Restricting New Health and Safety Precautions

House Roll Call Vote 17

1999 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

274

Votes Against

149

Not Voting

11

In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which requires the Congressional Budget Office to report to government and the private sector the costs of complying with directives contained in new legislative proposals. The law also allows members of Congress to raise a procedural hurdle–a point of order–on bills that cost state and local governments more than $50 million to comply. 

This point of order currently does not apply when costs are borne by the private sector. However, the Mandates Information Act (H.R. 350), sponsored by Representative Gary Condit (D-CA), would expand on the existing law by establishing a new point of order against legislation that imposes costs of more than $100 million on business. The bill would create a legislative procedure allowing members of Congress to prevent important new health and safety protections from coming to a vote. 

The Mandates Information Act focuses exclusively on costs, but environmentalists believe that certain costs are not easily quantified, such as the extermination of a species or the costs of reducing the risks of birth defects and premature deaths. Nor does the bill consider whether the affected companies benefited financially from creating the pollution in the first place. This new hurdle could impede important legislation such as proposals to expand the public’s right to know about toxins in their communities or efforts to address pollution in lakes or rivers. 

The federal mandates on the private sector that H.R. 350 targets include: 

  • requirements that companies generating hazardous waste pay the costs of disposal; 
  • requirements that companies discarding waste in lakes and streams reduce the toxic and cancer-causing chemicals they release; and 
  • requirements that meat packers ensure that the meat they sell is not contaminated with deadly bacteria. 

The point of order established by the Mandates Information Act would limit debate on new health and safety protections to 10 minutes per side, impeding full consideration of any given bill’s benefits. While the point of order could be waived by a simple-majority vote, such a vote would also allow members to block important protections without voting directly against them. 

In response to the bill, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) offered an amendment that would remove the separate vote on the point of order. It would also add 20 minutes to the amount of time provided for debate. On February 10, 1999, the House rejected the Boehlert amendment 210–216. YES is the pro-environment vote. 

On February 10, 1999, the House passed the Mandates Information Act by a vote of 274–149. NO is the pro-environment vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
1999 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
1999 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
1999 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
1999 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
1999 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
1999 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
1999 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
1999 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
1999 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
1999 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
1999 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
1999 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
1999 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
1999 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
1999 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
1999 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
1999 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
1999 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
1999 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
1999 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
1999 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
1999 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
1999 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
1999 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
1999 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
1999 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
1999 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
1999 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
1999 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
1999 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
1999 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
1999 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
1999 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
1999 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
1999 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
1999 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
1999 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
1999 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
1999 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
1999 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
1999 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
1999 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
1999 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
1999 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
1999 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
1999 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
1999 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
1999 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
1999 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
1999 State Scorecard Average

3%