[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H334-H338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, it 
is with great pleasure that for the first time I call up House 
Resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 38

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded 
     Federal mandates on States and local governments, to ensure 
     that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those 
     governments in complying with certain requirements under 
     Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information 
     on the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed two hours, with one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments recommended by 
     the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
     Committee on Rules, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each of 
     the first four sections and each title shall be considered as 
     read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1100

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good [[Page H335]] friend, the 
gentleman from South Boston [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the committee, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a new era of 
open debate and deliberation in the House of Representatives. This is 
an open rule for H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It is 
the first contract item after opening day to be considered by the full 
House, and the Rules Committee is keeping its commitment to open and 
fair debate.
  Specifically, the rule provides for 2 hours of general debate divided 
equally between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on 
Rules.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the report to accompany the rule as original text for 
amendment purposes. The substitute shall be read by title instead of 
section for amendment, with sections 1 through 4 and each title 
considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Record prior to their consideration, and such amendments shall be 
considered as read. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  Let me stress that this is more than an open rule. In fact, it is a 
wide-open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the 
bill at the appropriate time. Contrary to some speculation, there is no 
preprinting requirement.
  Printing of amendments in the Record is an option that is encouraged, 
and I hope Members will pursue that option. To encourage Members to do 
so, the rule empowers the Chair to recognize, when two Members seek 
recognition at the same time, the Member whose amendment has been 
printed in the Record.
  A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued 
that this is a complicated bill that needs thorough consideration, and 
giving Members the option of making amendments available for their 
colleagues to read in advance will further that objective.
  Well, who can argue with that? Apparently my Democrat colleagues on 
the Rules Committee did. They clamored for more deliberation and more 
openness, but when presented with a wide-open rule that allows any 
Member to offer amendments, many of which they say are necessary to 
improve the bill, they all voted against the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the minority who were formerly in the 
majority just cannot seem to shed the closed-door mentality developed 
over 40 years of iron-fisted rule. The Republican majority, however, is 
saying with this rule, ``Let's throw open the shades and debate this 
unfunded-mandates bill in full view of the American people.''
  So the choice before us today is very clear, Mr. Speaker. A vote for 
this open rule is a vote for full debate, full participation, and full 
deliberation on a bill that has the overwhelming support of State and 
local government organizations and the American people. It is a bill 
that will make Congress more accountable by forcing the House and 
Senate to face the question not only of whether an unfunded mandate is 
necessary but how it is to be paid for.
  In contrast, a vote against this wide-open rule is a vote to obstruct 
good-government legislation and to continue being reckless and 
unaccountable with decisions that affect State and local governments 
and their taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and even those who in the Rules 
Committee voted against this rule to, while we are considering it 
today, realize that it is wide open and will create the kind of 
deliberation that is absolutely essential. I hope they will vote with 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear my dear friend from 
the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], talk 
about the openness of the rule.
  This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that did not have a hearing in the House 
of Representatives. There was no committee hearing. The Committee on 
Government Operations had some kind of a session, but they did not call 
it a hearing, and the only one that was allowed to testify was a 
nonmember of that committee. So there is a lot of openness here, but I 
do not know if we are opening doors in the right direction.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would my good friend yield to me?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of my best friends, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, knows that he was present at a 
lengthy hearing that he and I and other members of the Rules Committee 
held on this very important issue, particularly title III, which is the 
most significant part of the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is right.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman recalls that?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I recall it very well, if I may reclaim my time, but I 
also recall hearing Members say that there was no official hearing and 
the only person they heard from--I am talking about the other 
committee, the Government Operations Committee--was a gentleman who is 
no longer on that committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would my good friend yield one more time?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. We want to move this legislation through, but the 
gentleman knows that informed him and I informed his chief of staff 
that they were welcome to have members of his party come and testify 
before our lengthy hearing and to bring any outside people that they 
wanted to. And the gentleman did bring, if he recalls, three members 
from private organizations to testify. But they could have had 15 or 20 
and we would have been glad to spend the entire day on the hearing if 
they wanted to. But we brought in the people we wanted there.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  As I say, this is a noticeable improvement over the gag rule within 
the closed rule that we did on opening day, but I am still going to 
oppose the rule for the consideration of the unfunded-mandates bill.
  I am very concerned about the careless way this bill has been thrown 
together, and I think on such an important bill the American people 
deserve to be assured that Congress knows what it is passing. After one 
Rules Committee hearing and with one Republican member testifying at a 
markup, I cannot say that we do.
  Here is a bill that has an open rule on the floor, but it has been 
closed everywhere else. It has been closed to Democrats who want to 
have input in the committee structure, it has been closed to interested 
parties who wanted to ask questions, it has been closed to committees 
of secondary jurisdiction, and, Mr. Speaker, it has been closed to the 
American people. When people are asked about it, they say that we can 
handle that on the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just one quick 
observation?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I would like to finish my statement first.
  Mr. DREIER. I am anxiously looking forward to my friend's statement, 
but I just wanted to state that I believe we accepted the amendment 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts offered, so I think it is a bit 
of a push to say that no Democrats had any input on this measure.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am talking about the committee structure without the 
entire hearings.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the Republicans are in a bit of 
a hurry, but my town people expect a little more consideration when it 
comes to passing laws that affect them, and I am sure it is the same 
for other parts of the country, too. The congressional committees have 
more institutional [[Page H336]] issue-based knowledge in their little 
fingers than we have here in the entire House.

