[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H545-H560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). 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 further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 350.
{time} 1035
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. 350) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed
Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Brady
of Texas (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
Thursday, February 4, 1999, all time for general debate had expired.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall
be considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of
1999''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Before acting on proposed private sector mandates, the
Congress should carefully consider the effects on consumers,
workers, and small businesses.
(2) The Congress has often acted without adequate
information concerning the costs of private sector mandates,
instead focusing only on the benefits.
(3) The implementation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 has resulted in increased awareness of
intergovernmental mandates without impacting existing
environmental, public health, or safety laws or regulations.
(4) 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.
(5) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced
availability of goods and services.
(6) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced
benefits, and fewer job opportunities.
(7) The costs of private sector mandates are often borne in
part by small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives
and stunted growth.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To improve the quality of the Congress' deliberation
with respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by--
(A) providing the Congress with more complete information
about the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that the Congress acts on such mandates only
after focused deliberation on the effects.
(2) To enhance the ability of the Congress to distinguish
between private sector mandates that harm consumers, workers,
and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 3?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
[[Page H546]]
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Estimates.--Section 424(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C),
and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) when applicable, the impact (including any
disproportionate impact in particular regions or industries)
on consumers, workers, and small businesses, of the Federal
private sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution,
including--
``(i) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on consumer
prices and on the actual supply of goods and services in
consumer markets;
``(ii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on worker
wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and
``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private
sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on the hiring
practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with
100 or fewer employees; and''.
(2) Point of order.--Section 424(b)(3) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(3)) is amended by adding
after the period the following: ``If such determination is
made by the Director, a point of order under this part shall
lie only under section 425(a)(1) and as if the requirement of
section 425(a)(1) had not been met.''.
(3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph
(3); and
(B) inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would increase the direct costs of
Federal private sector mandates (excluding any direct costs
that are attributable to revenue resulting from tax or tariff
provisions of any such measure if it does not raise net tax
and tariff revenues over the 5-fiscal-year period beginning
with the first fiscal year such measure affects such
revenues) by an amount that causes the thresholds specified
in section 424(b)(1) to be exceeded; and''.
(4) Application relating to appropriations committees.--(A)
Section 425(c)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``except''.
(B) Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
(i) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
(iii) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
and
(iv) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental''.
(5) Threshold burden.--(A) Section 426(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``legislative'' before ``language''.
(B) Section 426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``section
425 or subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``part
B''.
(6) Question of consideration.--(A) Section 426(b)(3) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``section 425 or subsection (a) of this
section'' and inserting ``part B''.
(B) Section 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``, except
that not more than one point of order shall be recognized by
the Chair under section 425(a)(1) or (a)(2)'' before the
period.
(7) Application relating to congressional budget office.--
Section 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
658f) is amended by striking ``intergovernmental''.
(b) Rules of the House of Representatives.--Clause 11(b) of
rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by striking ``intergovernmental'' and by striking
``section 424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``section 424 (a)(1) or
(b)(1)''.
(c) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--This section is enacted
by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
it shall be considered as part of the rules of such House,
respectively, and shall supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 4?
Amendment Numbered 1 Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair notices that the amendment goes
beyond section 4.
Is there objection to consideration of the amendment at this point?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``425(a)(1)'' each place it
appears and insert ``425(a)(1)(B)''.
Page 5, after line 20, insert the following new
subparagraphs:
(A) inserting in paragraph (1) ``intergovernmental'' after
``Federal'';
(B) inserting in paragraph (1) ``(A)'' before ``any'' and
by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(B) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a
committee, unless--
``(i) the committee has published a statement of the
Director on the direct costs of Federal private sector
mandates in accordance with section 423(f) before such
consideration, except that this clause shall not apply to any
supplemental statement prepared by the Director under section
424(d); or
``(ii) all debate has been completed under section
427(b)(4); and
``(C) any amendment, motion, or conference report, unless--
``(i) the Director has estimated, in writing, the direct
costs of Federal private sector mandates before such
consideration; or
``(ii) all debate has been completed under section
427(b)(4); and''.
Page 5, line 21, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(C)'' and on
line 24, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(D)''.
Page 6, line 2, insert ``, according to the estimate
prepared by the Director under section 424(b)(1),'' before
``would''.
Page 6, line 10, insert ``unless all debate has been
completed under section 427(b)(4),'' after ``exceeded''.
Page 7, line 1, strike ``(A)'' and strike lines 5 through
8.
Page 7, strike lines 9 through 18.
Page 7, line 19, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)'' and
after line 18, insert the following new paragraphs:
(6) Technical Changes.--(A) The centerheading of section
426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by
adding before the period the following: ``REGARDING FEDERAL
INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES''.
(B) Section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting ``regarding Federal intergovernmental
mandates'' after ``section 425'' each place it appears.
(C) The item relating to section 426 in the table of
contents set forth in section l(b) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting ``regarding Federal intergovernmental mandates''
before the period.
(7) Federal private sector mandates.--(A) Part B of title
IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by
redesignating sections 427 and 428 as sections 428 and 429,
respectively, and by inserting after section 426 the
following new section:
``SEC. 427. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING FEDERAL PRIVATE
SECTOR MANDATES.
``(a) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to
consider a rule or order that waives the application of
section 425 regarding Federal private sector mandates. A
point of order under this subsection shall be disposed of as
if it were a point of order under section 426(a).
``(b) Disposition of Points of Order.--
``(1) Application to the house of representatives.--This
subsection shall apply only to the House of Representatives.
``(2) Threshold burden.--In order to be cognizable by the
Chair, a point of order under section 425 regarding Federal
private sector mandates or subsection (a) of this section
must specify the precise legislative language on which it is
premised.
``(3) Ruling of the chair.--The Chair shall rule on points
of order under section 425 regarding Federal private sector
mandates or subsection (a) of this section. The Chair shall
sustain the point of order only if the Chair determines that
the criteria in section 425(a)(1)(B), 425(a)(1)(C), or
425(a)(2) have been met. Not more than one point of order
with respect to the proposition that is the subject of the
point of order shall be recognized by the Chair under section
425(a)(1)(B), 425(a)(1)(C), or 425(a)(2) regarding Federal
private sector mandates.
``(4) Debate and intervening motions.--If the point of
order is sustained, the costs and benefits of the measure
that is subject to the point of order shall be debatable (in
addition to any other debate time provided by the rule
providing for consideration of the measure) for 10 minutes by
each Member initiating a point of order and for 10 minutes by
an opponent on each point of order. Debate shall commence
without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn
or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
``(5) Effect on amendment in order as original text.--The
disposition of the point of order under this subsection with
respect to a bill or joint resolution shall be considered
also to determine the disposition of the point of order under
this subsection with respect to an amendment made in order as
original text.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by redesignating sections 427
and 428 as sections 428 and 429, respectively, and by
inserting after the item
[[Page H547]]
relating to section 426 the following new item:
``Sec. 427. Provisions relating to the house of representatives
regarding federal private sector mandates.''.
Page 7, line 20, strike ``Section 427'' and insert
``Section 428 (as redesignated)''.
Page 9, after line 5, add the following new section:
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 425(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by striking ``subsection(a)(2)(B)(iii)'' and
inserting ``subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii)''.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by explaining what this
amendment would actually do because I think there has been a lot of
confusion.
Under my amendment, Members could still raise a point of order
against bills, resolutions, amendments, and conference reports if they
would cost the private sector more than $100 million, which is the
threshold in current law.
Under my amendment, the Chair would rule on the point of order. Just
as with most points of order in the House, there would be an objective
ruling. The point of order would be sustained if the Congressional
Budget Office had scored the measure as costing more than $100 million
or if CBO had not scored the measure.
That eliminates one flaw in the bill, which allows someone to claim
that a measure would cost more than $100 million even if CBO has scored
it otherwise, because the bill requires no evidence at all to raise the
point of order.
Under my amendment, if the point of order is sustained, 20 additional
minutes to debate on the bill or amendment themselves is added to
whatever debate would have occurred under the rule. This is the crux of
the matter.
Under my amendment the point of order is used to provide for
additional debate, while under the bill the purpose of the point of
order is to cut off debate. I fail to see how having less debate will
lead to better-informed decisions.
So again, here is what my amendment would do. First, it would
accomplish every stated goal of the bill. Section 3 of the bill says
its purposes are to provide Congress with more complete information on
mandates, ensure more focused deliberation on mandates, and to help
distinguish between helpful and harmful mandates. All are most worthy
objectives.
By allowing a point of order that focuses debate on private-sector
cost and adds debate time to discuss those costs, my amendment does
exactly what the bill and its supporters have been calling for.
But unlike the bill, my amendment does not allow debate to be short-
circuited. Unlike the bill, my amendment will not mean the end of truly
open rules. Unlike the bill, my amendment does not give industry a
procedural trump denied to its consumers, its communities, and its
employees. And unlike the bill, my amendment does not change the rules
of the House to unfairly favor one side of an argument. Openness and
fairness, that is what my amendment is all about.
Now, I already know all too well what kind of arguments we are going
to hear in response to this amendment, so let me deal with them one by
one.
