[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H338-H344]
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, we have an extraordinarily impressive cadre
of new members of the Committee on Rules. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one
of them, the gentleman from Tucker, GA [Mr. Linder].
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, while it is tempting to debate the contents of the
unfunded mandate bill at this time, this debate is actually on the
rule.
The debate we begin this morning shows that the new majority
continues to keep its promises that we made to the American people. Two
weeks ago we opened up the House and today we begin with free and open
debate on H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the rule
attendant thereto.
As a member of the Committee on Rules, I want to comment on two
specific aspects of this bill affected by the committee.
First I am pleased that every Member of the House has the opportunity
to vote on a rule that we did not see very much of in recent years, an
entirely open rule. During the past 2 years it was extremely rare for
us to encounter many rules which allowed the House to engage in free
and open debate. In fact it was not until May 1993 that we saw our
first open rule in the 103d Congress.
Second, while the Congress has recognized the fiscal crisis that our
State and local governments face in their attempts to absorb the costs
of Federal mandates, Congress has been unable to find the will to curb
its addiction to imposing these costly regulations. As a result, title
III of this bill institutes new House enforcement procedures to
terminate the casual practice of passing these unfunded mandates.
First, any bill reported by a committee containing intergovernmental
or private sector mandates is subject to a point of order on the House
floor unless the committee has published a CBO estimate. This is a
straightforward, fiscally responsible reform. If a Member is not
willing to find out how much a bill costs, then the bill cannot be
considered.
Second, any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report
which imposes mandates over $50 million on State and local governments
is subject to a point of order on the House floor, unless the mandate
is funded. This new rule plainly states that legislation exceeding the
declared threshold and not paid for will not be considered.
And third, any rule waiving the point of order is also subject to a
point of order. This special obstacle assures that the Rules Committee
will not merely suspend the thoughtful deliberation and accountability
that the bill is designed to enforce.
I am certain that federalism in America was not intended to mean that
our Governors and State and local officials were elected simply to
serve as administrators of expensive Federal programs. This legislation
allows the Congress to move away from coercive federalism and permits
the States to focus on State and local priorities. I strongly support
the passage of H.R. 5 [[Page H339]] and I welcome the free and open
debate.
Let me add that the Democrats arguing about the lack of a hearing are
being disingenuous at best considering that in the last Congress, the
Government Operations Committee never held a hearing or a markup on
three bills that were brought to the House floor: H.R. 1578--Expedited
Recission Act; H.R. 4907--Full Budget Disclosure Act, and House
Concurrent Resolution 301--sense of Congress on entitlements.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall]. I referred to the gentleman from California, [Mr.
Beilenson], as the conscience, and I refer to the gentleman from Ohio
as the heart and stomach when it comes to dealing with nutrition
problems as it affects young people, and I am sure this is part of the
reason that the gentleman is opposed to this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley], for his very kind words. I am very glad
that we have an open rule here today. It is not the most
straightforward open rule that one could have, but the rule does have a
provision, as Members have heard, for according priority recognition
for Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others, this is
unnecessary to the rule and should not have been included.
I am also concerned over the way in which the bill is being brought
to the floor. It is a major piece of legislation, and just
fundamentally changes the procedures for handling future legislation.
Yet it is being rammed through with no hearings and no opportunity from
the committee that has jurisdiction, the committee, unlike the Rules
Committee that in fact studies it and understands these kinds of things
every day, for a positive input, much less explanation.
There are also major substantive problems with the direction of the
bill, and while I know States and local communities are having a tough
time, and for that reason there is a lot of good in this bill, I am
concerned that not all of the provisions have been thought through.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of this bill on
nutrition and poverty programs serving low-income people. When we
considered this bill in the Rules Committee I repeatedly asked its
authors if food and other services to the poor would be reduced, and I
really could not get a good answer on it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to protect
the very-low-income programs that were exempt from sequestration under
the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985, that we all agreed we thought was a good
idea to exempt those. These are Child Nutrition, Food Stamps, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid and Supplemental Security
Insurance.
