A PRIMER ON COMMITTEE REPORTS “It has been a rule of the House since 1880 that bills reported from a committee must be accompanied by written reports . . . The report of a committee is in the nature of argument or explanation. . . It is the duty of each committee chairman to ‘promptly’ report measures approved by the committee to the House.” William Holmes Brown, House Practice, Pages 261-262 The rules of the House specify the form and content of committee reports. The rules require inclusion of a series of matters in each committee report accompanying legislation ordered reported by a committee. Those requirements are found in clause 3 of House rule XIII In addition, a fairly standard format for committee reports has evolved over the years, with each committee refining that format to best suit its purposes. While many of the required elements of committee reports have remained constant over the past several Congresses, the House has streamlined and updated the specific requirements for committee reports. This document offers a recommended form for committee reports, and the specific portions of these reports that are required by House rules and the Congressional Budget Act. There are also numerous statutes that require reports accompanying certain types of legislation to contain specific information. Such statutes include the Congressional Accountability Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. As the application of these requirements is not universal for all bills or all House committees and the failure to comply with these statutes does not trigger a point of order on the floor of the House against consideration of the pending measure, these statutory requirements are not included in this primer. Basic Elements of a Committee Report 1. Cover Page Legislative Counsel can provide the necessary format for the cover page of a committee report. This page will include the title of the bill, the date on which the report was ordered to be printed, the name of the chairman submitting the report, notation of the legislation the report accompanies, and a reference to the report’s inclusion of the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office as well as supplemental, minority, or additional views which are also included at the end of the report. In addition, the cover page will note the committee’s action on the legislation as well as any committee recommendation with respect to the legislation. This recommendation usually takes any of the following forms: “that the bill do pass,” “that the bill do not pass” or “without recommendation.” If the committee has adopted an amendment to the legislation, the text of that amendment will appear at this point in the committee report. 2. Purpose of the Legislation The report should succinctly describe the purpose of the legislation. This is often an enhanced version of the purpose of the legislation printed on the introduced bill. 3. Bill Summary This section provides the committee with the opportunity to outline the specific components of the legislation. Generally, for bills containing more than one section, the bill summary should be done in a “section-by-section” format, with the description and analysis of the legislative impact of each section. 4. Committee Consideration This section should briefly outline the legislative history of the legislation, specifically it’s introduction, the actions of any other committees that have considered the bill, and the actions undertaken by the reporting committee in considering this legislation. This outline should describe briefings or hearings held and should include a summary of the mark-up session on the legislation, highlighting any votes that were taken in committee to either amend or to order the legislation reported. 5. Background and Need for the Legislation This section provides the committee with the forum to “make its case” for the legislation accompanying the report. It is here that the committee presents the historical context and rationale for its action in ordering the legislation reported and encouraging the House to pass the bill. This portion of the report is a key component of what is known as the “legislative history” of a bill once it has become law. Future legislators, the courts, administration officials, lawyers and citizens may refer to this part of the committee report in the implementation of the new law or when questions arise over “the intent of Congress” with respect to this legislation. The “Background and Need for the Legislation” section forms the basis of the committee’s argument or explanation as to why the House should approve the underlying bill and what the bill is meant to address. 6. Matters Required Under the Rules of the House Committee Vote(s) Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for and against. Oversight Findings Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report to include oversight findings and recommendations as required under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. Committee Cost Estimate Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII requires each committee report to include the statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the Budget Act), which requires the committee, after consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), to provide a cost estimate for any measure that provides new budget authority, new spending authority or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. This requirement further notes that an estimate of new budget authority “shall include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under current law.” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimates Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII requires each committee report to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the CBO, pursuant to section 402 of the Budget Act, if the cost estimate is timely submitted. Government Performance and Results Act Statements Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII requires each committee report to contain a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. Constitutional Authority Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report on a public bill or joint resolution to contain a statement citing the specific constitutional authority for enacting the law proposed. Alternative Cost Estimate Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII requires each committee report (except those of the Committees on Appropriations, House Administration, Rules or Standards of Official Conduct) to include a committee cost estimate in the event that the committee report does not include the statement of the Director of the CBO (see above). This committee cost estimate would include an estimate of the costs incurred in carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which is reported and the five ensuing fiscal years (or for the authorized duration of the program if less than that time period); a comparison of the estimate of those costs and any estimate of such costs submitted to the committee by any government agency; and, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimate funding level for the relevant programs with the appropriate levels under current law. Comparative Print Clauses 3(e)(1) and (2) of rule XIII require each committee report on a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part of a statute to include the text of the statute or part that is proposed to be repealed and a comparative print showing the changes proposed to the statute (this is commonly known as the Ramseyer section of the report and it is provided by Legislative Counsel). 7. Views of Committee Members Clause 2(l) of rule XI requires that a Member shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day on which he or she provides notice (at the time of approval of a bill by a committee) of his or her intention to file supplemental, minority, or additional views for inclusion in the committee’s report. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XIII those views shall be printed in the committee report and referenced on the cover page of the report. Requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Mandate Cost Estimate Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that the CBO cost estimate required under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII include a mandate cost estimate. This estimate must specifically state whether the bill or joint resolution, as reported, contains any intergovernmental or private sector mandates and whether those mandates exceed the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. If this estimate on the cost of mandates is not included in the report, it must be placed in the Congressional Record before floor consideration of the reported bill. Description, Assessment, and Explanation of Mandates Section 423(c) also requires all committee reports on any bill or joint resolution of a public character that includes a Federal mandate to include a description of all mandates including direct compliance costs, an assessment of the mandates’ costs and benefits, an explanation of whether the mandate affects both public and private sectors, and a determination of whether paying for or easing an intergovernmental mandate affects the competitive balance between state and local governments and the private sector. Under section 423(d), if the Federal mandates in the reported bill or joint resolution are intergovernmental mandates the report must also contain a statement of the how the mandate is paid for (direct spending authorization or authorization of appropriations, if any), a statement on whether the committee intends that the mandate be partly or entirely unfunded, and if funded, explanation of the mechanism used to allocate funding among the respective levels of State, local and tribal governments and a description of the existing sources of federal assistance to cover direct costs of the mandate. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law Section 423(e) states that whenever a committee of authorization of the House or the Senate reports any bill or joint resolution of a public nature it must contain a statement on whether the bill is intended to preempt any state, local or tribal law. If the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt such laws, the report must contain an explanation of the effect of such preemption. Requirements for Specific Committees Rule XIII also includes specific requirements for committee reports from the Committees on Appropriations, Rules, and Ways and Means. Committee on Appropriations Clause 3(f) requires reports from the Committee on Appropriations to include a concise statement describing the effect of any provision in the legislation that changes the application of existing law, and a list of the appropriations in the bill for unauthorized expenditures. In addition, clause 3(f) requires the committee report to clearly identify and list rescissions and transfers of unexpended balances. Committee on Rules Clause 3(g) requires the Committee on Rules to include in any reports accompanying resolutions proposing to change existing House rules the text of the rule proposed to be modified and a comparative print demonstrating the proposed changes. Committee on Ways and Means Clause 3(h)(1) requires that the Committee on Ways and Means’ reports proposing changes in the Internal Revenue Code must include a tax complexity analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation . Clause 3(h)(2) provides that a report accompanying legislation ordered reported by the Ways and Means Committee and designated by the Majority Leader as major tax legislation may include a dynamic estimate of the changes in federal revenues expected to result from the enactment of the legislation. Example of a Committee Report 106th Congress 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Committee on Rules Report No. 106-5 TO IMPROVE CONGRESSIONAL DELIBERATION ON PROPOSED FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES _______________ February 2, 1999.--Ordered to be printed _______________ Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 350] The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 350) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, is to: (1) improve the quality of the Congress' deliberation with respect to proposed mandates on the private sector by providing the Congress with more complete information about the effects of such mandates, and ensuring that the Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on the effects; and (2) 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. SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION H.R. 350 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require a congressional committee report on any bill or joint resolution that includes a federal private sector mandate to include a statement from CBO estimating the impact of such mandates on consumers, workers, and small businesses, including any disproportionate impact in particular regions or industries (CBO is currently required to estimate