THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The Unfunded Mandate Reform act also directed the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the costs to the private sector. Estimated costs to the private sector exceeding the statutory threshold of $100 million were included in a committee's report accompanying a reported bill. The bill before you today, the Mandate Information Act of 1999, would extend a similar point of order procedure to the private sector.
[Page: H430] GPO's PDF
Since the enactment of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in January of 1996, a point of order against legislation exceeding the intergovernmental threshold of $50 million has been raised a total of seven times. Please keep this number in mind, when opponents of extending the same point of order procedure to the private sector make claims that dilatory ruin will fall upon the proceedings of the House.
In fact, in response to criticism that the Mandate information Act would open the door to dilatory tactics from both sides of the aisle, last year we agreed to limit the number of points of order allowed to be raised against a bill or amendment to one.
In addition to extending the point of order procedure to the private sector, our bill will also ask the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate a bill's impact on consumer prices, worker wages, worker benefits and employment opportunities. CBO is also directed to assess the effect of the private sector mandates on the profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. This will be important additional analysis for members when the congressional Budget office can make these assessments.
Perhaps former Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. James Blum, best described the practical impact of the bill when he appeared before the Rules Committee last year. Mr. Blum stated, ``From the CBO's vantage point, UMRA has worked quite well. Both the demand for and the supply of information on the costs of federal mandates have increased since the act took effect. Moreover, committee staffs and individual Members are increasingly requesting our opinion before committee markups on whether proposed legislation would create any new federal mandates, and if so, whether their costs would exceed the thresholds set by UMRA. In many instances, CBO is able to inform the sponsor about the existence of a mandate and provide informal guidance on how the proposal might be restructured to either eliminate the mandate or reduce its costs.''
Basically, the implication has been an increased consciousness of the costs of intergovernmental mandates and fostered greater collaborations between committees and CBO on how to mitigate those costs. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Mandates Information Act is all about. More information is better.
Members, who do not have the luxury of sitting on every committee and subcommittee while legislation is being crafted, will be provided with additional information under the provisions of this bill. Contrary to what some critics claim, the premise of this bill is to get more detailed information into the hands of members and ultimately the voters. This measure will ensure both costs and benefits are weighed before consideration.
Some have claimed the Mandates Information Act is silent on benefits. This is simply untrue. These critics should think back to the enactment of the original Unfunded Mandate Review Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). The act specifically directs committees to include in their reports accompanying a bill, ``a qualitative, and if practicable, a quantitative assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal mandates (including the effects on health and safety and the protection of the natural environment).''
Another important provision of the Mandates Information Act clarifies the interpretation of an intergovernmental mandate when proposals to change large entitlement programs are scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Section five of our bill makes this important change.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 350.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN), a cosponsor of this bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for working with us, for his patience and his good work here today on the floor. I am pleased again to join the gentleman from California (Mr. CONDIT) who is the lead sponsor of this legislation. Last year, by a nearly two-thirds bipartisan majority, this House voted to support H.R. 3534, legislation nearly identical to the bill that we are talking about this morning, H.R. 350. It is based, as the gentleman from California just said, on a very simple concept. That is, that we want to provide more information and more accountability to Congress as it considers unfunded mandates, which are really hidden taxes, this time on the private sector.
About 3 1/2 years ago, 394 Members of this House and 91 Senators voted to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. We have heard about UMRA this morning. That is really the basis upon which we are moving forward today.
UMRA ensured that for the first time ever, before the House voted on legislation, the House would have three things: One, new cost information on the public sector; that is, mandates on State and local government but also on the private sector, on the information side. And then, very importantly, with regard to the public sector mandates; that is, the mandates on State and local government, there would also be a separate debate on whether or not to impose the mandate and a vote. Now, that is the accountability measure in the legislation. It does not mean we never mandate on State and local government. In fact, since that time we have mandated, but after considering it. What it does mean is we get a lot better legislation on the floor, legislation that is more cost effective, legislation that goes through the committee process in a way that takes into account the costs of mandates. Committees end up either funding the mandates or they end up deciding the mandates have to be in the legislation and that the other purposes of the legislation, the benefits outweigh those mandates so it goes to the floor, anyway. In the end again we get more information, we get separate debate and we get accountability.