                              {time}  1110

  However, the people who know best have been shut out of the process. 
They have been told to wait until we get to the floor, and ``You can 
amend it in any section,'' but I am afraid we are reverting back to the 
old days of Congress where a matter would come up on the floor, you 
would have to recess, go ad hoc, and try to determine what the answer 
is.
  Mr. Speaker, all I want to let the people know is that the unfunded 
mandates bill is no small potatoes. It will affect every single 
American man, woman, and child. It will affect the quality of drinking 
water and the air that we breathe. It will affect the way asbestos and 
lead paint are removed from our schools. It will also affect the food 
we eat and the conditions in which we work.
  I worry that overeager Republicans know not what they are passing. I 
think during the hearing it was brought out that there were questions 
that were still unanswered, but we will see how we can work it out. I 
just think this bill is much too important to put that type of criteria 
on it.
  We have a duty to the people we represent to understand the far-
reaching effects of the bills we pass, no matter who is in the 
majority. I am worried we do not know how this bill will really affect 
American families.
  As I said in the Committee on Rules, I much prefer we sacrifice a 
little speed in the interests of protecting families. Mr. Speaker, I 
would urge my Republican colleagues in the new majority, let us be 
responsible. Rethinking the Federal-State partnership takes more than a 
few days or a couple of weeks. I hope that they will join me in 
opposing the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me, since it is 
my first opportunity, to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the new chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, 
for yielding me this time.
  Look out, here comes the beginning of the second Reagan revolution, 
Mr. Speaker. I am so excited I can hardly stand it. I rise in the 
strongest possible support for this rule and the Committee on Rules of 
the 104th Congress. Our first rule is, of course, as my good friend, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], has said, a wide, wide open 
rule.
  The rule before us today, which provides for the consideration of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, is yet another example of the Republican 
majority's commitment to congressional reform on this floor. We pledge 
to give our legislative proposals free and unfettered debate. We 
promise to allow Members of Congress, regardless of political party or 
ideological tilt, the right to offer amendments. Boy, that should 
please a lot of conservative Democrats over there. They have told me 
so.
  Today we are proposing a rule which accomplishes precisely those two 
objectives: openness and fairness in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, what gets me so excited is the bill itself. It is the 
first of many steps that will be taken by this new Republican majority 
to make it as difficult as possible--and Members had better listen up, 
because this is the intent--to make it as difficult as possible to 
saddle State and local governments and private business and industry 
with crippling unfunded mandates. These mandates force local 
governments to raise taxes to pay for them and force business and 
industry to comply with unnecessary rules and regulations and laws that 
sap the operating capital that would otherwise be used for expansion 
and growth to create jobs and prosperity in this country for the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, there are Members of this House today, as I said before, 
and excuse me for getting so excited, this is the second beginning of 
the Reagan revolution that will shrink the size and power of this 
Federal Government. No longer will there be an arrogant attitude around 
here that says big brother, Federal Government, knows best. Mr. 
Speaker, those days are gone forever. Please support this legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the pledge of the gentleman from 
New York to allow wide open rules on all the contract items and to 
allow Members, regardless of party, the right to offer amendments.
  Next week, Mr. Speaker, we are going to take up the balanced budget 
amendments. I am glad that the chairman has committed to doing that 
important bill under an open rule today.
  As to the gentleman's surprise to my opposition to this rule, let me 
reiterate, I am glad it is an open rule. My opposition to the rule is 
not based on its openness, but on the fact that it was never 
considered, we have probably 75, 85 new Members who have never seen the 
bill. They say that we had the bill last year. That is not so. This is 
