8 September 1998 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html See Report No. 105-299: http://jya.com/sr105-299.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [DOCID: f:s389rs.txt] 105th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 389 [Report No. 105-299] To improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 3, 1997 Mr. Abraham (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Helms, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McCain, Mr. Allard, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grams, Mr. Mack, Mr. Frist, Mr. Faircloth, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Coats, Mr. Burns, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Smith of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged September 2 (legislative day, August 31), 1998 Reported by Mr. Thompson, with amendments [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] September 2 (legislative day, August 31), 1998 Referred to the Committee on the Budget for not to exceed 30 calendar days _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of 1997 1998''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) before acting on proposed private sector mandates, Congress should carefully consider their effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses; (2) Congress has often acted without adequate information concerning the costs of private sector mandates, instead focusing only on their benefits; (3) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced availability of goods and services; (4) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced benefits, and fewer job opportunities; and (5) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives and stunted growth. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to improve the quality of Congress's deliberation with respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by-- (A) providing Congress with more complete information about the effects of such mandates; and (B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects; and (2) to enhance the ability of Congress to distinguish between private sector mandates that harm consumers, workers, and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups. TITLE I--DELIBERATION ON PROPOSED FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES SEC. 101. SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES. (a) In General.-- (1) Estimates.--Section 424(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(2)) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; and (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: ``(B) 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''. (1) Estimates.--Section 424(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(4) Estimate of indirect impacts.-- ``(A) In general.--In preparing estimates under paragraph (1), the Director shall also estimate, if feasible, 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. ``(B) Estimate not considered in determination.-- The estimate prepared under this paragraph shall not be considered in determining whether the direct costs of all Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution will exceed the threshold specified in paragraph (1).''. (2) Point of order.--Section 424(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(3)) is amended by adding after the period ``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.''. (3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended-- (A) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``Federal mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 424 (a)(1) or (b)(1)''; and (B) by inserting ``, in the case of Federal intergovernmental mandates exceeding the thresholds specified in section 424(a)(1)'' after``unless''. (3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``Federal mandates by an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 424 (a)(1) or (b)(1)''. (4) Application relating to appropriations committees.-- Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended-- (A) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental''; (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental''; (C) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental''; and (D) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental''. (6) (5) Application relating to congressional budget office.--Section 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658f) is amended by striking ``intergovernmental''. (b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--This section is enacted by Congress-- (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House, respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of each House. SEC. 5. FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATE. Section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``the provision'' after ``if''; (2) in clause (i)(I) by inserting ``the provision'' before ``would''; (3) in clause (i)(II) by inserting ``the provision'' before ``would''; and (4) in clause (ii)-- (A) by inserting ``that legislation, statute, or regulation does not provide'' before ``the State''; and (B) by striking ``lack'' and inserting ``new or expanded''. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: February 12, 1998 (Digest)] [Page D89-D92] UNFUNDED MANDATES Committee on the Budget: Committee concluded hearings on the implementation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4), and on S. 389 and provisions of H.R. 1010, measures to establish a point of order against congressional consideration of bills that contain private-sector mandates with costs over the $100 million threshold, regardless of whether federal funding is provided, and to direct the Congressional Budget Office to provide expanded cost information for private-sector mandates above the threshold, after receiving testimony from Representatives Condit and Portman; James L. Blum, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office; R. Bruce Josten, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Sharon Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Council, both of Washington, D.C.; and John Nicholson, Company Flowers, Arlington, Virginia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: February 12, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S769-S770] ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS S. 389 At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, a bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: June 3, 1998 (Digest)] [Page D578] MANDATES INFORMATION ACT Committee on Governmental Affairs: Committee concluded hearings on S. 389 and H.R. 3534, bills to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, after receiving testimony from Senator Abraham; Representative Portman; James L. Blum, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office; Mary Ann Cricchio, Baltimore, Maryland, on behalf of the National Restaurant Association; and R. Bruce Josten, United States Chamber of Commerce, and Sharon Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Council, both of Washington, D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: June 17, 1998 (Digest)] [Page D649-D651] BUSINESS MEETING Committee on Governmental Affairs: Committee: Committee began markup of S. 389, to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, but did not complete action thereon, and recessed subject to call. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: June 18, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S6580] ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS S. 389 At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, a bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: July 15, 1998 (Digest)] [Page D761-D764] BUSINESS MEETING Committee on Governmental Affairs: Committee ordered favorably reported the following business items: S. 389, to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, with amendments; ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: July 16, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S8387-S8388] ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS S. 389 At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, a bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: July 27, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S9058] ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS S. 389 At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, a bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: September 2, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S9877] REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, with amendments: S. 389. A bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 105-299). -------------------------------------------------------------------------