Hearings of the
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
H.R. 350 - Mandates Information Act of 1999
Thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon on this important bill. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who have sponsored this bill, Mr. Condit and Mr. Portman, and I know they have introduced it with the best of intentions.
But I believe H.R. 350 is based on faulty assumptions, and it threatens the fundamental fairness of House procedures. The Rules Committee, in particular, ought to view it as a threat because it undermines your ability to structure fair and open debate in the House of Representatives.
The Rules Committee has prided itself, quite properly, on allowing as open a debate in the House as possible, providing open rules whenever it can. You have done that in keeping with the basic American belief in “the marketplace of ideas” -- the belief that the widest ranging, fullest, most open debate is the way to air all sides of the issue, to get all the facts on the table, to facilitate the wisest decision-making.
Yet if H.R. 350 became law, there would never be such a thing as an open rule again. That is quite literally true. An open rule means unlimited debate on every amendment. Yet under H.R. 350, if any private interest opposed a bill, a Member could raise a point of order that could limit debate to a pitiful 20 minutes. Raising the point of order requires not a shred of evidence -- no evidence at all, just a mere assertion. There is no ruling by the chair. Following the assertion, debate on any amendment that did not already command majority support would be short circuited.
And I am not “crying wolf” in laying out this scenario. If H.R. 350 had been in effect in 1995, debate on the Clean Water Act substitute would have been cut off after just 10 minutes on each side instead of extending for more than a day under the truly open rule provided by the Rules Committee. Last year, debate on the Patients Bill of Rights would have been cut off after just 10 minutes on each side instead of consuming the several hours that were allowed by the Rules Committee in the interest of free and fair debate.
I fail to see how short circuiting the debate on those major bills would have provided the House with more information, greater focus, or fairer consideration. Yet those are the express goals of the sponsors of H.R. 350.
Now, they may say, “Well, you don’t know if anyone would have used the point of order in those cases.” I would say, if no one would use the point of order on two of the most visible bills opposed by industry, ones they spent a great deal of money to defeat, then I don’t see why they are pushing it so adamantly.
In fact, the whole point of this bill is to make it more difficult to pass bills that one private interest or another might oppose. The sponsors have indicated that Committees would be less likely to approve private mandates if they knew they would face a point of order. Another way to say this is that H.R. 350 would intimidate Committees so they would be more reluctant to pass bills to protect the environment, health or safety, even if those bills might command a majority on the House floor.
H.R. 350 gives private interests legislative tools that are denied to their customers, their communities and their employees. That hardly seems like the way to promote fair and open debate.
Such a fundamental change in the openness and balance in the House should only be undertaken if it can be proved that such a sweeping change is necessary to solve a real problem. The burden of proof is on the sponsors.
They cannot meet that burden because the bill is based on several faulty assumptions. First, the bill assumes that private mandates raise the same substantive and political issues as intergovernmental mandates. Second, the bill assumes that Congress has passed bills that affect industry without considering their cost. Third, the bill assumes that industry has not had the ability to make its views known on Capitol Hill.
Yet, it is simply not the case that intergovernmental mandates and private mandates are the same. Substantively, the issues are different -- deciding which level of government should shoulder a public cost is quite different than deciding whether an activity -- say, cleaning up industry’s own pollution -- should be a private or public responsibility. Politically, industry clearly has political clout that states and localities lack. That is demonstrated every time there is a vote or debate in Congress; business’ views are always part of the debate -- as they should be. But they should not now be the only views that can determine the shape of a debate.
Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee always has it in its power to structure debate so that enough time is provided and enough amendments are offered to see that all points of view are represented. Points of order should not be created as a substitute for, or to limit substantive debate. That should be an axiom at this Committee.
Now I am under no illusion that this statement will persuade the Rules Committee not to report out H.R. 350. So instead I will urge that you do two things that I expect you will be able to do: first, amend H.R. 350 so that it is identical to the version that passed the House last year. In some ways that version is better than H.R. 350 and in some ways worse, but it will simplify and clarify the debate if we work off last year’s bill.
Second, I urge you to provide an open rule for this bill. I intend to offer an amendment, or perhaps a substitute, that would achieve the goals of the sponsors -- providing more time for focused debate on costs and benefits -- without the dangerous side-effects of H.R. 350. I think the House deserves an open debate on a proposal that would skew future debates, and I am sure this Committee will come to the same conclusion.
This issues raised by H.R. 350 are complex and far-reaching, and I urge you to give them your most thoughtful consideration. The issue here is not whether Congress should impose requirements on industry -- that should be debated on a case-by-case basis -- but rather whether such debate will be open, full, fair and democratic. Thank you.