a completely different bill than we had before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost].
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the points 
raised by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. 
In an attempt to control the unwieldy process of considering 
legislation in the House, the rules package presented by the 
Republicans on opening day contained a provision which prohibits the 
joint referral of legislation.
  This reform is well-intentioned, and may ultimately serve an 
extremely useful purpose as the House goes about its business of making 
laws. This change in House procedures may very well reduce or eliminate 
the endless arguments and delays occasioned by multiple committees 
staking claim to legislative provisions which may or may not be part of 
their assigned jurisdiction.
  However, Mr. Speaker, in the case of H.R. 5, in the rush to banish 
the old order, the Contract With America has created a truly 
regrettable legislative situation. This particular bill, as was pointed 
out by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, was primarily 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, with 
sequential and partial referral to the Committees on Budget, Judiciary, 
and Rules.
  Of their four committees, only the Committee on Rules held a hearing 
on this most complex proposal. The Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight was not permitted to consider this matter in a full and open 
way. Many questions were left unanswered.
  Mr. Speaker, when it was signed by the Republican candidates for 
Congress last fall, the Contract With America explicitly stated that 
the election could result in a House with a new majority that will 
transform the way Congress works. The Contract With America also states 
that its goal is to restore accountability to Congress, and that the 
reforms embodied in the package are aimed at restoring the faith and 
trust of the American people in their Government.
  Mr. Speaker, these goals are laudable and are certainly shared by 
Democratic Members. However, I cannot see how ramrodding this proposal 
through the primary committee of original jurisdiction, the old 
Government Operations Committee, where hearings were not held and where 
amendments were not permitted to be offered, satisfies the conditions 
set out in the Republicans' Contract With America.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is the committee of the House 
charged with the responsibility of overseeing the rules and procedures 
of this body. I find it quite troublesome that the committee has seen 
fit to ignore the longstanding tradition of allowing individual 
committees to debate and deliberate.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] so correctly pointed 
out that it is in the committees of the House that the real work of the 
people's business is done. Sadly, in the case of H.R. 5, which has 
enormous and far-reaching implications in the lives of all Americans, 
the committees of the House were not permitted to do their 
jobs. [[Page H337]] 
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully disagree with 
the argument made by my Republican colleagues that this bill would be 
considered under an open rule and therefore the process has not been 
subverted.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying we are in 
fact considering this under a wide-open rule so the American people can 
view the entire proceedings that are taking place here in the House. 
Six times last year, six times, the Committee on Government Operations 
moved legislation directly to the floor without a single hearing. We 
are doing this under a full and open amendment process as it was done 
in the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Process of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from greater 
Metropolitan San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], who is the distinguished vice 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this rule today, 
because this is the first rule that has actually been brought to the 
floor through what we would call the normal Committee on Rules process. 
Opening day is one process, and the only other legislation has been the 
suspension process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our first product, the first baby we are 
delivering. I am delighted that it is a wide open rule. It is a rule we 
are calling an open rule plus, because every Member is protected. I say 
that again. Every Member is protected. We have provided for an open 
debate and an open amendment process, and we have gone one step further 
and encouraged, encouraged, not required, not mandated, but encouraged 
Members to preprint their amendments.

