[House Report 105-515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-515
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                    MANDATES INFORMATION ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

  May 7, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3534]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
3534) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
private sector mandates, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line number of 
the introduced bill) is as follows:
  Page 5, line 8, after ``mandates'' insert ``(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)''.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 3534, the Mandates Information Act of 
1998, is to: (1) improve the quality of the Congress' 
deliberation with respect to proposed mandates on the private 
sector by providing the Congress with more complete information 
about the effects of such mandates, and ensuring that the 
Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation 
on the effects; and (2) 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.

                       Summary of the Legislation

    H.R. 3534 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
require a congressional committee report on any bill or joint 
resolution that includes a federal private sector mandate to 
include a statement from CBO estimating the impact of such 
mandates on consumers, workers, and small businesses, including 
any disproportionate impact in particular regions or industries 
(CBO is currently required to estimate only the direct costs of 
all federal private sector mandates that exceed $100 million 
and the amount of federal financial assistance, if any, 
provided by the legislation to assist with compliance costs). 
It subjects the consideration of such legislation to a point of 
order if it is not feasible for CBO to prepare such an estimate 
(currently under UMRA, a point of order may apply only if it is 
not feasible for CBO to prepare an intergovernmental mandates 
estimate).
    H.R. 3534 prohibits consideration of any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report containing 
private sector mandates whose direct costs exceed $100 million 
(the current unfunded mandate point of order applies only to 
unfunded intergovernmental mandates, the direct cost of which 
exceeds $50 million, unless it is paid for with new federal 
financial assistance).
    H.R. 3534 prohibits the Chair from recognizing a Member for 
one point of order for a committee's failure to comply with the 
CBO report requirements with respect to private sector 
mandates, or for private sector mandates contained in any bill, 
joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report.
    H.R. 3534 amends clause 5(c) of House Rule XXIII to 
preserve the availability in the Committee of the Whole of a 
motion to strike an unfunded federal mandate (intergovernmental 
and private sector), unless the rule is specifically waived by 
the Rules Committee.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 11, 1997, Representatives Gary Condit and Rob 
Portman introduced H.R. 1010, the Mandates Information Act of 
1997, which was referred to the Committee on Rules. On October 
30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the 
House and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process 
held a joint hearing to review the implementation of UMRA and 
proposals to expand that act; in particular, H.R. 1010. On 
March 24, 1998, as a result of concerns raised at the joint 
subcommittee hearing, Representatives Condit and Portman 
introduced H.R. 3534, which is a revised version of H.R. 1010 
which was also referred to the Committee on Rules.
    On March 27, 1998, the Committee on Rules held a hearing on 
H.R. 3534 and received testimony from the Hon. Gary Condit; the 
Hon. Rob Portman (R-OH); Ms. Kathie Zuroweste, Owner of the 
Colony House Restaurant in Newhaven, Missouri; Mr. R. Bruce 
Josten, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. John Nicholson, Owner of Company 
Flowers in Arlington, Virginia.
    On Wednesday, May 6, 1998, the Committee met to mark-up 
H.R. 3534. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 3534 by voice 
vote. During the mark-up, one amendment was agreed to, also by 
voice vote.

                     Background on the Legislation

    On March 22, 1995, President Clinton signed into law the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which amended title IV of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974. A key 
component of the Republican ``Contract With America,'' UMRA was 
one of the first bills enacted by the 104th Congress.
    Among other things, the purposes of UMRA are to: strengthen 
the partnership between the federal government and state and 
local governments; end the imposition of unfunded federal 
mandates on state and local governments without full 
information on the costs and effects of such mandates; promote 
informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the 
appropriateness of all federal mandates affecting state and 
local governments and the private sector; and establish new 
points of order in the House and Senate for failure to comply 
with certain requirements under the act.
    A federal mandate is defined as a provision that imposes an 
enforceable duty upon state, local or tribal governments, or 
the private sector. An unfunded federal mandate is defined as a 
mandate whose direct costs exceed $50 million for state and 
local governments, and $100 million for the private sector. 
Direct costs are defined as the aggregate amount that all 
levels of government or the private sector are required to 
spend in order to comply with the mandate or prohibited from 
raising in revenue.
    There are three major components to UMRA. One addresses 
agency regulatory responsibilities. A second directs the 
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) to 
undertake certain studies with respect to existing mandates 
(ACIR was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 1997). The third 
contains congressional procedures for the consideration of 
legislation containing federal mandates.