If changes are made in the programs down the road my amendment will
make sure States will not be able to cut services to the poor. It will
also continue our longstanding Federal commitment to these food and
poverty programs by including them as unfunded mandates in this bill.
This bill without the mandates, without the amendment that I hope to
put in, will hurt poor people if it passes without this amendment.
I would urge my colleagues to take a careful look at this bill. It is
one which changes procedures for legislation coming down the pike, and
since the Government Reform and Oversight Committee held no hearings,
every Member of this body needs to scrutinize this bill to see exactly
what effects it really will have not only on the country but on their
districts.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes the
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], another able new member of
the committee.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this wide-open rule for the
consideration of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
An open rule for a bill as significant as H.R. 5 is a welcome change
around here. In recent years, the House has increasingly operated under
restrictive procedures which have prevented Members on both sides of
the aisle from offering legitimate amendments. As Chairman Solomon has
eloquently stated before, 70 percent of the rules granted by the Rules
Committee during the 103d Congress were restrictive. Under the new
Republican majority, and Mr. Solomon's able leadership, we will work to
restore free and open debate to this institution.
As the November elections showed us, the American people want real
reform. They want to see honesty and accountability return to this
legislative process. By adopting an open rule for H.R. 5, we send a
clear message that deliberative democracy is about to wake up in
America after a long, long sleep and that we welcome differing points
of view.
The time has come for Congress to take financial responsibility for
the laws and rules it passes. Our current system of mandating is
nothing less than an abuse of power by big Government--the ultimate
arrogance in Washington DC.
Governors and mayors across the Nation are pleading with Congress to
stop passing the buck when it comes to passing new Federal mandates.
H.R. 5 is a reasonable, long-overdue response to the plight of State
and local dealers who are forced to pay for expensive, one-size-fits-
all Federal solutions to what are most often local problems in search
of local solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the leadership for making unfunded mandate
relief a top legislative priority in the 104th Congress. I support this
bipartisan legislation and urge the House to adopt this wide-open rule.
{time} 1140
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Miami, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], another new member
of the committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my party today.
After 40 years in opposition, being closed out time and time again
with regard to the ability, that most essential ability on behalf of
one's constituents, to introduce amendments and to speak in behalf of
those amendments on this floor, and despite, in addition to that, the
very substantial legislative agenda that we have contracted with the
American people that we will pass within the first 100 days and the
necessary time constraints that come together with that agenda, despite
that, we bring the first piece of legislation to the floor today with
an open rule process, with an open rule.
Now, it is not easy always to enter into dialog with the American
people with regard to procedure, because it seems sometimes too
technical. But the heart of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is procedure, just
like the heart of due process of law is procedure, and the procedure
that is at the heart of the fairness with which we are bringing forth
this first piece of legislation today to the floor is called the open
rule, the ability for all Members of this House, despite whether they
are in the minority or majority, to bring forth whatever amendments
they have on behalf of their constituents that they would like to be
considered by their colleagues.
So I am proud of my party. I am proud of the fact that despite the
fact that we do not have to, because we are in the majority, we,
nevertheless, are giving the opposition the fairness that they denied
us.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado Springs, CO [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the game works like this: Congress comes up
with an idea which is supposed to help people, but Congress is broke,
and so Congress passes a bill anyway and sends it off to the States and
falls all over itself claiming credit for a job well done.
Meanwhile, State and local governments which had little or no input
into the issue find this new law waiting on their doorstep delivered
c.o.d. For them, the real work just began, deciphering the new rules
and figuring out how to pay for them.
I served in the Colorado State Legislature, and I know the
frustration felt by local and State officials. [[Page H340]]
Unfortunately for our Federal system, that frustration is growing.
According to CBO, Federal regulations enacted between 1983 and 1990
cost State and local governments over $12 billion.
