[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2193-2209]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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--

[[Page 2194]]

       (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

[[Page 2195]]

     Act of 1974 is amended by redesignating sections 427 and 428 
     as sections 428 and 429, respectively, and by inserting after 
     the item 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

[[Page 2196]]

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 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.

[[Page 2197]]

  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 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.

[[Page 2198]]

  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 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 is 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 business men 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

[[Page 2199]]

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.
  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. Chairman, 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

[[Page 2200]]


     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)

                             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

[[Page 2201]]

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 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

[[Page 2202]]

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.
  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

[[Page 2203]]

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 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

[[Page 2204]]

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 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,

[[Page 2205]]

  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 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:

[[Page 2206]]



                             [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
     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.

[[Page 2207]]

  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 may be 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 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?

[[Page 2208]]

  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
     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.''

[[Page 2209]]

  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.''

                          ____________________