Hearings of the
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
H.R. 350 - Mandates Information Act of 1999
As you are aware, my colleague Rep. Rob Portman and I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress to follow up on the success of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This act has successfully focused more attention on the fiscal impacts of legislation on the public sector by raising awareness of unfunded mandates on state and local governments.
This atmosphere of awareness has been fostered by the point of order procedure established under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Under this process, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs of intergovernmental mandates within a bill. If the costs of the intergovernmental mandates exceed the statutory threshold of $50 million, any member may raise a point of order against the bill by citing the offending provision of the bill.
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.
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 this 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.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon. Your commitment to quickly moving this legislation forward means a great deal to me.