                              {time}  1120

  The purpose of course for the voluntary process is to prompt Members 
to plan ahead, to develop their amendments fully. Other Members will 
have a chance to look at them and consider ideas from all our 
colleagues. It is called deliberative democracy for those who may not 
recognize it.
  Having said, I want to take a moment to respond to criticism we heard 
Tuesday with regard to bringing the Congressional Compliance Act, 
better known as the Shays Act, to the floor under suspension of the 
rules. I notice there were some complaints about this. A few Members 
cried closed rule and some of the misguided media bought that argument.
  As someone who has spent a good deal of time in the minority staring 
down the barrel of one closed rule after another in the 103d Congress, 
I would urge my colleagues to be careful about crying wolf on these 
matters.
  If we look at the rules of the House, specifically rule XXVII which 
allows the Speaker to bring up bills under suspension, we will recall 
that this longstanding practice is meant to be used for bills that are 
noncontroversial. Given the 390-to-0 result of Tuesday's vote on the 
Shays bill, I think everybody could agree that we were dealing with one 
of the most noncontroversial bills in recent memory.
  Of course everybody knows bills under Suspension Calendar are not 
amendable but must endure the extra burden of a two-thirds vote. I 
think we understand that.
  Finally, I would like to say that we on the majority side understand 
the role of our colleagues in the minority in the Committee on Rules in 
defending the rights of the minority and we respect it very much. I 
know they have an especially difficult chore today finding fault with 
this wide open rule like the one we have on unfunded mandates--I hope 
it is the precedent for the future--especially one that really goes out 
of its way to encourage all Members to participate in orderly and 
planned-ahead debate.
  I was somewhat surprised and dismayed that the minority went ahead 
and opposed this rule in committee. Voting unanimously against it in 
fact. I hope that my friends on that side of the aisle will recognize 
that this is an open rule that completely protects their rights and 
that ensures an orderly and unfettered debate on an issue that we care 
about.
  I think this is the way rules should be in circumstances like this 
and I think we are one-for-one on open rules in the Committee on Rules.
  To my good friend, the distinguished ranking member who has properly 
said that this is legislation that will affect all America, I agree. It 
will be a great improvement for all Americans.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] who has been a very hardworking member of 
the Committee on Rules and probably has been the conscience of the 
Committee on Rules in many endeavors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. BEILENSON. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the same kinds of 
reasons that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] set out so 
well just a few minutes ago. Not because there is anything terribly 
wrong or unfair about the rule itself. There is not. It is a fine rule. 
I want our friends on the other side of the aisle in the Committee on 
Rules to know that we believe and we agree with them that it is a fine 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. BEILENSON. No, I will not.
  Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to ask why my friend voted against it if it 
is such a fine rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. I will explain in a moment if I am given the 
opportunity why I voted against the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing, as I just said, terribly wrong or 
unfair about the rule. That is not why we are opposed to it. But there 
is something terribly wrong about the way that this legislation is 
being brought before us here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that unfunded Federal mandates have 
become a very serious concern to State and local governments as well as 
to the private sector. We are all eager to respond to that concern. But 
the bill that this rule makes in order is not the kind of reasonable, 
sound, well-thought-out response that our State and local partners or 
for that matter all Americans deserve. I therefore join with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] in urging that our colleagues vote no on the rule so that 
the bill will be returned to the committees of jurisdiction where it 
can be reviewed and reconsidered before it is brought to the floor for 
our consideration.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made much of the 
fact that they have produced an open rule for considering H.R. 5. They 
say that all of the issues we are concerned about in the bill can be 
raised through the amending process on the floor. That may sound fair 
and reasonable, but the fact is that the floor is not the appropriate 
place to write a bill. It is not the appropriate place to hammer out 
important legislative details. By the time a bill reaches the floor, we 
ought to be at a point where the matters to be decided by the entire 
membership of the House have been narrowed to a relatively few major 
issues which for whatever reason did not get satisfactorily resolved in 
committee. Otherwise, why have a committee system?
  If we value our committee system at all, if we agree that the proper 
way for a legislative body of 435 Members to process complex, difficult 
legislation of the sort that this rule makes in order is to use our 
committees to do the hard and serious work involved in legislating, 
listening to a broad range of witnesses, delving into the details of a 
bill, debating alternatives and working out solutions that satisfy a 
majority of the Members who have some expertise in the subject matter, 
then we all should be seriously troubled if not outraged over the 
manner in which this bill is being moved through the legislative 
process.
  H.R. 5 was, as Members have now heard, referred to four House 
committees. Only two of those committees [[Page H338]] acted on the 
bill despite the fact that the legislation has important implications 
for matters under the jurisdiction of those that did not meet to 
consider it.
  Of the two committees that acted on the bill, Government Reform and 
Oversight and Rules, only the Committee on Rules held a hearing and our 
hearing was brief. We heard from only three public witnesses.
  What happened in the case of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight is particularly egregious. Although Government Reform is the 
committee which has principal jurisdiction over the bill, not one 
hearing was held on it there. Groups and individuals that will be 
affected by this legislation had no opportunity to make their views 
known before the committee acted. The committee marked up the bill just 
6 days after the bill had been introduced which limited the opportunity 
even of members of the committee to adequately review the bill, receive 
comments, develop alternatives and amendments. Proponents of the 
legislation have rationalized the shortcoming of the legislative 
process by saying that the Committee on Government Operations held a 
number of hearings on unfunded mandate legislation in the last 
Congress. But the bill the committee considered last year was 
significantly different from the one introduced and before us this 
year.
  Furthermore, 31 out of 51, well over half of the members of the 
committee itself, did not serve on Committee on Government Operations 
last year, in the last Congress. For them, the hastily scheduled markup 
on a freshly introduced bill was their initiation to this complex major 
issue of unfunded mandates. Had our committees had more time to work 
with this bill, we might have had some of the answers that we ought to 
have before we move forward with the bill.
  For example, does this bill prohibit consideration of reauthorization 
of laws that contain unfunded mandates currently in effect? It is 
apparently the intent of the sponsors to exclude existing mandates but 
it is not clear whether a minor change in a law would disqualify a 
reauthorization from being considered as such.
  Which Federal activities are included in those which are to be 
prohibited under our rules? And which are exempted? The bill is not 
clear on that point.
  Will this bill give public sector enterprises such as power 
generators and waste treatment facilities a competitive advantage over 
private sector counterparts and will that deter efforts to privatize 
existing governments activities that might be better handled and more 
efficiently handled by the private sector?

