[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H236-H238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT TO FILE 
         REPORT ON H.R. 5, UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight have until midnight tonight to file 
a report on H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, at this time 
I do not intend to object, but under my reservation I would like to 
engage in a brief colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

                              {time}  1020

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania knows of the concern on our side of 
the aisle on this issue. The fact is that this issue, which is 
extremely important to this Nation, an issue that deals with questions 
like toxic waste, safe drinking water, clean water, child safety, all 
of these very important issues wrapped into this significant piece of 
legislation, was discussed and marked up on the same day as the 
committee was organizing, without a hearing, although one member of the 
gentleman's side of the aisle testified and none on our side was 
allowed to testify, but no hearings on this.
  As I understand it, a large percentage of the gentleman's committee 
now are new Members who have had, frankly, no experience with this 
particular legislation in the past.
  We on this side have very grave concerns about waiving the rules, as 
the gentleman is asking for on this legislation. Normally I believe he 
would be able to file on Tuesday. The gentleman wants to file it 
tonight.
  While we understand the need to move on, we are concerned about the 
process here. We are concerned about: Is this going to be the norm? Is 
this going to be the standard on which we on this side of the aisle 
will have to live and have to react in terms of our ability to get our 
point of view across without hearings, without adequate preparation by 
the new Members who are on the committee?
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, first of all, if 
he intends to go to the Committee on Rules and ask for an open rule on 
this?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the gentleman that it 
is my intention, and I believe it would be concurred in by the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, to ask for a completely open rule, and I 
believe that it has already been signaled that that will be the case.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. Will the gentleman 
from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, care to respond 
to whether or not we will see an open rule on this?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would be 
glad to respond to my good friend, a former member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. BONIOR. Still am a member.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman has taken a leave of absence, I 
understand, out of the goodness of his heart.
  Mr. BONIOR. The gentleman will see me in there.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], has 
requested of our Committee on Rules an open rule. It is the intention 
that we will grant an open rule.
  We will hold that hearing at 11 on Wednesday, and the gentleman is 
welcome to come up and testify.
  I might point out that we did hold a hearing on the subject of this 
bill. We did not limit it to just title III, which was our jurisdiction 
in the Committee on Rules. We allowed the full discussion on the entire 
bill. We offered the Democrat minority the opportunity for Members to 
come and testify, as well as the private sector. And the minority did 
produce three people to testify. It was a very informative meeting.
  From that, we came to the decision we should put out an open rule and 
let the House work its will, because it is probably one of hte most 
important bills that will come before this House during this 104th 
Congress, especially in the eyes of the taxpayers of this Nation.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
would say to my friend the gentleman from New York, that while there 
were no hearings in the primary committee that deals with this, 
Government Operations, the Committee on Rules allowed three people from 
the entire country to participate, that is all, in this process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will say to my good friend we absolutely did not limit it. The 
gentleman was welcomed to have 5 or 10 witnesses, including Members of 
Congress, and the only panel that was asked for was the three from the 
private sector. It was completely open to as many as the gentleman 
would have desired.
  Mr. BONIOR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would yield to another former member of the Committee on Rules, one of 
our strong advocates for the issues which I enumerated earlier on for 
discussion of this issue, and gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  [[Page H237]] I want to say at the outset that there is no one more 
admired by the minority than the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger]. We know him to be fair. We hold him in high esteem and even 
affection. But I would like to at least make some points that happened 
the other day that we think were very devastating, really, to the 
public's right to know.
  The first thing is that there really is no emergency to rush this 
bill through. The effective date of the bill is October 1, 1995, so 
regardless of our action on this request, there would be no operative 
effect if the bill's report were filed today or Tuesday. Frankly, this 
is about politics, not policy.
  I want to note that in their rush to bring this bill to the floor, 
debate was stifled so that the bill could be reported by our committee. 
There were several unprecedented breaches in our rights to consider 
legislation that occurred.
  For example, there were no hearings.
  On Tuesday, January 3, 1 day before the opening of the 104th 
Congress, the minority staff was informed by the majority staff that 
the unfunded mandates legislation would be considered on Tuesday, 
January 10, on the same day as the organizational meeting of the 
committee.
  The following day, January 4, ranking member, Cardiss Collins met 
with Chairman Clinger and gave him a letter requesting public hearings 
and sufficient time to review the legislation.
  On Friday, January 6, Chairman Clinger refused the request.
  The fact that two hearings were held on the subject of unfunded 
mandates in the last Congress is irrelevant. The bill that was 
introduced on January 4, 1995, is a new bill. It is different from any 
bill considered in the previous Congress.
  Moreover, 31 out of 51 of the members of our committee did not serve 
on the committee in the past Congress.
  The request for public hearings is not a matter of procedure alone. 
Key groups that are affected by mandates were not involved in the 
drafting process, and have had no chance to be heard in the debate. 
These include ordinary citizens who may benefit from clean water and 
air, who have children receiving special education or immunizations, or 
who have parents receiving social security benefits. They include 
workers who receive the benefits of workplace protections, and minimum 
wage laws. They include private companies that are concerned by the 
competitive disadvantage that they would face if publicly owned 
competitors were not required to comply with the same laws with which 
they comply.
  I would note that this timetable has seriously reduced Members' 
opportunity to review the bill.
  The ranking member and the minority staff were given a xeroxed copy 
of the bill from the majority staff late in the afternoon on Wednesday, 