First, we are going to hear that this amendment would gut the bill.
That is an old saw trotted out every time.
Again, the bill still has a point of order against private mandates
on all types of measures and it provides for more focused, better-
informed debate. Every stated goal of the bill has been addressed. What
those who charge us with gutting the bill really mean is that the bill
will no longer bias the rules of the House, a goal they have not
exactly been trumpeting.
Second, we are going to hear that our amendment somehow does not
require the House to be accountable for its actions. This is an odd
one.
Under my amendment, we still will vote on each and every bill and
amendment that comes before the House, and will do so after having had
fuller debate than provided for in H.R. 350.
Look at the bills that are at stake in this debate: Minimum wage.
Health protections. Environmental protections. Does any Member feel
they have not been accountable for their vote on these issues?
When they make this accountability argument, the proponents are
claiming, in effect, that somehow the House has escaped accountability
for the past 210 years because we have lacked this new point of order.
Does anyone really accept that?
What proponents really mean when they say we have not been
accountable is that they do not always like the way the votes have
turned out. If Members oppose measures that impose costs on industry,
they ought to vote against them. If Members oppose individual
provisions in bills, they ought to offer amendments and force votes on
those provisions. That is how the Constitution makes us accountable.
What we ought not do is change the rules of the House to favor one
side of a debate that has not been able to prevail every time they
wanted to under normal procedures. This is also what proponents mean
when they say that our amendment does not have any teeth. I always say,
when someone tells us their bill has teeth, who are they trying to
bite?
The teeth in H.R. 350 are a vote that is designed to do one thing and
only one thing, shut down debate on any measure that someone claims
will cost industry money.
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 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the teeth in H.R. 350 are a vote that is
designed to do one thing and only one thing, and that is to shut down
debate on any measure that someone claims will cost industry money,
regardless of the evidence on cost, regardless of the benefits,
regardless of the public purpose to be served, regardless of whether
some companies support the measure.
Our amendment has teeth in the sense that it will accomplish its
intended goal: creating more debate, creating more debate on alleged
private-sector mandates. But our amendment will not try to injure those
who support protections for the environment, for public health and
public safety.
Again, I urge Members to read the bill. The vote in the bill is
needed because there are no objective criteria for determining the
validity of their point of order and because, without the vote, one
side will not be able to intimidate the other.
Mr. Chairman, the details of this debate are complex but the basic
questions it raises are simple. First, does the House want to have more
debate and better-informed debate and better-focused debate on private
mandates? If the answer to that is yes, and I think it is, then Members
should support the Boehlert amendment because that is exactly what we
provide.
{time} 1045
Second, does the House want to change the fundamental rules of the
House so that in every case there is a presumption that laws to protect
the environment, and health, and public safety are a bad idea? I think
the answer to that is no, and that is why my amendment is needed. H.R.
350, Mr. Chairman, would quite simply change the rules of the House so
that any law that might cost any industry more than $100 million would
face extra hurdles to passage and would get less debate regardless of
any other consideration.
Finally, H.R. 350 is a bill that biases House procedures to an extent
that would even have made gilded age legislators blush. I think the
House ought to have free, fair and open debate, and that is what the
Boehlert amendment would ensure, and I urge its passage.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment
of my friend from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment, by removing the
vote which would give this House an opportunity to decide whether it
wanted to proceed on a bill, takes all of the enforcement measures out
of the bill and returns us to the status quo ante that is anti 1996. In
1996, my colleagues will recall, we passed unfunded mandates on the
public sector. We said if we are going to impose costs on other
government entities, we ought to know what it was, and if it exceeded
$50 million across the country, we would have a debate on that and then
vote as to whether to proceed. We did not shut down anything. Since
January 1 of 1996 there have been seven times when the
[[Page H548]]
point of order has been raised, and all seven times this House listened
to both sides determined to move forward with the bill and pass the
bill. The language that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
would like to insist on would leave us right where we are right now.
Since 1983, according to the CBO director in testimony before the
Committee on Rules, the CBO has been doing analysis on how Federal
legislation would affect State and local governments and the private
sector. But as they told us in the hearing, nobody paid attention to it
because there are no teeth in the measure, and indeed at the CBO these
estimates became a low priority because they knew no one was paying
attention to it. To argue that this would unfairly bias the debate in
favor of one side or the other is also a silly argument, looking back
at the seven times when the point of order has been imposed or asserted
in the past 3 years.
We will also hear throughout this debate that while we will be
discussing the cost to the private sector, which is under the bill if
it imposes $100 million in costs on the private sector, it is then
amenable to a point of order. We will hear them say we will be
discussing the costs, but not the benefits. That presumes arguments
occur in vacuums, and this has not happened in this House in the past 3
years. The reason we will have these arguments is because there will be
a huge argument on behalf of the benefits, on behalf of the need to
move forward, while others will just be saying but be aware of what
costs we are imposing on the private sector.
In my view this is only fair. For too many years, for far too many
years, this Congress has voted for warm and fuzzy good things and chose
not to tax the American people for it, to pass those burdens on to
other levels of government or the private sector. We think that it is
only fair if we are going to pursue good things, whether they are warm
and fuzzy or not, that we ought to know how much it costs. A simple
example of this is not the private sector, but it was discussed this
morning in a meeting, was that years ago this House decided that we
would impose mandates for special education on the local school
systems. Good idea, probably necessary idea, but the bill also said
that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the costs for that.
We have never ever funded that. We just passed that on to my
colleagues' communities throughout their districts, and their school
systems are paying that. We would have had a point of order against
that, had it occurred in the last 3 years under the Portman-Condit
legislation that we passed. We also think it is fair that we have that
same point of order and the opportunity to vote on it if we impose
burdens on the private sector.
I am curious to know why the gentleman from New York is so worried
about an open discussion and the need to be taking a stand on these
issues with respect to a vote to move forward. It has not stopped any
other legislation in the past, but it has done a couple of things.
Committees now are aware of costs they are imposing and think through
the legislation that they are writing. In the past they were not doing
that even under the testimony from the Congressional Budget Office
director. We think that is good because a lot of things do happen in
this town that are unknown in terms of its impact on both the private
sector and the public sector. We ought to know that. We ought to
discuss it.
All of this, all this bill is going to do, is to say it is just as
important not to burden the private sector with our wishes as it is the
public sector, and if we are going to burden them, at least know that
we are doing it, move to vote to move forward. The Boehlert amendment
would eliminate that vote which, of course, he knows is to take away
the teeth from the bill, and I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Boehlert's
amendment takes away the very thing that makes this bill successful,
and that is accountability. This bill is about accountability, about
making the House accountable for the legislation that we pass. The bill
is real simple.
Mr. Chairman, if there is an unfunded mandate of $100 million, one
can raise a point of order and have a debate, a debate about the
mandate. Does not mean that stops the mandate; we have the prerogative
to stop it or proceed. But what Mr. Boehlert does today is take away
the real meat behind this thing, the hammer behind the thing, the thing
that makes it work, and that is accountability.
This is about accountability. We, as Members of the House, should not
have any fear to have a debate about the cost of a mandate and then
have the responsibility to make a decision whether or not the mandate
is worthwhile, whether or not we should proceed, and if it is worthy of
our vote, Mr. Chairman, then we vote for it, and then we proceed with
the bill.
In 1995, we passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It has
been successful. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) alluded to,
when we had Mr. Blum, the director of CBO, in before us, and Mr. Linder
asked a few questions, Mr. Blum said that the real reason this works is
because of the point of order because we have accountability, and let
me just encourage the Members to not be fearful of that. The more
information that we have, the better decisions we make, and we are all
accountable one way or the other so we ought to at least demonstrate
that by allowing us to have this point of order and a vote if it is
required.
It is a real simple bill, simply lets us have a debate, lets us have
accountability for the actions that we take, and I would encourage all
Members to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) offered a similar amendment last year, a little different.
Last year he did not want to have any debate on amendments. This year
he wants to have full open debate, so I am not real sure where he
really is on this issue, but I would encourage my colleagues to defeat
this amendment so that we can proceed ahead and enact this unfunded
mandate legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment
today, and I got to say as one of the co-authors of the bill, this is
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit's) legislation, but as one of
the co-authors, this amendment is not consistent with the purposes or
intent of the legislation, it is just not because the purpose, as Mr.
Condit just said, is to have true accountability.
Now the author of the amendment talks a lot about the fact that we
would still have focused and informed debate, but we need to look at
the record. Three and a half years ago this House passed the Unfunded
Mandates Relief Act. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) just
talked about it. It puts this same procedure in place, although frankly
this one is not as onerous for the House; same procedure in place with
regard to having a debate and a vote. That, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, according to all the outside observers,
many of whom frankly were not in support of the original legislation,
has been the necessary teeth; yes, the teeth, in the legislation that
forced the committees to do what we are all trying to get at here,
which is to send better, more responsible legislation to the floor that
takes into account the costs of unfunded mandates. Without having a
debate and a vote on the floor of the House, Mr. Chairman, we are
simply not going to have the kind of discipline we are looking for and
the kind of, again, better informed debate and, in the end, more
responsible legislation.
