delay 
or cause other procedural problems on the floor.
  First, recognizing that there are likely to be more private sector 
mandates, the threshold is raised. It is doubled. Under UMRA the 
threshold is $50 million. Under this legislation it is $100 million.
  Secondly, in order to address the concern that the the point of order 
could be dilatory, it permits only one point of order.
  Third, there is a net tax decrease piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that the purpose of this 
legislation is for us to be able to legislate better and with more 
accountability. That means accountability to small businesses and 
consumers who are impacted, but it also means accountability to those 
back home who care deeply about legislation like the Clean Water Act 
and others.
  It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to H.R. 
350. The Mandates Information Act, if approved by Congress would carry 
with it unwise and dangerous consequences for the people of the United 
States. The bill before the House threatens the ability of Members of 
Congress to protect our constituents from otherwise avoidable harm.
  This bill would derail our ability to provide for adequate and 
affordable health care for families, safe work places for working 
people, and a clean environment for communities.
  If passed, the Mandates Information Act would require the 
Congressional Budget Office to conduct a cost analysis on all 
legislation affecting the private sector. While most Members of 
Congress are certainly interested in preventing undue and unfounded 
costs to businesses and consumers, we should also be certain to 
evaluate the benefits that legislation will make in improving the lives 
of the public. As Members of the House of Representatives we have a 
responsibility to guarantee job safety, fair standards for consumers, 
health care for families and a quality environment. The Mandates 
Information Act completely ignores benefits and thus would 
institutionalize a one-sided tilt of the legislative process against 
federal mandates, regardless of any good they would achieve.
  The ability to protect the environment, health and safety of all 
Americans is surely of importance to the Members of the House. The 
Mandates Information Act could cause delays or even stop implementation 
of federal laws, simply because a point of order is raised against 
them, based on estimates alone. This is true even if those estimates 
are questionable, if the cost is minimal given the size of the industry 
affected, or if the benefits justify the action.
  I fear that with passage of H.R. 350 there could be a day when 
crucial legislation like the Patients' Bill of Rights could be defeated 
without adequate debate. Issues of importance to our constituents 
deserve enough time for a fair review and I contend that passage of the 
Mandates Information Act would prevent just that.
  This bill has drawn much concern from my constituents. H.R. 350 has 
also prompted organizations like OMB Watch, the United Auto Workers and 
the AFL-CIO to speak out on behalf of the working people and the 
families they represent.
  A bulletin I received from OMB Watch accurately states ``The point of 
order is the heart of the problem. For those wishing to undermine 
public protections, it allows them to say they do not oppose the 
subject of the bill, such as clean air or water or worker safety, and 
still vote to kill it by voting against the mandate that is created. It 
is a dangerous backdoor.''
  OMB Watch goes on to say that: ``supporters (of H.R. 350) claim they 
just want congress to consider the costs of laws they impose. Surely 
Members of Congress are presented enough information from all sides to 
adequately consider costs-and-benefts--(which this bill does not 
address)--when casting a vote.''
  The United Auto Workers believes that: ``the provision creating a 
point of order against private sector mandates in excess of $100 
million is totally one-sided, and would have the effect of establishing 
a new procedural hurdle that would make it easier to block important 
protections for workplace health and safety.'' The UAW makes a valid 
observation that ``H.R. 350 only focuses on cost impact of legislation, 
while ignoring the cost savings or benefits that may be provided to 
workers and society as a whole.''
  The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations submits that: ``H.R. 350 puts at risk laws with 
substantial benefits to society. While completely ignoring benefits of 
health and safety or environmental legislation.''
  Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the many individuals and 
organizations who have been moved to contact me in opposition to the 
Mandates Information Act. I urge Members to consider the risk we would 
be taking with passage, and that they join in opposing this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bereuter) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 350) to 
improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector 
mandates, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[[Page H432]]



                          ____________________