[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.

                          ____________________