In the last Congress we considered at least 60 bills which contained
some form of mandate. In my State of Colorado, a recent survey
identified 195 Federal programs containing mandates for State and local
governments.
These mandates consumed 12 percent of the total State budget. You
know, I would encourage support for this rule. I cannot believe the
arguments against an open rule.
Support it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
We are talking about the openness of the rule.
The gentleman was talking about the openness of the rule. Everybody
says wide openness.
Do we have a guarantee that debate will not be shut off on any
amendments?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Our plan here is to do something that often has not been done over
the past several years. We plan to follow the rules of the House.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Which ones?
Mr. DREIER. We plan to follow all of the rules of the House. In so
doing, we will go through the normal procedure of the 5-minute rule
which is the way the open amendment process is handled.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Could the gentleman answer the question? I know he is
going to follow all the rules. But will debate be shut off on any of
the amendments?
Mr. DREIER. In response, if the gentleman would yield further, I
would respond by simply saying we plan to comply with the rules of the
House which do, in fact, allow for motions which can, in fact, bring an
end to debate. That, as the gentleman knows, is a rule of the House,
and so based on that, we plan to comply with the standing rules of the
House which will be an unusual, near precedential development here.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Does the gentleman plan to use that rule of the House to
cut off debate?
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield further, I have no plan
whatsoever to cut off debate. I plan to follow the debate; if there are
attempts made by Members on either side to simply be dilatory, to
prevent the American people to be able to see their Representatives
move through legislation which will address the issue of unfunded
mandates, I would not be surprised if a motion like that would be
offered.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, the gentleman can rest assured I have no intent of
being dilatory.
Mr. DREIER. Well, we probably will not have any motion like that that
would cut off debate.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes. But the problem is the lack of committee
consideration. It was not the way the rule was handled. It was the way
it came to the Committee on Rules where we had to amend the bill that
came, because it had a duplication of sections. It came from the
Government Ops Committee, so it just showed that it was not really gone
over as extensively as it should have been at that time.
Can I ask, do you have any unfunded mandates in the Contract With
America?
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield further, I suspect that,
well, and I know that under this legislation, when this legislation is
signed, anytime there is a possible unfunded mandate that would come
forward under the Contract With America or any other legislation, we,
in fact, in this institution will be accountable and will have to find
that out. That determination has not yet been made.
It is quite possible. I do not believe that there are any unfunded
mandates in the Contract With America, but if there are, the House will
make that decision, and we will have a vote on it, if we can
successfully move forward, report out this rule, and pass the
legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is aware that this bill does not take
effect until October 1995 and, therefore, your Contract With America
will already be past in those 100 days.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I would say, based on my
very detailed analysis of the Contract With America, I concluded that I
do not think there are any unfunded mandates in there.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read you the 10 points
of the contract. It is so exciting to even read them.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Glenwood Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], another hard-working new member of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time that was yielded
to me by my friend, the gentleman from California.
I used to be the majority leader in the Colorado State Legislature,
and in that position, we always enjoyed the opportunity to have both
Democrats and Republicans amend bills, as we continued to have debate
on them on the House floor.
When I first came to the U.S. Congress, I was stunned to see that
through the Committee on Rules many people, such as myself who were
elected to represent States in this country, were prohibited from
having debate or prohibited from having amendments on the House floor.
Well, times they are a-changing. Now the first contract item that comes
onto the House floor is going to come on with an open rule.
This issue, unfunded mandates, will certainly have many different
types of amendments from Republicans and Democrats, but the issue here
that the American people should recognize is that times have changed,
and for the first time in a long time, we will have an open debate and
a recorded vote for the American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
{time} 1150
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, and Members, I rise in opposition to this
rule. This year for the first time the Budget Committee was given
legislative jurisdiction over legislation coming before the House. This
bill was the first bill for which this committee received referral. The
committee held no hearings, made no judgment, no examination of this
legislation, despite the fact that much of what is in this bill has
very direct impact on the budget and the Budget Committee.
