[Pages H810-H833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5.

{time} 1052

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal
Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying
with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and
to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private
sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
January 24, 1995, the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens] has been disposed of, and section 4 was open for
amendment at any point.
Are their further amendments to section 4?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Hilliard].

medicare

Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to challenge my colleagues
not to forget about a constituency of this Nation that looks to us to
fulfill our obligation to them. This obligation is the preservation of
the Medicare program. All of us, as citizens, owe a debt to those who
have come before us, our senior citizens, and made this country what it
is, and we must not sacrifice their needs to pay for our excesses.
Passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment without specifying
where the target cuts are will tie our hands as a Congress and
jeopardize the fulfillment of our pledges to the senior citizens of
this Nation. We have pledged to take care of the elderly and the infirm
so that they and their families will not have to shoulder the burden of
their illnesses alone.
We must remember those persons who have entrusted us with this trust.
We must not forsake them when they need us most. It is our duty to
preserve this fund and protect those who are under our care. I ask the
U.S. Senate and the President not to forsake them.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Members are happy and excited at the
prospect that we are going to be dealing with unfunded mandates again
today. A little Friday morning sarcasm, Mr. Chairman, because I really
expect that the reverse is actually the case. We are hearing on both
sides of the aisle that there is hope that we can come to a conclusion
on this very important legislation, so I sense the reverse is true, and
I would ask my colleagues, ``Who else really wants to see an end to
this process?'' That would be the Nation's Governors, both Republicans
and Democrats; the Nation's mayors, again both Republicans and
Democrats; the Nation's county commissioners, the Nation's township
supervisors, both Republicans and Democrats who really want to see this
bill moved through the process.
They are faced with some very hard choices, Mr. Chairman. They have
to, in many cases, decide whether to continue or reduce a very vital
local program in order to carry out a Federal mandate that is imposed
upon them from here in Washington, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that
the passage of the balanced budget
amendment last evening makes this an even more urgent requirement.
They are going to need relief from the unfunded mandates situation
because their concern is with the balanced budget amendment we may just
accelerate our ability, our wish, to pass through requirements that we
are not going to be able to fund because of the balanced budget
amendment.

So, it is the local mayors, Governors and so forth, that are really
crying out for this legislation, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, in
talking with the
[[Page H811]] mayors, and the Governors, and the county commissioners
and so forth, they resent the really patronizing attitude that has
permeated much of the debate, or at least some of the debate, we have
had over the last 4 or 5 days, the idea that only the Federal
Government can be relied on to protect clean water, protect clean air,
worker safety, the health and safety of the Nation. There has been this
sort of idea implanted that only the Federal Government is capable and
can be trusted to do these things.
I would just want to refer to one of the great responses to that
which I think was from Mayor Daley, Richard Daley, the Democratic Mayor
of the city of Chicago, who is quoted in the Washington Post yesterday,
reported responding to this argument that we have heard that we must be
vigilant here at the Federal Government, require this from the Federal
Government. He was quoted in the Washington Post saying, ``That
argument implies that Mayor Daley or Mayor Rice, the mayor of Seattle,
that we don't care about the quality of air and water in our cities. It
also implies that some bureaucrat in Washington knows better than we do
how to run Chicago or Seattle.'' And this is a Democratic mayor
responding to that argument.
I think, Mr. Chairman, it really is necessary to stress, as we begin
debate on some of the amendments that will be coming here, some basic
facts about the legislation:
It is not retroactive. We said that time and time again. It is only
prospective in its application. It does not affect reauthorization
unless there is a new additional mandate contained in the
reauthorization, and it does not preclude the passing of future
mandates through to the States. I mean there has been some suggestion
that we will never do that. All it does is require us, for the first
time really, to consider the costs of what we do, to consider the cost
of what we are imposing on States and local government.
This morning, Mr. Chairman, we are faced with the prospect, at least,
of 37 proposed exemptions to section 4 of the legislation. My hope
would be that we might be able to move through section 4. I have said
that I hope that I could get to title 1 of this bill by April, but I
was not sure which year, and I still hope we might be able to move
through section 4 of the legislation today.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would at this point like to ask
unanimous consent that we might limit debate on all exemptions,
amendments to section 4, to 20 minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I want to reiterate what I said to the gentleman on Tuesday,
that we were promised an open rule in the Committee, and I believe that
we are raising extraordinarily important issues for each of these
amendments. These are amendments that we did not get the opportunity to
offer when we were in committee. They are amendments that are valid,
and many of the offerers of these amendments have been patiently
waiting as we have gone through other amendments, and I wish to be fair
to them. As my colleagues know, rather than race through this bill, I
think I can offer the Governors and mayors, even my own mayor,
something better, and that is that I will be offering an amendment to
make the bill effective upon enactment, not October of this year.
Further, I notice that other amendments are being put into the Record
as we go. I have here yesterday's Congressional Record, and I see there
is an amendment here on page H803 that is being offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
{time} 1100

So amendments are still being offered on this piece of legislation by
the other side, as well as amendments that we already have over here,
amendments that have already been printed in the Record.
Further reserving the right to object, I want to make it clear that I
personally am not offering amendments to this particular section, but I
believe in the right of my colleagues to have a full debate on their
amendments. I do not believe that they have had a complete opportunity
to be aired in the committee.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must object at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman yield under her reservation?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I will yield under my reservation, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania that I know he is anxious to proceed with the bill,
and there are other Members who are anxious, but I notice, as I look
around, that I see very few Members on either side participating. One
of the reasons is that we have Members on this side who have amendments
to this section who are now being required to be in committee in markup
and cannot be here. If we have this notice and this type of a
limitation, there is no way for them to know that that is going to
occur, and they are going to be shut out on their amendments because
they are going to be in markup.
I believe we should continue in the orderly business, and then as we
proceed toward the end, we can notify those Members. Hopefully, they
will be able to leave the markup and come over here and offer their
amendments. Right now they are being required by the majority to make a
decision that no Member of this body should ever have to make, and yet
they are being asked to do so by this procedure.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. The gentlewoman from Illinois has the time.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think the frustration here is that no one
wants to deny any Member the opportunity to offer an amendment. It is
just that with the debate on some of these amendments, we are hearing
the same arguments on our side in terms of not opening this up and
include the costs of all these items before any kind of unfunded
mandate would emanate from this body.
The arguments are very similar in most of these areas. Limiting
debate would allow everyone to offer their amendments. Members could
stay on the floor and listen because the votes would be coming much
closer. That is all we are trying to get to, not to deny any Member the
opportunity to offer an amendment.
We are just talking right now about this one title of the bill. I was
in committee along with the gentlewoman, and these amendments were
allowed to be offered in committee. In some of the other sections they
were not because they were part of the rule.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, some of our amendments were
not allowed to be offered in committee, as the gentleman recalls. We
were told amendments could be offered on the floor, and that is what we
intend to do.
Mr. Chairman, I again state that I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] rise?
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further, but I will move to
strike the last word to say that we have tried to make an effort to
move this dialog along at this point. We are prepared to stay this
afternoon until 3 and, I think, on Monday until late in the evening to
try to move this bill through.
This week I was over at the National Association of Counties with
Michael Highsmith, who is the chairman there, from Fulton County, GA.
They are very frustrated about the pace of activity in this body.
We have the mayors in this week and the Governors in next week. They
would like to see some action. We are just trying to move the debate
along, but if the other side of the aisle feels they need more time, I
guess we ought to just go ahead and proceed and let them offer their
amendments and face each one on the merits one by one.

amendments offered by mr. kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment No. 84, which has
been printed in the Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H812]] Amendment No. 84, offered by Mr. Kanjorski:
In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7)
and insert ``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the
following new paragraph:
(8) pertains to investor protection, the safe and sound
operation of financial markets, federally insured depository
institutions and credit unions (as those terms are defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813) or section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1752), respectively), or the deposit insurance funds
that insure the deposits or member accounts in those
depository institutions or credit unions.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the work of the
House, I also ask unanimous consent that this amendment be considered
en bloc with an identical amendment to section 301 of the bill which
creates an identical section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kanjorski: In section 301, in the
proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph (6), strike
the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'',
and after paragraph (7) add the following:
``(8) pertains to investor protection, the safe and sound
operation of financial markets, insured depository
institutions (as that term is defined in section 3 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), insured
credit unions (as that term is defined in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)), or the Federal
deposit insurance funds that insure the deposits or member
accounts in those depository institutions or credit unions.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that the amendments be considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Kanjorski] is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendments.
Mr, KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in conjunction
with the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions,
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. The gentleman from Minnesota
and I think this is an important amendment, and I know that my good
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the
committee, is never a man of sarcasm, so I know he was not suggesting
that some of these amendments we offer today are frivolous or done for
dilatory purposes.
This amendment is a very important amendment because it really tries
to address one of the greatest unfunded mandates that ever occurred in
the history of the United States, and that is the unfunded mandate that
did not come about by action of this Congress or action of the Federal
Government but came about as a result of the failure of State
governments to properly regulate their savings and loans.
What I refer to, Mr. Chairman, is the savings and loan bailout. Many
of us unfortunately have short memories of history. If we go back to
the 1980's, we will soon realize that the crisis created in the savings
and loan industry of this country was basically caused by four States
which had the regulatory authority over S&L's and were able to grant
S&L's extraordinary powers and rights of investment in the exercise of
how they handled the funds of their investors and their depositors. As
a result of the poor or lax regulations by State regulators, this
Congress and this country was caused to be assessed well over $300
billion to pay for the bailout of the S&L's in the late part of the
1980's and the early part of the 1990's.
So when we talk about unfunded mandates and we talk about whether or
not we are interfering with regulators' control, it is important to
concentrate on what we are doing.
The purpose of this amendment is to exempt anything pertaining to
investor protection, the safe and sound operations of the financial
markets, insured depository institutions and the deposit insurance
funds. I cannot imagine why we would not recognize that the impact of
this bill on some of the regulatory bodies of the Federal Government
could breach their authority to exercise and promulgate rules and
regulations and this could in turn cause another S&L type disaster in
this country. With this piece of legislation in place as it is
presently drafted, the regulatory bodies that are charged with the
responsibility of overseeing the financial institutions and the
financial markets of this country would be unable and incapable of
taking any action to prevent that activity.
We have in this area the support of all the regulators for our
amendment. Let me cite the FDIC letter:

Exempting regulations that address the safety and soundness
of financial institutions and their insurance funds is an
appropriate, limited amendment to balance the needs of the
financial regulators, the financial industry and the
taxpayers.

From the letter of the Comptroller of the Currency, may I quote:

I am very concerned that complying with the requirements in
H.R. 5 may delay issuances of important rules by the banking
agencies and the National Credit Union Administration that
are needed to ensure the safety and soundness of insured
institutions. * * * If there are losses to the deposit
insurance funds because a regulation is delayed, the
taxpayers may be burdened with the expense of covering those
losses. In this case, any possible benefits from conducting
the analyses may be far outweighed by the ultimate cost to
the American people. * * * Your amendment--

Referring specifically to this amendment--

is appropriate and necessary. These agencies must have the
ability to act quickly to fulfill their supervisory
responsibility and their responsibility to protect the
deposit insurance funds.
{time} 1110

We also have a letter from the Office of Thrift Supervision citing
its strong support for this amendment. We have a letter from the
National Credit Union Administration citing its strong support for this
amendment.
We also have, and it is interesting, a situation where under the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that regulates Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, that they are about to issue major regulations
revising the capital standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
multihundreds of billion-dollar corporations that are vital to the real
estate industry of this country. And because this office of HUD is in
the process of getting ready to issue those regulations regarding the
requirement for higher capital standards, this statute could block
those issuances.
I cannot believe that with the history of the S&L disaster so near to
us, that anyone would want to enact legislation that would prevent
Federal regulators from issuing capital standards as important as
these.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kanjorski
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will include for the
Record the letters of the regulators in their entirety.

Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation,

Washington, DC, January 19, 1995.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kanjorski: Thank you for your letter
requesting the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
comments on an amendment to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
H.R. 5 imposes additional requirements such as a cost
benefit analysis on the rulemaking process for federal
agencies. we understand that you plan to offer an amendment
to H.R. 5 to provide for an exemption for regulations that
pertain to investor protection, the safe and sound operation
of financial markets, federally insured depository
institutions or their deposit insurance funds. We strongly
support this amendment.
The federal financial institution regulators recognize that
regulations can be burdensome and costly. For this reason,
the FDIC is seeking to be sensitive to the impact of
regulations and to minimize the burden and costs they impose
on the industry and consumers. I have asked the FDIC staff to
review outstanding regulations to determine whether there are
areas where regulatory burden can be reduced.
Nevertheless, the federal financial regulators are
responsible for ensuring the safety and soundness of the
nation's financial system. The FDIC, as the insurer of banks
and thrifts, has a particular responsibility for assuring
that the taxpayers do not have to cover the costs for future
financial institution failures as they did in the savings and
loan crisis. Although regulations may impost costs on
financial institutions, recent history teaches us that the
costs to the taxpayers of failures in the financial
regulatory
[[Page H813]] system are much greater. The FDIC's
independence and ability to respond quickly to problems in
the financial system are two reasons why the taxpayers have
never had to pay a penny for bank failures, even with the
record number of bank failures in recent years. Exempting
regulations that address the safety and soundness of
financial institutions and their insurance funds is an
appropriate, limited amendment to balance the needs of the
financial regulators, the financial industry and the
taxpayers.
On a related issue, it is our understanding that H.R. 5 as
currently drafted will exempt any effort by the FDIC to
reduce insurance assessment rates later this year when the
Bank Insurance Fund is recapitalized at the level mandated by
Congress. This reduction in insurance assessment rates will
significantly reduce costs to the banking industry.
I hope these comments will prove helpful. If you or your
staff have any further questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Ricki Tigert Helfer,
Chairman.
____