Let me quote from the CBO testimony just a couple of weeks ago before
the Committee on Rules. They said that before proposed legislation is
marked up, committee staffs and individual Members are increasingly
requesting our analysis about whether the legislation would create any
new federal mandates and, if so, whether their costs would exceed the
thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. So that is
with regard to the public sector. In many instances, I continue, CBO is
able to inform the sponsor about the existence of a mandate and provide
informal guidance about how the proposal might be restructured to
eliminate the mandate or reduce the cost of the mandate. That use of
the Unfunded Mandate Relief
[[Page H549]]
Act early in the legislative process, early in the legislative process,
Mr. Chairman, appears to have had an effect on the number and burden of
intergovernmental mandates in enacted legislation.
That is the whole point. Yes, if we take out the debate and the vote,
we do take away the teeth that makes this legislation so important in
terms of getting to better legislation on the floor of the House in a
more informed debate by the Members.
Let me also respond to something else that the sponsor of the
legislation, the proposed amendment, said. He said that if the Chair
ruled that it was all right, then we would have 20 minutes of debate
but no vote and indicated that the Chair, rather than the Members,
should make that decision. Again, this is not the intent of the
legislation, nor is it consistent with what the parliamentarian, what
the Committee on Rules, what others who have on run this place day to
day believe is the right way to go. We do not want to put the Chair in
that position. We want to put the Members in that position.
Let us recall that in the end after a 20-minute debate it is the will
of that House that prevails. If the will of the House is to go ahead,
notwithstanding the mandate with the legislation, which has happened
seven out of seven times with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act over the
last few years, and again we have a record here, my colleagues, then
the House simply proceeds. But let us not put that responsibility,
which is a weighty responsibility, with the Chair. Let us keep it with
the Members of this houses. All this says in the end is that, yes, the
House should have better information on substantial new mandates on the
private sector, and, yes, we ought to be held accountable for how we
feel about those substantial new mandates. It does not mean we are not
going to mandate; we are, and we have, and we even have on the public
sector, and we will continue to, I am sure. But we have better
legislation on the floor, we have a better, more informed debate on the
floor, and we have accountability to our constituents, both those who
do not want additional mandates and those who think that the benefits
of the legislation outweigh the mandate. That is the point of this
legislation; it is good government.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to look carefully at this amendment
and the fact that indeed it does gut the legislation, it is not
consistent with the intended purpose of the bill, and with all due
respect to my good friend from New York who I know is sincere about his
interests in making this House work better, it does, in fact, lead us
to the point where we would not have the informed debate and we would
not have the accountability measure that is so important in this
legislation.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, about 25 years ago I read a fascinating book called The
Ascent of Man, and the book fundamentally was about the evolution of
man's relationship to the advancement of science, and there was the
chapter in that book called:
Knowledge or Certainty: Which Do You Strive For; Knowledge or
Certainty?
In this floor, in this democratic process that we have here in the
U.S. House of Representatives, we have fundamentally in the democratic
process an exchange of information with a sense of tolerance for
someone else's opinion and then we vote. We do not have an exchange of
certainty, and then cut off debate and then we vote. We have an
exchange of information.
With the underlying legislation here, with the bill of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit)
it is my judgment that we have a very short debate on the mandate, on
the cost to the private sector, and then we stop debate on the
underlying legislation. We stop debate on that particular issue, and I
want to talk about that in just a second.
{time} 1100
Under the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), we
have an opportunity to not only debate the legislation, whether it
deals with the important aspects of clean air, clean water, health or a
whole range of issues, but we also can talk about the issue of the cost
to the private sector. We have both included in the amendment of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), which I think is vital.
Yes, we do not want to overburden the private sector with excessive,
unnecessary costs, but we want to make sure that the private sector is
part of the Nation's policy of preserving our economic structure and
preserving the Nation's health and safety and the quality of life to
its citizens.
The underlying bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) takes the legislation that might
deal with clean air and it cuts that legislation off, cuts the debate
off on that legislation, and then simply talks about the mandate to the
private sector.
What the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does
is carry on the debate of the unfunded mandate and the expense to the
private sector, but also includes the important debate, the exchange of
information, the acquisition of knowledge about the importance of that
particular legislation.
Let me give an example, the Chesapeake Bay: Forty percent of the
pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is from air deposition. What does that
mean? Forty percent of the pollution from the Chesapeake Bay comes from
the Midwest and comes from places like Baltimore City, but comes from
industry and comes from automobiles.
Now, if you want to clean up the smokestacks to the factories, which
we are trying to do with the Clean Air Act, and try to eliminate much
of the emissions from automobiles, which we are trying to do with the
Clean Air Act, of course, that is expensive, and I would dare say costs
the Nation over $100 million.
But what are we going to do about the nutrient overload from the
Chesapeake Bay? What do we get from the Chesapeake Bay as far as
economic rebound and economic vitality? We get a huge fishing industry,
we get a huge recreational industry, we get enormous sums as a result
of the clean water in the Chesapeake Bay. That should also be included
in the debate.
How about discussions on sewage treatment plants, outflows from all
kinds of commercial activities? In 1898, if you compared oyster
production in the Chesapeake Bay to 1998, 99 percent of it is gone.
Ninety-nine percent of the oyster production in the Chesapeake Bay. We
get 1 percent of what we used to get 100 years ago, and much of that is
because the oysters are gone, but the most important factor in that
statement is that many of the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay cannot be
eaten because of the problems from outflows from all kinds of sources.
The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does not
cut off debate on the problem of the cost to the private sector. That
debate can flourish and continue.
The amendment of gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Condit) cuts off debate on how we can understand
the need to acquire knowledge for us to reduce the pollution to the
Chesapeake Bay, for us to make sure about the air we breathe, because
of the increasing numbers of people in this country that are coming
down with asthma.
I do not want to sound like an alarmist up here or that this is the
most important thing that we have to do immediately, but I want to go
back to the first statement that I made: The fundamentals of democracy
are an exchange of information, the acquisition of knowledge, tolerance
for other people's opinions.
I urge an ``aye'' vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the comments of the previous
speaker, and I wanted to pursue his thinking on this matter.
As I understand the bill before us, it would provide for an
opportunity to debate the question of whether there is a mandate and
then have a separate vote on whether we are going to proceed with the
issue that would result in the mandate.
Is it the gentleman's concern that forcing a vote on whether to
proceed on the mandate would stop the debate on
[[Page H550]]
the underlying, let's say, environmental provision that might require
private businesses to do something?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly right. That is my
concern. I think we can have both. I would like to have a discussion on
the cost to the private sector, but certainly on the need for the
legislation. That debate should continue as well.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
concern that is being expressed that we do not want to clutter up the
legislative process with votes, although I will be offering an
amendment shortly, if there is an opportunity for it, that would
require another vote if we are going to have an amendment that would
weaken existing environmental legislation, so we can give the focus of
attention on that issue and understand the consequences and then have a
separate vote on it.
I understand what is being said on this question of whether the
debate would be cut off. I do not think that was the intention, but I
have heard what the gentleman from Maryland has to say and what the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has to say, and I am really
concerned that we end up in that kind of situation where we do not get
to the debate of the underlying proposal. It need not work that way.
But I think the Boehlert amendment does prevent us from getting into
that kind of a situation. I will support the amendment for that reason.
I think if it allows a greater debate, that is so important to this
body.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is exactly the purpose of my amendment. The base
bill would limit debate; my amendment would expand debate. The base
bill would terminate discussion; my amendment would continue
discussion.
Of course we have to factor in the cost to industry, but we also have
to factor in the benefits to public health, to the environment, to all
these very important things. That is why organizations like the
American Lung Association are so much in support of my amendment,
because they want this open discussion on what the implications are of
our actions on the public's health. Every family wants to know how it
is going to affect that family.
Of course we have to consider the cost to industry, but we also have
to consider the benefit to public health for the American families.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for that clarification of what he are trying to accomplish.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing the very
thoughtful and eloquent gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of the
small businessmen and women throughout America. Small businesses are
responsible for two out of three new jobs created in America today. The
underlying legislation, the Mandates Information Act, among its other
attributes, provides additional protection for small businesses of
America that have borne the brunt of unreasonable and costly Federal
mandates for far too long.
This legislation would simply give Members the right to raise a point
of order to any legislation that would result in costs of more than
$100 million for private entities, so it is important that we move
forward with this legislation to protect small businesses.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for
his contribution. I would like to begin by expressing my special
commendation to my very dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), and to thank the gentleman for the fact that over the last
several weeks he has worked with us to try and address his needs to
this bipartisan measure that is before us. But it saddens me that
despite the gentleman's efforts, I am compelled to oppose the amendment
as we have discussed.
I do so for two reasons: One, because it attempts to fix a problem
that really does not exist; and, two, because, quite frankly, if it is
adopted, it would kill a very carefully balanced and, as I said,
bipartisan measure. It has been put together really over the last
several years through efforts of our colleagues, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
H.R. 350 is nearly identical to the bipartisan legislation that
passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 279 to 132.