There are expanded duties for the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office. Whether the resources in this bill are sufficient for
that office to do its duties we do not know. There are new and
additional responsibilities for the Committee on the Budget to make
estimates of the costs of mandates, a substantial new and different
responsibility.
Again, the committee has had no hearings, no discussions on how we
are going to handle that process.
The bill also makes reference to what the budget can or cannot do.
What those references mean is not very clear from what the bill says.
It indicates, and this goes far beyond the question of mandates, where
I understand the bill says, in Minnesota, if we dumped our sewage on
the Iowa border, that is not of national concern unless the Federal
Government pays for it--I have a tough time understanding that. But the
bill goes far beyond that. It, for instance, exempts Social Security.
Does that mean Social Security retirement, Social Security disability,
other portions of the Social Security Act? It has very specific
language on changes in entitlements, and I know it does not apply until
October 1.
Mr. Speaker, there are major questions as this bill relates to our
budget process that were not heard.
[[Page H341]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the chair bring us up to date as to
the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dreier] has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
the gentleman from Jacobus, PA, [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, please listen carefully because I have something very
relevant to say. I want to make sure that we understand that H.R. 5 has
no, I repeat, no effect on two important disability laws, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, [IDEA] and the Americans
with Disabilities Act [ADA]. It has no effect whatsoever on both of
those. As the CRS law division has confirmed, IDEA and ADA are exempted
from coverage under this bill. And if you will read the Dear Colleague
I sent out to you, you will discover the exact language, which, as a
matter of fact, exempts both of those very, very important pieces of
legislation from the act.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to a hard
working Member, the gentlewoman from Bethesda, MD [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I join many of my colleagues today in expressing the
need to address the issue of unfunded Federal mandates for State and
local government. Every Member of this House, I believe, shares the
view that State and local governments have been asked to assume an
overwhelming burden of Federal mandates in recent years.
I do want to comment on some concerns I had. First of all, I am
pleased that the Committee on Rules adopted an amendment similar to the
one I offered in committee, clarifying that reauthorization of current
bills will not be subject to the point of order as long as the
aggregate costs to State and local governments are lower than they were
in previous authorizations.
I think it is imperative we protect our current environmental,
health, and other laws.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned with potential
litigation resulting from the House version which has the judicial
review provisions. I want to point out that I hope that CBO will
provide its mandate cost estimates in a timely fashion and that its
estimates will be accompanied by explanation of its methods.
I also want to point out that I believe it is imperative that
environmental standards apply to both the public and private sectors.
Uniform standards, I think, are critically important. I have said I
will work with Mr. Clinger and members of the committee to do that, and
I support this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another hard-working
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Salt Lake City,
UT [Mrs. Waldholtz].
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of this body and as a new member of the
Committee on Rules, I am proud to rise in support of this wide-open
rule for the consideration of this critical bill.
This rule shows our commitment to the principle that ideas and debate
should not be smothered--should not be denied consideration or a fair
hearing--and in this Congress, free speech will not be denied its
Members.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support the underlying legislation
for this bill. For too long this body has been able to substitute its
judgment and priorities for the judgment and priorities of State
Governors, legislatures, mayors, city councils, and county officials.
The priorities of this body have too often not reflected the priorities
of the people who sent us here.
Now, there has been a concern raised about the impact of this bill on
poverty programs; programs for people in need. Let me tell you about
what the lack of this bill has already done in my home State of Utah.
A few years ago the State of Utah had a surplus in its budget of over
$25 million--money that we had decided to set aside for programs for
the vulnerable elderly, for children, for education, to help people in
need in our State. Yet before we could implement those plans, we were
notified by the Federal Government that this body had decided to
broaden the benefits it provided, without paying for them. And that $22
million had to be set aside by the State of Utah to meet the priorities
of this body.
