[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4338-H4343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1998

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 462

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the

[[Page H4339]]

     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3150) 
     to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 303(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered by title rather than by 
     section. Each title shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                    Unfunded Mandates Point of Order

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, I make a point of order against 
consideration of the rule, House Resolution 462.
  Section 425 of that same act, as added by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995, states that a point of order against legislation 
which, one, imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million 
annually against State or local governments or, two, does not publish 
prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in 
excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities or in 
excess of $100 million annually for the private sector.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee 
on Rules may not waive this point of order. On page 2, lines 13 through 
15 of House Resolution 462, all points of order are waived against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Therefore, I make a 
point of order that this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 
426 as added by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from New York 
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the act, the gentleman must 
specify precise waiver language in the resolution on which he 
predicates his point of order. Having met this threshold burden, the 
gentleman from New York and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the act, after debate the Chair will 
put the question of consideration; to wit: Will the House now consider 
the resolution?
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will be recognized for 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been complaining for months that this bill was 
being rushed through without proper consideration. We asked that this 
bill not be voted on in committee until we got a CBO score, until they 
told us how much this bill would cost the Federal Government and the 
taxpayers, until we found out how much this bill would cost in unfunded 
mandates on the private sector.
  Yesterday, we received the CBO score which told us that this bill 
will impose a cost on the Federal Government of $214 million at least. 
Interestingly enough, the committee report that was filed by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, filed hastily without proper study, said 
there was no fiscal impact on the Federal Government. The CBO report 
said there was at least a $214 million fiscal impact on the Federal 
Government.
  About an hour ago, just in the nick of time, we received the CBO 
report on unfunded mandates in the private sector. Let me read from 
that report. It says, ``Certain provisions in H.R. 3150 that 
incorporate means testing in the bankruptcy system would impose new 
private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
with costs that exceed the statutory threshold of $100 million in 1996 
annually adjusted for inflation.''
  It goes on to list what some of those costs are. Then in the next 
page, page 2 of the report from CBO, we read, ``CBO estimates that the 
direct cost of the private sector of complying with mandates in H.R. 
3150 would exceed the statutory threshold in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act in each of the first 5 years that new mandates were 
effective.'' It goes into what those costs would be.
  Then it says the following. ``Some estimates of increased costs for 
attorneys and private trustees in Chapter 7 filings have been several 
hundred dollars per case. Chapter 13 filings have ranged from several 
hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars per case per year. More than 
1.3 million bankruptcy filings occurred in 1997. Because reliable 
national data on the cost of the bankruptcy system are lacking, CBO 
does not have sufficient information to place a reasonable upper bound 
on its estimate.''
  So we do not know what the upper bound is, but we can say the 
following: Several hundred dollars per case at a minimum to a thousand 
dollars per case at a maximum, at 1.3 million cases, that means a 
minimum cost to the private sector of $260 million and a probable 
maximum cost of $1.3 billion in unfunded mandates to the private 
sector.
  Who pays for this? We are told that Americans are losing large sums 
of money because deadbeats are deadbeating, not paying their debts; and 
we have to crack down on this bill and make them pay their debts. This 
will take $290 million minimum, $1.3 billion maximum out of the sum of 
money from which people can pay their debts. So the creditors will be 
out between $260 million and $1.3 billion by the administrative burdens 
of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1995, with great fanfare as part of the Contract with 
America, the Republican majority in this House passed the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Bill, a bill that said, and I remember all the rhetoric 
on the floor and I am sure my friend from Colorado remembers it too, 
Congress should not be in the business of imposing unfunded mandates on 
private sector businesses and individuals. We should not do it.
  That is why the act says you can raise a point of order against a 
bill that imposes such mandates as this one does. It imposes such costs 
on innocent individuals, in this case, on creditors in the private 
sector. That is why the bill provides for a vote on the point of order.
  The idea, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, was that if we are going 
to impose a mandate that we are not going to pay for, we ought to stand 
up and vote for it and say so.
  I am putting everybody on notice, if my colleagues vote against the 
point of order, they are voting for two things. They are voting that 
contrary to the act, it is fine for Congress to place $1.3 billion 
unfunded mandates on creditors in the private sector.
  I voted against the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. But anybody who 
voted for that act and is in this Chamber today, who votes against this 
point

[[Page H4340]]

of order, is saying either that he was not being honest when he voted 
for that bill or that he changed his mind since then. People are 
entitled to change their minds.
  But that is what we are saying, either that my colleagues never 
believed in the purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or that 
they no longer believe in the purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.
  I never believed in it. I voted against the bill. I am going to vote 
for the point of order, because I think we ought to uphold the law. 
That is what is involved here.
  CBO tells us that this bill will impose a cost of $260 million to 
$1.3 billion on the private sector in unfunded mandates. According to 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that the majority Republican passed, 
that is something that Congress should never, never, never, ever do. So 
I anticipate that most of our friends on that side of the aisle will 
vote in favor of that order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado does have the 
right to close the debate on this point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York kind of surprises me. I am 
listening very carefully to his points about the private sector 
unfunded mandates. While the gentleman was speaking very artfully, I 
might add, I was looking up the voting record 2 weeks ago. The 
gentleman who today, as he said, feels and speaks very strongly against 
mandates on the private sector voted against, voted against the 
Mandates Information Act which was the Republican Party majority's way 
of trying to avoid mandates on the private sector.
  I guess, as the gentleman said, we are entitled to change our mind. 
He has changed his mind in the last 2 weeks. Welcome on board.
  Let us talk about the facts of what we have today; and that is the 
Congressional Budget Office, which, again, the gentleman very 
eloquently spoke of, but he did not quite include all of the facts.
  One of my favorite things I like to listen to is Paul Harvey. He has 
got a little thing: ``And now for the rest of the story.'' Well, let us 
talk about the rest of the story. I quote from the CBO study, ``H.R. 
3150 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.''
  There is a possibility, a remote possibility about some type of 
unfunded mandate on the private sector out there; but, of course, we 
could have eliminated even this type of concern a couple of weeks ago 
with the assistance of the gentleman from New York, which we did not 
receive.
  I think that this point of order is not appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from Colorado did not listen to 
what I said. I said I voted against the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
because I do not have a problem personally with unfunded mandates on 
the private sector being enacted by Congress for good and proper 
purposes.
  I did not agree with that act then. I do not agree with it now, but 
it is the law. What I am saying is that, if you vote yes on proceeding 
today, you are voting against the purpose of that law.
  I am going to vote no because I think it is a terrible bill. I think 
that we ought not to be conceit doing that. I think that, if we pass a 
law, we ought to obey it. If I had my way, I would repeal the law. I 
did not vote for it. But I think that if it is on the books, we ought 
to obey the law, which is why I am going to vote against proceeding and 
urge my colleagues to do so.
  I do not know what the gentleman was reading from a moment ago about 
government. That was probably yesterday's report of CBO. But today's 
report of CBO is about private sector mandates. Yesterday's report said 
at least $214 million unfunded mandate on the Federal Government. Today 
says somewhere between $260 million and $1.3 billion unfunded mandate 
on the private sector, which will come out of the money available for 
repayment of creditors.
  I think that, frankly, as I said, the bill was rushed through. I do 
not think that the sponsors of the bill anticipated this effect and 
ought to go back for further study and amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from CBO and a report 
of CBO.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     has prepared the enclosed summary review of H.R. 3150, the 
     Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, for private-sector mandates. 
     CBO completed a federal cost estimate and an assessment of 
     the bill's effects on state, local, and tribal governments on 
     June 5.
       If you wish further details on this review, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matt Eyles.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

       Enclosure.
     H.R. 3150--Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998
       Summary: H.R. 3150 would make many changes and additions to 
     the federal bankruptcy laws. By amending the bankruptcy code, 
     the bill would affect consumer debtors, business debtors, 
     secured and unsecured creditors, bankruptcy trustees, 
     attorneys, debt relief counselors, and other entities in the 
     private sector. Certain provisions in H.R. 3150 that 
     incorporate means-testing in the bankruptcy system would 
     impose new private-sector mandates, as defined in the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UMRA) with costs that exceed the 
     statutory threshold ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually 
     for inflation). Specifically, new enforceable duties would be 
     imposed on private trustees who administer bankruptcy cases, 
     attorneys, debt relief counselors, and utilities, as defined 
     in the bill. H.R. 3150 would also impose additional duties on 
     parties who file for relief under the bankruptcy system, 
     although new requirements for bankruptcy filers would not be 
     considered new mandates for purposes of UMRA. Furthermore, 
     H.R. 3150 contains provisions that could impose costs on 
     certain categories of creditors who receive distributions 
     from bankruptcy estates by delaying payments to creditors and 
     by raising administrative costs. Increased administrative 
     costs would reduce the pool of funds available for creditors.
       Private-Sector Mandates and Effects: H.R. 3150 would 
     establish a system of means-testing provisions for 
     determining the eligibility of consumers for relief under the 
     bankruptcy system. Participants in consumer bankruptcy 
     proceedings would be most affected by the bill. Under current 
     law, most individual debtors who seek bankruptcy relief have 
     two options: liquidation (Chapter 7) or reorganization 
     (Chapter 13). H.R. 3150 would institute a ``needs-based 
     system'' for relief under Chapter 7 by requiring individuals 
     (and households) who file for bankruptcy to seek debt 
     relief under Chapter 13 if they earn a regular income 
     equal to or greater than the national median income 
     (adjusted for household size) and could pay at least 20 
     percent of their unsecured debts and $50 per month. In 
     addition, H.R. 3150 would amend other provisions in 
     federal bankruptcy law, including those covering family 
     farmers and municipalities, collection of bankruptcy data, 
     single-asset real estate debtors, the treatment of certain 
     taxes, and cross-border bankruptcy cases.
       CBO estimates that the direct costs to the private sector 
     of complying with mandates in H.R. 3150 would exceed the 
     statutory threshold in UMRA in each of the first five years 
     that new mandates were effective. The lion's share of costs 
     would be imposed on private trustees who administer 
     bankruptcy estates, providers of debt relief counseling 
     services, and attorneys. Most mandate costs would stem from 
     new requirements to investigate and verify financial 
     information provided by bankruptcy filers. Costs would be 
     imposed on debt relief counselors by enacting new consumer 
     protection regulations. Some estimates of increased costs for 
     attorneys and private trustees in Chapter 7 filings have been 
     several hundred dollars per case, and estimates for Chapter 
     13 filings have ranged from several hundred dollars to over 
     $1,000 per case per year. More than 1.3 million bankruptcy 
     filings occurred in 1997. Because reliable national data on 
     the costs of the bankruptcy system are lacking, CBO does not 
     have sufficient information to place a reasonable upper bound 
     on its estimate.
       CBO's estimate excludes: financial transfers between 
     debtors and creditors that would result from enacting H.R. 
     3150; costs that could result from delaying distributions 
     from bankruptcy estates to certain creditors; and potential 
     reductions in debtor repayments if the costs of 
     administration for the bankruptcy system rise by more than 
     payments by debtors.
       Attorneys and trustees in Chapter 13 cases would be able to 
     recoup most mandate costs.

[[Page H4341]]

     Administrative costs in Chapter 13 cases, which include 
     attorneys' and trustees' costs, receive priority treatment in 
     Chapter 13 cases and, therefore, those costs would likely be 
     offset by increased payments from bankruptcy estates. Mandate 
     costs for Chapter 7 trustees, however, would reduce trustee 
     income because provisions are lacking for reimbursement for 
     increased trustee costs from Chapter 7 debtor estates.
       To the extent that the bill would delay payments from 
     liquidated or reorganized bankruptcy estates, the bill could 
     impose costs on certain creditors. However, by increasing the 
     number of debtors who are required to file under Chapter 13, 
     the bill would likely increase the pool of funds available to 
     creditors, which would benefit creditors. Again, offsetting a 
     portion of the benefits to creditors would be the higher 
     costs of administering a bankruptcy system that uses means-
     testing. As a result, some creditors could ultimately receive 
     smaller distributions.
       Estimate Prepared By: Matt Eyles.
       Estimate Approved By: Arlene Holen, Assistant Director for 
     Special Studies.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) is recognized for the balance of his time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the issue on this point of order is very 
simple. This House, under Republican leadership, passed the bill. They 
said we should not impose unfunded mandates on the private sector. Some 
of us did not agree with that, but that is the law.
  This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by whose 
judgment we are bound, imposes an unfunded cost on the private sector 
of somewhere between $260 million and $1.3 billion per year. That will 
come out of the money available to pay creditors.
  We should not proceed. The sponsors of this bill I am sure did not 
anticipate this. The committee report says it does not impose any 
costs. That is wrong. It obviously does.
  We have said for a long time that this bill was rushed through, that 
the proper research was not done, the implications were not understood. 
It is now clear that that is true. I would urge that on the substantive 
grounds that when we legislate, we ought to legislate knowing what we 
are doing, understanding the implications and all the pros and cons and 
effects of the bill. We ought to put this aside and come back to it 
another day.
  On the legal mandate of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we should 
not proceed to impose such a mandate on the private sector because that 
is the law that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle imposed on 
us. Therefore, I urge a no vote, which I am told is how we have to go 
in order to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized to close debate.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman from New York 
has said, and I will quote him here in just a moment, is the very clear 
definition of the difference between the Republican Party and the 
Democratic Party. The gentleman from New York very ably states the 
Democratic Party position. That is, they do not have a problem with 
unfunded mandates on the private sector.
  The Republican Party has a big problem with unfunded mandates on the 
private sector. The gentleman should keep that in mind. There is a 
distinct difference between his side of the aisle and our side of the 
aisle. We do not think we ought to be putting unfunded mandates on the 
private sector.
  I will quote the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and this is 
him speaking, ``I do not have a problem with unfunded mandates on the 
private sector.'' I do. I think the people are out there working, 
trying to make a living. By the way, they fund us. They are the 
taxpayers. We work for them.
  For us to continue to go back to the private sector and continue to 
hammer them and hammer them and hammer them with more taxes, and that 
is what unfunded mandates are, more taxes and more taxes and more 
taxes, we are going to break the bank. We are going to break the bank. 
We have to get off the shoulders of the working people out there. It is 
a clear distinction between gentleman's party and ours.
  Now, on the point of order, I realize the gentleman diverted us from 
the point of order. Let me make it clear that the point of order does 
not fit the claim that the gentleman was making.
  I wish the gentleman could have been in attendance at the Committee 
on Rules last night. We would have been happy to discuss with the 
gentleman, previous him to coming to the floor and tying us up for an 
hour or so with this point of order, that while I think the point of 
order certainly is put forward with good intent, it is not right. It is 
out of order. It just does not fit. It is not fitting the claim. The 
gentleman's argument, the puzzle does not come together.
  Under the rules that we have here, the point of order cannot be 
sustained, in my opinion, because, and I do not want to say it does not 
make sense, because that sounds derogatory, and I do not intend to be 
derogatory to the gentleman from New York, but it certainly falls short 
of the standards that need to be met.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in the middle of a meeting of the Committee on 
Rules upstairs, but when I saw my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jerry Nadler) make a point of order against an unfunded 
mandate, I could not constrain myself and I had to come down here on 
this floor.
  Let us set the record straight. If there was an unfunded mandate in 
this bill, I would be raising the point of order, the gentleman would 
not have to, or anybody else, as I did the other day when there was an 
unfunded mandate on this floor and I raised the point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gentleman from New York knows as 
well that we have a good track record since we established the unfunded 
mandate points of order against the public sector when unfunded 
mandates were brought on the public sector, and then on the rule change 
that we made the other day, applying that to the private sector, we 
intend to carry that out. I can assure the Members as chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, if there is ever an unfunded mandate on a bill, I 
will be down here raising that point of order. I wanted to make that 
straight.
  I just have to raise this point, that my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jerry Nadler) has recognized, and he admits that he 
is one of the most liberal members of this House. He votes just about 
for everything where you are going to spend more money, and he votes 
yes on everything and no on nothing when it comes to spending money. 
But I respect him, because that is his philosophy.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure the gentleman, there is no 
unfunded mandate in this bill. The Congressional Budget Office will 
verify that.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. The question for the two gentlemen, and I do not know who 
wants to answer it, the gentleman from New York says there is no 
unfunded mandate in here. The gentleman from Colorado says that the 
puzzle just does not fit.
  I simply ask, the CBO report says, ``Certain provisions in H.R. 3150 
would impose new private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act with costs that exceed the statutory threshold.'' 
Why does the gentleman say it does not fit?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the point of order lies against the public sector. I 
think what is critical here and what the chairman has come down to say 
from the Committee on Rules, he came out of the Committee on Rules 
because he saw this on television, that is to reemphasize the 
difference between this side of the aisle, the Republican side of the 
aisle, and the gentleman's side of the aisle. That is, we do not buy 
into this unfunded mandates stuff.
  I know, and I will approach the gentleman again, this is the 
gentleman's quote from just a couple of minutes ago, that the gentleman 
does not have a problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. 
Once again, on the Republican side of the aisle, we have a heck of a 
problem with unfunded mandates on the private sector. As I said

