[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2360-2361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. NANCY PELOSI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 10, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 350) to 
     improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
     private sector mandates, and for other purposes.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the Waxman amendment to H.R. 350 would 
provide equal protection under the law.
  If we can protect the private sector, surely we can take the same 
step to protect the public welfare.
  H.R. 350 is dejavu all over again--it is the same tired ``Contract 
with America'' attempt to lessen the burden of federal mandates on 
private business. It would provide a procedural advantage to 
legislation where costs of more than $100 million might be imposed by 
Congress on the private sector. Under this procedure, a point of order 
could be raised on any bill the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
determines would cost the private sector more than $100 million a year. 
The point of order could trigger a 20-minute debate and vote on the 
cost of the legislation.
  Who saves and who pays under this plan?
  Protection of public health and safety and the environment would seem 
the logical answer and, yet, H.R. 350 defies logic. Remember, in this 
Congress the financial interests of business outweigh protection of the 
public good.
  As an example: what if legislation on environmental compliance for a 
business cost $100 million or more? The legislation would be subject to 
a point of order and debate. But, if it were defeated, the public would 
suffer, in effect repealing federal environmental protection.
  Why would we give this type of advantage to business at the expense 
of the public? Why

[[Page 2361]]

would Congress put the interests of business over protection of the 
public good?
  The American Lung Association states, ``This legislation will create 
new procedural hurdles on legislation designed to safeguard public 
health and the environment.'' The Association cites as examples 
legislation to regulate tobacco or clean air that might be defeated as 
a result of this procedural protection.
  The Waxman amendment would provide equal footing to legislation that 
might weaken or repeal mandates on the private sector which protect the 
public's health and safety, or the environment. It would open the 
debate and require a vote to provide the balance needed to afford 
protection of the public interest, along with the protection of 
business interests. The Waxman amendment would require the CBO to 
identify whether or not a bill contains any such provisions that might 
threaten existing environmental law and protection of the public. A 
point of order could be raised, providing an opportunity for debate and 
a vote where members would be held accountable for their position.
  Over the past four years, we have experienced repeated attempts to 
attach anti-environment ``riders'' to critical legislation. There has 
been a concerted plan by the Majority to weaken or repeal the 
environmental progress of the past two decades. In most cases, debate 
has been closed and votes have not resulted on these individual 
measures which have threatened our forests, drinking water and clean 
air. The Waxman amendment would provide the same procedural obstacle to 
anti-environmental legislation as proposed to protect business under 
H.R. 350. It would give Congress an opportunity to open the debate on 
issues with health and environmental consequences.
  H.R. 350 asks us to think twice about imposing a burden on the 
private sector and think not once about the consequences for the rest 
of society.
  Think again--support the Waxman amendment--vote ``yes'' to protect 
the public health and our environment.

                          ____________________