Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I hope I do not leave the impression of a class-warfare issue, because I could go to the other side. I would predict under the present act, if it goes into effect as it does now, you will see billions of dollars of construction activity come to a grinding halt until the people that are making that investment are certain as to what the status of the law, the rule or regulation will be.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, what I am showing the gentleman is partiality and reasonableness. Does he know of any of his constituents on an average basis that can afford legal counsel of $50,000 to $100,000 to attack the efficacy of a rule?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, is the discussion on the floor germane to the amendment or not germane to the amendment, and should it not be included in some other aspect of the transaction occurring today? I was kind enough on my side to yield to the other side to have a discussion. I thought the remainder of the time of my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], would be either used on my amendment, or the gentleman would afford me the opportunity to discuss some of the pertinent facts relevant to my amendment. But now I see nongermane material is being discussed here.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I am going to the essence of what the moratorium is all about. Are we attempting to have a moratorium and freeze until you have an opportunity to examine what may be misused and abused, or are you using the moratorium to freeze Government and deny average people the rights of judicial review, but allow large corporate entities to spend the money and to take the actions to frustrate this Government, and not only frustrate this Government, but to frustrate the rights of average American people who cannot afford the legal price to pay to go to litigation.

Mr. KANJORSKI. What it says in simple language, maybe I cannot read it right, this prohibition shall not affect any private right of action or remedy otherwise available under any other law. The Administrative Procedures Act allowed people to go for judicial review to attack every other law and every law, and this is every law, and therefore they come in and have the same rights that they have.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No, you are going beyond that, so that I may answer you. You are reserving a right of action that is based on this statute, if the APA rules are the vehicle to bring that action. So you are accomplishing nothing by the first sentence, it does not even matter being there, because the second sentence becomes controlling, and everybody who could attack this and would be denied that right under the first sentence of the act, has the right under the second sentence if they proceed under Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time, I am taking away the advantage that wealthy individuals and corporations in this society would have to stop the progress and protection of our people, whereas average Americans could never assume their rights under the APA. I think it goes to the essence of what this act is all about, and maybe it extends beyond this act and goes to what we are here for this first 100 days, it is all about. It is a tremendous shift of power, to give the wealthiest elements and corporations of our society a special seat in government, a special opportunity in litigation, to frustrate the protections and the needs of average Americans. You bet your life I think that is the problem.

Mr. KANJORSKI. There is no process to ignore it? No. You can just tell the Secretary.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman, with the understanding that we will trade time back in the future.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to and perhaps engage with the gentleman. I think the gentleman is suggesting that rulemaking authority, as passed in statute by this body, has no way of a check and balance operating, and I suggest that most authorizing legislation authorizes a Cabinet-officer-level individual. The secretary shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations so that any agency that would come under the umbrella, and most of them do, of a Cabinet officer would subject that Cabinet officer to impeachment from office if he violated the clear intent of Congress as expressed by this legislation. We are not crippling this legislation. What we are basically doing is taking out the second sentence of section 7 because that is the devil in the details. The gentleman said that the purpose of section 7, and he read it, that no right of action may be brought against any Federal agency for violation of this act. That is a great sentence, and if that were the only sentence, I would have no problem with that. But the next sentence says ``This prohibition shall not affect any right of action or remedy otherwise available under any other law,'' which is the Administrative Procedures Act of the United States. So individuals do have actions and rights of actions under the Administrative Procedures Act, so therefore the second sentence really vitiates the expressed intent in the first sentence, and using the description of legislative language, the second sentence becomes controlling of the first sentence. So very clearly we can have actions that exist under the Administrative Procedures Act, will exist in this act and be able to be used to attack all future rules and regulations. Let me tell you how serious it is. The seriousness is in rulemaking as it is described. We are just thinking we are attacking things already out there. This legislation defines rulemaking. The term ``rulemaking'' means any agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule. It means that if your constituent or mine who finds a commentary period and expresses their feelings on a rule or regulation and sends that in, if the agency opens that commentary, they have violated the rulemaking procedure of this House, and it could not only cause them difficulty under this act, it could vitiate that rule and the subsequent value or efficacy of that rule in the future. We are really muzzling, gagging, the American people, interested people in legislation, Members of Congress. If I send a letter to an agency about the fact that I do not think the rule or regulation should be effective the way it is, and that agency opens my letter, under this basis that is formulating, amending, or repealing and taking an agency process to do that, and they are in violation of the statute. And under the APA section under judicial review, that process could be knocked out, the rule itself could be knocked out in the moratorium period of time, and thereafter if the moratorium leaves a ``no other actions taken of that process'' during the moratorium period of that time.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Mr. Dale A. Duncan, the Boy Scout's 1995 Distinguished Citizen. A dinner in Mr. Duncan's honor is being held on February 23 in Wilkes-Barre. Mr. Duncan has served as the president and publisher of the Times Leader, one of Wilkes-Barre's daily papers. He began with the Times Leader in 1980 as the city editor, worked as executive editor in 1984, until his ascension to publisher in 1986. Through his work at the paper, Dale has been active in the community, including organizing the annual Times Leader/Boy Scout gold tournament and the paper's ``Book of Dreams'' community service drive. He also serves on the boards of the F.M. Kirby Center for Performing Arts, the Salvation Army, the United Ways of Wyoming Valley, the Greater Wilkes- Barre Partnership, and he serves as the chairman of the Diversity Committee for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers' Association. Dale is also a member of the Wilkes-Barre East Rotary Club and the Church of Christ Uniting in Kingston. Dale graduated with a degree in journalism from Central Michigan University and worked as a reporter for several newspapers. This month Dale returned to his home State to become group executive and president of the Oakland Press in Pontiac, MI. Under Dale's leadership, the Times Leader certainly worked hard to keep me on my toes in the grand tradition of a free press, and I will miss his thought-provoking critiques. Dale and I have not always agreed politically and philosophically, but I have always enjoyed having the opportunity to discuss our views with one another openly and with mutual respect. Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scouts honor someone each year who has exemplified the scouting ideal of participating citizenship. As one can see from his long list of accomplishments and various memberships, Dale Duncan is certainly an appropriate honoree for the 1995 award. I am pleased to join the Boy Scouts in recognizing him for his community and civic work.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. I indicated about 2 weeks ago on the floor that I do not think there is going to be any surprise that the majority entertains a majority of approximately 240 votes more or less, and that all of the legislation the majority wishes to adopt in the House of Representatives will be able to be completed and concluded to its intentions. It seems to me that rather than now interfere with our relationship and our communications with our constituents, since the debate process really is not for the purposes of communicating with our constituents, or educating our constituents or ourselves for that matter, why do we not just move along with the 100-day contract over the next 2 weeks, bring it in under an hour closed rule and have it adopted so that we can get this foolishness out of the way and get on to the serious substantial business of the House of Representatives.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Just a final request.

Mr. KANJORSKI. That is not quite the Shermanesque statement I had hoped to get from the majority leader. It seems to me the majority leader is saying that the 100 days is more important than allowing the membership to communicate with our constituents. We have given up the thought process in the House, we have given up our deliberative activity in the House. I do not think it is fair to the American people or the traditions of this institution to give up the ability to communicate with our constituents on weekends. Is there some magic in this 100 days that we could not continue and not have a 3-week break in April, and make it a 2-week break or a 1- week break so that we could continue over the period of March and April to communicate with our constituents?