I think the most important point to make this morning probably is that it has worked. We have an excellent record. I think even those few Members of this body who chose to vote against that bill 3 1/2 years ago would agree, it has worked. We have not had the scenarios played out that we have heard about today that could possibly happen with this new piece of legislation. The practical impact has been to force committees to address the mandate issue long before bills reach the House floor.
Let me give my colleagues one example. The first time it came up was the telecommunications bill. The telco bill was in conference, the conferees were poised to send to the floor a significant new mandate on local government, on our municipalities. The municipalities caught wind of that. They came to the unfunded mandate champions on the floor of the House and there was a decision made to raise the point of order. The conferees then took it upon themselves to work hard to come up with language that solved the problem so that when the legislation came to the floor, there was not more acrimony, there was less, because we had a better bill on the floor. It was good for this House, it was good for the institution, and in the end it was good for the taxpayers and the consumers. The process worked.
In other cases like the minimum wage increase, the point of order was raised on the floor. In fact I think I was the one that raised that point of order, forcing debate over the mandate and the costs that it imposed, significant new costs on the private sector, also the public sector. It was roundly defeated, as I recall. But the point of order, although it failed, did bring out the information that the body needed to hear. The same was true on the Yucca Mountain bill. Some of my colleagues may remember that. The point of order was raised. It was not passed, but again the information was provided to the Members.
UMRA has given State and local governments a very valuable tool, to get mandate information out, to get the issue considered and addressed at the committee level before it reaches the floor, and if that fails, to ultimately force a debate on the floor. But it is also flexible enough to permit Congress, as the gentleman from California just said, to pass legislation that does indeed impose new mandates when the merits of the bill override the negative impact of the mandates.
Unfortunately due to the political realities of passing what was at that time precedent-setting legislation a few years ago, we were not able to offer all the same procedural protections to the private sector. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. CONDIT) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. ABRAHAM) who have led the efforts to include the private sector. They have put a lot of hard work into the bill and they have taken what is the next logical step, to offer not all but similar protections to the private sector.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MORAN) who was speaking earlier today. He and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. DAVIS) have been supportive of perfecting UMRA through this legislation. They have
[Page: H431] GPO's PDF
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MORAN) made a great point earlier today about privatization with regard to the private sector side of this. Again I want to thank him for his support not just of perfecting UMRA but also of this legislation, H.R. 350.
Let me just take a second to review how these procedures work in the House because we have had a lot of debate this morning, but we need to back up and talk about what it actually results in. Just as in the case of UMRA, any Member can upon consideration of legislation raise a point of order if there is an unfunded mandate. That results in a 20-minute debate on the question of whether the House should continue to consider the legislation notwithstanding the unfunded mandate, this time on the private sector. Again, much more importantly, we believe the possibility that this could occur will force the committees to do their best to minimize new mandates, to make legislation more cost effective.
The process of this debate and vote is a far more significant tool as UMRA has already proven with the public sector mandates than simply requiring the committees to include the CBO estimate in the committee report which currently exists under UMRA. In fact, on Tuesday, before the Committee on Rules, CBO testified that since UMRA was enacted, quote, demand and supply for information about the costs of Federal mandates has
increased, and in many instances CBO has been able to provide informal guidance on how the proposal might be restructured to eliminate the mandate or to reduce its costs. Again that is the point. Ask CBO, they will tell you, it has worked.
A lot of Members have talked this morning who want to offer amendments to in essence gut this bill and have said that they are supportive of reducing or eliminating mandates on the public sector and reducing them on the private sector. That is what this is all about. We have reached that balance in this legislation over a couple of year period, working with the Committee on Rules, the parliamentarian, working with the committees, working with the Congressional Budget Office. This legislation creates the right incentive; that is, to address mandates even before they reach the floor.
