IB
Union Calendar No. 293
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3534
[Report No. 105–515]
To improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector
mandates, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 24, 1998
Mr. CONDIT (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.
DREIER, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. GOSS, Mr.
MCINTYRE, Mr. LINDER, Mr. JOHN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. CRAMER,
Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. HASTINGS
of Washington, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr.
BOEHNER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. TURN-
ER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Rules
MAY 7, 1998
Additional sponsors: Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. DELAY, Mr. WAMP, Ms. SANCHEZ,
Mr. CALVERT, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BERRY, Mr.
LIVINGSTON, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. STUMP, Mr. POMBO, Mr. CUNNINGHAM,
Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. RYUN, Mrs. NORTHUP,
Mr. TALENT, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. WICKER, Mr. PICKERING, Mr.
BALLENGER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. GIBBONS, Mrs.
KELLY, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. PORTER, Ms.
GRANGER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. BOB SCHAFFER, Mr.
GALLEGLY, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. PAPPAS, Mr.
PAUL, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Ms. DANNER, Mr. BOYD, Mr.
SNOWBARGER, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. PE-
TERSON of Minnesota, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. TANNER, Mr. KASICH, Mr.
DUNCAN, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. RILEY, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr.
HOBSON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr.
GILLMOR, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. LEWIS of Ken-
tucky, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr.
LAHOOD, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. SUNUNU, and
Mr. BEREUTER
MAY 7, 1998
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
[Insert the part printed in italic]
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 1998’’.
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
sector mandates, instead focusing only on the bene-
fits.
(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.
(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 the following:
(1) To improve the quality of the Congress’ de-
liberation with respect to proposed mandates on the
private 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
distinguish between private sector mandates that
harm consumers, workers, and small businesses, and
mandates 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
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, work-
er 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’’.
(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 sec-
tion 425(a)(1) had not been met.’’.
(3) THRESHOLD AMOUNTS.—Section 425(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
658d(a)) is amended by—
(A) striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at
the end of paragraph (1) and redesignating
paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(B) inserting after paragraph (1) the fol-
lowing new paragraph:
‘‘(2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, mo-
tion, or conference report that would increase the di-
rect costs of Federal private sector mandates (ex-
cluding any direct costs that are attributable to reve-
nue resulting from tax or tariff provisions of any
such measure if it does not raise net tax and tariff
revenues over the 5-fiscal-year period beginning with
the first fiscal year such measure affects such reve-
nues) by an amount that causes the thresholds speci-
fied in section 424(b)(1) to be exceeded; and’’.
(4) APPLICATION
RELATING
TO
APPROPRIA-
TIONS
COMMITTEES.—(A) Section 425(c)(1)(A) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
658d(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘except’’.
(B) Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is
amended—
(i) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘intergovern-
mental’’;
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘intergovern-
mental’’;
(iii) in clause (iii) by striking ‘‘intergovern-
mental’’; and
(iv) in clause (iv) by striking ‘‘intergovern-
mental’’.
(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 ‘‘leg-
islative’’ before ‘‘language’’.
(B) Section 426(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(2)) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘section 425 or subsection (a) of this
section’’ and inserting ‘‘part B’’.
(6) QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION.—(A) Sec-
tion 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
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658e(b)(3)) is amend-
ed 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
CONGRES-
SIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.—Section 427 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658f) is
amended by striking ‘‘intergovernmental’’.
(b) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—
Clause 5(c) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘intergovern-
mental’’ 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, re-
spectively, 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.
Union Calendar No. 293
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3534
[Report No. 105–515]
A BILL
To improve congressional deliberation on proposed
Federal private sector mandates, and for other
purposes.
MAY 7, 1998
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and
ordered to be printed