Mr. KANJORSKI. For purpose of inquiry to the majority leader, Mr. Leader, as you know last week I expressed my great concern about having markups on very important bills in the committee and having amendments on the floor to legislation going at the same time and I felt that we were losing the benefit of the deliberative nature of the House of Representatives. I have conceded as I have indicated before that we will probably suffer that as long as we are under the constraints to accomplish something for public relations over 100 days as opposed to substantive legislative purposes. Knowing that to be the case, however, the rumors circulating in the House, it is the intention of the majority to interfere with what I call communications of representatives with their district, in that you intend to hold the House in session on Saturdays during the month of March. Is that correct?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Family Service Association of Wyoming Valley. I am pleased to join with the community in commending the professionals involved in this vital social service agency for 100 years of caring for those in need. In 1895, a meeting was held at St. Stephen's Church in Wilkes-Barre in an effort to consolidate charity organizations in the area. The Charity Organization Society of Wilkes-Barre was formed, with George Riddle Wright as its first president. Membership dues were $1. A year later, the group changed its name to United Charities Society, calling it a refuge for the poor, and it undertook the task of feeding and housing the homeless. Moneys were raised by sending donation forms home with school children, a method which was the predecessor to the fair share pledge system used today by the United Way. A building was renovated to be used as its headquarters, and by 1914, electric lights were installed. By this time, the agency was providing lodging for women and children awaiting trial and, at the request of the county commissioners, added a room for wayward women. In the early 1990's, the agency also obtained work for the unemployed, found foster homes for orphans, and actually oversaw the humane treatment of animals and the proper shoeing of horses. The influenza epidemic of 1918 brought normal operations to a near standstill and the floors of the building were literally lined with the ill and dying. Hundreds of children were orphaned. Over the following years, the agency provided almost every social service to those in need. When the Children's Service Center was formed in 1938, the agency was left with the family as its primary concern. In 1941, the agency became known as the Family Service Association. They moved into new quarters and began providing professional counseling services for members of the community, regardless of economic status. Mr. Speaker, when the Susquehanna River spilled her banks following Hurricane Agnes in 1972, the need became clear for a central phone number where any and all information could be obtained. Family Services undertook this task and a 24-hour hotline was initiated. Now called Help Line, this division of Family Services handles more than 40,000 phone calls annually. The agency extended its services many times in the following years and today provides family education, assistance, and counseling to thousands each year. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania have a strong tradition of taking care of each other. From the very beginning, the community has joined together to help those less fortunate and those in need. The Family Service Association today employs the finest professional staff and is funded entirely by donations and foundation sources. This is a true example of the humanity of the American people and I send my sincere appreciation and congratulations to the board of trustees, directors, and the outstanding staff of this historic agency on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize the sesquicentennial of the Temple B'nai B'rith of Wilkes-Barre. I am pleased to join in the celebration commemorating the congregation's 150 years of leadership and community participation in the Wyoming Valley. Although historical records cannot determine the exact organizational beginning of the temple, it is known that the first Jewish families emigrated to the Wyoming Valley as early as the 1830's. Because the records show its founding to be somewhere between 1840 and 1848, B'nai B'rith has chosen to observe its founding year as 1845. With the support of all denominations, the first temple was erected in Wilkes- Barre and dedicated in 1884. It was northeastern Pennsylvania's first permanent synagogue. An orthodox temple until 1860, the B'nai B'rith became a pioneer in reform Judaism in the United States. In 1960, a new temple was built across the river in Kingston with modern architecture and furnishings. In 1972, along with most of the Wyoming Valley, the building was devastated by the floods of Hurricane Agnes. The sanctuary was filled with more than 8 feet of water. Many irreplaceable records and objects were lost. Luckily, temple members saved the sacred Torahs just before the Susquehanna River spilled its banks. As was the case throughout the Wyoming Valley following the disaster, the community joined together and helped rebuild and refurbish the temple. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the ecumenical unity and spirit which has become a tradition in northeastern Pennsylvania. B'nai B'rith is an active participant in the many interfaith projects which promote the understanding and tolerance for which our area is known. As we pay tribute to B'nai B'rith's founders during this celebration, we also pay tribute to its 275 families who continue to strengthen the tradition of Reform Judaism and who play an active role in the ecumenical spirit and community in the Wyoming Valley.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Let us talk about the facts and the figures that have been discussed.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KANJORSKI. OK, let us stop there, reclaiming my time. Let us go through the discussion. I will recall my time and respond to that. I know that the gentleman came here with that intention or that thought process. What I am indicating to him, unfortunately the facts of the economic history of the United States do not bear out this case. Now, if we are really going to talk about what we are doing and what the fault of the Government is, what the fault of the position of the United States is, there is nothing wrong with discussing the true facts and real facts in trying to resolve good policy for the United States to be fiscally responsible. We want to do that on our side of the aisle, you want to do it your side of the aisle. But to constantly discuss grapefruits and grapes because we are talking about 1995 dollars and 1945 dollars or 1960 dollars and trying to lay down some indictment, as I have heard, 40 years of indictment; well, the 40 years that you are indicting, my friend, this side of the aisle presided over a 60-percent real reduction in the debt of the United States and it was only until the election of a President from your party back in 1980 that that was reversed, and it was reversed on a public relations gimmick. He promised the American people three facts and did not keep them.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No offense.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I am happy to, but I would appreciate that we not get a personal attack because, quite frankly, I enjoy the individual as he represents his State and his constituents, and I think the comity of the House is that we rise here not for personal purposes or political purposes, but to do the people's business. As long as we talk in terms of doing the people's business, I am very happy to yield to my friend.