[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         THE LEGISLATIVE SEASON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman before me spoke about the 
baseball season. I want to speak some about the legislative season. It 
has had its opening day and now goes into the first games of the 
season. The first game, obviously, being this Thursday and Friday as I 
understand it, the unfunded mandates bill that will be on the floor of 
the House.
  I have no problems with voting on this issue. I have no problems with 
voting on any of the issues that are in the so-called Contract With 
America that the Republican Party is bringing forth. Indeed, I think 
that the debate is wholesome and worthwhile to have on many of these 
issues.
  To debate though means debate. It means having the opportunity. It 
means being able to play, using the baseball analogy, it means being 
able to play a full nine innings. But what does not help this House is 
when you go immediately from the opening ball to the ninth inning. That 
is what is happening in the unfunded mandates bill. That is my concern 
about what is happening with the important balanced budget amendment 
and others. Let me explain.
  As a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
which has the unfunded mandates bill, I had the chance to participate 
last week in an extraordinary process, a process by which the 
committee, which had not met previously, suddenly comes into session in 
its opening session, which is traditionally known as its organizing 
meeting, that is where you go through the amenities and announce who is 
on what committee, and then launched from the point into taking up the 
unfunded mandates bill without a hearing, without a hearing. That is 
right. A bill which is going to rewrite the relationship between 
Federal, State, and local governments and, indeed, in some cases the 
private sector was taken up without a hearing.
  There was a hearing of sorts. The gentleman from the Republican side 
was permitted, who is not a member of the committee but is a sponsor of 
the bill, was permitted to address the committee for a number of 
minutes about the reasons he thought it was a good bill, describing 
what was in it. Our side was not permitted to ask questions. Our side 
was not permitted to offer its own witness, if such be the case, if 
that be a proper description of what the gentleman testifying was 
doing.
  We were told it was not a hearing. But at the same time we could not 
bring our folks in. At that point then we asked about the, whether we 
would have the opportunity to ask questions throughout. We would, 
except then we learned subsequently every amendment was limited to 5 
minutes for the proponents, 5 minutes for the opponents.
  It did not stop there. As we were going through the bill, looking 
forward to offering some amendments at certain parts, certain sections, 
some of those sections were removed from our committee's jurisdiction. 
It probably was the most extraordinary procedure that I have seen.
  I have great respect for the Chair of our committee, who is known on 
both sides of the aisle for being eminently fair. I have great respect 
for our committee, because our committee, I believe, in the past has 
worked on a bipartisan basis. I have been assured that this is not 
going to be the usual run of business. Yet it sets a very disturbing 
tone.
  Could there not have been a hearing, 1 day? We have been several days 
now waiting to get this bill to the floor. We are going to be here 
until Thursday and then take the bill and the rule up Thursday, as I 
understand it, and begin the amendment process on Friday. Could there 
not have been a 1 day's delay so that there could have been a hearing 
so the proponents and opponents could have had their chance? One of 
things, for instance, that concerns me is what happens to coal mine 
safety laws? I am told, ``Don't worry, Bob, they won't be affected, 
particularly those that are passed before this bill becomes law.'' 
Well, perhaps.
  What happens to occupational safety and health? What happens to 
regulation of banking industry and the financial industries? What 
happens to all of this important area?
  So that is why I think it would have been wise and appropriate to at 
least hold a hearing. Balanced budget amendment will come up, 
amendments were cut off by 6 the previous, in the committee markup 
then. And so I hope and urge the Republican majority to recognize the 
importance of the procedure here.
  We want to, we all want to play in this baseball game, but we want to 
make sure there are equal times at bat, equal opportunities to pitch, 
equal opportunities to fully participate in this game and that we do 
not run, go immediately from opening pitch to the ninth inning and then 
the game is called.
  So if the American people are going to truly have faith in this 
process, and in this contract, which the majority has vowed to have 
voted on by the 100 days, then it must know that there has been a full 
process there.
  As far as the unfunded mandates bill, I have no problem with 
requiring that there be an analysis of what the cost is to State and 
local governments. I have no problem with greater consideration being 
given to those issues. I have no problem with saying that Congress, 
before you pass something onto somebody else, every one ought to know 
how much it costs and be able to evaluate.
  What I do have a problem with is where we have an opportunity to 
participate fully and to explore this bill.


                          ____________________