At the core of H.R. 350 are two mutually dependent objectives. The
first requires committees and the Congressional Budget Office to
provide more complete information about the cost of proposed mandates
on the private sector.
The second ensures accountability by permitting a separate debate and
vote on the consideration of legislation containing private sector
mandates exceeding $100 million annually. Any amendments that weaken
one of these objectives effectively undermines the other.
I would say to my friend that one of the important things that needs
to be pointed out here is that the amendment does not in any way expand
debate time. That is something that we in the Committee on Rules will
be doing, and I am sure that when debate needs to be made in order, we
in the Committee on Rules want to do everything we can to ensure that
Members have a chance to do that.
For example, without permitting a separate debate and vote on a
costly mandate, little incentive exists for committees to avoid the
point of order by working with the affected groups to develop cost
effective alternatives.
This point was made by the Acting Director of the Congressional
Budget Office in testimony before our Committee on Rules last week. He
said, ``Before proposed legislation is marked up, committee staff and
individual Members are increasingly requesting our analysis about
whether the legislation would create any new Federal mandates, and, if
so, whether their costs would exceed the threshold set by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. 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 eliminate the mandate or
reduce its cost. That use of UMRA early in the legislative process
appears to have had an effect on the number and burden of
intergovernmental mandates in enacted legislation.''
I think that states it very clearly, Mr. Chairman. The procedures of
the House provide sufficient protection against dilatory efforts to
thwart debate on legislation that the majority of Members have agreed
to debate by virtue of adopting a special rule.
Moreover, the Committee on Rules spent two years developing, as I
said, a bipartisan plan which was adopted as the opening day rules
package to streamline and simplify the rules of the House, to make them
easier to understand and more user friendly.
The Boehlert amendment will simply recomplicate the rules of the
House in a well-meaning attempt to fix, as I said in my opening, a
problem that does not exist.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). The time of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was allowed to proceed for 1\1/2\
additional minutes.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 350 is carefully balanced to guarantee
that the House is able to work its will, while providing a meaningful
way to ensure that we here in the House can work our will while
meaningfully providing a way to ensure that Congress acknowledges and
fully debates the consequences of new mandates on consumers, workers
and small businesses.
Such mandates cost businesses, as has been pointed out, consumers and
workers, about $700 billion annually, or about $7,000 per household.
That is about a third the size of the entire Federal budget.
[[Page H551]]
It is important to note that H.R. 350 does nothing to roll back
existing mandates, nor does it prevent the enactment of additional
mandates. As written in section 2 of the bill, ``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.''
Let me say that one more time, as I did during the rules debate.
``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.''
In other words, Mr. Chairman, 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.
I urge my colleagues not to undermine this very sound, bipartisan
legislation. So I am compelled to urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment
offered by my friend from New York.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to H.R.
350, the Mandates Reform Act. I believe the Boehlert amendment makes a
good bill even better. This amendment accomplishes the bill's goals of
adding more focused, better informed debate on measures that would cost
industry money.
I support free, fair open and informed debate on the costs and
benefits of all legislation. The Boehlert amendment ensures this will
happen. It also leaves entirely intact the provisions of concerned
states and local governments about unfunded Federal mandates.
{time} 1115
If the Chair rules that the CBO has determined that the measure will
cost the private sector more than $100 million, we will debate the
costs and the benefits. Without this amendment, no evidence of cost is
needed to raise a point of order. Anyone who opposes protecting the
health of our children could stop legislation with no evidence of the
costs.
With the Boehlert amendment, we could continue to protect local
government from unfunded Federal mandates by eliminating unnecessary
and hidden costs. This will be done by fair and open debate on the
issues, and without unduly slowing down the legislative process.
The Boehlert amendment protects taxpayers, the economy, and the
environment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules just said from the well that this bill will enhance
the awareness of the cost of the bill without in any way compromising
or adversely affecting environmental, public health or safety
considerations.
Let me suggest that I share his goal in enhancing awareness of the
cost of the bill, but the bill is sadly deficient in terms of the
potential benefits, and that is why every environmental public health
and safety organization is strongly endorsing my amendment. They want
more debate, not less. They want to continue discussion, not terminate
it. That is what this is all about: full, open, and fair debate.
I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for this
important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 216, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 15]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H552]]
NOT VOTING--8
Carson
Conyers
Ewing
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Mollohan
Rush
Spratt
{time} 1139
Messrs. LIVINGSTON, HANSEN, and REYNOLDS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. KLECZKA and Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1145
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 10, 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 10, 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 18, 20, 22, and 24, 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 23, strike ``and''.
Page 6, line 25, strike the period and insert ``and''.
Page 6, after line 25, 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 16, strike ``one point'' and insert ``two
points'' and on line 18, 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 the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are considering today
would set the procedural hurdles in the way of legislation that would
mandate requirements on private businesses, what are called unfunded
mandates.
The underlying rationale of the legislation is that the Congress
ought to be sure of all the impacts of legislation before a vote is
taken, especially if we are going to have an unfunded mandate.
The amendment that I am offering in no way changes the underlying
legislation. My amendment does not weaken H.R. 350 in any way. I want
to repeat that so that there is no confusion about what we are doing in
offering what we call the defense of the environment amendment. We do
not change any of the procedural provisions in the Condit-Portman bill.
We do not affect how the bill would work for any new private-sector
mandates.
Instead, what my amendment would do would merely extend the same
protections to other issues that are of great importance to the
American people, requirements that had been established under existing
law to protect the public health, safety, and the environment.
This amendment is based on legislation that is called the Defense of
the Environment Act, which is supported by every major environmental
group and the AFL-CIO and other outside organizations as well. Because
if we are going to consider repealing current environmental or public
health protections or safety protections or worker protections, we
ought to do so with full information and adequate consideration.
It is the same rationale for the underlying bill. It is just common
sense. It addresses a serious problem with the way environmental policy
has been determined over the last 4 years.
During the last two Congresses, when we looked at environmental
legislation, we did not get a chance to consider it separately, to
debate it on its merits, and then to vote on anti-environmental riders.
What we had were provisions attached to appropriations bills or other
must-pass pieces of legislation.
What resulted often was absolutely no debate or consideration by the
committee of jurisdiction. What also happened was that we did not get a
chance to have a debate or vote on the House floor.
Just as the authors of this bill do not want us to pass mandates on
the private sector without a chance for consideration and a vote, we
feel the same procedural assurances ought to be given to those who are
concerned about repealing existing laws that affect environment,
safety, and public health.
Let me talk about some of the examples that have happened in the last
couple of Congresses. We had anti-environmental riders that increased
clear-cut logging in our national forests. We had riders that would
have crippled protection of the endangered species and stall the
Superfund program. We had provisions that would have hindered our
ability to ensure the groundwater protection from contamination from
old nuclear facilities. We have blocked the regulation of radioactive
contaminants in drinking water and delayed our efforts to clean up air
pollution in the national parks.
The defense of the environment amendment would not prohibit the House
from taking any of these steps or passing any of these measures, but it
would guarantee that we at least have the option of having an informed
debate and a separate vote on these proposals. It would at least give
us an opportunity to protect our clean air laws, our clean water laws,
our toxic waste laws, and all of our laws that protect health and
safety of workers and our families.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was surprised when this amendment was
narrowly defeated last year because it would take the same philosophy
for unfunded mandates, for economic considerations, and apply it to
other equally important values.
I want to emphasize again this amendment would not prohibit Congress
from repealing or amending any environmental law. It places no new
burdens on any business, State, individual, or federal agency. It would
simply bring an informed debate and accountability to the process.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question the American people want Congress
to protect public health and environment. The environment and our
Nation's public health is just as important to them as unfunded
mandates.
Over the years, we have seen that, when Congress legislates in a
deliberate, collegial, and 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 of my colleagues to support this amendment and guarantee
that Congress does not unknowingly jeopardize America's public health
and the environment. I urge support for this legislation.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waxman amendment because it
creates a hurdle in this legislation that need not be. He argues that
when benefits arise from an action of Congress it
[[Page H553]]
does not have the same debate as the cost, and that is simply just not
a fair or honest argument, simply because nobody brings a bill to the
floor for benefits without making that the base of the entire bill.
The basis of the entire bill for bringing benefits to our
constituents or the consumer is the basis of the argument and the
debate. All we are saying in this bill is if that benefit one wants to
give to the consumers or to the constituents in their district imposes
costs on the private sector, that we are unwilling to tax our
constituents to pay, that ought to be subject to a point of order for
debate. That is all, subjected to a point of order for debate.
We are interested, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
said, in putting hurdles in the way of imposing costs on the private
sector; hurdles, not roadblocks, not stoppages but hurdles.
As I said in the debate over the previous amendment, the 1995
legislation that enacted unfunded mandates legislation with respect to
$50 million of cost on the private sector went into effect on the 1st
of January 1996.
We have had 3 years to see the benefits of that provision. On seven
occasions, I think it is four by one party and three by another party,
the point of order has been raised. In all seven cases, this House
voted. After listening to the debate in terms of the cost imposed on
the public sector or local or state governments on the one hand and the
benefits of the legislation on the other hand, this House moved on
seven occasions to move forward with the debate and voted indeed on
those mandates.