                   Procedures in the House and Senate

    UMRA's congressional procedures are found in sections 423 
through 426 of Part B of title IV of the Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Act of 1974. Sections 423 and 424 outline 
specific reporting and estimating responsibilities for 
congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO). Section 425 prohibits the consideration of bills, joint 
resolutions, motions, amendments and conference reports in the 
House and Senate if such legislation contains unfunded 
intergovernmental federal mandates, or if a committee, when 
reporting a bill or joint resolution, fails to include in 
either the committee report or the Congressional Record a 
statement from CBO estimating the direct costs of any mandates 
(intergovernmental or private sector) contained in the 
legislation.

     Disposition of Points of Order in the House of Representatives

    Section 426 prohibits the consideration of any order of 
business resolution in the House of Representatives that waives 
points of order against the application of Section 425. It also 
contains procedures for the disposition of points of order in 
the House of Representatives. Specifically, the chair will not 
rule on the point of order. Rather, the chair will put to the 
House or the Committee of the Whole, whichever the case may be, 
the ``question of consideration with respect to the proposition 
that is the subject of the point of order.'' The question of 
consideration with respect to each point of order is subject to 
20 minutes of debate--10 minutes by the Member initiating the 
point of order and 10 minutes by an opponent. Following debate 
on the question of consideration, the Members will vote on 
whether to proceed with consideration of the bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report.
    UMRA also amended clause 5 of House Rule XXIII (which was 
further modified by H. Res. 5 at the beginning of the 105th 
Congress). Clause 5(c) of House Rule XXIII preserves the 
availability in the Committee of the Whole of a motion to 
strike an unfunded intergovernmental mandate. Neither a rule 
restricting amendments nor one waiving all points of order is 
sufficient to preclude a motion to strike an unfunded 
intergovernmental mandate unless the rule specifically waives 
clause 5(c) of House Rule XXIII.