It is time that that practice stop, and this bill will raise the
procedural barriers necessary to keep this body from substituting its
judgment for the judgment of the people at home.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Bellvue, WA, a hard-working new member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, Ms. Dunn.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this wide-open rule because, Mr.
Speaker, there is not any portion of the Constitution that represents
the commonsense approach that our new majority was elected to pursue
more than the federalism of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights.
Article 10 reads as follows: ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are
reserved to the States respectively or to the people.''
H.R. 5 will restore the spirit of this amendment by restricting
unfunded mandates and returning the decisionmaking power back to the
local level so that they may determine which programs should be
priorities for their communities.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no greater violation of the spirit of the
10th amendment than through the process of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on our States or local communities.
In my home State of Washington, towns with small budgets work hard
just to keep their noses above water as they struggle to comply with
the dictates handed down by overzealous lawmakers in Washington, DC.
For example, the mayor of Snoqualmie, a small town in my district,
told me the city would be bankrupt if they are forced to comply with
the Federal mandates included in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Additionally, they will have to increase local water bills by 200 to
300 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the town of Carbonado, population 540, must find
$800,000 to comply with this same legislation.
When will this kind of absurdity end? The American people have said
the time is now. Let us pass this rule, debate this bill, and end the
arrogance of Congress passing laws and then passing the tab on to the
backs of State and local governments and eventually, of course, on to
the people.
If the Federal Government cannot pay for it, we should not force the
costs on to the States. That is just common sense.
{time} 1200
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, in this debate one point bears repeating.
What we are really doing here is signing on the dotted line before
reading the actual terms and conditions of the document. We are being
told to do something in this House that no prudent family would do in
its own home. The majority party is insisting that we race through this
legislation, but, in doing so, the institution is closing its eyes to
the many pitfalls and unanswered questions in this bill.
I ask, ``Who doesn't agree with the general idea that sparing State
and local governments from costly, unreasonable mandates is the thing
to do?'' We all agree, but the problem here is that this bill before us
is filled with all sorts of unintended consequences.
Before we make final decisions, we ought to know in detail what this
bill really means to America's people and its communities. Are we
placing consumer protections in jeopardy? [[Page H342]] What about
measures that have safeguarded our environment, the Clean Water Act,
our child protection laws, our laws protecting senior citizens against
age discrimination? What will happen to these laws?
Before we get any work done on this bill, we should ask ourselves, Do
we really know what it's all about?
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pasco, WA [Mr. Hastings], another thoughtful new Member of the
Congress.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
rule and this legislation.
Former Senator John Sharp Williams, an admirer of Thomas Jefferson,
once noted that, quote, my reading of history convinces me that most
bad government has grown out of too much government, end quote. That is
exactly the problem that we are attempting to correct with this
legislation.
When I first began working in my family business years ago, the
onslaught of Federal regulations on our local communities had just
begun. Later, as a Washington State legislator, I saw firsthand how
destructive these Federal mandates could be. Today the Federal
Government has used this mandate loophole to radically expand the scope
of Federal intrusion in the lives of all our Americans. Let me give my
colleagues a couple of examples.
Federal regulations are forcing one county in my State to spend
$142,000 to convert their traffic signs to the metric system. Never
mind that nobody wants it. Never mind that those dollars could go to
schools, or infrastructure. It is just an extra cost.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and this legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mariposa, CA [Mr. Radanovich], another of our new Members.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, when I first began public service as a
member of a country planning commission, I carried into office what
turned out to be a naive notion. I thought that our community's elected
officials were free to do what they best believed served the citizenry.
In some respects that was and is the case. However, what I failed to
factor in was Uncle Sam's ability to determine what was best and to
make us pay for it, like it or not. Imposing obligations on local
government from distant beltway bureaucracies, but without Federal
dollars to pay for them, is wrong, and H.R. 5 will right that.