An argument has been made that we have imposed burdens and
restrictions on environmental issues through riders on bills, but those
riders are already subject to a point of order. That is legislating on
an appropriations measure.
There is in the rule book of this House a provision that says any
legislating in an appropriations bill is subject to a point of order.
That has already been handled.
There is no question in some instances there has been a waiver of
those points. That is a debate for the Committee on Rules and that
debate is carried out between the two parties and between the opposing
views in the Committee on Rules before those riders or those points of
order are waived.
Lastly, let me just deal with an argument that has come up over and
over in both the Committee on Rules hearings and the Committee on Rules
debate and on this floor. We are told that this is an effort to repeal
current environmental health and safety measures. That is simply not
the case.
I am reminded of a comment made by, I believe it was Aldous Huxley,
who, in responding to an argument, he said, your argument is not right.
It is not even wrong. It is irrelevant.
Those points are simply irrelevant to this bill. What we are only
saying is, legislation that is good for the safety, the health or the
environment of our constituents will get to this floor. It will have a
broad debate on the benefits but if it imposes costs on the private
sector, costs that we are unwilling to step up to the plate on this
floor and vote for in terms of taxes on our constituents, we ought to
have the debate on that, too.
We ought to have an informed debate. We ought to make a vote on the
floor of this House to move forward with that debate on the benefits of
the bill so that not only this House but the rest of the world will
know that we know we are imposing those costs; we think that the
benefits outweigh costs and we are willing to move ahead anyway.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is an effort to slow down
progress; to do for the private sector what we have already done for
the public sector. I urge a no vote on the Waxman amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I support the idea behind requiring
full disclosure of unfunded mandates in the private sector. Giving
Members more information about votes they are preparing to cast only
can improve our legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a one-sided bill. It creates a
hurdle for bills which impose new requirements on private industry but
it does nothing to bills which remove existing requirements.
By doing so, it takes the side of the industry over the American
public. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The Waxman amendment gives the same protection to the welfare of the
American public as it does to the wallets of American industry. It
requires Members to stop and think before eliminating laws that protect
health and safety; just as the bill before us requires Members to stop
and think before adding laws to protect public health and safety.
Mr. Chairman, if one has to slow down before adding a law, one should
have to slow down before removing one.
The idea of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is a very good
one, which is supported by the Center of Marine Conservation, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the
National Resource Defense Council, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, the Sierra Club, the United States Public Interest
Group, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of
America, Consumers Union, Public Citizens and the American Public
Health Association, just to name a few.
My colleagues may wonder how an amendment could have garnered the
support of such an impressive list of public interest groups. The
answer is very simple. This is a good amendment.
{time} 1200
Over the last four years, my Republican colleagues have engaged in a
very dangerous policy of attaching what are known as environmental
riders to bills that must be passed. And my colleague and my friend
from the Committee on Rules said that ``Of course, but the rules
already stop that,'' but I can show the Members many Committee on Rules
debates where they are replete with waivers of these so-called
environmental additions.
These bad pieces of legislation, which normally would die if left to
stand alone, hitch a ride on a very important piece of legislation. And
by riding on this very important piece of legislation, these bills
manage to slip by nearly unnoticed. That is, Mr. Chairman, until it is
too late.
Some of the riders which have particularly devastating effects on the
people of Massachusetts include riders to stop the regulation of
radioactive contaminants in drinking water, riders to stall the
Superfund program, riders to lessen energy-efficient standards, and
riders to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from making sure
old nuclear facilities do not contaminate groundwater.
In short, Mr. Chairman, these environmental riders are so dangerous
to public health and public safety that no American citizen without a
personal financial interest in increasing pollution would support them.
The Waxman amendment says Congress should stop and think before
dismantling our environmental protections and our workers' protections.
His amendment does not create any new burdens on businesses, it does
not prevent Congress from repealing any laws, and it does not impose
any new costs. If a majority of the Congress still wants to pass bills
to lessen requirements on businesses, it can do so. This amendment just
gives the American people a fighting chance.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of the action on the last amendment, which
passed by the narrowest of margins, we are now confronted with a bill
that will indeed create new points of order. I do not think it is a
very good idea. But I strongly believe that if we are going to create
new points of order, they should be balanced. It is that fundamental
sense of fairness that lies behind the Waxman amendment.
H.R. 350 would make it more difficult to pass laws that protect
health and safety and the environment. If we are going to do that, we
ought to create an additional point of order that will make it harder
to pass bills that would weaken health and safety and environmental
protections. The Waxman amendment would accomplish precisely that.
[[Page H554]]
For that reason, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
To be frank, I preferred my approach to remedying this bill. Ideally,
the House should not use points of order as a substitute for
substantive debate. But my amendment was defeated. And so now we are
confronted with a bill that will indeed create new points of order.
And the Waxman amendment would have an additional benefit. The
amendment would put an end to the use of riders to weaken environmental
protections. Under the Waxman amendment, legislative provisions that
weaken existing law would be subject to a vote--even if they were stuck
in an appropriations bill or conference report. No longer would anti-
environmental riders be used to slip through legislation that could not
possibly pass if it were considered as a free-standing bill.
Now, the House in recent years has kept its riders to a minimum, and
I know that that restraint will continue under the Speaker Hastert. But
the other body has not always felt so reluctant, and riders have
continued to appear in conference reports.
I think the new point of order provided by the Waxman amendment will
help leadership achieve its goals of keeping riders off spending bills.
I urge my colleagues to support this ``Defense of the Environment''
amendment. It will correct the imbalance in H.R. 350. It will end the
use of riders to weaken environmental protections. It will ensure that
the House has open and thorough debate on measures that would weaken
laws and rules that protect the public.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the
Waxman ``Defense of the Environment Act'' amendment to H.R. 350. It is
about time we pass this amendment. Democrats and moderate Republicans
are sick of the stealth attacks on environmental protection that
continue to delay consideration of one appropriations bill after
another, year in and year out.
The Waxman amendment would begin to reverse these stealth tactics by
requiring any bill reported out of committee that might reduce
environmental protection to identify and assess these provisions. The
amendment will also allow for open debate and votes on legislation that
removes or weakens environmental health and safety laws.
Mr. Chairman, in previous years the Republican majority has attempted
to quietly attach a number of anti-environmental riders to the annual
appropriations bill, often at the last minute. Not only is no one
supposed to be able to legislate on an appropriations bill, but such
riders prevent an open and honest debate on measures that would have
great impacts on environmental natural resources, resources that most
people in this country value greatly.
As I am sure we all remember from years past, similar efforts by the
majority to gut the environment came to no good, eventually resulting
in a governmental shutdown in 1995. Last year, again, so much time was
wasted trying to search out these bad riders, bring them to the
public's attention, face presidential veto threats, and reexamine these
bills that the Congress only finished its business after introducing
several continuing resolutions.
But the majority has been found out. Citizens of this country realize
that these special-interest riders would never pass as freestanding
legislation because the measures would, at best, result in wasteful
spending and unnecessary delays in addressing critical environmental
problems and, at worst, result in substantial devastation to natural
resources by permitting logging in national forests, allowing
helicopters to fly over natural wilderness areas, or approving
construction of roads through national parks and other delicate
ecosystems, just to mention a few.
That is why the Republican majority continues to take a back-door
approach to rolling back environmental protections, that is, by trying
to sneak in special-interest riders as provisions of other more
overarching bills. Last year they tried to insert a record number of
over 40 stealth riders, some of which would have had devastating
effects on the environment.
We have to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and end these stealth
attempts to destroy the environment. Appropriations bills should be
addressed in an open, honest debate. The Waxman amendment would force
an open debate and an independent vote on every rider that attempts to
weaken 25 years of environmental protection in this country. It would
not necessarily prevent such riders from passing, but it would ensure
that the public was made aware of these issues that otherwise are
literally added into multi-billion dollar appropriations packages at
the eleventh hour. It also would ensure that the public knew how
Members voted on each one of these riders.
Mr. Chairman, we must safeguard our natural resources for ourselves
and our children and expose the Republican majority's efforts to derail
our appropriations process. We must begin now by voting ``yes'' on this
important amendment before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Waxman amendment.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that the use
of riders on an appropriations bill is hardly a new invention of the
last four years. The Vietnam War funding was ended by a Democrat rider
on an appropriations bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, if I could take back my time and point out
that now is the time to stop the process, and I think the Waxman
amendment will go far towards making sure that there is an open debate
on these issues and not having this stealth process continue.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us really has very little
to do with the legislation that is on the floor. In fact, I came and
asked staff why this amendment was even germane to the legislation that
is before us. And evidently there is a tangential germaneness because
of the tie-in to CBO, but that very tie-in is the reason we ought to
oppose this amendment, CBO.
The amendment of the gentleman would require the Congressional Budget
Office to make a subjective determination of whether a bill or
provision in a bill weakens or strengthens any environmental or public
health law. Mr. Chairman, the CBO is not equipped to make that kind of
subjective determination. That is a matter for debate on this floor,
debate in the committees of jurisdiction, not a matter for the CBO to
determine and provide some subjective analysis that will be tacked onto
a bill that somebody can read on the floor. CBO is there to provide
objective economic analysis, which is what the underlying bill asked
them to do with respect to any bill that might affect in an economic
way the private sector.
So this amendment, while we are not going to object to the
germaneness, really has nothing to do with the underlying bill and it
ought to be rejected because it asks the CBO to do something that CBO
is not designed or equipped to do.
Any debate on whether a bill affects adversely an existing public
health policy or piece of legislation concerning the environment ought
to be debated among the Members of the House here on the floor and in
committee.
So I would ask the Members to reject the Waxman amendment, A, because
it has nothing to do with the underlying legislation; B, it adds
nothing to the legislation; C, it is bad policy to ask the CBO to do
something that they are not supposed to do, they are not designed to
do.
So please, Mr. Chairman, allow me to urge our colleagues to come to
the floor, vote for common sense, let this underlying legislation pass,
and reject the Waxman amendment because it simply has no place on this
floor.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the ``Defense of the Environment''
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I want
to begin by responding to the analysis just made by the gentleman on
the other side.
His argument is that this analysis, this legislation, this amendment
requires an analysis by CBO that is too complex for CBO to undertake.
The truth is that the analysis is very simple because all that is
required of CBO
[[Page H555]]
is to identify, that is the word in the amendment, to ``identify'' any
provision which removes, prevents the imposition of, or 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.
That is all we are talking about. So that what CBO is being asked to
do is simply to identify a provision, and that I suggest is well within
its competence.
This amendment, the Waxman amendment, takes common-sense steps to
ensure that no legislation to weaken environmental protections can be
approved unless it is specifically considered and approved by the
House.
Despite a public outcry over the last four years, the majority has
tried to roll back environmental regulations. The 105th Congress saw
too many harmful riders tacked onto must-pass appropriations bills.
These hidden attempts to weaken our environmental laws only work
against the public interest.
I would like to cite one example that is very important to my home
State of Maine, and that is mercury pollution. Maine suffers some of
the worst mercury pollution in the United States, but Maine is not
alone. Thirty-nine states have already issued health advisories warning
the public about consuming fish containing mercury. In some States,
including Maine, every single lake, pond, stream, or river is under a
mercury advisory.
Now, why is this important? Last year's VA-HUD appropriations bill
contained language to prevent the EPA from taking steps, from taking
regulatory action to limit pollution. The EPA had already concluded
that there are serious health risks involved with mercury exposure and
that contamination is on the rise, but this language handcuffed the
agency from curbing harmful emissions.
We voted last year on that amendment, on an amendment that would have
removed this particular language. But the vast majority of these anti-
environmental riders do not receive adequate debate or a separate vote.
All environmentally harmful riders deserve our most careful scrutiny.
At the very least, we should ensure that the public knows where this
Congress stands on the important environmental issues that affect our
nation.
Now, I come from a State where George Mitchell and Ed Muskie helped
to write the clean air and clean water laws that now govern this
country, and I am not going to stand by and watch an attempt, under
cover of procedural laws, to try to unravel those protections. I think
that we need to ensure that the debate over environmental policy is
open and direct.
I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) for yielding.
The gentleman tried to make the case that CBO could make some sort of
objective analysis. The gentleman's last phrase in his description of
the requirements of the amendment were ``less stringent,'' any
provision that makes ``less stringent'' the environmental or public
health laws.
I would submit to the gentleman that that phrase ``less stringent''
can be in the eyes of the beholder. As testified to, in fact, by CBO in
hearings before the Committee on Rules on this amendment, CBO, the
witness, said whether the benefits exceed the cost. But in many
instances the benefits are in the eye of the beholder and are very
difficult to pin down in any kind of a quantitative means.
So CBO has testified that they are not equipped to do this, it is a
subjective analysis, and that ought to be left to the Members of the
House.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply point out
that the matter of identifying the effect of a regulation is a lot
easier than determining what the effect of the cost may be, trying to
evaluate the cost of particular legislation in the private sector. I
still believe this is the kind of relatively simple task that CBO can
perform.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting amendment. And my point is
simply, it does not fit here. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) just
talked about how CBO could do this. Talk to CBO and they will tell him,
what CBO does is objectively look at cost information. They objectively
look at economic information. This legislation is all about relying on
the Congressional Budget Office to do that so that we can, for the
first time, have better information and then have accountability as to
how we deal with that information. The Waxman amendment is a whole
other topic.
I just want to raise an alternative. When appropriations bills are on
the floor of the House and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and all the speakers who have
supported this have said this is really about appropriations bills,
they have focused, as I understand them, on the VA-HUD and other agency
appropriations bill, which is where EPA is.
Those are always taken up under open rules. There is certainly no
history that I am aware of since I have been here where it has not been
an open rule. It has never been restricted. We have restricted some
appropriations bills, and they have been the legislative branch bill
and the foreign ops bill, period. The others are open.
Any Member can offer a motion to strike. If there is an environmental
rider, which seems to be the focus of this amendment to legislation
that really does not relate to Mr. Waxman's concern, then any Member
can offer a motion to strike and knock that rider out and have a full
debate on it, and we do it regularly.
When we legislate on appropriations bills, even if the point of order
is waived, and of course we know there is a point of order on
legislating on appropriations bills, but even when it is waived by the
rule and even when rule passes, which would be two other opportunities
to have that happen, you still have that motion to strike.
{time} 1215
That is where we ought to be addressing these problems. We ought not
to be doing it in the context of the private sector or the public
sector mandates bill. It is an entirely different analysis. CBO will
tell us they cannot do it. They will ask these questions:
Okay, who is going to determine whether a mandate is actually
weakened?
Is that driven by a reduction in direct or indirect cost to the
private sector?
What if the private sector has become more efficient in implementing
the mandate? We all want to encourage that; do we not?
What if that has happened? How do we analyze that?
Are those costs netted out from the Congressional Budget Office
statement?
Is there some credit given to the private sector for doing that?
Cost reductions always mean benefits to healthy environment are
weakened? I thought the goal was to get the greatest benefit for the
least cost. That is what we say we encourage we want to do around here.
This process that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) sets up
indicates a direct relationship always between cost reductions and
weakened benefits, and that may or may not exist. It just does not fit
with this legislation. There are other ways to deal with it. We do so
in the House all the time through appropriation bills by offering a
motion to strike.
I would just say that again it is a very interesting debate we are
having, it is a topic that is worthy of debate. I know the gentleman is
sincere about his concern about riders on appropriation bills. This is
not the right place to bring up this legislation. We have worked with
CBO over the last 4 or 5 years on the public sector, now the private
sector legislation. We have worked with the parliamentarian. We have
done the hard work to come up with a balanced product. We have worked
with the Committee on Rules. A substantial majority of the Committee on
Rules has supported us in our efforts and refined this legislation. To
come to the floor with this amendment that changes the whole direction
of the bill and takes us off in another direction when it is not even
necessary because we can already do it under our
[[Page H556]]
rules seems to me to make no sense at all.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this House to look very carefully
at what is being done here and to ask themselves cannot this be done
through existing procedures, number one; and, number two, do we really
want to add this burden that cannot be done by the Congressional Budget
Office to this legislation making the legislation ultimately
unworkable?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment to the
Mandates Information Act and echo the sentiments of those who believe
that some of the greatest legislative efforts of this Nation, some of
our finest moments and hours of promoting social and economic progress,
have come from this body and, oftentimes, right off the floor of this
House. We have legislated in the public interest cleaner air, cleaner
water, enforced civil rights, protected public health and safety. We
have come a long way, and obviously we have made some progress in these
areas. But we still have a long way to go. It is my hope that during
this session of Congress we will debate issues like the Patients' Bill
of Rights, an increase in the minimum wage, defense of the environment
and other important measures. However this bill, this bill provides a
legislative vehicle, a opportunity for Members to maneuver around, kill
or delay important health and safety protections without directly
voting against them and without a full and fair debate. Mr. Chairman,
this bill inappropriately raises expense concerns above health and
safety in the public interest.
So I ask my colleagues: At what expense are we talking when we talk
about the cost of gambling away the health and safety of our Nation's
children, our Nation's workers, our families who rely upon basic
protections? We cannot put a cost on improving living and working
conditions. How high is high? How low is low?
Finally, this bill concentrates on the hardships placed on
businesses, but it completely ignores the benefits of feeding the
hungry, or looking after the needs of those who must have their health
and safety preserved, or improving the environment and our Nation's
precious natural resources, protecting public health and safety and
enforcing the rights of all of our citizens. Yes, we need to make sure
that we provide opportunity for businesses to grow and develop and
thrive, but we also need to make sure that we have the tools to vote on
these basic proposals on the basis of merit rather than hiding behind a
procedural vote or dealing with the process which oftentimes does not
let the public know exactly what it is we have done or what positions
we have taken.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the Waxman
amendment.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). As a former mayor,
I can tell my colleagues that the unfunded mandates law was one of the
most important reforms that Congress has ever passed. It was important
because it forced Congress to vote on new mandates that would be
imposed on our State and our local governments, and by forcing Congress
to vote on these mandates Congress would think before it mandated.