January 4. The minority xeroxed further copies which were distributed 
to most minority Members on January 5. The actual printed version of 
H.R. 5 was not available until Friday, January 6. The markup was held 2 
legislative days later on Tuesday, January 10.
  The limited time for reading the bill, receiving comments on the 
bill, and drafting amendments, seriously impinged upon the Members' 
ability to craft thoughtful amendments.
  I want to point out that the markup began with the acceptance of 
testimony of a Member of Congress who was not a member of the committee 
in violation of our rights.
  After an opening statement by the chairman and ranking member, the 
chairman recognized Representative Rob Portman, not a member of the 
committee, who was seated at the clerk's table, to make a statement 
concerning the bill.
  Minority Members made points of order contending that the Chair had 
no right to recognize Members who were not members of the committee to 
make statements. A point of order was made that the acceptance of the 
Portman testimony constituted a hearing that violated both committee 
rules and House rules. A point of order was made that the decision to 
accept testimony from Representative Portman denied the minority their 
right under rule XI, clause 2(j)(1) to call witnesses selected by the 
minority. Members also requested an opportunity to question 
Representative Portman, which was denied, despite rule XI, clause 
2(j)(2) which provides an opportunity to members of the committee to 
ask questions under the 5-minute rule.
  In each case, the chair ruled against the points of order, with the 
justification that the Chair has the prerogative to recognize whomever 
he chooses.
  At the end of Representative Portman's testimony, he thanked the 
Chair for the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
  I would note that several rulings of the Chair impinged upon our 
rights to offer amendments.
  At the beginning of the markup, after the reading of section 1 of the 
bill, Representative Moran offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Discussion of the amendment began despite the fact that the 
amendment had not yet been read. This problem was brought to the 
attention of the Chair.
  After very limited debate, Representative Burton moved the previous 
question, and a point of order was raised by Representative Waxman and 
others that the amendment had not yet been read, and that therefore 
there had been no opportunity to offer amendments to the Moran 
amendment. The point of order was denied. Subsequently, a point of 
order raised after the previous question had been ordered was denied 
because it came too late. The Chair appeared to rule that the fact that 
debate had begun on the Moran amendment prior to its reading, a point 
of order did not lie that the amendment had not been read. There is no 
precedent of which we are aware for such a decision.
  After the amendment of Representative Moran was defeated, 
Representative Kanjorski was recognized. He stated that he had a 
substitute at the desk, and in response to questions from the Chair 
indicated that it was different from the Moran amendment.
  The Chair ruled that based upon discussions with the Parliamentarian, 
only one substitute could be offered during the consideration of 
section 1, and one substitute could be offered at the end of the bill. 
A point of order was made against the ruling, noting that under House 
rules, unlimited substitutes could be offered, assuming previous 
substitutes were defeated. It was denied.
  We subsequently were advised by the Parliamentarian that multiple 
substitutes were in order.
  In the middle of the markup, the Chair ruled that based upon advice 
of the Parliamentarian, the committee would not be allowed to offer 
amendments to sections 201 and 202, and sections 301, 302, and 303. The 
ruling was subsequently amended to include all of title III, and then 
amended again to provide committee jurisdiction over the new section 
424(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as added by section 301 
of H.R. 5.
  The ruling had the effect of permitting the committee only to 
consider the 1-year study commission in title I, the bill's 
definitions, purposes, and exclusions. The main portions of the bill 
which define unfunded mandates and establish a point of order against 
bills that fail to provide various budget analyses and an ability for 
agencies to ignore enforcement of unfunded mandates, as well as the 
provisions relating to agency regulatory analyses were placed off 
limits. Under the Chair's ruling, the Committees on Budget, Rules, and 
Judiciary, which received only a very limited sequential referral would 
be responsible for considering these key provisions. Under the ruling, 
the committee could not even consider changing the effective date 
contained in section 306.
  The Tuesday markup of H.R. 5 was the first markup of the 104th 
Congress, and therefore the first markup conducted by the Chair. We do 
not wish that these procedural concerns be considered as a personal 
attack on the Chair. Indeed, we do not question the Chair's personal 
motives. However, all of these abuses were the direct result of the 
apparent orders to the Chair to move the bill out of the committee at 
all costs. As the letter from the chairman quoted above states, because 
of the pledge to enact laws within 100 days, ``the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight has been asked to move this bill as 
quickly as possible.'' It is clear that the effort to bring the bill as 
quickly as possible was accomplished by trampling the 
[[Page H238]] rights of the minority under the House rules.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, we in the minority do not wish to use 
dilatory tactics to make our points, and I will not object to the 
gentleman's request. What we do want is an honest debate of the issue, 
at which time our amendments would not be dismissed. Therefore, Mr. 
Speaker, I will not object.
                              {time}  1030

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
would just conclude by suggesting that we hope in the future that the 
rights of the minorities in committees will be respected, that we will 
have full opportunity for hearings.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Let me say that I recognize this was an extraordinary, 
but not unprecedented, procedure that was engaged in, Mr. Speaker. I 
want to assure the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority 
whip, that this is not a procedure that I would intend to pursue on a 
regular basis.
  My full intention would be to hold hearings on matters that would 
come under the jurisdiction of our committee in an orderly fashion and 
proceed to markup, but this was not an unprecedented action. I would 
remind the gentleman that in the past my committee, which was formerly 
under the control of your party, did indeed waive jurisdiction over a 
number of bills which were then brought to the floor for consideration, 
primarily on the Budget Reform Act.
  So I agree that it was an extraordinary procedure, and I assure the 
gentleman it will not be followed on a routine basis, but that it was 
not unprecedented.
  Mr. BONIOR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I am 
glad to hear the new chairman of the committee is pledging to us today 
that this procedure will not be the norm and will not be followed, and 
that we will have full and open debate in hearings in the future.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________