only the direct costs of all federal private sector mandates that exceed $100 million and the amount of federal financial assistance, if any, provided by the legislation to assist with compliance costs). It subjects the consideration of such legislation to a point of order if it is not feasible for CBO to prepare such an estimate (currently under UMRA, a point of order may apply only if it is not feasible for CBO to prepare an intergovernmental mandates estimate). H.R. 350 prohibits consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report containing private sector mandates whose direct costs exceed $100 million (the current unfunded mandate point of order applies only to unfunded intergovernmental mandates, the direct cost of which exceeds $50 million, unless it is paid for with new federal financial assistance). H.R. 350 prohibits the Chair from recognizing Members for more than one point of order for a committee’s failure to comply with the CBO report requirements with respect to private sector mandates, or for private sector mandates contained in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report. H.R. 350 amends clause 11(b) of House Rule XVIII to preserve the availability in the Committee of the Whole of a motion to strike an unfunded federal mandate (intergovernmental and private sector), unless the rule is specifically waived by the Rules Committee. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION On January 19, 1999, Representatives Gary Condit and Rob Portman introduced H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, which was referred to the Committee on Rules. On February 2, 1999, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process held a joint hearing to review H.R. 350 and its implementation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The Committee on Rules received testimony from the Hon. Gary Condit (D-CA); the Hon. Rob Portman (R-OH); the Hon. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY); Mr. Jim Blum, Acting Director of the Congressional Budget Office; Mr. Ryan Null, Owner of Tristate Electronic Manufacturing; Ms. Angela Antonelli, Heritage Foundation Director for Economic Policy Studies; and Ms. Maura Kealey, Deputy Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. On Tuesday, February 2, 1999, the Committee met to mark-up H.R. 350. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 350, as amended, by voice vote a quorum being present. During the mark-up, one amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Linder was agreed to by voice vote. H.R. 350, as amended by this substitute, is essentially the same as legislation (H.R. 3534) that passed the House last year by a vote of 279 to 132. BACKGROUND ON THE LEGISLATION On March 22, 1995, President Clinton signed into law the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which amended title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. A key component of the Republican “Contract With America,” UMRA was one of the first bills enacted by the 104th Congress. Among other things, the purposes of UMRA are to: strengthen the partnership between the federal government and state and local governments; end the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments without full information on the costs and effects of such mandates; promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of all federal mandates affecting state and local governments and the private sector; and establish new points of order in the House and Senate for failure to comply with certain requirements under the act. A federal mandate is defined as a provision that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. An unfunded federal mandate is defined as a mandate whose direct costs exceed $50 million for state and local governments, and $100 million for the private sector. Direct costs are defined as the aggregate amount that all levels of government or the private sector are required to spend in order to comply with the mandate or prohibited from raising in revenue. There are three major components to UMRA. One addresses agency regulatory responsibilities. A second directs the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) to undertake certain studies with respect to existing mandates (ACIR was de-funded by Congress in fiscal year 1997). The third contains congressional procedures for the consideration of legislation containing federal mandates. Procedures in the House and Senate UMRA’s congressional procedures are found in sections 423 through 426 of Part B of title IV of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974. Sections 423 and 424 outline specific reporting and estimating responsibilities for congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Section 425 prohibits the consideration of bills, joint resolutions, motions, amendments and conference reports in the House and Senate if such legislation contains unfunded intergovernmental federal mandates, or if a committee, when reporting a bill or joint resolution, fails to include in either the committee report or the Congressional Record a statement from CBO estimating the direct costs of any mandates (intergovernmental or private sector) contained in the legislation. Disposition of Points of Order in the House of Representatives Section 426 prohibits the consideration of any order of business resolution in the House of Representatives that waives points of order against the application of Section 425. It also contains procedures for the disposition of points of order in the House of Representatives. Specifically, the chair will not rule on the point of order. Rather, the chair will put to the House or the Committee of the Whole, whichever the case may be, the "question of consideration with respect to the proposition that is the subject of the point of order." The question of consideration with respect to each point of order is subject to 20 minutes of debate -- 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and 10 minutes by an opponent. Following debate on the question of consideration, the Members will vote on whether to proceed with consideration of the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report. UMRA also amended clause 11 of House Rule XVIII (which was further modified by H.Res. 5 at the beginning of the 105th Congress). Clause 11 of House Rule XVIII preserves the availability in the Committee of the Whole of a motion to strike an unfunded intergovernmental mandate. Neither a rule restricting amendments nor one waiving all points of order is sufficient to preclude a motion to strike an unfunded intergovernmental mandate unless the rule specifically waives clause 11 of House Rule XVIII. In the 105th Congress, the Committee on Rules held original jurisdiction hearings on October 30, 1997, and March 27, 1998, on two similar private sector mandates bills and reported H.R. 3534 as amended under an open rule on May 6, 1998. The House passed H.R. 3534 by a vote of 279-132 on May 19, 1998. The Senate Committee on Government Affairs held hearings and reported similar private mandates legislation, S. 389, but the Senate did not take further action. In the 106th Congress, on January 19, 1999, Representatives Gary Condit and Rob Portman introduced H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999. This legislation attempts to improve congressional deliberation and public awareness of private sector mandates similar to the procedures that were enacted in the UMRA in 1995 with regard to intergovernmental mandates. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION (AS REPORTED) The Rules Committee approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute which makes a number of technical and conforming changes to H.R. 350 as introduced. Sec. 1 of the committee substitute establishes the short title as the “Mandates Information Act of 1999". Sec. 2 of the committee substitute establishes a number of congressional findings with respect to the need for additional information on the costs of Federal private sector mandates contained in proposed legislation. Sec. 3 of the committee substitute outlines the purposes of the bill which are to: (1) improve the quality of the congressional deliberation with respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by providing the Congress with more complete information about the effects of such mandates, and ensuring that the Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on the effects; and (2) 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(a)(1) of the committee substitute amends Sec. 424(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to further require CBO to estimate, when applicable, the aggregate impact of proposed Federal private sector mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, including any disproportionate impact in particular regions or industries. The estimate shall also include an analysis of the effect of proposed Federal private sector mandates on: consumer prices and the actual supply of goods and services in consumer markets; worker wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. The phrase “when applicable” in Sec. 4(a)(1) qualifies the requirement that CBO provide estimates under Sec. 424(b)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in two ways. The phrase is not intended to grant CBO broad discretion to forgo preparing an estimate with respect to consumers, workers and small businesses. It is, however, intended to permit CBO to forgo an estimate of the impact of a Federal private sector mandate on consumers, workers and small businesses if CBO determines that the private sector mandate has no impact on that group or whose impact on that group could not be identified. Therefore, if CBO determined there was no impact on workers, CBO would not be required to estimate the impact on workers, or the specific areas related to workers. The qualification is also intended to permit CBO to forgo an analysis of any of the specific information noted for consumers, workers and small businesses when CBO determines that the impacts on that group do not include that specific area. Therefore, if CBO determined that there was an impact on consumers, but the impact would not affect the supply of goods and services in consumer markets, CBO would not be required to provide an analysis of such affects. Sec. 4(a)(2) of the committee substitute amends Sec. 424(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to permit a point of order against consideration of any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a committee if it is not feasible for CBO to prepare a Federal private sector mandates estimate for publication before consideration of the bill or joint resolution. Sec. 4(a)(3) of the committee substitute amends Sec. 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would increase the direct costs of Federal private sector mandates by $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any of the Federal private sector mandate would be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years following such fiscal year. In the case of a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that provides a net reduction in tax or tariff revenue, the measure’s tax and tariff provisions would not be considered in determining the direct costs of Federal private sector mandates only for purposes of a point of order under Sec. 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. For purposes of illustration, consideration of a bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means that contains tax or tariff provisions which cause the $100 million threshold for private sector mandates to be exceeded, but result in an overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over a five-year period, would not be subject to a Sec. 425(a)(2) point of order, provided that the bill does not include other non-revenue related Federal private sector mandates that exceed the $100 million threshold. In contrast, if a bill contains tax or tariff provisions which result in a net increase in revenues, a Sec. 425(a)(2) point of order may apply. Sec. 4(a)(4) of the committee substitute amends Sec. 425(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to permit a point of order against legislative provisions in appropriations bills that increase the direct costs of a Federal private sector mandate by an amount that causes the $100 million threshold to be exceeded. Sec. 4(a)(5) of the committee substitute makes two technical changes to Sec. 426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to conform with established practices by: (1) striking the term “section 425 or subsection (a) of this section” and inserting “part B”; and (2) inserting the word “legislative” before the word “language”. Sec. 4(a)(6) of the committee substitute makes a technical change to Sec. 