If the rule waives the point of order, then a Member can raise a point of order against the rule. That has been done. The House votes and that is it. The rule can pass and the bill moves forward without the ability to raise the mandates question again with a point of order on the bill. So once they had that vote on the rule, that is all they get, assuming the Committee on Rules does waive the mandates point of order.
There are a few differences between UMRA, again the public sector bill, and this new private sector bill that ought to be focused on, each of these put in place with the encouragement of the Committee on Rules and others to ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily delay or cause other procedural problems on the floor.
First, recognizing that there are likely to be more private sector mandates, the threshold is raised. It is doubled. Under UMRA the threshold is $50 million. Under this legislation it is $100 million.
Secondly, in order to address the concern that the the point of order could be dilatory, it permits only one point of order.
Third, there is a net tax decrease piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that the purpose of this legislation is for us to be able to legislate better and with more accountability. That means accountability to small businesses and consumers who are impacted, but it also means accountability to those back home who care deeply about legislation like the Clean Water Act and others.
It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to H.R..350. The Mandates Information Act, if approved by Congress would carry with it unwise and dangerous consequences for the people of the United States. The bill before the House threatens the ability of Members of Congress to protect our constituents from otherwise avoidable harm.
This bill would derail our ability to provide for adequate and affordable health care for families, safe work places for working people, and a clean environment for communities.
If passed, the Mandates Information Act would require the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a cost analysis on all legislation affecting the private sector. While most Members of Congress are certainly interested in preventing undue and unfounded costs to businesses and consumers, we should also be certain to evaluate the benefits that legislation will make in improving the lives of the public. As Members of the House of Representatives we have a responsibility to guarantee job safety, fair standards for consumers, health care for families and a quality environment. The Mandates Information Act completely ignores benefits and thus would institutionalize a one-sided tilt of the legislative process against federal mandates, regardless of any good they would achieve.
The ability to protect the environment, health and safety of all Americans is surely of importance to the Members of the House. The Mandates Information Act could cause delays or even stop implementation of federal laws, simply because a point of order is raised against them, based on estimates alone. This is true even if those estimates are questionable, if the cost is minimal given the size of the industry affected, or if the benefits justify the action.
I fear that with passage of H.R..350 there could be a day when crucial legislation like the Patients' Bill of Rights could be defeated without adequate debate. Issues of importance to our constituents deserve enough time for a fair review and I contend that passage of the Mandates Information Act would prevent just that.
This bill has drawn much concern from my constituents. H.R..350 has also prompted organizations like OMB Watch, the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO to speak out on behalf of the working people and the families they represent.
A bulletin I received from OMB Watch accurately states ``The point of order is the heart of the problem. For those wishing to undermine public protections, it allows them to say they do not oppose the subject of the bill, such as clean air or water or worker safety, and still vote to kill it by voting against the mandate that is created. It is a dangerous backdoor.''
OMB Watch goes on to say that: ``supporters (of H.R..350) claim they just want congress to consider the costs of laws they impose. Surely Members of Congress are presented enough information from all sides to adequately consider costs-and-benefts--(which this bill does not address)--when casting a vote.''
The United Auto Workers believes that: ``the provision creating a point of order against private sector mandates in excess of $100 million is totally one-sided, and would have the effect of establishing a new procedural hurdle that would make it easier to block important protections for workplace health and safety.'' The UAW makes a valid observation that ``H.R..350 only focuses on cost impact of legislation, while ignoring the cost savings or benefits that may be provided to workers and society as a whole.''
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations submits that: ``H.R..350 puts at risk laws with substantial benefits to society. While completely ignoring benefits of health and safety or environmental legislation.''
Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the many individuals and organizations who have been moved to contact me in opposition to the Mandates Information Act. I urge Members to consider the risk we would be taking with passage, and that they join in opposing this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. BEREUTER) having assumed the chair, Mr. LATOURETTE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 350) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents