[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H344-H345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the new rule in clause 
2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, adopted on January 4 of this year as the new 
rules of the House, each committee report must accurately reflect all 
rollcall votes on amendments in committee; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as a further parliamentary inquiry, the 
report accompanying H.R. 5, as reported from the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, House Report 104-1, part 2, lists many 
rollcall votes on amendments. On amendment 6, the report states that 
the committee defeated the amendment by a rollcall vote of 14 yes and 
22 no. However, the tally sheet shows 35 members voting ``aye'' and 1 
member voting ``nay''.
  Mr. Speaker, would a point of order under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule 
XI apply?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman 
is correct.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, it is clear that 
this bill could not proceed under its present rule; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct, if it is an error 
on behalf of the committee. If it is a printing error. That would be a 
technical problem which would not be sustained in the point of order.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to insist or raise a point 
of order. However, I bring this to the attention of the Chair and to my 
colleagues on the other side. Some of the hesitancy to proceed as 
quickly as we are proceeding on this bill and others that are part of 
the Contract With America is the fear on the minority side that this 
haste may bring waste, that speed may bring poor legislation.
  There are many elements of the unfunded mandate bill which I think 
the long-term ramifications and the possibilities of working havoc on 
the judicial system and the regulations and rules presently existing in 
the United States could cause our constituents difficulty.
  I would urge that the majority, in consideration of the fact that we 
are not going to use this tactic to delay this debate, take into 
consideration that their rules must be applied on a day-to-day basis, 
because the majority is responsible for having passed this rule.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. The gentleman is absolutely right. The speed with which 
we have had to consider this legislation has, as the gentleman has 
pointed out, created a number of problems that are evidenced right 
there. It seems to me if we would just slow down, get deliberate and 
full review of what we are trying to do here, these kinds of mistakes 
that the gentleman has pointed out will not happen, and I certainly 
think that the gentleman is absolutely right in pointing that out so 
that all of us can be aware of it. I thank him for doing so.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, may I just address the other side for a moment and say 
that we had a series of amendments. Many of them are very, very 
important. There is the possibility, as we move into the amendment 
phase of this bill, that there is going to be a move for cloture or 
limitation of debate. I hope we can have an agreement that, based on 
the new concept of an open rule, that the majority will not impose time 
restrictions on reasonable debate on the amendments to be offered.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that there is no intent to change the rule. The rule is a 
very open rule, and there is no intent at all to in any way proscribe 
or limit the ability of the minority to offer amendments.
  I would point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I am 
advised that indeed there is a printing error in the Record. The tally 
clearly shows what the vote was. There was a printing error in terms of 
identifying what that vote was. But this was a printing error and 
certainly in no way should be used to vitiate the procedure that we are 
undergoing right now.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I assume we can accept the chairman's word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been 
recognized for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman 
may continue regarding the inquiry.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State 
of New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this was my amendment, and it is a 
printing record error. The Republicans voted against exempting the most 
vulnerable citizens in our society, children, that cannot vote, cannot 
speak for themselves in the unfunded mandates bill. But it is a 
printing error. They did not vote for it.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, just in closing I would like to say that 
I think this side, the minority, in fact, wants to cooperate with the 
majority side and have reasonable debate and discussion, so whatever 
the bill that finally comes out of the House of Representatives, we as 
Members of this [[Page H345]] Congress can be proud of it in its 
entirety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The Chair appreciates the 
parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker appreciates the cooperation on 
behalf of the entire House.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I raise a parliamentary 
inquiry concerning consideration of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman state a point of order 
or a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, under clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI it states ``Whatever any 
hearing is conducted by any committee upon any measure or matter, the 
minority party members on the committee shall be entitled, upon request 
to the chairman by a majority of them before completion of the hearing, 
to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to 
that measure or matter during at least 1 day of hearing thereon.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is the 
committee of original jurisdiction on this bill. On January 10, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight began its markup on H.R. 
5.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a parliamentary inquiry before the 
House at the present time.
  The Chair has asked the gentlewoman to suspend so we might have order 
and that the Chair will be able to hear the parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. After two opening statements, the chairman 
of the committee invited a member of the majority party who was not a 
member of the committee to testify before the committee. At the 
conclusion of his testimony, the witness thanked the chairman of the 
committee for holding the hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, minority members of the committee protested in a timely 
fashion. No opportunity was given to Members on our side of the aisle 
to question the witness. Democrats requested that an additional formal 
hearing be conducted on this measure so that their witnesses could be 
called. That request was denied and the minority was told that the only 
procedure allowed would be to continue the full committee markup of the 
bill. Efforts on the part of the minority members to raise questions 
over possible violations of House rules were dismissed by the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, in my view, allowing a Member not on the committee to 
testify changed the meeting from a straight markup to a hearing.
  It is true that in many committee markups the majority requests the 
presence of certain experts, usually administration officials or 
committee staff, to answer questions about the interpretation or effect 
of different proposals.
  The Member's appearance before the committee, the Member who is not a 
member of the committee, was not like that. Questions were not put to 
him. He provided a statement and read his testimony in the way any 
witness testifies at any hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not protest the presence of Members not on the 
committee at the markup and hearing. Our complaint is that we were 
denied the opportunity to ask questions and to call our own witnesses, 
as we were entitled to do under the rules.
  The only remedy, Mr. Speaker, is a point of order at this stage of 
deliberation.
  Is it correct that I would be required to raise a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, when the committee resolves itself into the Committee of the 
Whole?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentlewoman insists on her point of 
order, that point of order would be timely at this point in the 
process.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. However, because, 
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in any kind of dilatory tactics, 
such as I have heard before in the 103d Congress and previous 
Congresses, I will not insist upon a point of order at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman seek a response from 
the Chair regarding the inquiry?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. I think I 
have made my point.

                          ____________________