Comptroller of the Currency,

Administrator of National Banks,

Washington, DC, January 19, 1995.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kanjorski: Thank you for your letter of
January 18, 1995 requesting my views on the amendment to H.R.
5, the proposed ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,'' that will
be offered by you and Congressman Vento. I strongly support
your amendment.
I am very concerned that complying with the requirements in
H.R. 5 may delay issuances of important rules by the banking
agencies and the NCUA that are needed to ensure the safety
and soundness of insured institutions. Specifically, sections
201 and 202 require all agencies covered by the bill,
including bank regulatory agencies, to do detailed and time
consuming cost/benefit analyses of regulatory proposals. If
there are losses to the deposit insurance funds because a
regulation is delayed, the taxpayers may be burdened with the
expense of covering those losses. In this case, any possible
benefits from conducting the analyses may be far outweighed
by the ultimate cost to the American people.
All future regulatory actions, including joint regulatory
actions with the other banking agencies, that impose a duty
on insured institutions and/or their management or affiliated
parties may be subject, at least in part, to some of the
requirements of the bill and possibly delayed. This would
include such important initiatives as interest rate risk and
other capital adequacy regulations that are important to
safety and soundness.
The amendment being offered by you and Congressman Vento
recognizes the critical need to permit the banking agencies
and NCUA to continue to take expeditious regulatory action.
Your amendment would exclude from the bill the agencies'
regulations that pertain to federally insured institutions or
the deposit insurance funds. This is appropriate and
necessary. As you and Congressman Vento appreciate, these
agencies must have the ability to act quickly to fulfill
their supervisory responsibility and their responsibility to
protect the deposit insurance funds.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views
on this legislation and my support for your amendment.
Sincerely,
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
____

Office of Thrift Supervision,

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, January 20, 1995.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kanjorski: By letter dated January 18,
1995, you requested our comments on a proposed amendment that
you and Congressman Vento will be offering to H.R. 5, the
Unfunded Mandates bill. As we understand it, your amendment
would exempt from coverage under the Unfunded Mandates bill,
regulations and legislation involving the safe and sound
operation of federally insured depository institutions and
credit unions, or protection of the federal deposit insurance
funds.
We are fully supportive of your efforts to have this
amendment included in the Unfunded Mandates bill. As you
know, the federal banking agencies are responsible for
supervising the nation's financial institutions to ensure the
safe and sound operation of our national financial system and
to protect the federal deposit insurance funds. Recent
history is replete with many instances in which one or more
of the federal banking agencies or Congress has had to act
quickly to address a threat to the financial system or the
deposit insurance funds. Any legislation that would delay
this process could seriously jeopardize the smooth operation
of our nation's financial institutions and the financial
markets, as well as threaten the stability of the deposit
insurance system. Moreover, since the deposit insurance funds
are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government, any delay in issuing regulations that results in
significant losses to the deposit insurance funds could
require U.S. taxpayers to pay the bill.
Examples of several current issues that are being monitored
by the federal banking agencies and/or the House and Senate
Banking Committees are the impact of derivatives on the
nation's financial system, the impact of foreign currency
fluctuations on the U.S. financial markets, updating capital
and accounting standards to keep abreast of changes in the
marketplace, and the potential repercussions of a deposit
insurance premium differential. Any one of these issues could
require quick and decisive regulatory or legislative action.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed
amendment to the Unfunded Mandates bill. If I or my staff may
provide you with any additional information on this matter,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Jonathan L. Fiechter,
Acting Director.
____

National Credit

Union Administration,

January 19, 1995.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
House of Representatives
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kanjorski: Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on your amendment to H.R. 5.
Your amendment would exclude safety and soundness rules of
financial institution regulators from this legislation.
As you know, the National Credit Union Administration is in
the process of considering long overdue safety and soundness
regulations covering capital, investments and other critical
matters regarding corporate credit unions. To delay these
vital rules would be a most unwise course of action.
Therefore, I strongly support your proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
Norman E. D'Amours,
Chairman.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and want
to commend him for his statement and his leadership on this. I am
pleased to join with him in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that so often we have heard
with regard to the unfunded mandates that they are all prospective. But
the fact is you have to look at the bill on page 16 through page 30 to
look through the rule and regulation and accountability issue. And in
this they find it necessary to apparently, it is my understanding on
page 23 of the bill, it is not very clear, that they exempt the Federal
Reserve Board, which has regulatory financial responsibilities, the
FDIC, the SEC, the National Credit Union Administration, but not
mentioned is the Office of Thrift Supervision, which is responsible for
all of the savings and loans incidentally, that is ironic because of
the S&L bailout problem, and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, which is, of course, taking the lead with regard to
derivatives. Hello, are you awake over there? Derivatives, the issue
having to do with Orange County and quite a few other problems that
have come up.
It is absolutely imperative that they not be put in a position where
you have further new and higher hurdles that frustrate action and
response. These agencies work in sync, and even the independent
agencies you think you have exempted are asking for the exemption being
offered in the Kanjorski-Vento amendment. And good intentions are not
enough. We have to stand up here for safety and soundness.
Now, I must say to my friends, those that are the advocates of this
particular bill, the unfunded mandates, and some of the other
regulatory reform measures, that some regulatory responsibilities are
necessary. It is necessary for the Office of Thrift Supervision to tell
the State chartered S&L's what they do in terms of safety and
soundness. It is necessary to do that, and it is absolutely imperative.
And, yes, some of them have impacts that are into the fifty and
hundreds of millions of dollars of impact.
But we think that this process is one that should not be thwarted,
there should not be further hurdles, there should not be political
interjection into this particular process. I think if it is sound for
the Federal Reserve Board and the other agencies which you think you
have exempted, then why would you not do this for the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency or for the Office of Thrift Supervision,
which have these major responsibilities and are, in fact, taking the
lead in these sensitive financial instruments.
Good intentions are not enough here, and I do not think we can rely
on the wisdom of the Senate, which I think in
[[Page H814]] fact has adopted an amendment similar to that being
proposed by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski.
I strongly urge the Members to pause and look, not to march down in
lock step because the majority leadership here cannot come to grips
with this particular issue, and assume that somebody else is going to
take care of it. It is not going to happen. We should send a strong
signal here for safety and soundness and the protection of the American
taxpayers. We have got a $100-billion saving and loan example, for
those that cannot remember history. We may be destined to repeat it in
fact by virtue of all the good intentions that you are expressing in
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the Kanjorski-Vento amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and rise
in opposition to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, and would
indicate that I am reflecting basically also the views of the chairman
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services in opposition to
this amendment, and also the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter],
who has a very great interest in this.
Mr. Chairman, the argument that the cost-benefit analysis is going to
delay the issuance of safety and soundness regulations by OCC and OTS
is in my view a red herring. The OCC and OTS have never issued safety
and soundness regulations on an emergency basis. Banks have been
waiting for 2 years for the agencies to issue safety and soundness
regulations concerning interest rate risk, and the cost-benefit
analysis will not delay agency response to emergency situations. OCC
and OTS respond to safety and soundness emergencies through the use of
their cease and desist authority, not the use of rulemaking authority.
We had been willing to consider the possibility of an emergency
provision which would have allowed, if there was an indication by the
Secretary of the Treasury that there was an emergency situation, that
we would be willing to consider waiving the requirement in an emergency
situation. But that was unacceptable to the sponsors of this amendment.
I would point out in my view this is a weakening amendment, and I am
a little confused by what seems to be a little schizophrenia within the
administration. The administration indicated they would resist all
weakening amendment, and yet we have here agencies of the
administration supporting this amendment. So we seem to have a little,
as I say, a little schizophrenia within the administration.
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment, because I think it is way too
broad. It just does not need to be this broad, and I would resist the
amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just
wanted to point out the concern that we have had with suggestions about
the declaration of crisis in order for the action to take place, which
then would suspend the requirements of the bill. And the problem that
we have is that the word ``crisis'' is very close to ``panic,'' which
is withdrawing all of your funds out of the financial institutions
could very well create the type of circumstances that we are trying to
avert.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not talking
about a crisis, but an emergency, and the definition of an emergency I
think is a lower temperature than a crisis.
Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield further, I think the point is
still one that is very valid, that if you have this unusual
circumstance, you may very well create the type of circumstance you are
trying to avoid and avert. And this is something we need to have, this
type of authority in these independent agencies, whether it is the
Office of Thrift Supervision or the FDIC or the Office of Comptroller
of the Currency, and I think the issue with regard to derivatives is
right on. Yes, they take time, but when they are ready to go, they
should not have to go through the process. I think we have adequate
confidence in these independent agencies that they are able to take on
this particular task without the type of limitations that are being
placed and are present in this particular legislation.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, again, the frustration. Everything, every
amendment that comes up, is an emergency, it is a crisis. It is
something that this bill is somehow going to take away the flexibility
of this body or the regulators to address. I just do not think that is
the case.
But I would just note that the same people have been arguing for all
of these other exemptions, the Clean Air Act; wastewater treatment;
aviation airport security; licensing, construction, and operation of
nuclear reactors; disposal of nuclear waste and toxic substances;
operation of nuclear reactors; health of individuals with disabilities;
child labor; minimum wages; OSHA; protection of children; help for
people with disabilities; and then this. It is the same arguments and
attempts to weaken this bill.
Many of these items have valid points, but I think they can all be
addressed within the flexibility of this act, given this body can still
go ahead with unfunded mandates after they are costed out and the
regulators reach what those costs are before they act.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski], and myself.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that a proposal, H.R. 5, which purports,
that is, this legislation, which purports to provide indepth
information about mandates and regulation to the Members of the
Congress to prevent missteps and problems, has been so poorly conceived
and considered by the committees and Members of the House. We owe it to
ourselves and to the American taxpayer to know what we are voting on
with regard to H.R. 5.
Unfortunately, that commonsense step was ignored in the helter-
skelter rush to meet a politically imposed deadline, and I think the
results are evident on the floor again today with the proliferation of
amendments that need to be considered. How can we in all candor and
seriousness advance a policy of legislative requirements in terms of
saying we want more information when the process for consideration of
this very bill ignores or violates the commonsense deliberative
consideration of the very measure before us?
{time} 1120

What we are getting back is, of course, slogans about the fact, what
is wrong with having information. I have said before, and I think I
have pointed out in depth in this bill, that it is not just a matter of
providing information on the floor with regard to the CBO doing an
analysis of unfunded mandates and a variety of sundry information.
That is not the issue here. Of course, I think that is an issue in
the sense that CBO has never done that before, that we do not have any
example of how that will work, or whether CBO will have the necessary
funding to answer these metaphysical questions which are raised with
regard to some of the anticipation in terms of unfunded mandates. It
has not been done before. There is no track record of it. However, let
us just keep going on with that.
Second, this bill is not just prospective in nature or dealing with
information on the floor, as difficult as it may be to define that
information. This bill requires the rules and regulations that are
issued by the agencies and the departments covered to go through a
statement of significant regulatory action, on page 16 and 17, requires
an entire regulatory process to be evaluated. It says ``Any Federal
Government action, any agency action, any action or anything that
affects the private sector,'' one step further, to the extent of $100
million.
The fact of the matter is that that is going to impact the regulatory
agencies that we have outlined here, that have significant
responsibilities for financial institution safety and soundness, for
the protection of billions and billions of dollars of deposit insurance
and other responsibilities integral to
[[Page H815]] the financial structure of this Nation, and really
globally. We are the global leader. The gentleman is leaving open and
is suggesting that ought to go through that process.
Some have pointed out that it could be very litigious, a lot of legal
questions asked in terms of this entire process itself. Superimposing
that upon top of the existing regulatory process. What the gentleman is
superimposing is on top of the current process.
Maybe it will be coordinated, maybe it will all work out, but the
question is, I think, if the gentleman finds it necessary to exempt the
Federal Reserve Board and the other agencies in this bill, how in good
conscience can you then keep the Office of Thrift Supervision and the
Office of Comptroller of the Currency under this particular exemption?
Why do we have two standards here?
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand it. The gentleman is not explaining
it. His arguments do not speak to that. They do not speak to the
retroactive nature of the rules and regulations and the interference
that is offered in this particular bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Just to clarify a few of the points, Mr. Chairman, when
the gentleman took to the floor earlier, and his colleague, and in some
of the statements he just made, it is unclear to me as to whether he is
concerned about title III of the bill, which is the point of order
process, or whether the gentleman is concerned about title II, the
regulatory requirements.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. Would the
gentleman repeat his comment?
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has given a broad-ranging
discussion of the legislation and his critique of it. With respect to
this amendment, is the gentleman concerned about the fact that future
legislation might be subject to title III of the bill; in other words,
subject to a CBO cost analysis, and then a point of order on the floor,
which could be waived by majority, or is the gentleman's concern more
in terms of regulatory action that may be taken?
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my concern is with the
fact that these agencies are covered under title III, and covered under
the regulatory accountability and reform. They are actually covered
under both, insofar as there is no exemption in the bill for them.
Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me it is important to clarify what this legislation does
with regard to future regulations that might be promulgated by the
agencies. Yes, they would have to undertake a cost-benefit analysis.
That cost-benefit analysis, as the gentleman well knows, is currently
required by the President's Executive order. It seems to me that has
been the point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has
made.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the President's order
does not deal with the same detail that the authors of this legislation
have. There is not an absolute similarity. This is an additional
legislative requirement.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the Executive order does not deal in the
same shape and fashion with some of the materials in this legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. This is correct, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will
yield for a moment, the Executive order is more comprehensive than the
new requirements in this legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a vast
difference between having something in Executive order which can be
dealt with and whether it covers the Office of Thrift Supervision or
whether it covers the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. That
is another matter.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are mostly concerned with the
capacity of an army of lawyers from one of the wealthiest special
interest communities, the financial community of the United States, to
resist the issuance of regulations. The President's existing Executive
order does not really raise the question of granting the right of
judicial review, because an Executive order can be changed with the
strike of the pen of the President.
Therefore, if we see a resistance from the industry itself to the
regulations that would be propounded, the President merely has to, that
day, issue a new order. Our problem in this legislation is that with it
we would have to pass a new act to vitiate the right of judicial review
that could tie up emergency regulations that would have to be issued to
cover the entire safety and soundness of American institutions.
Mr. VENTO. I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman
has not answered the questions in terms of the disparate treatment, in
terms of some of the agencies that have the responsibility for the
regulation of financial institutions and other responsibilities and
those that do not. I do not understand the differential here. If this
is good for these, why is it not good for everyone?
Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
under this legislation, independent agencies are exempt. That is a
well-founded exemption for independent agencies. It goes back to the
function of independent agencies, to keep their independence from
Congress. Independent agencies happen to comprise two of the four
agencies about which the gentleman is speaking.
However, I think it is very important.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think it is important that we have now narrowed down this debate to
what the real concern is. The real concern is that with regard to the
regulatory requirements in this legislation, they are very plain, very
clear. They are not as comprehensive or broad as the current
requirement under the Presidential Executive order under which these
very agencies have to live.
The difference is that they are in statute, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] mentions, and not in an Executive order
format. We think that is good. We think these agencies are meant to
abide by these. Otherwise there would not be an Executive order. It is
good to have cost-benefit analyses. This would not in any way interfere
with the carrying out of responsibilities in this area.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the point is
that we have some extraordinary responsibilities for these two
agencies. They may not be labeled independent, but certainly we expect
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift
Supervision to operate that way. In fact, I think they do under this
administration and in past administrations.
In fact, to put these in the statute and to superimpose them on top
of other processes, when we have these critical issues with hundreds of
billions of dollars is--
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Kanjorski and by unanimous consent, Mr. Vento
was allowed to proceed for 3 minutes.)
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Not to get off the subject, Mr. Chairman, but this is
a perfect example of an argument that should be brought up later when
we take up the term limitation question.
Mr. Chairman, we have sitting on the floor today probably 170 Members
of this Congress who were not here in the 1980's, and who never saw the
abuse of the financial industry of this country when they were able to
wield extraordinary power and avoid proper regulation on the State
level.
[[Page H816]] I remember sitting on the Committee on Banking, Finance
and Urban Affairs when the regulators, under the administrations of
President Reagan and President Bush, would come before the committee
and tell us that the total exposure of regulatory problems in the S&L
industry was less than $10 billion, and this was in 1988, the beginning
of 1988.
Then in the summer of 1988 they modified their estimate and said that
the cost may be as high as $12 billion, and we come to the rescue with
$12 billion. In November of 1988, the individuals we are talking about
in the regulatory agencies came up here and said no, and now this is
before November, before the election of the new President, they said it
may go as high as $15 billion.
Immediately after the election and the inauguration of the new
President in January of 1989, with great fortitude, President Bush had
the guts to face the reality of the disaster in this country. When his
regulators came up here they told us the truth. The cost of the bailout
could be $100 billion, $150 billion $200 billion, $250 billion, and it
ultimately became more than $300 billion, when interest is included.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time for 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, I think the
gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a very good point. It was during that
time that we had regulations dealing with direct investment, an issue
that the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and I advocated
and worked on. It did not take effect. The regulators were trying to
push it. Congress and others were indifferent.
The issue is that the gentleman is creating a loophole here, and look
who he is protecting. The gentleman is protecting the Charles Keatings.
He is putting loopholes big enough to drive a Charles Keating or
someone like that through, permitting them to avoid the enforcement.
Mr. Chairman I am pleased to join with my colleague from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Kanjorski], in offering this amendment to restore essential
protection for the Federal Deposit Insurance funds and the American
taxpayers who stand behind them.
There is no question that this amendment is needed. Under the
proposed legislation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and
the Office of Thrift Supervision will not be able to do their job.
Needed regulations on safety and soundness, such as improved capital
rules, including interest rate risk, will be delayed and jeopardized if
this legislation is not amended. There may be agencies where delays or
higher hurdles will not negatively impact the the taxpayer, but in
today's fast-paced, high-risk financial marketplace, with new products
like derivatives, a timely response by the regulators is essential.
Mr. Chairman, the pending legislation is just the first step. I am
most concerned about the impact that this bill will have when combined
with H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995 and H.R.
450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. In their totality, these
proposals could well become tomorrow's law of unintended consequences.
Good intentions are not enough. When Congress passes legislation and
enacts laws, the full range of impacts and effects must be considered.
I would note for the benefit of my colleagues that good titles for
legislation such as ``Regulatory Streamlining'' and ``Actions Within
Artificial and Politically Driven Time Constraints'' may well return
our insured financial institutions to the thrilling days of the S&L
high flyers, who may well use every loophole for personal enrichment.
The bills which we will be considering, unless amended by the
Kanjorski-Vento amendment, will create loopholes big enough to put
Charles Keating and the other bad actors back in business with
catastrophic costs to the taxpayer. It may be a leap of faith for some
of my colleagues to assume that some regulation is necessary and some
mandates are needed. However, it doesn't take much of an understanding
of the history of financial institution regulation to agree with the
absolute need for the Kanjorski-Vento amendment.
To the majority of my colleagues who were not in this body during the
S&L debate, I would like to share with you two painful lessons from the
deliberations and experience on which there is a general consensus.
First, in considering any legislation, the safety and soundness of
the deposit insurance fund and the American taxpayer must come first.
Second, there are some financial institutions' operators who will use
every loophole to make a buck. Surely those folks will be encouraged
and empowered anew by the half-baked policy proposals
such as the measure before us. Congress is engaged in a high-risk
gamble which in the end could facilitate irresponsible actions of some
financial officers who will not give a second thought about the
inability of the regulator to respond or leave the American taxpayer
holding the bag.

Congressman Kanjorski and I are not alone in expressing reservations
about the impact of these initiatives on the safety and soundness of
the insurance fund. In discussions with the regulators, numerous
questions and issues have been raised. Questions such as whether a
``cease an desist'' order constitutes a rulemaking action or whether
the three separate legislative proposals slated for action will add a
political tenor to the rulemaking process, have to date not been
answered. I have sent letters to the banking, thrift, and credit union
regulators seeking a full analysis of this proposal and others and the
responses from each regulator supports the Kanjorski-Vento amendment;
that is, the Office of Thrift Supervision, Office of the Controller of
the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Frankly, such considerations and answers should have been in place
before any measure is considered on the House floor, and the necessary
protection for the insurance fund should have been set in place. There
should at least be open consideration today, not further different
hurdles.
It's ironic that a proposal which purports to provide in-depth
information about mandates and regulation to the Members of Congress to
prevent missteps and problems has been so poorly conceived and
considered by the committees and Members of this House. We owe it to
ourselves and to the American taxpayer to know what we are voting on
with regard to H.R. 5. Unfortunately that commonsense step was ignored
in the helter skelter rush to meet a politically imposed deadline. How
can we, in all candor and seriousness, advance a policy of legislative
requirements when the process for consideration of the measure ignores
or violates the commonsense deliberate consideration of the measure.
Mr. Chairman, even with the power and authority regulatory agencies
may not act, but that power shouldn't be caused by a legislative act
which impedes the agencies' action. The time honored and proven need
for responsive regulatory action is more needed today than in the past.
Congress should understand its limits and the impact of law that is
being proposed today.
Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to
support the viability of the deposit insurance fund. If we fail to
include the Kanjorski-Vento amendment, we will be shirking that
responsibility. I urge a vote for the taxpayer, a vote for common
sense, and a vote for the Kanjorski-Vento amendment.
{time} 1130

The FDIC and these other agencies receive a lot of scrutiny on the
part of the Members of Congress and the constituents which they
regulate. It is absolutely impossible for us to function without a
sound role. It may be a leap in faith for some of my colleagues to
assume that some regulation is necessary and some mandates are needed.
However, it does not take much of an understanding of history of
financial institution regulation to agree with the absolute need for
this Kanjorski-Vento amendment that is before you.
The majority of my colleagues who were not in this body at that time
during the S&L debate, I would like to share with you two painful
lessons. One is that we, in considering any legislation, safety and
soundness of the deposit insurance fund and of the financial
institutions needs to be first. The American taxpayer is who you are
protecting.
Second, there are some financial institution operators who will use
every loophole to make a buck. Surely these
[[Page H817]] folks will be encouraged and empowered by this half-baked
policy that we have before us today.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Legislative Program

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word to engage in a colloquy with the majority leader.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from California also
reserve the right to object.
Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I would like to ask of the
leadership of the majority under my reservation.
I note that one of the items that is scheduled is an amendment to the
rules of the House. Am I correct on that?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Further under my reservation, I note that that change in
the rules of the House has not been subject to hearing in the Committee
on Rules; is that correct?
Mr. ARMEY. As near as I understand, there has been some discussion,
but the resolution will be brought under an open rule.
Mr. DINGELL. Continuing under my reservation, I note that there have
been no hearings in the Committee on Rules on this matter; is that
correct?
Mr. ARMEY. It may be. I would check with the Committee on Rules if my
curiosity compelled me.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I have a couple of more questions. I will be delighted
to yield to the minority leader if he desires as long as I can continue
my reservation.
Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will yield, I would be happy----
The CHAIRMAN. We are proceeding under rather irregular procedure
here. The gentleman from Missouri had requested unanimous consent to
proceed out of order.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
The Chair is prepared to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, who
may then yield.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe to you, there is no other
way I could get the floor to discuss something which is going to happen
on Monday next, on which there has been no notice, on which there has
been no opportunity for hearings, which is significantly going to
change one of the rules of the House.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman could ask the gentleman from Missouri
to yield to him, then we would be in more regular procedure.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the
gentleman after I have asked the questions of the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DINGELL. Then if the gentleman will be permitted to yield to me,
I will withdraw my reservation, because my desire is to be cooperative.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Texas, the
majority leader, for the schedule for next week.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me if I may give you the meeting times for next week. Then I will
talk about what we are likely to consider.
On Monday, we will meet for morning hour at 12:30. Legislative
business will begin at 2. Votes will be postponed until after 5.
On Tuesday, morning hour is at 9:30. Legislative business will begin
at 11.
On Wednesday, legislative business will begin at 11.
Thursday and Friday, legislative business will begin at 10.
On Monday, if I can go to the program, what we will be considering,
on Monday we will take up House Resolution 43, clarifying how committee
hearings are scheduled. This will be done under an open rule. Then we
will return to consideration of H.R. 5, unfunded mandates.
On Tuesday, if it is necessary, we will continue consideration of
unfunded mandates. We will then take up, subject to a rule, House Joint
Resolution 50, the Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center;
H.R. 101, subject to a rule, the New Mexico land transfer;
H.R. 400, subject to a rule, Arctic National Park and Preserve land
exchange;
H.R. 450, subject to a rule, Butte County, CA land transfer;
And then as soon as we can and hopefully on that day we may begin
proceeding on H.R. 2, line-item veto legislation, of course, subject to
a rule.
Mr. GEPHARDT. May I ask the gentleman how late you expect the session
will run on Monday?
Mr. ARMEY. Because we cannot begin actually voting until 5 out of
deference to the travel schedules, Members are advised to be prepared
to stay late, as late as 8 or 9 on Monday evening.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Would that be true for the rest of the week as well, or
does the gentleman know how long we intend to be in session on Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday?
Mr. ARMEY. Again I think to a large extent that would depend upon how
smoothly the work goes, how close we may be approximating the
completion of important business. We will have to just project as we go
along.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Can the gentleman tell me how late we may meet on
Friday?
Mr. ARMEY. On Friday, we will try, and expect to adjourn at 3.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I would like to ask two other questions.
One, I note that we have a number of bills on the schedule for the
New Mexico land transfer, Arctic National Park, Butte County, and
Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center.
In the past I know that we have done these kinds of bills under a
suspension calendar and they take less time, and I know that you are
trying to get a lot of important work done. These are subject to a rule
and will take more time because of that.
Can the gentleman tell me why this would be the case?
Mr. ARMEY. Of course as the gentleman understands, we have made a
commitment to openness. We always understood that that would require
more time on this and a variety of other legislative efforts, such as
H.R. 5 is proving to be the case.
It is our belief that this helps us to demonstrate our commitment to
openness.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I just say to the gentleman, I am not trying to be
argumentative, but we had a rules package, a compliance package and a
balanced budget amendment that were not under open rules. I hope we
will not get into a pattern where less important legislation, not that
it is not important, such as the Arctic National Park, will be under an
open rule when there really is not a need for more debate and more
important matters will not be.
Let me just ask one additional question. I have seen in the press
that the so-called A-to-Z bill would be coming to the floor.
Could I ask the gentleman if that is intended, and if so when that
might happen so Members could be prepared for that important
legislation?
Mr. ARMEY. As the gentleman may recall from his own experience as
being the majority leader, the press often knows better than we. I will
check with my sources for the press and try to confirm any story you
have read. To my knowledge, there is no such legislation scheduled for
the floor.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
It will not take long. I would just like to clarify the schedule for
Monday. If I may ask the floor leader, the majority floor leader, I
just want to clarify something in my own mind for Monday afternoon:
H.R. 43, is that to be taken up at 2 p.m., when we go in at 2 p.m.?
Is that to be taken up at 5 p.m.?
Mr. ARMEY. It will be brought up and with an anticipation again that
either procedurally we will confine our efforts or within our
procedures, roll
[[Page H818]] our votes so that no Member would be hazarded by a vote
being called before 5 p.m.
Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, we would be taking up the rule on H.R.
43 after the 1-minutes on Monday. We would then, if there is a vote on
the rule, have that postponed. And then, since it is an open rule, if
there are any amendments to it of which votes are requested in the
Committee of the Whole, in the Committee of the Whole I do not believe
you can roll votes.
Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Let me inquire of the Chair. We would have votes in the
Committee of the Whole and I would like to ask if those could be rolled
until later on in the evening.
The CHAIRMAN. That would take a separate unanimous-consent request in
the House as in Committee of the Whole for amendments.
Mr. VOLKMER. That would take a separate request. All right. And then
those would have to be rolled until the evening also if that request is
granted. Was that a unanimous-consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. If there is no unanimous-consent request, it is my
understanding that the votes that are in the Committee of the Whole on
H.R. 43 during the afternoon would have to be voted on at the time that
they are called?
Mr. ARMEY. That would be absolutely correct if they were in the
Committee of the Whole before 5 p.m. and a vote was ordered. The
gentleman should rest assured that no Member of this body will be asked
to come to this floor and stand for a vote that will occur before 5
o'clock on Monday.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. On that point, a point of clarification.
You mentioned that the rule, if a vote is called on the rule, then I
assume business would be postponed until that vote on the rule can be
taken, and then go forward with the bill.

{time} 1140

Mr. ARMEY. That would be correct. We would anticipate no vote being
called on what will be and is an agreed-upon open rule.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. VOLKMER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. The statement is made that we will be taking up a bill
without a rule being adopted.
Mr. MILLER of California. If a vote is asked for on the rule, then
business will cease at that point, and you will have to come in after 5
o'clock to vote on the rule and then proceed on the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman address his parliamentary inquiry to
the Chair or to the gentleman from California?
Mr. MILLER of California. I need the right ruling here.
Mr. VOLKMER. I think the gentleman is right, but I did ask the Chair
and I would appreciate a ruling from the Chair.
If you have a rule and a vote requested on a rule and that is
postponed until 5 o'clock, can the bill be proceeded on in the
Committee of the Whole without the rule being adopted?
The CHAIRMAN. Under that procedure, the rule must first be adopted.
Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the Chair very much.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like the attention both of the
distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, for whom I have the
greatest affection, I wish to inform the distinguished majority leader.
I note that on Monday the scheduling is House Resolution 47 clarifying
what committee hearings are to be scheduled, is up under open rule; is
that correct?
Mr. ARMEY. That is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Have there been any hearings on this matter in the
Committee on Rules?
Mr. ARMEY. Is the gentleman addressing this question to myself or to
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for whom he has
great respect.
Mr. SOLOMON. Who has the time?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the distinguished minority leader, and I got it
right that time.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Thank you.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman we have under the
rules of this House for many years allowed the chairman of the
committees, and I have served on many of these committees, I served on
Transportation, I served on Foreign Affairs and Veterans' Affairs, and
the chairman of the committees have always called the hearings, after
due notice to the members.
We simply are following through with what has been a precedent of the
House, even though there has been a rule that was different, and we are
going to try to correct the rule on the floor on Monday.
As far as I understand, you had a problem with some kind of hearings,
but I gave your ranking member of the Committee on Rules 48 hours
notice when we were going to discuss this rule. If the gentleman had
wanted a hearing he could have asked for one. We had a legitimate
markup on it. We are going to bring it to the floor either as a
privileged resolution, out of deference to the minority ranking member,
he proposed to have an open rule. We are going to have an open rule.
That is the new instructions I have from the Speaker of the House, Mr.
Gingrich, to try to be as open and fair and, as accountable as possible
and we intend to do that.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. The distinguished gentleman from New York is, of course,
as always right. But this time regrettably only partly right, because
the way the rules work the notice is given by the committee. Now this
would change it so that both the notice and the discretion as to the
handling of the notice lie in the chairman of the committee. There is
no collegiality in the question of waiver. I have no objection to
requiring the chairman of the committee to give notice. I think that is
fine, and if the gentleman wishes to clarify that part of his concerns
with regard to ambiguity that is fine.
But, I think that it is important that the collegiality of the waiver
should continue.
And I would observe to my good friend that during the dozen years
that I have run a committee around this place that it was always my
practice to consult most carefully with the Republicans when they were
in the minority and that they had no objection to when and how that
question was waived.
The rule, for the protection of the minority now, and did before, and
prior to this change, required that the minority have opportunity to
participate in the question of whether the waiver was going to be given
with regard to the 7-day notice.
Now there is a strong reason why this is the rule. First of all, the
minority has need first of all to know what the majority intends to do.
Second of all----
Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, are we anywhere near regular order here?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri received
permission to proceed out of order. He controls the time. The Chair has
been treating this as not operating strictly within a particular
timeframe as is the custom for this weekly procedure; it is rather open
ended.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri controls the
time.
Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am only
stressing what was a matter of concern to the minority, and it was a
matter of concern which I respected in my actions during the day I was
committee chairman, and that was to see the minority was fully informed
and that questions like waiving of notice were always carefully and
fully discussed, and that the minority was fully satisfied with regard
to these matters.
[[Page H819]] This is being changed. I have no objection, I
reiterate, to changing the rule so that the minority, rather so that
the chairman may call the meeting. That is fine and I understand the
gentleman's concern, and I am going to be accommodating on that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. To answer briefly.
Mr. DINGELL. I have never been able to get to the point of my
concern, and I want to share it with my good friend from New York, for
whom I have enormous respect, I want you to know.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. DINGELL. The concern I have, the question of waiver is never laid
before the committee and there is a strong reason for this. I want my
colleagues to understand. The minority has from time to time desired to
put, to bring witnesses before it, which without adequate notice they
cannot do, that have to come from different parts of the country,
sometimes from abroad and sometimes from places as far away as Alaska
and California.
Having said that, there is also the problem that for the minority to
ask for a day's hearings we have to do it during the time that the
hearings are actually going on. And if they do not have time to do
these things, the minority is effectively stifled.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri yielded to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
The CHAIRMAN. He now yields to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from yielding
to me and also thank him for his generosity first to the gentleman from
Michigan and even to the gentleman from New York.
But, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Leader, what we have here is a very spirited
preview of the debate that is actually in fact scheduled for next
Monday, and I am sure that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]
could make those remarks much more effectively within that context of
that debate at that time. I know we are anxious to get back to H.R. 5,
but if I can again assure the gentleman from Michigan that we have an
open rule, and he will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of
the proposition within that time on Monday, perhaps we can move on
here.
Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will yield back to me, I think what
the ranking member is trying to get across is that perhaps the ranking
member on the Committee on Rules did not ask for a hearing on this. I
do not know what transpired. But I think you are seeing there is a
tremendous amount of concern among our ranking members about this rules
change and, indeed, when it comes to the floor on Monday I think you
can expect that there will be a long and contentious debate and
probably many amendments to be offered and the majority just needs to
be aware of the amount of concern.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
If I could address a question, I do not know which of the parties,
chairman of the Committee on Rules or the majority leader, but as I
understand, because this is the first time I have seen this
legislation, the bill you will be bringing to the floor, under the
current system of the rules require that the committee give notice of a
hearing within 7 days.
Mr. SOLOMON. Within 7 days.
Mr. MILLER of California. That has been worked out traditionally
under previous practices, Mr. Young and myself, we talked about it and
it would be fine. But it was about whether or not a hearing would be
held, and 7-days' notice.
As I understand this legislation, this will collapse the 7-day
timeframe from 7, that is what we need to know, from 7 to 2; is that
what it is?
Mr. SOLOMON. No; and I am trying to tell you. I cannot be recognized.

{time} 1150

Mr. MILLER of California. So that is what I need. What you are saying
is that House Resolution 43 would simply clarify that it is the
prerogative of the Chair with consultation?
Mr. SOLOMON. And nothing else changes.
Mr. MILLER of California. To call the hearing, but the 7-day
protection for the minority continues, as it does under current rules?
Is that correct?
Mr. SOLOMON. That is absolutely correct. If someone would yield to
me.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just briefly read the change. All right. ``The
Chairman of each committee of the House except the Rules Committee,'' I
am exempting ourselves which is under the present rules, ``shall make
public announcement of the date, the place, and subject matter of any
committee hearing,'' and listen to this now, John, ``at least 1 week
before the commencement of the hearing.''
Now, that is exactly what we are doing now. We are substituting the
committee for chairman, and we are doing nothing different than what we
were doing before. I have also made offers to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for compromises which would even alleviate
further the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. This language of this says that the chairman, not the
committee, may determine that there is good cause to begin the hearing
sooner. The committee has no say whatsoever in this matter.
Now, I have no problems with allowing the chairman to send out the
announcement. That is one of the concerns of my good friend from New
York, but I have great objection to not allowing adequate notice to the
members of the committee about holding this matter more quickly. This
has been something that has always been very jealously guarded by the
minority. The the gentleman from New York will remember that, as will
the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader. I understand that.
This is simply a question of basic fairness, because members have to
have the time and ability to prepare to produce witnesses, to do things
necessary for the orderly operation of the committee, and for their
proper participation. I seek no advantage. I seek only fair treatment.
I know the gentleman, because of his sense of fairness, is going to
give it to me.
I hope he understands the point I am raising. The point I am raising
is not objection to the fact the chairman sends out the notice. The
objection I raise is the question is the chairman may then essentially,
because of the language, the way the resolution is written, simply
waives that without any recourse by members of the committee. Then the
members of the committee, the ranking minority member, the minority
will have no opportunity to solicit witnesses, to prepare for
testimony, to prepare themselves to ask questions or to do any of the
other things that are necessary including asking for the day's
hearings, which is one of the treasured rights the gentleman from New
York during his days in the minority so vigorously and properly
defended.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. I am seeking
clarification. I appreciate it.

This may save time on Monday. But as I read the language, I think the
characterization by the gentleman from Michigan may be correct, because
it says you have 1 week, but it says then the chairman determines if
there is good cause to begin sooner. That collapses the 7-day
protection.
I know it seems a long time since you guys were in the minority,
but----
Mr. SOLOMON. I cannot even remember it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Let us go back to those days of yesteryear
when you wanted to make sure your rights and the right of the public to
participate in these hearings was protected. Could the gentleman
clarify that?
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman would yield further, I will be glad to.
We are doing nothing in this language but substituting the word
``committee'' for the word ``chairman''; and right now, John, the
committee has the right to waive the 7 days.
Mr. MILLER of California. That is a committee vote.
[[Page H820]] Mr. SOLOMON. They have that right. All we are doing is
changing that.
Mr. DINGELL. That has always been required to be done by the vote of
the committee. It was done by the vote of the committee, not by the
whim of the chairman, and that is the change that I find so difficult.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri yields to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. MINETA. I thank the leader for yielding.
Mr. GEPHARDT. This will be one of the last two.
Mr. MINETA. One of the things that does bother me--there are two
things, I guess I should say. First of all, that there were no hearings
at the Rules Committee on this issue. And, second, our distinguished
majority leader says that this is a preview of the vigorous debate that
would occur on the floor on Monday.
The problem, I think, is that there is a public interest in this
issue as well, and the public will not have an opportunity to make
their views known on this, because the public cannot speak here on the
floor, and that is why, and when I first heard about this, I then asked
the Chair of the Committee on Rules to hold a hearing on this, because
I think, as has already been clearly pointed out, the rule has always
existed. It has always been worked out on a mutual-consent basis with
the minority, but this eliminates totally the ability to have that,
either the waiver and the vote of the committee to protect a minority
status. You always had that, and to the extent that we were going to be
arbitrary, you could always force the vote in committee.
But now we do not even end up with that protection. I think both
hearings at the Committee on Rules would be something that is needed
and desirable, because we will not be able to get the public input on
this issue.
I thank again the distinguished minority leader for yielding me time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Discuss it on the floor Monday.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. I appreciate it. And I thank the gentleman
for yielding, but I appreciate it that when we try to exercise the
rights of the minority, and I think I see my chairman on the floor, the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
In the running of the Committee on Natural Resources, the minority
was constantly protected as to witnesses, as to time, and amendments.
We sat there late at night. We sat there days on end, because I believe
in that process, and I brought an open rule to this floor every time I
brought a bill, and as many Members like to remind me from time to
time, they spent almost 30 hours on this floor, 8 or 9, 10 days on the
California Desert. That is because no matter how contentious and no
matter the fact that I had the votes on the matter, we decided we would
give everybody a right. That was the same process that was followed in
the committee.
But now all of a sudden what we see is a complete collapsing, a
complete collapsing of not only the rights of the minority in this
House, and that is interesting, and that is troublesome, and that is
real problems for us. We will deal with that.
But we also see a complete collapsing of the right of the public to
participate, to know about, to anticipate, and to comment upon hearings
that can be scheduled, because under this bill, the chairman can
unilaterally decide that a hearing will be held in 1 day or in 2 days.
This is a House that is being run under a Speaker who is proud of the
fact that he says it is the most open. It is not turning out to be
that. This is a Speaker that is proud that we are on the Internet. But
yet you cannot get your witnesses to the hearing. You cannot prepare
the members of your committee. You have no notification of hearing.
This is a continuation of a collapse of minority rights that we have
seen. I feel I am justified to speak on this, because it never ever
happed in my committee in all of the years that I was in control of it
and in all of the years that my predecessor, Chairman Udall.
Why? Because we had respect for minority rights, and I used to talk
to Members about the difficulty of serving on the minority.
But here we are. Let us understand in the Committee on Natural
Resources yesterday, witnesses were arbitrarily cut off. Some were
given 5 minutes. Some were given 3 minutes. Nobody told them what time.
They just arbitrarily got tired of the testimony. They cut people off.
Committees have adjourned arbitrarily because it was 6 o'clock. On the
issues of constitutionality, committees were told they could not
continue to offer amendments, because the chairman was tired in the
committee; on unfunded mandates.
These are fundamental principles that concern the American public.
Yet what we see is a continuation.
I realize power is heady. I realize power is corrupting of
principles. But here we are starting to see it, ladies and gentlemen.
What you are starting to see is they do not want the open debate. We
can debate this on Monday. We are trying to determine what it is we
will be debating on Monday so we can prepare our arguments. That is
fundamental.
And the gentleman knows that. You know, he sat on the Committee on
Education and Labor, and debate went on late into the night, because
the right of Members to offer amendments from either party was
guaranteed. We all knew that it caused difficulties with floor
schedule, but Members had amendments, even if they knew they were going
to lose on a straight party-line vote; they wanted their voices to be
heard. That is what this institution, that is what this Constitution is
about.
But it goes far beyond the floor of this House or the committees of
this House. It goes to our constituents. It goes to the right of the
public to be heard, the right of the public to participate in these
hearings and to comment upon them, and you cannot do that with 1-day
notice arbitrarily given.
That kind of advantage is corrupting of the openness principles of
this institution, and I think we ought to understand, and I speak, I
hope I speak, to those in the minority that you better understand that
somewhere a line in the sand is going to have to be drawn on the right
of you to protect your membership on these committees, your rights to
participate on these committees, and the right of your constituents and
others in this country to be heard.
There is no need, there is no showing, there is absolutely no showing
for the need to do this, because we have worked out committee hearing
arrangements between majority and minority. One of the reasons you
wanted to change it is because it has become accepted practice that we
do it in consultation.
{time} 1200

But what we have not done, what we have not done is collapse the 7-
day protection for the minority to be prepared for that hearing.
You could be planning for a hearing as the chairman of the committee
for months, announce it, and we would have 7 days. Under this proposal,
if the chairman deems a reason to begin the hearing sooner, you can
announce it in 2 days.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] controls the
time.
Does the gentleman from Missouri continue to yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman for one additional short
comment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the American public has
watched for the last 3 or 4 days the prosecution and the defense in the
O.J. Simpson trial. What was one of the fundamental tenets in that
trial that they are arguing about? The ability to be put on notice, the
ability to be put on notice so that you could respond, so that you
would understand the subject matter, the witnesses and the people that
are to be drawn.
What this rule says is no, that the tools all belong to the majority
here, they will arbitrarily decide a day or two, and they will collapse
what has been a historical protection. There is only one way to read:
``If the chairman of the committee determines that there is good cause
to begin the hearing sooner.'' If you want to say if the committee
determines there is good cause, have a vote in the committee,
[[Page H821]] but that is a committee determination. You are in the
majority. You ought not to be afraid of doing the public's business in
front of the public.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I reclaim my time simply to say to the distinguished
majority leader that I think you could tell from the concern expressed
by these ranking members, which is deep and sincere, that it would be
helpful if there could be a hearing on this before it is brought to the
floor. But if there cannot be, I would strongly recommend that you
bring up the rule at 5 rather than at 2, so that all the Members can be
here for this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], and
then I intend to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in light of what we have seen here, what promises to be
an exciting day, one that I am certainly going to be here for, I should
revise my earlier comments and advise the Members that they may be
prepared to stay very late Monday evening.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendments en bloc
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]?
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, once again, Members are forced to take to the floor to
rectify serious errors and omissions in H.R. 5. All of the major
banking regulators have indicated that H.R. 5 might seriously impact
their ability to protect the safety and soundness of America's banking
system. You may have heard this before, but it bears repeating: The
largest unfunded mandate of the past 20 years was inflicted by the
States on the Federal Government in the form of the S&L crisis.
Federal taxpayers have had to pay out tens upon tens of billions of
dollars to bail out the mess created, in large part, by State banking
laws that left the Federal Government paying the tab. I would like to
quote the comments offered by the Republican Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on this very issue: ``I
am concerned that imposing the requirements of unfunded mandates
legislation on these Federal financial institution regulatory agencies
could delay the issuance of prompt safety and soundness rules that
affect federally insured financial institutions and credit unions and
their deposit insurance funds.''
The other body then unanimously adopted an amendment that is even
more sweeping than the one that is before us today.
Do we in the House really want to possibly sow the seeds for a future
banking crisis by possibly preventing or delaying the ability of our
banking regulators to take action to protect the integrity of our
banking system?
We can dispel all concerns and protect the taxpayers simply by
passing this well-considered amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I too rise in strong support of the amendment. As the
gentlewoman from New York just pointed out, it is part--it is now an
agreed-to part by even the majority Members over in the other body.
I do not understand why the proponents of the bill are in favor of
not permitting our financial institution regulators from being able to
do emergency legislation on financial institutions because they may be
unsound or operating improperly and therefore, under this legislation,
without this amendment, would permit these financial institutions to
continue to operate and bilk the public, and the public is the one that
is going to be the big loser.
There is a potential that you have something worse than we ever had
under the savings-and-loan fiasco, but I must remind people that that
occurred under a previous administration, also, and perhaps there were
not proper things done at that time. Maybe that is the way that the
proponents of the legislation want it. Maybe that is the reason that
they feel that the savings and loans and the financial institutions,
the banks, et cetera, should be able to operate in any willy-nilly way
they want to operate and to heck with the depositors.
One thing before I yield that I would like to comment on, too:
Earlier, when we started on this bill today, there was an effort by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania to insert 20 minutes on each side on all
amendments to this section, perhaps because the bill was not moving
fast enough and because they considered there may be dilatory tactics
on this side. But this amendment is not one of those. This amendment is
not one of those. This amendment is in the Senate bill, adopted in the
Senate committee, or a similar one, not the exact amendment. It a very
proper amendment that will make this bill better. Make it something
maybe that we could eventually vote for the whole bill.
The last point I would like to make is that the delay that occurred
just a while ago on discussion of the schedule has delayed this bill
for about 35 minutes. That never occurs except when we saw what is
proposed to occur in that schedule. It is almost unbelievable.
I have been here 18 years, 18 years, I have never seen one Democrat
ever propose that you reduce the hearing time from the 7 days. It has
always been in the rules, always been in the rules.
And now that is going to be reduced because I know that when a
majority decides to do something, they are going to run right over the
minority because you are together. You have got votes, you win. If that
is the way you want to do it, fine.
But once you do that, folks I want you to know that this gentleman is
not going to just sit back and say, ``Okay, run over me a second
time,'' because you have already run over me more than once this
session. I am not going to sit here and be run over and see the rules
of this House being actually reduced to where it is an autocratic rule.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and concerns. I
think common sense dictates this amendment would be adopted. You have
not answered the questions with regard to differentials; the regulators
themselves are telling you that they need this for the safety and
soundness of the financial institutions of this country, for the
deposit funds. To issue requirements or rules on accounting standards,
on safety and soundness with regard to capital standards and
derivatives. How in all good conscience can this House disregard these
particular concerns? I would think that no matter the ideology and
concerns about unfunded mandates, these regulators said, ``We need
these tools, and we will operate with them.'' I can assure you because
oversight would occur, how can you differentiate between leaving some
agencies in and out because of the way they are organized? It just
stands logic on its head. I strongly urge Members of this House, as
Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Banking Committee, has accepted an
amendment, to much greater extent in the other body. I think this
should be a signal of an issue that is quite different than some of the
others that have been considered by this House and would urge, strongly
urge, positive action on this particular amendment.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just one quick clarification with regard to the Senate
amendment. It has strictly to do with title II, so it is not more broad
nor more sweeping than this amendment, and in fact, it is more narrow
than this amendment.

{time} 1210

Mr. VOLKMER. This amendment, if I remember right----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has offered it en
bloc. Am I correct in that?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H822]] Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. So this amendment is to the proper section all rolled;
right?
So, I am sorry, gentlemen. This amendment is to section 2 also.
Mr. VENTO. Three.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the exemption of section 4
which would apply to the entire bill and not just to section 2. The
Senate amendment only applies narrowly to the section to title II which
is the regulatory section we discussed earlier.
Mr. VOLKMER. I ask the gentleman, ``Are you telling me that, if we
offered the amendment to the section 2 or section 3, that you would
have accepted it then?''
Mr. PORTMAN. No, I am saying that the Senate amendment is not overly
broad or more sweeping. In fact it is more narrow than this amendment.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
Mr, KANJORSKI. To the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] the Senate is
not, as I am not, worried about the point of order question here. They
do go to the regulatory question, and that is what I am disturbed
about, and again I appreciate the effort that the new majority Members
have made in trying to familiarize themselves with our problem here,
but the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] I know is just a new
Member, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] is a new Member, and
I say to them, ``You don't remember the fact that in the 1980's it was
the regulators of the States that caused the Federal insurance fund to
come to their rescue, and it was only because when we refrained from
the proper control of State banking that we allowed this to happen. But
now through this legislation we are wheedling away the ability of the
Federal regulators to protect Federal taxpayers and the full faith and
credit of the United States from being misused, abused, and in some
instances fraudulently abused. Let me call your attention----
Mr. DAVIS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. In one moment I will.
One hearing we held in San Francisco in the late 1980's, the State
regulators of California's S&L's with great disdain took the witness
stand and testified that in his first year in office it was his mandate
for economic development purposes to issue new charters to S&L's, and
with pride he said he issued more than 200 charters that very year.
Most of those S&L's in California that he charted subsequently failed
at great cost to Federal taxpayers.
He also said, as the State regulator, that he only had eight
investigators who could ever regulate those institutions that were
under State regulation in California, many hundreds besides the 200 new
charters that he had issued. California, Texas, and Florida together
accounted for more than two-thirds of the S&L's that failed in this
country, and it was because of the failure of the State regulators to
properly regulate State chartered institutions and to properly protect
the federally insured Federal deposits that tens of billions of Federal
insurance was ultimately paid out by the American taxpayer.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. I would like the gentleman to respond to a couple of
concerns that I have.
First of all, it is my understanding that the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervisor have
never issued safety and soundness regulations on an emergency basis. If
the gentleman has different information, I would be happy to hear
that----
Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time, we are not talking on emergency
basis here. We are talking about----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] controls
the time.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] is giving
me the time.
We are not just talking about emergency situations here. We are
talking about the normal regulatory process as well. For example, we
are about to have a HUD agency issue regulations on capital accounts
for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, controlling perhaps three, or four, or
five hundred billion dollars.
Now they are not going to do that because they want to have activity
downtown.
Mr. DAVIS. Sure.
Mr. KANJORSKI. They are doing that because there is a question of
whether or not there is sufficient capital to support the extensive
amount of mortgage activity in the secondary market.
Mr. DAVIS. I understand.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. But there is nothing here that stops them from going ahead
and doing that now?
Mr. KANJORSKI. No, there is, and the gentleman does not understand it
because we have not denied judicial review in this bill, and in fact
there is judicial review in this bill. For any regulation that is
issued, we are granting any bank or institution, whether State or
federally chartered, the right to raise the question of whether or not
there has been sufficient compliance with the standards for economic
analysis that we have required in this bill.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield,
I understand the gentleman. I disagree with that. We will argue this
later when the judicial review comes up, but there is always judicial
review under the Administrative Procedure Act down the road, and we
will argue this----
Mr. KANJORSKI. The existing judicial review goes only to
capriciousness and unreasonableness. It does not go to the standard of
whether or not they complied with the requirements of cost analysis. We
are adding here in this bill an entirely new arm and an entirely new
set of information that can be attacked.
Now, the gentleman's problem--let me say what his problem is.
You have got institutions worth hundreds of billions of dollars with
law firms and inside counsel that have nothing else to do but to test
regulatory authority and properness in the issue of regulations, and we
have seen--I mean it's not like we're saying, ``Could this happen?''
We're not saying, you know, ``Is it an outside possibility?'' In the
1970's, in the 1980's, we saw it happen to the extent we almost saw a
total collapse in the financial institutions of this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the proponents of this amendment are now not
talking about emergency situations, there is absolutely no reason why
the accountability required for other agencies in this bill should not
equally apply to the agencies we are talking about just because they
are in the area of financial institutions.
Further, it is my understanding from a personal view and also after
again consulting with the majority of the House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, that in real emergencies the Federal regulatory
agencies do not respond by rule making. They respond by issuing a cease
and desist order to promptly stop.
The fact of the matter is there is nothing here in this bill which
addresses cease and desist orders. There is nothing here that prevents
the Federal agencies from immediately stopping any action of an
institution under their purview which is, in fact, endangering the
economic health of that institution, and therefore the emergency
remedies are still present, and I think that the arguments amount to
more of a scare tactic than I think anything that is practical that is
presented in H.R. 5.
[[Page H823]] Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if this is such scare tactics, and,
first of all, if this is so innocuous, but opposed by the banking
majority, I ask the gentleman, ``Why aren't any members of the Banking
Committee here in the majority arguing this proposition?''
I ask a second question:
``If this were just scare tactics, why are all regulators of all
Federal institutions, depository funds and all banks, and all markets,
opposed to this legislation?''
This is not emergency, and let me go one step further:
``If that's the case, why is it so bipartisan that the chairman of
the Banking Committee, a Republican in the Senate, has recognized the
possibility of what we are talking about today? Why is the House of
Representatives, who represents the people and the depositors of
America, failing to recognize that in a bipartisan way Senator D'Amato
of New York, the chairman of the Banking Committee, recognizes this as
an important amendment, an important factor, as inserted in the bill in
the Senate side?''
I have to get the feeling that----
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, I think the
gentleman has made his point. I am glad to hear the gentleman has such
confidence in the respected chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
that we can now refer to him each time he proposes a bill or an
amendment on a subject and expect to get the gentleman's support.
Mr. KANJORSKI. If the gentleman would yield, I have had the pleasure
of dealing with Senator D'Amato for years, 10 years I have been in
Congress, in conference reports on banking, and I have just cosponsored
with him the new expanded secondary market and small business in the
last Congress, and I think----
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. KANJORSKI. Senator D'Amato has done outstanding work.
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, as I said, I am
certain that when other proposals are made from the respected and
distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking Committee they will
receive on the floor the gentleman's support also.
But I have consulted with the chairman of the House Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, whom I also respect, who again
reiterates that a cease and desist order is the manner of addressing
real emergencies, and they simply are not affected in any provision of
this bill.
{time} 1220

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 266, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 53]

AYES--154

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--266

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--14

Bishop
Bliley
Brown (CA)
Clinger
DeLay
Fields (LA)
Flake
Gilman
Hansen
Jefferson
Pombo
Rush
Souder
Stark

{time} 1238

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Jefferson for, with Mr. DeLay against.

Mr. OWENS and Mr. GONZALES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was inadvertently delayed
in getting to the floor and, thus, was unable to vote on Rollcall No.
53, the Kanjorski amendments. Had I been able to vote I would have
voted ``No.''

{time} 1240

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?

amendments offered by mrs. clayton

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 7 and
[[Page H824]] 8, printed in the Record, and ask unanimous consent that
they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from North Carolina?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that request, but I
ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to
20 minutes on each side for a total of 40 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North
Carolina that the amendments be considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mrs. Clayton: In section 4, strike
``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6),
strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``;
or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new
paragraph:
(8) protects worker safety.
In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at
the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'', and after
paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph:
``(8) protects worker safety.