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act to conform with established practice by striking the term “section 425 or subsection (a) of this section”. Sec. 4(a)(6) further prohibits the Chair from recognizing Members for more than one point of order with respect to the consideration of: (1) any reported bill or joint resolution in which the reporting committee fails to publish a statement for the Director of the CBO on the direct costs of Federal private sector mandates; or (2) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would increase the direct costs of a Federal private sector mandate by an amount that causes the $100 million threshold to be exceeded. Sec. 4(a)(7) of the committee substitute amends Sec. 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require the Director of the CBO, at the written request of a Senator and to the extent practical, to prepare an estimate of the direct costs of a Federal private Sector mandate contained in an amendment of such Senator. Sec. 4(b) of the committee substitute amends clause 11(b) of House Rule XVIII to preserve the availability in the Committee of the Whole of a motion to strike private sector mandates unless such mandates are expressly prohibited by the terms of a special order. Sec. 4(c) of the committee substitute expresses the constitutional authority of Congress to make the rules c hanges in Sec. 4 and exercise its rulemaking power in both the Senate and the House to change such rules at any time. Sec. 5 of the committee substitute amends Sec. 421(5)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to ensure that Federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid, child nutrition, and foster care are considered unfunded intergovernmental mandates if Congress imposes new conditions, places caps on funding, or cuts funding without giving the States authority to adjust those changes. MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE Committee Vote Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and against, to be printed in the committee report. No record votes were requested during the consideration of H.R. 350. Committee Cost Estimate Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII requires each committee report that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority or changing revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. Clause 3(d) of rule XIII requires committees to include their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels under current law. The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Congressional Budget Office Estimates Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII requires the report of any committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is timely submitted. The following is the CBO cost estimate as required: Constitutional Authority Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report on a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. The Committee cites Article 1, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which grants each House of Congress the authority to determine the rules of its proceedings, as its authority for reporting this bill. Federal Mandates Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint resolution that includes any Federal mandate to include specific information about such mandates. The Committee states that H.R. 350 does not include any Federal mandate. Preemption Clarification Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a committee statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state or local law. The Committee states that H.R. 350 is not intended to preempt any state or local law. Oversight Findings Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report to contain oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has oversight responsibility for Part B of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and finds that, although the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is working as intended, Congress can benefit from having more complete information about the effects of proposed Federal private sector mandates. The Committee recommends the passage of H.R. 350 as a means to improve the effectiveness of UMRA. Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII requires each committee report to contain a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the Government Reform Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Rules has received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): Changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives Made by the Bill, As Reported Consistent with clause 3(g) of rule XIII which requires that, whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution amending or repealing the Rules of the House of Representatives, the accompanying report must contain a comparative print showing the changes in existing rules proposed to be made by the resolution. Changes in existing Rules of the House of Representatives made by the resolution, as reported, are shown as follows (existing rules proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing rules in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): Views of Committee Members Clause 2(c) of rule XIII requires each committee to afford a three day opportunity for members of the committee to file supplemental, minority, or additional views and to include the views in its report. Although neither requirement applies to the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort to provide its members with such an opportunity. The following views were submitted: Dissenting Views on H.R. 350 The Democratic Members of the Rules Committee have three major concerns about this bill. First, we are concerned about the “point of order” scheme developed in the original bill and continued in this one. It can be too easily abused to close off debate for partisan, political purposes. The “point of order” is not a “point of order” in the true sense. Rather it is automatically transformed into a question of consideration. That is, if any Member asserts the existence of an unfunded mandate in a measure, the House must, without any judgment by the Chair, debate for 20 minutes and, by a simple majority vote, determine whether to proceed to consider the measure. In fact, the very first time the unfunded mandate point of order was raised, in 1996, the majority party used it to block consideration of a motion to recommit that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, did not contain an unfunded mandate. It was an offensive breach of fair play because the motion to recommit is the only procedural tool guaranteed to the minority in a House which is run and ruled by the majority. The first experience was, fortunately, not the norm. On the whole, we are encouraged that the unfunded mandate point of