Some predicted that the effect of this law would be to undermine
health, safety and environmental laws. They were wrong. All that this
law did was to make Congress think before it mandates. Today this
bipartisan mandate reform legislation does the same thing. It makes
Congress stop and think before it imposes private sector mandates. It
will not stop us from imposing new laws to protect health, safety or
the environment. It will not stop any new laws. But what it will do is
require the Congress to vote on new private sector mandates that are
imposed on our small businessmen and women.
Like the unfunded mandates law, it requires us to think before we
mandate. The Waxman amendment removes the most important part of this
legislation, the requirement that Congress thinks before it mandates.
It eliminates the accountability provision, and this is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, as a mayor, a small business person and as a mother, I
strongly support a safer, healthier America. I will always support laws
that keep our air clean and our rivers healthy and our environment
safe. But today I stand before my colleagues because I have another
role. I am a representative, and I believe that all of us owe it to our
constituents to think before we impose new mandates on them.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Mandate Information Act
and against the Waxman amendment, and I will remind my colleagues the
following groups are scoring this amendment and this final vote:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
The National Federation of Independent Business,
The American Farm Bureau,
The Small Business Legislative Council,
Citizens for a Sound Economy,
The National Restaurant Association,
The National Retail Federation,
The Associated Builders and Contractors,
The American Subcontractors Association,
The National Association of the Self-employed,
The National Association of Manufacturers,
and the National Roofing Contractors Association.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. It is
an important amendment, and I think it is very consistent with the
underlying debate before us concerning unfunded mandates. Congress
should be required to pay close attention to the effect of legislation
on the environment and on public health just as it should be required
to pay close attention to the impacts of its decisions on the private
sector or the public sector as required in the previous legislation and
the legislation before us today.
This amendment is here because time and again we have seen matters of
the environment and public health come before the Congress with little
or no debate, in some instances with no underlying hearings.
Legislative riders that deal with the fundamental and basic underlying
environmental laws of this country are sneaked into the appropriations
bill. With no debate at all attempt is made to weaken these laws
concerning clean water, clean air, toxic waste, brown fields, forests,
safeguards and food safety. Time and again these matters have been
brought to the floor with no provisions in their rules for debate. Very
often we find that they are hidden away in the report language so we
cannot get to them when we debate them on the floor of the House of
Representatives and we cannot vote on these matters directly. We very
often find that we are limited in the time in which we can discuss
them, and they have huge impacts on our natural environment and our
public health and on taxpayers.
That is why we need the Waxman amendment, so we will have the
opportunity to discuss these critical issues in the light of day.
There are two reasons why these changes in environmental laws are
often not brought before the Congress in freestanding bills under the
legislative rules that would allow free and open debate on the
provisions. One is that the anti-environmental legislation would fail
if it stood on its own in the light of day as a freestanding
legislation. Yet it is that the majority party does not want to openly
be seen as trying to repeal Environmental Health Protection Act, so
rather than put up with the debate, put up with that characterization,
put up with the facts of the debate, they put this into appropriations
bill where the opportunities to debate are sometimes none and sometimes
very limited. Instead the majority party tucks these into the largest
bill, with the must-pass appropriation bills, into bills at the end of
the session, with total disregard for the impact on the environment,
and those are colleagues here in the House of Representatives. Very
often again these legislative riders are sent over to us in legislation
that comes from the Senate where again the opportunity is not debated.
We may have debated
[[Page H557]]
these riders openly here on the floor of the House, we may have knocked
out a number of these riders in the various appropriation bills, and
then in the omnibus bill at the end of the year these riders are
reinserted into that legislation, we are not given an opportunity to
debate them, and the legislation is passed because it is an up-or-down
vote.
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 environmental and public
health issues and have free and fair debate on those issues. Over the
last several years this has simply not been the case. Last year the
omnibus appropriation bill was riddled with anti-environmental riders,
preventing the tightening of the fuel economy stands, opening the
coastal barriers to development, increasing logging and enabling oil
and gas industries to escape paying what they owe the government. The
Waxman amendment is also critical because many of times in the
committee in which I serve, the Committee on Resources, legislation is
passed regarding the actions to be taken by the Federal Government or
private party, and the committee simply declares that those acts are
sufficient under the Endangered Species Act or sufficient under the
National Environmental Protection Act. The majority party in that case
has made no showing that they are in fact sufficient under either of
those acts. They simply declare without any debate, without discussion,
without any vote that those actions are sufficient, and that is why we
need the Waxman amendment.
Historically, when we have taken these kinds of actions, when we
added these kinds of riders, we usually have gone back and had to spend
millions of dollars to try to make up for those mistakes and the errors
that were caused because those riders were offered with no ability to
debate them. The Waxman amendment is an opportunity to give the
environment the kind of priority that the American people attach to the
subject, to give it the same kind of priority that the proponents of
this legislation wish to give to unfunded mandates, another very
important consideration when this Congress legislates. These are not
inconsistent, they are not at odds with one another. We are simply
saying that the same kind of opportunity should be given for this kind
of debate. In poll after poll we see that the American people self
identify themselves as strong environmentalists deeply concerned about
the environment. Even when we pit them against a tradeoff for jobs in a
local area, they want the environment protected, they do not want
national laws weakened. And yet we see contrary to those actions and
those desires by the American people the efforts to slide in riders
that are not open to the debate, and that is why I would encourage my
colleagues to support the Waxman amendment.
{time} 1230
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, this body expresses its fundamental values and its
priorities in a number of ways. I feel privileged today as a new Member
to have an opportunity to speak for the first time on an issue that so
clearly gets to the question of what is really important to us, what
are the priorities, what is most important?
Without a doubt, the cost to business is an important consideration
when we look at legislation, but H.R. 350 raises the cost to business
as the most important. It raises it above all other considerations. It
makes it a top priority, the only separate hurdle that we create.
I rise to support the defense of the environment amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because it establishes that
in addition to cost to business, that we as a Nation are concerned
about the cost to the safety of the workers in those businesses, the
impact on the air that we breathe, the health of our citizens.
The amendment would allow Members the same opportunity to raise a
point of order to block legislation that would take away existing
public protections. We can demonstrate our balanced view on what is
most important to this country, what is most important to our families
and to our children, by supporting the Waxman amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 216, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 16]
AYES--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
[[Page H558]]
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachus
Berkley
Brady (TX)
Carson
Davis (VA)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Pitts
Rush
Spratt
Watts (OK)
{time} 1249
Mr. EWING changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 16, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 16, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 16, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Are there any other
amendments?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATE.
Section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658(5)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the provision'' after ``if '';
(2) in clause (i)(I) by inserting ``the provision'' before
``would'';
(3) in clause (i)(II) by inserting ``the provision'' before
``would''; and
(4) in clause (ii)--
(A) by inserting ``that legislation, statute, or regulation
does not provide'' before ``the State''; and
(B) by striking ``lack'' and inserting ``new or expanded''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no other amendments, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 350, the
Mandates Information Act of 1999. This legislation is the result of a
bipartisan effort between my fellow Blue Dog, Representative Gary
Condit, and Representative Rob Portman.
In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This bill, eventually signed into law, has successfully limited the
imposition of unfunded Federal mandates on state and local governments.
This legislation was uniformly hailed by elected officials in my
District and across the country who, for too long, had to bear the
brunt of unfunded mandates.
H.R. 350 builds on the success of UMRA by requiring Congress to deal
honestly with Federal mandates imposed on the private sector. The bill
directs the Congressional Budget Office and congressional committees to
assess the impact of private sector mandates contained in legislation
reported to the House and Senate for consideration. For mandates that
exceed $100 million, it allows any Member of Congress to force a
separate debate and vote specifically on whether to consider
legislation to impose such a mandate on the private sector. This
legislation ensures that Members of Congress will have the most factual
information possible on the effects of private sector mandates.
Opponents of this legislation claim it will undermine important
public safety and environmental laws. This is simply not true. This
bill will, however, cause this body to carefully review the costs of
legislation on employers, employees, and consumers. The intent of this
bill is to promote compromise and to mitigate the effects of unintended
costs on the private sector, not to undermine our important public
safety laws.
I commend my colleague from California and my colleague from Ohio for
crafting this important piece of legislation and I look forward to
supporting its passage.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 350 is misguided legislation that could
delay and handcuff this Body to prevent the passage of sound policy and
laws. H.R. 350 ignores history and dooms Congressional ability to
respond to a crisis. Many of my Colleagues have only served during the
good economic times of the Clinton recovery and were not here for the
tough periods of the Reagan recession. If more of you had been here
during those times, perhaps this ill-conceived legislation would not be
scheduled to accelerated consideration.
While some tout the virtues of private profits over government
regulations, I urge the members to consider the S&L crisis and the
impact that this legislation would have had on such matter. As Members
may recall, this too was an era that placed profits ahead of sound
regulation. In an atmosphere of anything goes, risky investments and
profit driven decisions led high flying thrifts across the country to
risk everything at the altar of profit. That philosophy led to
invevitable failures that cost the American taxpayer over $150 billion
to maintain the promise of savings deposit insurance. Only through the
passage of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement
Act (FIRREA) was Congress and the banking regulators able to respond
and to stem the flow of taxpayer dollars.