                      Analysis of the Legislation

    Sec. 1 establishes the short title as the ``Mandates 
Information Act of 1998''.
    Sec. 2 establishes a number of congressional findings with 
respect to the need for additional information on the costs of 
Federal private sector mandates contained in proposed 
legislation.
    Sec. 3 outlines the purposes of the bill which are to: (1) 
improve the quality of the congressional deliberation with 
respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by 
providing the Congress with more complete information about the 
effects of such mandates, and ensuring that the Congress acts 
on such mandates only after focused deliberation on the 
effects; and (2) 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.
    Sec. 4(a)(1) amends Sec. 424(b)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 to further require CBO to estimate, when 
applicable, the aggregate impact of proposed Federal private 
sector mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, 
including any disproportionate impact in particular regions or 
industries. The estimate shall also include an analysis of the 
effect of proposed Federal private sector mandates on: consumer 
prices and the actual supply of goods and services in consumer 
markets; worker wages, worker benefits, and employment 
opportunities; and the hiring practices, expansion, and 
profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
    The phrase ``when applicable'' in Sec. 4(a)(1) qualifies 
the requirement that CBO provide estimates under Sec. 
424(b)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in two 
ways. The phrase is not intended to grant CBO broad discretion 
to forgo preparing an estimate with respect to consumers, 
workers and small businesses. It is, however, intended to 
permit CBO to forgo an estimate of the impact of a Federal 
private sector mandate on consumers, workers and small 
businesses if CBO determines that the private sector mandate 
has no impact on that group or whose impact on that group could 
not be identified. Therefore, if CBO determined there was no 
impact on workers, CBO would not be required to estimate the 
impact on workers, or the specific areas related to workers. 
The qualification is also intended to permit CBO to forgo an 
analysis of any of the specific information noted for 
consumers, workers and small businesses when CBO determines 
that the impacts on that group do not include that specific 
area. Therefore, if CBO determined that there was an impact on 
consumers, but the impact would not affect the supply of goods 
and services in consumer markets, CBO would not be required to 
provide an analysis of such affects.
    Sec. 4(a)(2) amends Sec. 424(b)(3) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 to permit a point of order against 
consideration of any bill or joint resolution that is reported 
by a committee if it is not feasible for CBO to prepare a 
Federal private sector mandates estimate for publication before 
consideration of the bill or joint resolution.
    Sec. 4(a)(3) amends Sec. 425(a)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration of any bill, 
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
would increase the direct costs of Federal private sector 
mandates by $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in the fiscal year in which any of the Federal 
private sector mandate would be effective or in any of the 4 
fiscal years following such fiscal year.
    An amendment to Sec. 4(a)(3) of H.R. 3534 adopted by the 
Committee clarifies that, in the case of a bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that 
provides a net reduction in tax or tariff revenue, the 
measure's tax and tariff provisions would not be considered in 
determining the direct costs of Federal private sector mandates 
only for purposes of a point of order under Sec. 425(a)(2) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    For purposes of illustration, consideration of a bill 
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means that contains tax 
or tariff provisions which cause the $100 million threshold for 
private sector mandates to be exceeded, but result in an 
overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over a five-year 
period, would not be subject to a Sec. 425(a)(2) point of 
order, provided that the bill does not include other non-
revenue related Federal private sector mandates that exceed the 
$100 million threshold. In contrast, if a bill contains tax or 
tariff provisions which result in a net increase in revenues, a 
Sec. 425(a)(2) point of order may apply.
    Sec. 4(a)(4) amends Sec. 425(c) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 to permit a point of order against legislative 
provisions in appropriations bills that increase the direct 
costs of a Federal private sector mandate by an amount that 
causes the $100 million threshold to be exceeded.
    Sec. 4(a)(5) makes two technical changes to Sec. 426(b)(2) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to conform with 
established practices by: (1) striking the term ``section 425 
or subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``part B''; 
and (2) inserting the word ``legislative'' before the word 
``language''.
    Sec. 4(a)(6) makes a technical change to Sec. 426(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Budget Act to conform with established 
practice by striking the term ``section 425 or subsection (a) 
of this section''. Sec. 4(a)(6) further prohibits the Chair 
from recognizing Members for more than one point of order with 
respect to the consideration of: (1) any reported bill or joint 
resolution in which the reporting committee fails to publish a 
statement for the Director of the CBO on the direct costs of 
Federal private sector mandates; or (2) any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would 
increase the direct costs of a Federal private sector mandate 
by an amount that causes the $100 million threshold to be 
exceeded.
    Sec. 4(a)(7) amends Sec. 427 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 to require the Director of the CBO, at the written 
request of a Senator and to the extent practical, to prepare an 
estimate of the direct costs of a Federal private Sector 
mandate contained in an amendment of such Senator.
    Sec. 4(b) amends clause 5(c) of House Rule XXXIII to 
preserve the availability in the Committee of the Whole of a 
motion to strike private sector mandates unless such mandates 
are expressly prohibited by the terms of a special order.

             Matters Required Under the Rules of the House

                             Committee Vote

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House rule XI requires the results of 
each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and against, to be 
printed in the committee report. No rollcall votes were 
requested during consideration of H.R. 3534.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority, or new credit authority or changing 
revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as 
required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, as amended and, when practicable with respect to 
estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total 
estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) 
to the appropriate levels under current law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include 
their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which 
include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires the report of any 
committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. The following is the CBO cost estimate as 
required:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 7, 1998.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3534, the Mandates 
Information Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Elliot 
Schwartz.
            Sincerely,
                                             James J. Bleun
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3534--Mandates Information Act of 1998

