IB
Union Calendar No. 5
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 350
[Report No. 106–5]
To improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector
mandates, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 19, 1999
Mr. CONDIT (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. DAVIS
of Virginia, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. DREIER, Ms. DANNER, Mr. HASTERT, Mr.
STENHOLM, Mr. LINDER, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. HALL of Texas,
Mr. GOSS, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. DELAY, Mr. GOODE, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio,
Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. TANNER, Mr. HASTINGS
of Washington, Mr. TURNER, Mr. KASICH, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. SESSIONS,
Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. RILEY,
Mr. HOBSON, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. HAYES) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules.
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
Additional sponsors: Mr. BOYD, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. BERRY, Mr. CHAMBLISS,
Mr. SKELTON, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr.
SHOWS, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. WELLER, Mr. BARCIA, Mr.
ENGLISH, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. STUMP,
Mr. METCALF, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. TALENT, Ms.
MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. NEY, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. HOSTETTLER,
and Mr. MORAN of Kansas
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 19, 1999]
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 Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mandates Information
Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Before acting on proposed private sector
mandates, the Congress should carefully consider the
effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses.
(2) The Congress has often acted without ade-
quate information concerning the costs of private sec-
tor mandates, instead focusing only on the benefits.
(3) The implementation of the Unfunded Man-
dates Reform Act of 1995 has resulted in increased
awareness of intergovernmental mandates without im-
pacting existing environmental, public health, or safe-
ty laws or regulations.
(4) The implementation of this Act will enhance
the awareness of prospective mandates on the private
sector without adversely affecting existing environ-
mental, public health, or safety laws or regulations.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) The costs of private sector mandates are often
borne in part by small businesses, in the form of hir-
ing disincentives and stunted growth.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To improve the quality of the Congress’ delib-
eration with respect to proposed mandates on the pri-
vate sector, by—
(A) providing the Congress with more com-
plete information about the effects of such man-
dates; and
(B) ensuring that the Congress acts on such
mandates only after focused deliberation on the
effects.
(2) To enhance the ability of the Congress to dis-
tinguish between private sector mandates that harm
consumers, workers, and small businesses, and man-
dates that help those groups.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) ESTIMATES.—Section 424(b)(2) of the Con-
gressional 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 subpara-
graph (A) the following:
‘‘(B) when applicable, the impact (includ-
ing any disproportionate impact in particular
regions or industries) on consumers, workers,
and small businesses, of the Federal private sec-
tor 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;
(5) 
THRESHOLD
BURDEN.—(A) 
Section
426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘legisla-
tive’’ before ‘‘language’’.
(B) Section 426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ‘‘section 425 or subsection (a) of this section’’
and inserting ‘‘part B’’.
(6) QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION.—(A) Section
426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘section
425 or subsection (a) of this section’’ and inserting
‘‘part B’’.
(B) Section 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is amended by
inserting ‘‘, except that not more than one point of
order shall be recognized by the Chair under section
425(a)(1) or (a)(2)’’ before the period.
(7) 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) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—
Clause 11(b) of rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives is amended by striking ‘‘intergovernmental’’
and by striking ‘‘section 424(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘section
424 (a)(1) or (b)(1)’’.
(c) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.—This sec-
tion is enacted by Congress—
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively,
and as such it shall be considered as part of the rules
of such House, respectively, and 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 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’’.
Union Calendar No. 5
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 350
[Report No. 106–5]
A BILL
To improve congressional deliberation on proposed
Federal private sector mandates, and for other
purposes.
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
ordered to be printed