FIRREA was controversial and only passed with strong bipartisan
support and the active support of the Bush Administration. It was tough
medicine for the thrift industry but the remedial steps in this crucial
law had to be taken. Only through this legislation were federal
regulators given the authority that they needed to bring rogue thrifts
under control. However, if H.R. 350 had been the law of the land, the
strong FIERRA measure in all probability would not have been enacted
into law. Instead of enacting an effective law, Congress would have
gotten entwined in a debate on a procedural motion. Accountability of
individual members would have been replaced with parliamentary hair
splitting, rendering this Congress incapable of action in the face of
crisis having the life sucked out through needless procedural votes
leaving a hollow shell instead of a tough law and action.
H.R. 350 implies a rigid standard that does not recognize the need
for prompt legislative action in times of a fiscal crisis. On such a
serious flaw alone this measure should be rejected out of hand.
Furthermore no sound critieria are established to serve as a reference
of information upon which to base such cost numbers.
Its inherent flaws may still be remedied to bring some semblance of
merit and balance to this process. Sound criteria and addressing a real
problem in the congressional process. That is why I strongly supported
the Boehlert amendment and especially the Waxman amendment. The Waxman
amendment's purpose is clear--to extend the procedural safeguards of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to preserve the environment and
protect the public's health and safety. It is time to bring the focus
of debate back to the American people, the people who vote for you and
I with the logical expectation to be represented in this chamber, and
to reject the interest groups that want to trump public policy and
legislative action with a procedural gauntlet. During my tenure in the
House, I have become keenly aware of the American public's passion to
preserve and protect the environment and welfare of our fellow
citizens, and time after time I have helplessly watched anti-
environmental riders especially in the past four years quietly slip
into important but unrelated spending measures without deliberations,
discussion, debate without a vote, or input from those who seek to
fulfill their role and promise as representatives of the American
people and their will.
The premise behind H.R. 350 is simple, but its consequences will be
dire. Any member who believes that a piece of legislation will directly
cost the private sector $100 million or more, whether the Congressional
Budget Office concurs or not, may raise a point of order, debate this
point, and then a simple majority vote could halt any further
consideration of this legislation. The Boehlert amendment was intended
to rectify this flaw. This is, for all intents and purposes, a simple,
yet effective stall tactic--the House's answer to the Senate's
filibuster. Now some of this maybe changed, but placing the House in a
straight jacket of procedures such as this simply frustrates the role
of the House to write laws.
H.R. 350 can and will prevent the enactment of very important social
and environmental legislation including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, nursing home standards, and transportation projects. It would
provide those who continue to fight for the social and environmental
welfare of the people and their land another procedural obstacle with
which to contend.
The passage of H.R. 350, without Mr. Waxman's amendment would leave
us powerless to debate anti-environmental riders inserted in
appropriations measures. The passage of this amendment is essential. It
provides for an informed debate and accountable vote on legislation
that repeals private sector mandates that protect the public's health
and safety and
[[Page H559]]
the environment. In 1998 alone, the League of Conservation Voters
reported more than 40 riders that would have weakened public health and
public land protection were attached to approriations bills ranging
from stalling Superfund reform to increasing the clear cutting of our
national forests. No one under current House rules was allowed the
opportunity to debate and have a separate vote on these measures. If
enacted, Mr. Waxman's amendment will allow us to debate and vote on a
rider that neither the committee of jurisdiction nor the full House has
been allowed to review. It costs no money, burdens no business, and
takes no authority or power away from Congress. It simply provides an
avenue for members to discuss, debate, and vote on questionable riders.
Some opponents argue it would delay action because of the need to have
substantive information. In other words, don't look before you jump;
this argument flies in the face of the common sense Waxman amendment
result.
The Framers of the Constitution realized the necessity of
incorporating a system of checks and balances between the three
branches of government to allow our Nation to remain balanced, steady,
and constant.
We need to restore this balance to the House of Representatives and
bring the chance for fair debate back to all of us today, not tomorrow.
Don't hide your actions and policy acts in the by-lines of a multi-
volume appropriations measure. Stand at the podium and debate your
ideas in a fair and democratic way, the way the framers of our
constitution envisioned. You can do that by voting in favor of the
Waxman amendment and not disabling measures by attempting to catch in a
web of process.
This Congress doesn't need more ways to frustrate the writing of law
and action on the floor. Rather what should be the order of the day is
deliberate action, fair debate, and rules to let the body work its
will. But this GOP majority continues down the road dreaming up ways to
sidestep issues, avoid facing questions, and voting on the merits of
issues all in the name of process. The ``majority'' in this House is
aiding and abetting the special interests. This measure is just another
attempt to sidestep a straight vote for fair consideration of a bill.
Between the closed rules, riders, and out right obfuscation cementing
in place super majorities, one would think the GOP was not just
planning to be in the minority, but practicing such a rule today. The
public sees through this conduct and hopefully will be happy to
accommodate such behavior in the next general polling.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment
to H.R. 350. It perfects the important goal of this legislation to
require Congress to focus even more closely on the costs that would be
imposed on an industry or small business sector if a particular
legislative proposal is enacted into law.
I strongly support the goal of H.R. 350 and I applaud Mr. Portman and
Mr. Condit's hard work on this issue. I voted for the Mandates
Information Act in the 105th Congress and I would like to do so again.
However, I am not convinced that the bill's provision to allow major
legislation to be pulled from the floor after 20 minutes debate on a
point of order is needed to protect private industry. I believe the
Boehlert amendment would address this problem.
First, the Boehlert amendment will allow 20 minutes of additional
debate on the cost issue beyond the time for general debate. This is
consistent with the stated purpose of the Mandates Information Act.
Section 3 of the bill states that its purpose is to provide more
complete information about the effects of private mandates and ensure
focused deliberation on those effects. It seeks to distinguish between
mandates that harm consumers, workers, and small businesses, and
mandates that help those groups.
Second, there is more accountability with the Boehlert amendment.
H.R. 350 would allow any Member to claim the proposed bill would impose
$100 million in expense without any independent verification. In
contrast, the Boehlert amendment would require CBO, in most cases, to
verify that the bill or amendment indeed imposes $100 million in
private sector costs. This is something CBO already does and would not
gut the bill.
Third, the Boehlert amendment prevents the rules of debate in the
people's House from being tilted in one direction or the other. It
keeps the playing field level. It keeps the debate going.
I have heard many assert that the private sector needs this bill to
level the playing field with the public sector. After all, we have a
law which allows a Member to raise a point of order when Congress is
debating legislation that would impose a $50 million mandate on the
public sector. Why not give the private sector the same privilege when
twice that amount will be imposed on them?
Like Mr. Portman and Mr. Condit, I was a strong advocate of limiting
the Federal Government's ability to pass on unfunded mandates to State
and local governments. Congress and the executive branch too often set
standards for Federal programs and then simply passed on their
implementation to the States, resulting in a distortion of our Federal
system of government.
The Federal Government does sometimes place unfair costs on the
private sector. This is often done in an effort to correct a problem
such as pollution or to protect other aspects of the public's health
and safety. The Federal Government can and must do a better job of
balancing public health and safety concerns with the costs we impose on
business, particularly small business. The Federal Government still
finds ways to add multiple layers of bureaucracy and paperwork burdens
that no businessman, especially a small businessman, should have to
suffer.
However, any Member of Congress who has sat through a committee
markup on any important business issue knows that virtually every
industry and business sector makes its views known forcefully to
Congress. Legislation often stalls, sometimes with good reason, because
a particular business sector makes the case it is unfair to them. I am
not convinced that we need an automatic vote on the floor after only 20
minutes of debate if a business or industry simply asserts it will cost
over $100 million, without any demonstrable proof.
Congress and Federal agencies must focus their attention on reforming
these outdated regulatory schemes and replacing them with ``market
based'' regulatory systems--ones that will provide the same public
benefit for half the cost.
Rather than limiting the process of debate on laws which impact the
private sector, Congress must find ways to change industry incentives
from avoiding regulation to rewarding companies that are innovative in
their control of waste streams. It should start with reforming one of
the most costly, slow, and unnecessarily expensive laws on the books--
superfund. Tackling specific problems like superfund is how we can best
help give our constituents relief from the unintended consequences of
Federal laws, not by forcing legislation to be pulled from the floor
after only 20 minutes of debate.
In closing, if you believe in more debate, more accountability, a
level playing field of debate vote for the Boehlert amendments and then
support H.R. 350.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kolbe) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore 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, pursuant to House Resolution
36, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274,
noes 149, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No 17]
AYES--274
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
[[Page H560]]
Deutsch
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--149
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Andrews
Brady (TX)
Carson
Cox
Edwards
Granger
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Rush
Smith (MI)
Spratt
{time} 1311
Ms. Millender-McDonald changed her vote from ``aye" to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 17 on H.R. 350, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 17, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________