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, apart from the debate that has occurred
on the floor of the House and the committee reports that have been
filed, there is little or no legislative history on this bill. The
reason there is little or no legislative history is because there have
been no hearings on H.R. 5. Legislative history begins with hearings.
It is through the hearing process that varying views are presented,
issues are identified and critical questions are raised and answered.
If nothing else, the debate demonstrates that the language of the
bill may well raise as many questions as it provides answers. Indeed,
the minority views in the committee report states, ``The haste in which
this bill was considered left a number of substantive issues
unaddressed, which even the authors conceded at markup that they would
like to address on the floor.'' One such issue, which my amendments
seek to address, is the matter of workplace safety. My amendments would
add the broad category of workplace safety to the list of ``Limitations
on application'' found at section 4 of the bill.
Other amendments address specific workplace safety issues, such as
child labor, pregnant women and the Family and Medical Leave Act. My
amendments address all workplace safety issues. Mr. Chairman, I am not
a lawyer, but I am told that in statutory interpretation cases before
the courts, if there is a specific listing for coverage, the court is
more likely to limit coverage to the specific listing rather than to
``guess'' at what Congress intended by expanding that specific list. In
that case, language which includes specific listings, may well exclude
intended listings. In any case, I don't want to leave any doubt.
Last week, I recalled a workplace fire in my State of North Carolina.
Two hundred people were working in a chicken processing plant when a
fire broke out, killing 25 of the workers. Most of those killed were
single women, struggling to raise a family and make ends meet. North
Carolina responded and doubled the number of inspectors for workplace
hazards. Now, some will argue that Occupational Safety and Health Act
laws are not unfunded mandates, because the Federal Government hires
and pays the inspectors, unless a State volunteers to do so. They will
also argue that the $50 million trigger excludes OSHA coverage.
To those who would make that argument, I would respond, if OSHA laws
do not apply, then what harm does it cause to accept the language of my
amendment? I would further respond that the $50 million trigger applies
to ``all Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint
resolution.'' The point is, Mr. Speaker, if we amend OSHA, following
enactment of this bill, in the absence of language protecting that
workplace safety law, it is not inconceivable that Congress, the
advisory commission created by the bill, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office or the courts, would interpret our changes
as creating an unfunded mandate.
If we do not intend that consequence, why not say it? If OSHA and
other workplace safety laws are not covered by H.R. 5, what's wrong
with stating that? The best cure for ambiguity is clear and precise
words--words that express ``the plain meaning'' of our actions. I do
not believe that many would argue that child labor laws are intended to
be the target of this legislation. Yet, there is no direct and certain
language in the bill that supports that intent. My amendments, in plain
straightforward terms, are designed to make clear that we intend to
exclude workplace safety laws from coverage of this bill. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Because there is no direct language in the bill related to workplace
safety, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act threatens to eliminate federal
standards for workplace safety. Before passage of workplace safety
laws, children were forced into adult work, 14,500 persons died, by
accidents, on the job, and 2.2 million workers were disabled annually.
Another 390,000 workers faced occupational diseases. We now protect
children, and every working woman and working man from unhealthy and
unsafe conditions on the job.
The issue of workplace safety is an issue which we in the Congress
have a right, indeed a constitutional duty to protect.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
Clayton] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Clayton was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter that should be
rushed through and rubber stamped because some Members believe it is
more important to make a point in 100 days than it is to save hundreds
of lives. And, if it is to be pushed forward on a fast track, let's at
least take the time to perfect this bill through the amendment process.
We owe that to the children and workers of America. I urge passage of
my amendments.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the proponent of this amendment is very
sincere in her concern for worker safety, as she has demonstrated so
often in the past. But I strongly rise to say that we oppose this
amendment for the very reason that we opposed the interstate impact
amendment on Friday, the 20th; on Monday, the 23d, the air pollution
amendment, the airport safety amendment, the nuclear waste amendment,
the minimum wage and child labor amendment, the radioactive substance
and toxic waste amendment; and then on Tuesday, the 24th, for the same
reason we opposed the amendment on age and on child molester data base
and so on and so on, with all the various amendments that Members want
to exclude from this bill.

{time} 1250

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
One small point, again. I appreciate the concern of the gentlewoman
from North Carolina.
Again, if we look at the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders] which we considered earlier in this debate, it does include,
and these are amendments which we also considered en bloc,
establishment of minimum standards for occupational safety.
I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that ii is my belief that in a sense
we have already had a vote on this issue, and that we did vote on
exempting establishment of minimum standards for occupational safety
previously in this debate. That vote was, I believe, 161 yeas to 263
noes, so it was soundly defeated.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that though that has
happened, they also included very specific language, wherein my
amendment is very broadly structured to include
[[Page H825]] workplace safety. This is consistent with the language,
that the gentleman has said that it will not, indeed, jeopardize the
safety and health of Americans. Therefore, if the gentleman means that,
it simply says that the gentleman would include that. This is not
inconsistent with what the gentleman is saying. He is just not putting
it into the language.
Mr. SHAYS. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to ask for unanimous consent if we need more time, the point I
would like to make, as someone who has sat on the Subcommittee on
Employment and Housing of the Committee on Government Operations, which
actually investigated the horrible event that took place that the
gentlewoman is referring to with the processing plant, I am not aware
that we passed new regulations, passed a new law, to deal with that
issue. Mr. Chairman, we told OSHA to do its job better, and they did
their job better, but it did not require us to pass new legislation to
deal with it.
Mr. Chairman, I just think in one sense, dealing with that issue,
there would have been no effect of this legislation as it related to
that incident.
Mr. Chairman, I make another point to the gentlewoman. The fact is
that this mandate bill is very clear that the very people that want to
pass the bill to deal with a mandate, if it is not funded, the very
people, the 50 percent who want to do that, can also be the very 50
percent who override the objection that it is not a funded mandate if
in fact it is not a funded mandate.
We are constantly having to remind the other side that it is merely a
simple majority that can overrule an unfunded mandate, so it is hard
for me to understand how, if there is concern to bring a bill before
the Chamber, and it has 50 percent of the vote because it is a real
concern, why that 50 percent does not remain in cases like the
gentlewoman's concern of a need to deal with a very serious worker
issue.
Mr. Chairman, we are being redundant on this side, but I have weighed
in so strongly in favor of OSHA. I happen to be someone who supports
OSHA. If I thought a bill came before us that deserved the merit, and
we could not come up with the money for a variety of reasons, Mr.
Chairman, I would vote to override the unfunded mandate based on that
need. What we did on this side was guarantee that it was only 50
percent.
Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we are constantly being told
of specific concerns that Members have on that side of the aisle, and
we have voted them down because we know that within the bill is the
mechanism to deal with every one of those concerns.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will
ensure that minimum Federal workplace standards will remain intact to
protect the millions of Americans who work every day.
This amendment is simply about saving lives. Despite the enormous
strides made in the workplace over the last 25 years since the
enactment of the original Occupational Safety and Health Act, hundreds
of thousands of workers are still at risk in the workplace.
I would remind my colleagues on the other side that in the OSHA
regulations, as well as many other Federal regulations, especially in
the civil rights area, there is a deferral procedure wherein States and
localities are in fact deferred to.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want it to be clear that we are saying deferral
here, and not referral. That simply means that in many instances we can
defer to the States to establish their own procedures and their own
regulations, and such was the case in North Carolina where that tragedy
took place.
During the investigation what we found was that in many of those
instances, the kind of inspections that were expected to be taken place
at the State level did not take place. Therefore, I think, Mr.
Chairman, that we need to make sure with this kind of legislation that
we establish these kinds of floors, so no State or locality can go
beneath them.
In 1970, Mr. Chairman, when OSHA was enacted, Congress considered
these figures: Job-related accidents accounted for more than 14,000
worker deaths. Nearly 2\1/2\ million workers were disabled. Ten times
as many person-days were lost from job-related disabilities as from
strikes. Estimated new cases of occupational disease totaled over
300,000.
In terms of lost worker production, wages, medical expenses, and
disability compensation, the burden on the Nation's commerce was
staggering. OSHA had to be enacted or we would have ended up with a net
loss of billions of dollars from the gross national product.
Without explicitly exempting workplace safety laws from this
legislation, we open up the possibility of OSHA and all workplace
safety laws being considered as unfunded mandates.
All too often, Mr. Chairman, particularly in lower income and rural
areas, as is much of my congressional district, some companies
circumvent and violate OSHA laws and regulations, exposing employees to
unsafe and unhealthy working environments. This amendment, Mr.
Chairman, will at least allow minimum workplace guidelines to remain in
place. Without this amendment, those who are least economically secure
and who are less educated, and likely to be exposed to unfair, even
inhumane working conditions, will be without protection.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, absolving employers from current workplace
laws would be a tragedy in light of the tremendous potential harm that
would be brought to workers across the country. I urge my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. Let me state the
reason why. Worker safety is critically important.
I can remember years ago, when there was not that much worker safety,
that one of my relatives, a cousin, as a matter of fact, worked in a
factory in the city of Chicago, and there was this machine that he was
operating. There was not a guard on this machine that would protect
him. He was standing there doing his work, and something jammed. He
went to push this piece of material, whatever it was, into the machine,
and he lost four of his fingers.
Those things happened a great deal in those days. This has been not
that long ago. It has been a while since I was a young woman, but I was
a little bit older than a kid. I remember how that impacted on me.
I remember, first of all, seeing him in the hospital, seeing him come
home, and finding that my cousin, who was a favorite of mine, who had
always treated me with a lot of love and affection, came in and when he
got ready to hug me, I could not look at his face. All I could do was
look at his hands, because I had heard my grandmother say he had lost
his fingers. I had never heard of anyone losing their fingers before.
That to me was a tragedy that I have never been able to forget.
Mr. Chairman, I can remember also that some years ago there was an
issue, not just in North Carolina but in Mississippi, where there was a
catfish factory where people were doing catfish, preparing catfish.
They had a certain amount of catfish they had to debone and all that
sort of thing.
It seems to me that at that time one of the reasons why they were
doing that is because they wanted to get more production out. Catfish
had become a new thing, and now it was done in ponds instead of being a
scavenger fish at the bottom of the river and all, and that was it.
Now it seems to me that what happened in that case, the women told me
when I went to talk to them about that, and at that time I was on the
Committee on Government Operations and the Manpower and Housing
Subcommittee, and there is a new name, but that was the name of it
then, and the thing that was going on was they were forced to do all
this boning of the fish. Of course people would cut their fingers.
{time} 1300

If they cut their fingers, they were not allowed to leave where they
were working and go and get some kind of medical care from the nurse
who was supposed to be there for that purpose. Instead, they just kept
right on cutting the fish and the blood was dripping all over the fish
and whatnot. As a result
[[Page H826]] of that, I am not particular about catfish today, as you
might expect.
This was inhumane treatment that was being done in the name of
getting production out and to the exclusion of talking about workers'
safety. Workers' safety is critically important. Here we are in a
country that says we treasure our people. We are a democracy. We do not
do inhumane things to people. It seems to me that allowing a machine to
cut off somebody's finger or having doors lock so in case of fire,
people cannot get out, is inhumane. It is not the American way to do
things.
The other thing is that we find that we should not have to, that no
American has to choose between working in an unsafe place and taking
care of his family.
If we allow this sort of thing to happen, then we are shirking our
responsibilities as American citizens.
The right to work in a safe place should not have to depend on
regional economics. One State must not be able to look the other way
when an industry important to that particular local economy endangers
its workers. We have already heard about the chicken processing. We
have heard about other cases. We have heard about the chickens, we have
heard about the fish, and we have heard about other incidences where
workers were just not safe.
I would say this is a very good amendment, one which we must in all
good conscience support.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to enter into a dialog with the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. It should be
remembered that it was States that really started this in the very
beginning. And because States could not enact it, they needed more
help, the Federal Government became involved in that. There has been a
commitment on the part of the Federal Government for workplace safety
for a long period of time.
To suggest that what we are talking about is not an appropriate role
for the Federal Government escapes my understanding. It was because the
States wanted them to be in it that the Federal Government went into
having workplace safety, made those laws standardized so any American
working anyplace would not be subject to one State having one set of
laws, another State having another.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. The other point that I think needs to be made, this is
not a very expensive program. We are not talking about big bucks. In
many places, the State volunteers to put the money there. When they get
Federal money, it is because the State asks for the Federal money. So
this is not a very expensive program that we are asking for the Federal
Government to continue their involvement.
If you do not want to jeopardize workers, it seems to me that we
would simply say that we want to exclude them from this bill.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, let me say in the case
of the catfish, I was just reminded of the fact that the Federal
Government did take some action against those people. OSHA in fact
fined the company, which was the Delta Pride Co., $32,000 for several
safety violations, including failure to attend properly to those
injuries that I was talking about.
It just makes sense to me that we want our workers to be safe. To be
losing their fingers, to be injured in any kind of way, to be losing
their eyesight, to be
losing any of their extremities just does not make--or their life.