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
enacting this legislation would result in no significant costs 
to the federal government. The bill would not affect direct 
spending or receipts: therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply. H.R. 3534 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (UMRA) and would have no impact on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 3534 would amend the Congressional Budget Act to 
change certain duties of CBO under UMRA. Specifically, the bill 
would require CBO to provide additional information when it 
determines that a bill contains a private-sector mandate with 
costs exceeding the threshold established in UMRA. That 
information would include the impact of private-sector mandates 
on consumers, workers, and small businesses (including any 
disproportionate impact on particular regions or industries.) 
Further, the bill would make legislation subject to a point of 
order if it included private-sector mandates with costs 
exceeding the threshold. Such costs would exclude amounts 
attributable to tax or tariff provisions, if those provisions 
did not raise net revenues over the first five fiscal years 
there were in effect.
    Based on the experiences of CBO and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (which provides CBO with revenue estimates) in 
carrying out the provisions of UMRA, CBO estimates that neither 
agency would incur significant additional costs to implement 
the changes that would be made by H.R. 3534. The number of 
bills containing private-sector mandates with costs exceeding 
the threshold is small, and the additional workload would not 
be substantial. (Any increase in costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds for CBO and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation.) In addition, CBO estimates that changes 
to Congressional procedures would not result in additional 
costs.
    The CBO staff contact is Elliot Schwartz. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution. The Committee cites Article 1, Section 5, which 
grants each House of Congress the authority to determine the 
rules of its proceedings.

                            Federal Mandates

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint 
resolution that includes any Federal mandate to include 
specific information about such mandates. The Committee states 
that H.R. 3534 does not include any Federal mandate.

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a committee statement on the extent to 
which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state 
or local law. The Committee states that H.R. 3534 is not 
intended to preempt any state or local law.

                           Oversight Findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has 
oversight responsibility for Part B of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 and finds that, although the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act is working as intended, Congress can benefit from 
having more complete information about the effects of proposed 
Federal private sector mandates. The Committee recommends the 
passage of H.R. 3534 as a means to improve the effectiveness of 
UMRA.

 Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Rules has 
received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL PROCEDURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part B--Federal Mandates

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 424. DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR; STATEMENTS ON BILLS AND JOINT 
                    RESOLUTIONS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND 
                    JOINT RESOLUTIONS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Federal Private Sector Mandates in Reported Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a 
public character reported by any committee of authorization of 
the Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office shall prepare and submit to the 
committee a statement as follows:
          (1) * * *
          (2) Estimates.--Estimates required under paragraph 
        (1) shall include estimates (and a brief explanation of 
        the basis of the estimates) of--
                  (A) the total amount of direct costs of 
                complying with the Federal private sector 
                mandates in the bill or joint resolution; [and]
                  (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
                  [(B)] (C) the amount, if any, of increase in 
                authorization of appropriations under existing 
                Federal financial assistance programs, or of 
                authorization of appropriations for new Federal 
                financial assistance, provided by the bill or 
                joint resolution usable by the private sector 
                for the activities subject to the Federal 
                private sector mandates.
          (3) Estimate not feasible.--If the Director 
        determines that it is not feasible to make a reasonable 
        estimate that would be required under paragraphs (1) 
        and (2), the Director shall not make the estimate, but 
        shall report in the statement that the reasonable 
        estimate cannot be made and shall include the reasons 
        for that determination in the statement. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 425. LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER.

  (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or 
the House of Representatives to consider--
          (1) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by 
        a committee unless the committee has published a 
        statement of the Director on the direct costs of 
        Federal mandates in accordance with section 423(f) 
        before such consideration, except this paragraph shall 
        not apply to any supplemental statement prepared by the 
        Director under section 424(d); [and]
          (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
          [(2)] (3) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
        motion, or conference report that would increase the 
        direct costs of Federal intergovernmental mandates by 
        an amount that causes the thresholds specified in 
        section 424(a)(1) to be exceeded, unless--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Committee on Appropriations.--
          (1) Application.--The provisions of subsection (a)--
                  (A) shall not apply to any bill or resolution 
                reported by the Committee on Appropriations of 
                the Senate or the House of Representatives; 
                [except]
                  (B) shall apply to--
                          (i) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        [intergovernmental] mandate contained 
                        in any bill or resolution reported by 
                        the Committee on Appropriations of the 
                        Senate or House of Representatives;
                          (ii) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        [intergovernmental] mandate contained 
                        in any amendment offered to a bill or 
                        resolution reported by the Committee on 
                        Appropriations of the Senate or House 
                        of Representatives;
                          (iii) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        [intergovernmental] mandate in a 
                        conference report accompanying a bill 
                        or resolution reported by the Committee 
                        on Appropriations of the Senate or 
                        House of Representatives; and
                          (iv) any legislative provision 
                        increasing direct costs of a Federal 
                        [intergovernmental] mandate contained 
                        in any amendments in disagreement 
                        between the two Houses to any bill or 
                        resolution reported by the Committee on 
                        Appropriations of the Senate or House 
                        of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 426. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Disposition of Points of Order.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Threshold burden.--In order to be cognizable by 
        the Chair, a point of order under [section 425 or 
        subsection (a) of this section] part B must specify the 
        precise legislative language on which it is premised.
          (3) Question of consideration.--As disposition of 
        points of order under [section 425 or subsection (a) of 
        this section] part B, the Chair shall put the question 
        of consideration with respect to the proposition that 
        is the subject of the points of order, except that not 
        more than one point of order shall be recognized by the 
        Chair under section 425(a)(1) or (a)(2).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 427. REQUESTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE FROM SENATORS.