Today we are considering a reform of the federal system itself and
return to the relationship between the Federal Government and various
State and local government agencies that reflects a partnership in the
activity of governing. A relief from additional Federal mandates on
State and local governments will take a long stride toward correcting
the imbalance of this relationship. It becomes again our opportunity to
continue the reform begun when this 104th Congress convened. Our
opening day showed the way as we changed rule after rule improving the
way the House does business. Now, by lifting the burden of unfunded
mandates, we are changing the business that Congress does.
The Contract With America continues to be performed as we keep faith
with the 10th amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, reserving
to the States and the people of all those public powers except those
delegated to the Federal Government.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time because this is a very
important subject, but I realize that we are the majority now.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could bargain with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] all the time. I say to the gentleman, ``Thank
you very much. I appreciate it.''
Mr. Speaker, for too long our Congress is going on spending sprees at
States' and local governments' expense, and this House has for years
mandated project after project with little or no concern about who will
foot the bill, and today we are finally coming to a recognition of that
and doing something about it, and that is why this portion of the
Contract With America is so important.
My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], in
yielding me the time had mentioned my hometown, Appleton, WI. I just
want to point out that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has estimated what
the impact has been of only 10 unfunded mandates on that community, on
my community. It is over a million dollars a year to comply with just
10 of the mandates that Congress has passed. But do my colleagues
realize that these bills are getting bigger and bigger every day?
Mr. Speaker, since 1990, 5 years ago, 4 years ago, Congress has
enacted over 40 major statutes that impose new regulations and
requirements on States, and Congress has passed more mandates in the
last 5 years than in the previous two decades combined, and again I
want to underline, Mr. Speaker and Members, that this is why this
legislation is so essential in the Contract With America and for all of
the Americans. It is time the Members of Congress become aware of the
financial burdens that Federal legislation places on State and local
governments. Every day American businesses, and households, and cities
like Appleton, have to consider the impact their actions have on their
own bottom lines. States and local governments must do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask everyone here to vote for this rule
and also to vote on the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman], a very hard-working Member who was one of
the many progenitors of this legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
DREIER] for yielding this time to me, and I want to congratulate him,
and also the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], for this open rule. I think it is a great step
forward. It is going to lead to a very interesting debate over the next
few days. We will have plenty discussion on all the issues, and I look
forward to it. I think the Committee on Rules also provided a good
service to this country by refining some of the aspects of this
legislation in its good hearing on the matter. A lot of the issues were
debated, of course, extensively at that hearing.
I say to my colleagues, Let me just read you one letter I got a
couple of weeks ago from Mark Schockman, a fire chief in my district.
He wrote to tell me:
Unfunded mandates are having strong impacts on our ability
to provide emergency services to our customers and to your
constituents, Congressman.
Well, unfortunately for my constituents, that is exactly what is
going on. Mandates result in cuts in vital services, fire services,
police services, and so on. They also result in increased taxes. These
are property taxes, these are sales taxes, these are State income
taxes. In a way it is taxation without representation. It is a critical
issue. It is a crisis. We have got to have a new kind of federalism.
Again I applaud the Committee on Rules for having this open rule. I
look forward to an open debate.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] to close debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mr. Collins] is recognized for 4 minutes.
{time} 1210
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I strongly oppose this
rule because the legislative process under which H.R. 5 is being
brought to the floor today has prevented our committee from having an
adequate opportunity to meaningfully review the bill before it reached
this point.
The concerns of the minority are discussed in our minority views in
the committee's report on H.R. 5, and in general they all stem from one
simple fact. The majority leadership is evidently attempting to
railroad this bill through the House before there is
[[Page H343]] enough time to carefully review its contents.
First, the committee held no hearings. Those cited in the committee
report were held in the 103d Congress and can in no way substitute for
hearings in this Congress. The bill that the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight considered last week is considerably different
from the one that the Committee on Government Operations reported out
by a 35-to-4 bipartisan vote in the previous Congress. More
importantly, we have many new members on our committee who had no
opportunity to attend those hearings. In fact, 31 of the 51 current
members did not even serve on the committee in the 103d Congress and,
therefore, have no institutional knowledge of the legislative process
through which that bill have traveled.