  This bill provides a way for us to vote to waive the rule against 
legislation containing an unfunded mandate before a ruling is made on 
whether in fact it contains an unfunded mandate. How are we to decide 
whether to waive that rule when we do not even know if the legislation 
in fact contains an unfunded mandate or exactly how much that 
unfundedness is?
  The list goes on and on. This is very problematic legislation and 
questions about the way it will work and the impact it will have will 
spill out over the next several days as Members will see as we consider 
amendment after amendment to this bill. The price we will pay for not 
having done a responsible job in this legislation in our committees, 
not having laid the groundwork there, will be protracted debate and an 
immense amount of confusion over the bill on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Anyone watching these proceedings will surely question 
whether we have any clue at all as to what we are doing with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that the reason for the speedy 
consideration of the legislation is to enable our Republican friends to 
fulfill their Contract With America by getting all the bills listed in 
that document to the floor within 100 days. But as one of the witnesses 
at the Committee on Rules hearing said,

       It is ironic that a bill supposedly intended to assure that 
     the impacts of congressional actions are fully understood 
     should be moved forward so hastily that no time or 
     opportunity exists for understanding or evaluating its own 
     impacts.

  Mr. Speaker, this process is troubling in the extreme. In fact, it is 
a disgrace. It is also an affront to the American people who have every 
right to expect us to proceed with care and thoughtfulness when we 
write major pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe the American people will forgive our 
Republican friends a little slippage in the timetable for acting on the 
Contract if the end result is better written, more fully understood 
legislation.
  Let us take what we all know is the right and responsible course of 
action here. Let us send this bill back to the four committees of 
jurisdiction for hearings and proper consideration which could be done 
over just the next couple of weeks and then when we bring it up on the 
House floor we will have both a much better product and a much better 
idea of what we are voting on.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

                          ____________________