Environment - Appropriations Bill Riders

Appropriations Bill Riders

Mandates and Penalties
February 11, 1999

The Washington Post
Editorial

THE HOUSE of Representatives has passed one and is scheduled today to take up another antiregulatory measure reported out of its Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Yesterday, the House passed a bill by Gary Condit (DCalif.) to extend the 1995 unfunded mandates act to protect the private sector as well as state governments. Today, it will consider a bill by Rep. David McIntosh (RInd.) to exempt small businesses from fines for first violations of federal reporting requirements. At least in its current form, this bill should be rejected.

The McIntosh bill is crafted as a paperwork reduction measure. But it is, in fact, a significant regulatory amnesty. Under its provisions, agencies would be forced to suspend civil fines against small businesses for first violations of disclosure and reporting rules except in certain egregious circumstances. The administration has opposed the bill, correctly arguing, as the Justice Department put it, that it would "give bad actors little reason to comply [with the law] until caught" and would "reward bad actors and those who would knowingly or in bad faith violate federal information collection requirements." Despite the narrow exceptions, the department argued, the bill "will impede agencies' ability to carry out their statutory duties to safeguard public health, safety and the environment."

The best bet would simply be to reject this bill. Failing that, a proposed amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (DOhio) that would merely direct agencies to adopt policies regarding when to waive enforcement against firsttime offenders would soften it.

The Condit bill is a more difficult call. It would make any bill imposing privatesector costs of more than $ 100 million a year subject to a point of order in Congress that could be overcome by a simple majority. In other words, Congress could still impose such a mandate, but would have to do so straightforwardly. Opponents argue that this could still be an obstacle for future legislation, but it's hard to object to Congress imposing on itself the discipline of being explicit about the consequences of its measures.

It should, of course, be equally hard to object to Congress imposing on itself the same discipline with respect to riders on appropriations bills designed to eliminate such mandates. These riders, after all, also impose costs on society in the form of weakened regulatory protection. But the House apparently embraces the principle of explicitness rather selectively. It killed an amendment by Rep. Henry Waxman (DCalif.) to require the same separate majority vote on the riders that Mr. Condit would apply to the mandates themselves. If Congress should have to be explicit when increasing burdens on industry, it should not be allowed to obfuscate when giving businesses a backchannel break.