Let me tell you something else I did. I went down in a coal mine in
West Virginia. It was not a very easy thing to do. It was a very, I
don't know what you would call it, it was short inside there. I went
down in this thing that looked like a big scoop. When I got down there,
the men and women, there were women also who were working there, and
they were squatting down like that. I could not squat down like that
because I have always had bad knees, but I crawled around on my knees
and the ceiling of the coal was just above me.
At that time we were concerned about methane gas exploding. Every now
and then you would read in the paper about thousands of workers in
these coal mines were being injured because there were not adequate
safety regulations there for them.
I came out of there shaking, because first of all you are in there
and it is dark and the only light you have is a little light that is on
your head. They had a machine that was scraping the coal off the side
of the wall.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. They had coal that was being scraped off
the side of the wall. One man was using a machine. Others had these
picks and scrapes that they were doing that with. I can remember really
feeling claustrophobic for one, but more than that I was fearful;
fearful that something would happen and all of a sudden there would be
methane gas and there was no way in the world I could stand up to run
out of there. I could not crawl fast enough and I was going to be at
the mercy of God or anybody else who could come and get me out of
there.
Worker safety is critically important. I do not understand how people
who work in those conditions can do so without having the fear of their
life every time. Even more important than that, while I was down in
that coal mine and at the time that I was down in there, my son was a
young man, he might have been 14 or 15 years old, so the thought came
to me, ``What would happen to my child if I didn't come out of that
mine?'' My husband, as many of you already know, had lost his life
already. I was his sole parent. And if I was in that coal mine and a
methane gas explosion came out, I did not know what was going to happen
to my child. So I prayed and was really glad when I got up out of
there.
For that reason, if for no other reason alone, I learned that worker
safety is critically important and this is a critically important piece
of legislation. I would hope that everybody in this House would vote
for it.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my distinguished Democratic colleagues
that everything you are saying is important and compelling. And as my
good friend, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Rules, Joe
Moakley knows, I am a Molly Maguire at heart, not a Pinkerton guard
hired by management when it comes to worker safety.
However, the problem is we are creating a devastating burden upon the
States with all of these mandates and not funding it. We have to find
out how to make this relationship with our States work.
I wanted to insert a statement in the Record that highlights some of
the California problems because the figures are tough.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, for too long, the Federal Government has
enacted costly and onerous Federal mandates on States and localities
without providing necessary financial assistance to achieve compliance.
These mandates have been devastating to our cities and have shaken the
very foundation of our system of government. That is why I am pleased
to lend my strong support to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
This legislation will bring accountability to the legislative and
regulatory process while helping to restore the delicate partnership
between the Federal, State, and local governments.
In California, the Department of Finance has projected that in 1995,
unfunded mandates will cost the State approximately $7.7 billion. They
report that this figure may be vastly understated, however, since it
does not include a number of Federal court mandates affecting the
health and welfare area nor does it include the cost of local mandates.
For example, while illegal immigration is a Federal issue, the Federal
Government mandates that States, such as California, provide certain
services to illegal immigrants, yet it does not provide the funds to
pay for them. The passage of proposition 187, which will deny most
government services to illegal immigrants, reflects the intense
frustration felt by voters who no longer want to
[[Page H827]] foot the bill for the Federal Government failed policies.
California, along with the State of Florida has even filed suit against
the Federal Government seeking reimbursement of billions of dollars in
mandated expenditures required to incarcerate and provide educational
and health benefits for illegal immigrants. California also filed suit
against the Federal Government challenging the constitutionality of the
expensive and burdensome National Voter Registration Act. Other States
and localities have filed similar legal challenges looking for
financial relief from unfunded Federal mandates.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government cannot go on using State and
local governments as a source of public funding. This denies localities
the ability to pay for essential services, such as education, law
enforcement, and transportation, while many times providing ineffective
solutions to the very problems these mandates are intended to address.
I am pleased that the Republican leadership has recognized this fact.
At last, the call for financial relief by State and local governments
is being heard by Federal lawmakers. I ask my colleagues to support
this long overdue piece of legislation.
In my State, our Department of Finance in California has projected
that unfunded mandates are going to cost our State approximately $7.7
billion just in 1 year. They say also that this is a vastly understated
figure. It does not include a number of Federal court mandates
affecting the whole area of health and welfare, it does not include the
cost of local mandates. And illegal immigration, while a Federal issue,
protecting our borders, is like a defense issue. The Federal Government
mandates that we in California and all the other border States provide
services to illegal immigrants and then it does not provide any funds
to pay for it.
The passage of proposition 187 which was still held upon in the
courts, very controversial, obviously reflects this intense frustration
of people in my State who no longer want to foot the bill for our
Government's failed policies.
California, along with the great State of Florida, has filed the
suits. As our floor leaders have said on every point you bring up on
the other side, we agree with you. But it does not address the main
problem that we thought important enough to put in our Contract With
America.
If it does snow here tomorrow, which is projected, I will be happy to
continue work in my life thanks to the prior work of the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] to whom I proudly yield.
Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one point. First to my colleague
from North Carolina, I applaud her sensitivity to this issue. It is an
important issue. But I cannot agree with this amendment.
Let me just clarify a couple of issues. First of all, there is
nothing in this legislation without this amendment that would preclude
Congress from either mandating this and funding the mandate for
workplace safety or, secondly, putting unfunded mandates on the States.
We would just have the benefit first of all of knowing what those costs
would be and we would have all that information in front of us. Why is
that important?
Let me go back to my own experience as the head of a county
government in Fairfax County, where just a couple of years ago, we had
a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, in the pay of fire
lieutenants and fire captains, a $2 million liability the county
incurred for individuals that we had thought were officers and would be
exempt from the act.
The court came back and this one was added funding that we had to
come back and pay. What did that mean to this locality? In order to
meet the standards set by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the courts
in this case, a $2 million obligation. In that year's budget we were
forced to make cuts we had not intended to make originally. What that
meant that year was we had to take money for special education--and
there have been other amendments here trying to preclude that from the
act--the locality had to take money from special education.

{time} 1310

Money for parents with children with Down's syndrome had to be cut
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and we could not afford to pay them.
Then we could not afford to properly fully fund our daycare for the
families of the working poor, a very successful program we have in the
county, where we left over 160 families that were unfunded that year
because we had to put this money in something that individuals in
Washington thought was a more important priority than we did locally.
That is exactly the problem with these kinds of amendments, we are
setting the priorities from Washington, we are cost-shifting from a
progressive income tax to pay for these items to regressive property
taxes at the local level, and in the gentleman's State with Proposition
13, that means cutting community centers and other needed local
obligations that we cannot afford because of this.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DORNAN. Excellent observations by a gentleman from the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I just bring our attention to this
amendment. I am not arguing all unfunded mandates. I have a similar
experience. I served as chairman of my county board of commissioners. I
know what it means in a rural county trying to balance the disparate
needs you have and priorities. This is a priority even I as a county
commissioner would have.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. If the gentleman could understand that this is not
suggesting that this should replace any priority that we have. It is
consistent with the priority I would have as a county commissioner or a
Governor would have for his citizens.
The Governor of the State of North Carolina was devastated. The
general assembly was devastated and, therefore, they put money in to
protect their workers as a result of it. But they had this Federal
guideline which would at least allow the private company to be held in
violation of that. That gave them some protection.
So I am urging Members not to confuse these issues. I am simply
saying that workplace safety should be exempt from this. I thank the
gentleman. The gentleman has been very generous.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentlewoman for her observations.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I was in a crime bill markup, so I will try not to take
my 5 minutes. But I did want to come over and congratulate my colleague
from North Carolina on this fine amendment that she has proposed to
this bill, and to express my support for this amendment.
Before I came to the Congress I spent 22 years practicing law, and a
substantial part of my practice was workers' compensation cases. I am
sure somebody is going to jump up and say, ``well workers' compensation
is State regulated and that makes our point.''
Workers' compensation is State regulated. But in just about every
workers' compensation case that I had in which a serious injury
resulted, the workers' compensation coverage would come in and make its
payments, and the victim would be partially or even in some cases fully
taken care of, but there was nothing in place beyond workers'
compensation to, at the State level, assure that the condition that
resulted in that injury was addressed beyond just that particular
victim.
So, in just about every one of those cases we ended up then appealing
through the OSHA laws to a standard that had been set that required the
employer then to address a correction of the condition that existed so
future injuries would not occur of the same kind.
So, it is that standard-setting mechanism I think we have got to
protect.
I have heard a lot of arguments during the course of this debate
about this particular amendment, and against other amendments that
suggest this is just a procedural thing and we can
[[Page H828]] come back to the Congress and we can by majority vote
override this mandate.
The concern I have about that is I have two concerns, and the
gentleman is smiling because he thinks I am going off on this three-
fifths supermajority, but I am not going there yet.
I have two concerns.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, that is not in the bill.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand.
Mr. DAVIS. Yet.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand.
Let me go on ahead and make the second point, that is the slippery
slope argument, because what I see happening is as soon as we put this
majority requirement in here the next step down the road is going to be
to jack this up to a three-fifths majority rule which I spent so much
time arguing against in yesterday's debate.
But the other point I want to make, and I will yield as soon as I
make this point, is that even with a majority rule situation, these
national standard laws are typically designed, look at the civil rights
laws, the OSHA laws, various and sundry Federal standards that have
been set, have been designed to protect people who have less influence
in the process, children, minorities, workers who have been injured on
the job. And typically they are not the kind of people who are going to
have the kind of influence in the process when this comes to a vote
again on the House floor to exert that kind of influence in the
process.
So, it gives me no comfort when my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle say, ``Well, this does not mean anything.'' Well, if it does
not mean anything, why are we passing it? I cannot understand that
argument. Why we have spent all this time on this bill on this floor of
the House, as valuable as the Members of Congress' time is, and we are
passing something that does not mean anything, because we can come back
and override it next week on a majority vote?
So that is the point I want to make, and I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do
not think anybody has suggested here we do not believe this bill means
something. What it means is that it is going to give us a better
opportunity to understand what we are doing, the cost of what we are
imposing, but in no sense does it mean it is a meaningless bill.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, though, if that is
the case, what is the problem with exempting these?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Clinger, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of
North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, what is the problem with
exempting these important things that my colleagues acknowledge
systematically are important?
Mr. CLINGER. I would say to the gentleman we have had, I think we
have, 60 suggested exemptions. If you want a meaningless bill then we
would exempt all 60 of them.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me just make this
point. If we have 60 amendments and each one of them is valuable, and
we agree to exempt them by majority vote from this bill right now, and
we acknowledge that they are valuable, what is the problem with
exempting 40 different things, if we acknowledge right now that they
are valuable?
If they are valuable things, then your bill needs to be destroyed, or
limited, or restricted to that extent. That is the point I am making.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I
would agree they are valuable. What we disagree with is this bill in
any ways is going to undercut or undermine the validity of these
programs. It does mean we have to look at what these are costing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. CLINGER. If the gentleman will yield just on one other point, the
gentleman raised the possibility of the specter, I might say, of a
three-fifths vote. He indicated at the very beginning, he was going
resist amendments that either weakened this bill or strengthened it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I understand that, reclaiming my time, I
understand it in the context of this bill in this debate. But I bet the
gentleman 10, 15 years ago, had he asked somebody would we be today
amending the Constitution to require a three-fifths majority for
anything that was not already in the Constitution, whoever was standing
in the gentleman's position would have said, ``Oh no, I have no
contemplation of that ever happening.''

{time} 1320

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 262, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No 54]

AYES--157

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--262

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
[[Page H829]] Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--15

Armey
Bishop
Bliley
Brown (CA)
Cramer
DeLay
Deutsch
Fields (LA)
Gephardt
Jefferson
Johnston
Pombo
Rush
Stupak
Walker

{time} 1337

The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote:

Mr. Jefferson for, with Mr. DeLay against.
Mr. Deutsch for, with Mr. Armey against.

Mr. Foley changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. Nadler changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mascara

Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which was printed in
the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Mascara:
In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end
of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph
(7) and insert ``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the
following new paragraph:
(8) requires compliance with section 402(a)(27) of the
Social Security Act, any provision of part D of title IV of
the Social Security Act, or any other Federal law relating to
establishment or enforcement of child support obligations.

Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today along with my
colleagues, Representatives Woolsey and Kennelly, would exempt child
support enforcement laws from this unfunded mandates legislation.
I offer this amendment out of a deep belief that child support
enforcement laws must be strong and must be enforced. I am sure my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that our job is to
insure that State and local governments collect every dollar possible
from dead-beat dads, or any parent who has shirked their
responsibilities and left their family to live off of welfare.
{time} 1340

My fear is that this bill, as written, will frustrate this effort
leaving State and local governments to absorb more of the costs for
these welfare payments. This is an outcome none of us want. And is an
additional burden our taxpayers do not deserve.
While H.R. 5 exempts various categories of laws from its restrictions
on unfunded mandates, such as emergency assistance, legislation
impacting the national security, and antidiscrimination laws, it fails
to exclude the extremely crucial category of child support enforcement
collection.
As many of my colleagues know, before coming to Congress I served as
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, PA
for the past 15 years. As part of my job, I was responsible for
administering our local support enforcement program. And I am proud to
say we did a very good job collecting payments from dead-beat dads.
In fact, we were so successful utilizing computer tracking systems
and strong court orders, we consistently received a bonus from the
Federal Government.
In the House, as is expected, enacts welfare reform legislation that
includes more stringent requirements for establishing paternity and
forces absent parents to pay child support payments, who is going to
pay for the additional costs?
If the Congressional Budget Office determines the costs of these
added requirements exceed the threshold established in this bill, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle could choose to slash funding
for welfare benefits or shift financial responsibility to State and
local governments.
My solution is to maintain the support enforcement program as we now
know it. That means continuing to require the Federal Government to
help pay for these efforts through the well-known title IV-D program.
The facts show that support enforcement programs are working and have
paid off. While last year the Federal Government provided States with
$16.5 billion in child support payments, States collected $8.9 billion
in child support payments through the title IV-D system. These funds
are used to help reimburse governments for welfare costs as a result of
these efforts. In 1993 Federal and State governments recouped $2
billion in Aid for Dependent Child costs.
The title IV-D programs are working so well that between 1989 and
1993, child support collections increased by 73 percent and the number
of established paternities increased by 63 percent. I think we should
be doing everything possible to encourage, not discourage this upward
trend.
Finally, child support enforcement efforts make money. Last year, for
every dollar spent, we collected $4 in support payments. This helped
keep families off of welfare.
In 1993 as a result of support enforcement efforts an estimated 2
million families were kept off the Government rolls for a savings of
$1.3 billion in potential welfare costs.
Those are the kind of savings we should encourage not discourage. If
we do not maintain strong support enforcement programs, State and local
governments will only end up bearing increased welfare costs, or, worse
yet, cut back on their collection efforts.
I ask that my colleagues seriously consider and support this
amendment to ensure that these important title IV-D programs continue
to operate.
Believe me, my former county commission colleagues in Washington, PA
are not looking for any more problems or burdens. The unfunded mandates
legislation should solve some of these problems--not add to them.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Mascara].
Mr. Chairman, each year over $5 billion in child support goes
uncollected. This is a national disgrace that is punishing our children
and bankrupting our welfare system. If we are truly serious about
taking care of our children and reducing dependence on welfare,
collecting outstanding child support must be a top priority in the new
Congress.
That is why I believe child support collection should be exempted
from the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Mr. Chairman,
last year, the Federal Government paid out 16\1/2\ billion dollars in
AFDC payments to
[[Page H830]] the States, along with another one billion dollars
devoted specifically to child support collection. This is an enormous
Federal investment, and, we have every right to expect the States to be
vigilant about collecting [child support] payments which, after all,
will keep families off the welfare rolls in the first place. When the
States are not doing an adequate job, Mr. Chairman, we cannot be
hindered from passing laws that will help crack down on deadbeat
parents who shortchange our children.
I know first hand that child support does indeed make a big
difference when it comes to welfare. Twenty-seven years ago, I was a
single, working mother with three small children, and although the
courts ordered my former husband to pay child support, we never
received a penny. Even though I was employed, in order to provide my
children with the health care and child care they needed, I was forced
to go on welfare to supplement my wages. Today, millions of welfare
families, like my own, would not need assistance if they received the
child support payments they are owed.
I am hopeful that this Congress will address the child support issue
in a bipartisan way. In fact, Representative Hyde and I are working on
a bill to reform the child support collection system. This bipartisan
effort is proof that Members from both sides of the aisle want to
engage in a meaningful effort to increase the amount of child support
collected for families who need it so desperately. Members from both
sides of the aisle realize that this approach will save Federal dollars
in the long run. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there should be no party lines
when it comes to taking care of our children.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge House Members on both sides to pave the way
for this important effort--to allow us to proceed unhindered in the
struggle to provide much-needed, and owed, child support to desperate
families. I urge the House to adopt the Mascara-Woolsey-Kennelly
amendment to exempt child support collection laws from H.R. 5.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
Mr. Chairman, I do so reluctantly because I have had to oppose other
amendments by other colleagues from Pennsylvania, but really for the
same reasons that we have discussed earlier here, and that is that this
is not a retroactive bill. It would not affect existing child support
legislation, nor will it, in fact, affect any reauthorization of child
support legislation unless it rises to a new mandate imposed in some
reauthorization that would increase the cost by over $50 billion. But I
think the other thing is that, even if what we are talking about here
is getting good cost analysis of what it is going to cost to implement
any new mandates, then I think we have to recognize there are three
possibilities that can occur once that determination is made, and that
is we can, in fact, elect to pay for the mandate and thus relieve the
local government from that burden, we can elect to pass that mandate
through without paying for it, or, third, we can elect not to impose
the mandate at all.