Second, the lightning speed of the consideration of H.R. 5 did not
give our members adequate time to review the legislation. The printed
copy of the bill that went to our members was not available until
Friday, January 6. In short, our members had a weekend to read the bill
and to prepare amendments.
Third, since our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was
designated the lead committee, I find it incomprehensible that we
should have been given no opportunity to consider amendments to the
heart of the bill, which is title III, dealing with congressional
procedures in handling mandates. Instead, the only matters of
consequence we were allowed to consider were the title I mandates study
commission and the exclusions to the bill contained in section 4.
My fourth concern relates to the manner in which minority members
were treated at the markup. In one case the previous question was
ordered on an amendment by the minority that had not even been ready
yet and the point of order was rejected.
In another case an amendment in the nature of a substitute was ruled
out of order because we were told that only one amendment in the nature
of a substitute could be offered to section 1 even if the previous
amendment had been defeated.
Finally, there was a particularly troublesome breach of our rules
when at the beginning of our markup the chairman recognized a member of
the majority who is not a member of our committee to give a statement
on the bill. This converted the markup to a hearing. However, we
received no notice of the hearing and were granted no opportunity to
ask questions under the 5-minute rule or to select minority witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, an open rule is only one element in guaranteeing an open
and thoughtful debate on legislation. We have already seen in our
committee how such procedures as calling the previous question have
been used to preclude open and full debate.
Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Rockwell, TX [Mr. Hall].
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule
for consideration of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
This will be one of the most important issues to be deliberated in this
historic, reform-minded Congress, and it is imperative that we
entertain all views and hear all arguments before we cast our votes. I
am satisfied that this rule will permit adequate debate and discussion
of this legislation.
For too many years the Federal Government has been mandating policies
to State and local governments and to the private sector without regard
for the cost or the burdens of compliance. H.R. 5 will change that
policy. No longer will we be able to pass laws without adequately
funding their implementation. In addition, when Members of Congress
know the financial and bureaucratic impact of a particular piece of
legislation, hopefully we will be able to craft a more responsible and
cost-effective approach to a particular problem.
This legislation will help make the Federal Government more
accountable to those we serve. Issues that affect the health and safety
of all Americans will continue to receive top priority by the Federal
Government. Other programs that might affect one area or group more
than another should be voluntary, with Federal assistance awarded
proportionately, if available and if needed.
The time has come to get government off the backs of State and local
governments and off the backs of the private sector. It is time for
Congress to stop passing laws without knowing the consequences of our
actions. H.R. 5 will help achieve these goals, and I welcome an open
discussion of these issues.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, since the early 1980's the American people have been
crying out for some sort of relief. Washington has been imposing on
State and local governments and the private sector requirements that
they comply with all kinds of constraints and requirements, and yet we
do not provide the wherewithal for them to meet those requirements. It
is absolutely ridiculous for us to continue passing those on.
This legislation has been studied for years and years and years. We
have been trying to bring it up. It has been done under an open process
in the committee, an open amendment process in the Rules Committee, and
here on the House floor. We planned, when we reported this rule, to
have the first measure, the Contract With America, be on the opening
day considered under a wide-open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of openness and
in support of accountability. I ask my colleagues to vote for this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 350,
nays 71, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No 21]
YEAS--350
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo [[Page H344]]
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--71
Abercrombie
Baldacci
Becerra
Beilenson
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Clay
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Coyne
DeFazio
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Klink
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Mfume
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Scott
Serrano
Stark
Stokes
Thurman
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
NOT VOTING--13
Bachus
Chapman
Flake
Lincoln
Meehan
Pelosi
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Schaefer
Slaughter
Waxman
Yates
{time} 1229
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. CLYBURN, POMEROY,
THOMPSON, and TORRES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________