  At the written request of a Senator, the Director shall, to 
the extent practicable, prepare an estimate of the direct costs 
of a Federal [intergovernmental] mandate contained in an 
amendment of such Senator.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


Changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives Made by the Bill, 
                              as Reported

  Consistent with clause 4(d) of rule XI which requires that, 
whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution amending 
or repealing the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
accompanying report must contain a comparative print showing 
the changes in existing rules proposed to be made by the 
resolution.
  Changes in existing Rules of the House of Representatives 
made by the resolution, as reported, are shown as follows 
(existing rules proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing rules in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Rule XXIII

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  5. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) In the Committee of the Whole, an amendment proposing 
only to strike an unfunded mandate from the portion of the bill 
then open to amendment, if otherwise in order, may be precluded 
from consideration only by specific terms of a special order of 
the House.
  (2) In this paragraph, ``unfunded mandate'' means a Federal 
[intergovernmental] mandate the direct costs of which exceed 
the threshold otherwise specified for a reported bill or joint 
resolution in section 424(a)(1) or (b)(1) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Views of Committee Members

    Clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI requires each committee to afford 
a three day opportunity for members of the committee to file 
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the 
views in its report. Although neither requirement applies to 
the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort to 
provide its members with such an opportunity. The following 
views were submitted:

      

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Today, the Rules Committee marked up legislation extending 
the unfunded mandate point of order to the private sector. We 
have questions about the Dreier amendment which was added at 
the last moment to exempt tax revenues.
    The Dreier amendment ignores the spirit of this bill, which 
is to force Congress to think twice before we impose any burden 
on private companies and individuals. The point of order 
triggers a debate and a vote on a question of consideration; it 
makes Congress take notice and make an informed decision about 
whether to proceed.
    The Dreier amendment changes the whole landscape. It says 
we should ignore real costs to private companies and 
individuals so long as the revenue generated is fully spent in 
tax or tariff reductions. A tax on coal deserves debate on its 
own but if its coupled with a tax break for ethanol, the coal 
tax is suddenly not a burden worthy of Congress's attention. 
That goes against the fundamental purpose of this bill, which 
is to make Congress reconsider whether it wants to impose any 
private sector burdens.
    The Dreier amendment says we have to know how the revenue 
is spent before we know whether a tax or tariff is a burden. 
And the Dreier amendment evaluates how the revenue is spent 
based on a simple-minded mantra that every tax break is good 
and every government check is wrong. Consider what this 
attitude means for excise taxes--like taxes on gas, airports 
and tobacco--where many believe that the revenue generated 
should be dedicated only to certain spending programs. If a 
measure increases gas taxes and requires that the money be 
spent on highway construction only, the measure would be 
subject to an unfunded mandates point of order. However, if the 
exact same gas tax increase is completely offset by a provision 
to allow billionaires to avoid any federal tax liability, then 
the point of order does not apply. An aviation tax increase is 
a burden if the money is spent to improve airports but it is 
not a burden if the money is used to pay for an unrelated tax 
cut. Think about a tobacco measure that raises cigarette taxes 
and spends even a portion of that money on programs to prevent 
teen-age smoking, on health care costs and health care 
research, and on aid to tobacco farmers. That bill is subject 
to a point of order. But under the Dreier amendment, if the 
tobacco revenue is given away in full through tax breaks to the 
wealthy, then the point of order will not apply.

                                   Joe Moakley.
                                   Tony Hall.
                                   Martin Frost.
                                   Louis Slaughter.