{time} 1350

Now, I think the implication in a lot of the amendments that have
been offered is that we would in every case elect not to pass the
mandate through, and therefore there would be great gaping holes in the
social contract and the safety net would be destroyed. But I would
submit to the gentleman that there is almost no likelihood that we are
going to refuse to pass a mandate that is going to affect the
livelihood and well-being of children. That is just not going to be in
the cards.
So I come back that the primary purpose of this is to ensure we have
a real understanding of what the costs of our actions are.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak about this issue of child support
enforcement as it relates, or actually does not relate, to today's
discussion about Federal mandates. Again, I have great admiration for
the sponsors of this amendment and I know about their commitment to
child support enforcement, and I believe in that too.
Mr. Chairman, as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's
Issues, I have been working with my colleagues--particularly
Representatives Johnson, Roukema, Kennelly, Norton, and others--to
fashion comprehensive legislation to strengthen our Nation's flimsy
child support enforcement laws. In the forthcoming days, we will
introduce our legislation--the Child Support Responsibility Act of
1995--whcih will be considered on a parallel track with welfare reform.
In the area of child support enforcement, Mr. Chairman, you may be
surprised to learn that States have specifically asked for a mandate.
They want the Federal Government to require all States to play by the
same rules--to give full faith and credit to each other's child support
orders; to require cooperation among squabbling State agencies; and to
unify the random patchwork of State laws that make interstate
enforcement incredibly difficult, often impossible.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, States want Federal funding for a unifying
child support system, and our bill provides it. Our legislation
provides the Federal resources that States will need in order to make
child support enforcement laws across the Nation work. Under the Child
Support Responsibility Act of 1995, the Federal Government more than
lives up to its financial obligation to the States.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that today's amendment on
this subject is either necessary or appropriate. While I will always
work to protect our Nation's child support enforcement program, it is
clear to me that H.R. 5 already exempts Federal obligations that are
funded--of which child support enforcement legislation is certainly
one--and that any effort to exempt a funded program from what is
supposed to be an unfunded mandates bill is illogical.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that with
the welfare reform debate we have before us there will be emphasis on
child support collection in order to have welfare reform in the first
place. It may put an additional burden on States beyond what they are
expected to do right now. And our goal is that we protect that, so that
there will be no unfunded mandate provisions that prevent us from going
further with welfare reform and child support.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but
I would tell the gentlewoman that this bill as presently drafted would
not in any way inhibit that possibility from happening. What it does
provide is we would have a better idea of what the costs might be. It
would not preclude that. To say that this should be somehow exempt as
we have declined to exempt other areas I think would not be
appropriate.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, you
said ``we are almost certain that it will not do this.'' I want to be
certain.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire time, but I think what is
happening here is we have an honest disagreement on where in fact
welfare and child support enforcement come into being as we move
forward in welfare support. And I think that is exactly what the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara] and myself are trying to do, is have a
clarification that in a program that we all agree on, child support
enforcement, both sides of the aisle, it is one of those very good
issues that is nonpartisan, and what we are saying here this afternoon
is that we would like a clarification that child support enforcement
would be exempt from this bill.
We have heard so much about welfare reform in this Capitol and across
this country these last few months. Yet what we have not heard as much
about, maybe because we all agree on it, is child support enforcement,
which is a welfare prevention bill in fact. I fear
[[Page H831]] without this amendment we could reform in exactly the
wrong direction for child support enforcement.
As we know, child support enforcement is part of Aid for Families
with Dependent Children. Aid for Families with Dependent Children is a
volunteer program, even though all states take part in it. If a state
does participate in a program, it has to have a child support
enforcement agency as part of the program. Then the Federal Government
does in fact pay not the full costs of the enforcement; it pays 66
percent.
Mr. Chairman, what has happened over the last few years is that
people have been working on making this a better program and we have
got to the point where we can collect 4 dollars for every dollar spent,
which certainly is a good investment on dollars, but it only goes
halfway in solving the problems, because the fact of the matter is $34
billion remains uncollected. This means the custodial parents do not
get their payment from the absent parent. So making child support
enforcement subject to this legislation does not make good economic
sense, and that is why we are asking for the clarification, because
this program is optional, the Federal Government already pays the
majority of its costs, as I said 66 percent, and it does have that
proven record. But to the extent this legislation would allow states to
stop the impetus, the progress, the efforts that have been made to keep
child support enforcement up there where it belongs as a priority
program, not at the bottom of the docket, not at the end of the line,
not out of the vision of the Government, where it has come at this
point is for it to be an upfront program, and we are afraid if we take
off that impetus or impair it by putting it into this unfunded mandate
situation, that just as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]
said, there is that possibility that once again this very important
program that we all agree is a good program goes to the bottom of the
barrel.
And it is so true that so many of us have worked on this. The
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and I were on the Interstate
Commission on Child Support Enforcement together. We then introduced
legislation implementing many of the recommendations of the commission.
Therefore, we got to the point where we all know interstate enforcement
of child support is a difficult nut to crack. And this is why we are
saying, be very, very careful not to put this into the unfunded mandate
bill, to keep it as a Federal program, because there is no way we are
going to get those missing parents to step forward when they have gone
across state lines. So all we are urging today is a clarification about
child support enforcement, merely saying do not include it in this very
large bill, leave it where it is, we are making progress, we want to
continue making progress, and we ask this not be in the unfunded
mandate program.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that a rhythm has developed here with
Republicans voting one way by rote, Democrats perhaps voting another,
and I recognize we have come forward with our most favorite issues and
I confess and concede that this is one of mine. But the gravamen of my
argument does not have to do with the substance and the considerable
merits of this issue.
I am aware that no issue has more bipartisan support, perhaps, in the
104th Congress than collecting child support from deadbeat parents. For
the women of the Congress especially, there has been painstaking,
grueling work that is going to culminate, hopefully next week, in the
introduction of the Child Support Responsibility Act, which indeed will
create a new mandate.
But I am not at the moment arguing the merits, the very considerable
merits, here. I myself put in an amendment and support this amendment,
which is even more inclusive than my own. But, Mr. Chairman, as a
technical matter, child support does not fit the framework of this
bill.

{time} 1400

Child support is, in our country, exclusively a matter of family law
or State law. The unfunded mandate in this case is on the Federal
Government to help the States with a State law function, collecting
child support from their own citizens to pay to support their own
children. This is not Federal law. This is not a Federal function. So
why are we now, and will we in the new Child Support Act, be in it at
all?
What we have discovered now, after decades of experience, is that the
States cannot perform the State function well without the Federal
Government, not the other way around, which is what we have been
talking about, almost entirely, when we have heard other amendments.
We now, if we vote against this amendment, are voting where the
perverse result of the bill before us would be to allow a vote on
whether States should carry out and continue to carry out the State
functions of collecting child support.
Think about it: that does not fit this bill and that is why it should
not be in this bill.
We, in the child support bill, will be talking about State policy
being carried out
through the Federal Government. The Federal obligation is the one that
is supplementary. The Federal obligation is the one that is an unfunded
mandate.

Indeed, we have been doing our part with such a mandate all along,
providing matching funds and incentive payments to the States to
strengthen their own enforcement and increase collections.
Unfortunately, this has not worked well enough. And so we ourselves
appointed this Interstate Child Support Commission, because this is an
interstate matter, and this is the essence of federalism.
This matter, my colleagues, cannot work unless each of us accepts an
unfunded mandate, the States and the Federal Government. Our own
Commission, where the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] has
just told you she served, said, and I am quoting the Commission, ``In
order to create seamless case processing, some of our recommendations
by necessity apply to both intrastate and interstate cases.''
As it turns out, most of these are in fact interstate cases, and even
those cases will get nowhere, will fall of their own weight, unless
each accepts willingly his own part of the mandate, yes, mandate.
The problem is so serious and remedies have been so illusive that our
own Interstate Commission considered having the whole kit and caboodle
federalized, but then they said, ``wait a minute, this is State stuff.
This is family law. We do not want the Federal Government taking it
over.''
Instead, they said, let us have a standardized, State-based system to
enable these matters to move across State lines. The Commission said
that the State boundaries were inherent limitations on collecting child
support.
We have to recognize, my colleagues, that child support is different
from every other function we have been discussing here. It is rare,
indeed, for the Federal Government to insert itself into a State
function, but we have done so before and we will do so again, when our
bill is introduced by next week.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia [Ms. Norton] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Norton was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Ms. NORTON. By definition, this area requires a State mandate funded
by the State. We certainly would not want to take over State child
collection, to do its still-mandated function of collecting support
payments from its own citizens to support its own children.
Even considering for this, I say to the distinguished chairman, as an
informational matter to come up for a vote is positively dangerous. The
States will sit there and say, ``hey, wait a minute, maybe we will not
even have to pay for what we are paying for it they vote that this is
an unfunded mandate.''
At the very least, it sends a contradictory message to the States
where we are trying now to say, ``hey, more, more, take your mandate
more seriously.'' Now we are voting on whether or not they ought to
have a mandate at all.
The Child Support Responsibility Act to be introduced next week, Mr.
Chairman, is close to a sacred congressional promise already. Please,
do not take back the promise to collect support
[[Page H832]] from deadbeat parents before the legislation is even
introduced.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have the utmost respect for
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on
which I serve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. But as a county
commissioner for a lot of years, the responsibility of collecting
support payments rested right at home in county government in
Washington, PA. As I said earlier, I think we have done an excellent
job in collecting these support payments.
And I have no axe to grind with the other side of the aisle. I just
want them to understand the importance of this particular amendment.
To me, it would seem that it is a legislative oxymoron on the one
hand to say that we are going to engage in the debate on welfare reform
and, on the other hand, change the system that I think is working very
well.
As I indicated earlier, we are collecting payments, keeping people
off the welfare by running a good system.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that I am a
staunch supporter of the support enforcement system. We must collect
every last dollar possible from delinquent parents. Doing so keeps
families together. It gives the remaining parent a real chance to raise
children, to go to school, to find a decent job. Support enforcement is
one Federal program that works. It works and it works well.
For every dollar spent on enforcement, the Government collects $4 in
support payments. By collecting these support payments, the Government
helps keep people off of welfare and helps to pay for those who are on
welfare. By collecting these payments, we are saving billions of
dollars each year. Let us support real family values. Let us not tie
this important effort up in knots.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I just want to be very brief and say to my friend from Pennsylvania
that I was a county commissioner as well. This is one program where the
States actually make money. Currently, this bill will in no way
preclude the current system. It is not in jeopardy at all. This would
apply to future efforts by the Federal Government to send the bill for
these programs of course down to the State and local governments.
I believe this should be a partnership. I think the Federal
Government needs to be involved in this. I agree with the gentleman on
this. I do not think that we should let any of these dollars go
uncollected.
But I also believe that we should have this cost in front of us
before we send new mandates to the State and local governments. That is
all we are asking for. It is for that reason that I oppose this
amendment, but certainly share the same concerns for collecting these
costs, which total into the billions of dollars across this country,
and hope that we can join in perhaps another way, when waiving a point
of order or having a dialog with the State and local governments, as
future issues of this sort come before this Congress.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by Representatives Mascara, Woolsey, and Kennelly to exempt
laws and regulations pertaining to the collection of child support
payments from the provisions of the bill before us today.
One-fifth of America's children live in poverty. In part, this is
because the structure of the American family has changed dramatically
in recent years. According to the Children's Defense Fund, in 1992,
one-fourth of American children lived in homes where only one of their
parents was present; this represents an increase from only one-tenth of
all children in 1959. Unfortunately, the financial consequences of
living with only one parent are equally dramatic: Half of all children
living in single parent homes are poor, as compared to about 10 percent
of children living in two-parent households. Thus, children who live
with only one parent are five times as likely to be poor as children
who are living with both parents.
The sharply higher rate of poverty among children living in single-
parent homes is largely due to the fact that too many deadbeat dads do
not contribute to the cost of raising their children. According to the
Census Bureau, less than 60 percent of mothers who have custody of
their children have child support orders, and of those who do have
orders in place, half receive only part of the allotted amount of
support or none at all. As a result, according to one study, within the
first year after the father leaves a low- or moderate-income household,
mothers report that 32 percent of their children go without food, 55
percent lack health care, and 37 percent do not have proper clothing.
In short, because so many noncustodial parents are shirking their
financial obligations, their children are going to school hungry and
failing to receive the health care and clothing they need.
As long as deadbeat dads can escape their responsibilities to their
children by simply picking up and leaving a State, we cannot solve this
problem. We must track down more deadbeat dads--even when they cross
State lines--and force them live up to the financial obligations they
have to their children. I believe that this amendment protects our
ability to do this, and I urge you to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Mascara].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that it would be
my intention to have the committee rise at the conclusion of this vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 259, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No 55]

AYES--158

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--259

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
[[Page H833]] Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--17

Bereuter
Bishop
Bliley
Borski
Brown (CA)
DeLay
Deutsch
Fields (LA)
Fowler
Hinchey
Jefferson
Johnston
Pombo
Roukema
Rush
Stupak
Thornton

{time} 1428

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Deutsch for, with Mr. DeLay against.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, PETERSON of Florida, HILLIARD, and
MURTHA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.

{time} 1430

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goss) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Emerson, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the
practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local
governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs
incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements
under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on
the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________