[[Page H4342]]

earlier, how much more burden can we put on these people?
  I just came from my office where I met with some people out there 
that are in small business. Their main discussion is that we 
continually put it on top of them, we continually hit them with these 
mandates, more regulations, more rules. It is appalling for me to come 
over here to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the rest of the story is that the Republicans are not 
going to buy into unfunded mandates. These people in my office, these 
are not wealthy people, these are small business people. In fact, 
several of them were having difficulty coming to Washington, just being 
able to afford the lodging over here. They talk over and over again 
about how crushing, how crushing the Federal Government can be to small 
business with a lot of these kinds of mandates.
  I realize that we are on the point of order. As I said to the 
gentleman, with all due respect, I think his point of order, while 
offered in good intent, does not fit the claim he is making.
  I think the gentleman then kind of moved the point of order into a 
discussion on mandates, and the gentleman's position is, he does not 
mind mandates, Federal mandates on the private sector, unfunded 
mandates, by the way.
  Let me explain what the ``unfunded mandate'' means. That means a 
regulation by the Federal Government, often an order by the Federal 
Government, on a small businessman, ordering them to perform something, 
or in an intergovernmental way, it can be intergovernmental, on a State 
government, ordering them to do something but not paying for it. That 
should not happen. It should not be.
  That is why, and it is pretty easy to focus on, and that is why it is 
not too often, but this morning, anyway, we have been able to draw a 
clear distinction between the Republican side and the Democratic side. 
But boy, if there is one this morning, here it is right here, unfunded 
mandates. We are not going to go into it. We do not support them.
  This kind of legislation we are talking about, I wish we would have 
had some of the points that the gentleman made in this kind of debate 2 
weeks ago when we had the bill, the Information Act. That would have 
been a lot of fun to have that kind of debate.
  Let us wrap it up. The way to wrap it up is really quite simple. 
Number one, the Republicans will not, contrary to what the gentleman 
from New York's policy is, we do not support these kinds of unfunded 
mandates. We do have a big problem with unfunded mandates. As the 
chairman from the Committee on Rules said, he would be the first one 
down here pushing this point of order if in fact he felt there was an 
unfunded mandate on governmental units.
  Mr. Speaker, the second issue that we should summarize on is, hey, 
let us stop this unfunded mandate stuff. This point of order is not in 
order. It should be ruled on by the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question before the House is: Will the House now consider House 
Resolution 462?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) recognize that the noes prevailed on the pending vote?
  Mr. McINNIS. I am a little confused as to the order.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we continued. The vote is over.
  Mr. McINNIS. I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I make a point of 
order to that point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
has the floor.
  Does the gentleman from Colorado object to the vote?
  Mr. McINNIS. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and 
makes the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  A quorum is not present. Under the rule, the yeas and nays are 
ordered. Those in favor will say aye----
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Speech intervened. He 
did not ask for the vote or object to the quorum until the Chair asked 
about it. I object to this. He had gone on, all right.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
objected to the vote. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
objected to the vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, business intervened. Before he objected to 
the vote, he started saying he asked 30 minutes for speaking time, et 
cetera. We had already progressed. He did not object to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There was no business that intervened. The 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) did not have the floor for debate 
since the pending voice vote was against consideration.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) did not have the floor for 
debate. The gentleman from Colorado objected to the vote.
  Mr. McINNIS. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I had the floor. I was on 
my feet and had the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will repeat, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman makes the point of order that 
a quorum is not present.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that the Record will 
show, if the Clerk will read the Record, that the gentleman had gone on 
to another subject, had already started talking about something else, 
and did not, did not object on the ground that a quorum is not present 
until the Speaker asked him, do you not want to object that a quorum 
was not present?
  The vote was already over and cannot be continued at this point. I 
make a point of order.

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) had not been recognized to debate the resolution since 
the House had not voted to consider the resolution. Therefore, no 
intervening business had been transacted.
  Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) insist on appealing the 
ruling of the Chair?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 
withdrawn his appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has objected to the vote. 
That objection was made on the grounds that a quorum was not present, 
and the gentleman has made a point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair reminds all Members of the Speaker's announcement today. 
Based on the request and the order of the Speaker, this will be a 
strictly enforced 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 166, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               YEAS--248

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)

[[Page H4343]]


     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Borski
     Conyers
     Cook
     Farr
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Inglis
     Klug
     Leach
     Linder
     Lofgren
     McDermott
     Moakley
     Oxley
     Pickett
     Sensenbrenner
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1219

  Mr. DICKS, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Messrs. OBEY, JEFFERSON, and 
BISHOP changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GIBBONS and Mr. ROTHMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________