order not been misused. Important information has been available about the impact of legislation on the public sector, and Members generally have used restraint against exploiting the parliamentary procedure for political purposes. We urge Members to continue to act in a responsible way but the potential for abuse remains and the majority has done nothing to fix this defect. Our second objection is about the effect of the measure on efforts to promote social justice. Some of the finest legislative efforts of this nation -- providing food to the hungry, protecting public health and safety, cleaning up pollution, enforcing the civil rights of persecuted individuals or compelling parents to fulfill their financial obligations to their children – have, by necessity, imposed burdens on businesses and individuals. We fear that, without amendment, the bill tilts the playing field against such legislation. One witness at the hearing, Maura Kealey of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, said: “[H.R. 350] will allow Members of Congress to hide behind a procedural vote to torpedo vital legislation with strong public support – food safety, clean air and water, minimum wage increase, patients’ bill of rights – rather than vote it up or down on its merits.” Amendments such as the one offered by Representative Waxman during last year’s debate would vastly improve the legislation. Our third objection to the bill is aimed at a provision which was added by the majority leadership at the last minute last year and is included again in the bill reported by the Committee. The language, as proposed by Mr. Dreier, excludes from the point of order those measures containing revenue increases that net out with tax cuts over a five year period. This provision is flawed in two ways: it moves us away from the goal of reviewing all private sector mandates and it injects the unfunded mandate process into the fundamentally political battleground of decisions on taxes and spending. We want to be perfectly clear. Tax cuts are not unfunded mandates under the definition of the law, nor do we believe they should be. Members who supported Mr. Dreier’s exemption argued last year that the budget rules require tax cuts to be paid for by either spending cuts or tax increases. They contend that, without the Dreier language, the new unfunded mandates provisions will unfairly penalize efforts to pay for those cuts with tax increases. We would point out, in all fairness, that decisions to pay for tax cuts by decreasing spending would also be caught up in the point of order if it imposes direct costs on businesses or causes a loss of revenue to states, localities or tribal governments. If certain spending cuts can be subject to unfunded mandate points of order, there is no reason certain tax increases should not be. We should not favor one form of paying for a tax cut over another, or to limit the various ways of paying for tax cuts. We believe that the point of order should apply in all cases without bias as we debate policy options. One of the main objectives of the unfunded mandate laws is to encourage bill authors and committees to consider burdens as well as benefits at an early stage of development. Mr. Portman made the point in last year’s floor debate that the point of order acts as a deterrent in committee as well as a final enforcement tool on the floor. He noted that public sector mandates were more often not stopped on the Floor but curtailed at the committee level because the committees were forced to come up with ways of getting things through Congress. Certainly, the unfunded mandate law should stimulate debate and new ways of thinking, but we believe the procedural tool should be neutral. It should not be weighted to influence or direct a particular type of policy solution. The exemption proposed in this legislation forces us to look at the way revenues are used before applying the unfunded mandate point of order, and presents a parliamentary bias toward tax hikes over spending reductions. For example, a tax increase on coal that is spent on black lung benefits or environmental clean-up would be subject to a point of order, but the same tax increase on coal that is spent for a tax break for ethanol would not be subject to a point of order. We also believe a tax is a mandate regardless of where it appears. The Dreier proposal to exempt certain tax hikes creates a loophole in the mandates bill, and erodes the basic intent to focus attention on the potential burden of any policy on individuals and businesses. In other words, the new language tells the small businesses in our districts that a tax hike facing them is not worth the consideration of the House as long as it is used to give a tax break to someone else. Finally, we would point out a certain inconsistency in the arguments of some Members against our concern about social justice and for the exemption of tax hikes which are used to offset tax cuts. These Members assure those of us who are concerned about losing important environmental protections or worker rights that the point of order scheme is intended to provide information and the time to make an informed decision; a majority vote will allow Members to take up the measure. In other words, the point of order is a speed bump not a red light. By that reasoning, Members who support the Dreier exemption should have nothing to fear from an informed debate about tax increases, no matter where they fall. We remain concerned over this bill for these reasons. While our experience with public sector mandates has been reasonably encouraging, we continue to be deeply concerned about the point of order scheme and will remain vigilant that it not be abused for any purpose. We also believe we need a procedure that is fair, even handed, and not tilted toward one policy outcome over another. The special exemption for certain tax increases should be dropped; we should not have to tell our constituents that a gas tax spent to repair bridges would be subject to debate, but the same tax used to give a tax break to a competing part of the transportation industry would not need separate debate. And H.R. 350 should not be used to erect procedural hurdles against legislation designed to promote social justice. Amendments should be adopted so that the bill does not so concentrate on the burdens to businesses that it ignores the benefits of feeding the hungry, cleaning the environment, protecting public health and safety, and enforcing civil rights. Joe Moakley, Martin Frost, Tony P. Hall, and Louise McIntosh Slaughter