Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. I certainly will yield.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the commensurate number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. One of the reasons I think we are having this debate on the floor today is the haste with which this legislation was written. Although Mr. Kasich came to the floor and indicated this bill would not be here except for the movement of this committee, I do not know, but I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] in previous Congresses have worked to provide for some coverage of unfunded mandates. I think most of the membership on the minority side of the aisle agree that we should do something on unfunded mandates. What I think is happening here is because of the drafting of this bill, we in the minority are trying to call the majority's attention to the fact that the loose drafting of this could work havoc on existing and future legislation that is unrealized or unrealizable at this time. One of the elements we are all talking about--and this is why it is important--first of all, let me say that this is not a bill that just hands out a procedural rule of the House here to make a point of order. If that is what we are doing, we could have amended the rules to accomplish that. We are passing a statute into the laws of the United States, one of which affects regulatory accountability and reform, as contained on page 16 of the bill. That provides certain mechanisms that can be undertaken by the public sector and the private sector if they feel the standards we are requiring in this bill have not been met by the Federal regulatory agencies. If we are dealing with the EPA or the Clean Water Act, any individual or any governmental entity can hire an attorney and ask for a Federal injunction and argue the case that they have not met the standards required under the statements that have to be laid out in the promulgation of rules and regulations which affect all types of legislation from clean water to clean air.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to insist or raise a point of order. However, I bring this to the attention of the Chair and to my colleagues on the other side. Some of the hesitancy to proceed as quickly as we are proceeding on this bill and others that are part of the Contract With America is the fear on the minority side that this haste may bring waste, that speed may bring poor legislation. There are many elements of the unfunded mandate bill which I think the long-term ramifications and the possibilities of working havoc on the judicial system and the regulations and rules presently existing in the United States could cause our constituents difficulty. I would urge that the majority, in consideration of the fact that we are not going to use this tactic to delay this debate, take into consideration that their rules must be applied on a day-to-day basis, because the majority is responsible for having passed this rule.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, it is clear that this bill could not proceed under its present rule; is that correct?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as a further parliamentary inquiry, the report accompanying H.R. 5, as reported from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House Report 104-1, part 2, lists many rollcall votes on amendments. On amendment 6, the report states that the committee defeated the amendment by a rollcall vote of 14 yes and 22 no. However, the tally sheet shows 35 members voting ``aye'' and 1 member voting ``nay''. Mr. Speaker, would a point of order under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI apply?

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the new rule in clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, adopted on January 4 of this year as the new rules of the House, each committee report must accurately reflect all rollcall votes on amendments in committee; is that correct?

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

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, may I just address the other side for a moment and say that we had a series of amendments. Many of them are very, very important. There is the possibility, as we move into the amendment phase of this bill, that there is going to be a move for cloture or limitation of debate. I hope we can have an agreement that, based on the new concept of an open rule, that the majority will not impose time restrictions on reasonable debate on the amendments to be offered.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I assume we can accept the chairman's word.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, just in closing I would like to say that I think this side, the minority, in fact, wants to cooperate with the majority side and have reasonable debate and discussion, so whatever the bill that finally comes out of the House of Representatives, we as Members of this [[Page H345]] Congress can be proud of it in its entirety.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Wilkes-Barre Center for Data Operations of the Social Security Administration. This facility provides employment for more than 1,000 residents in my district. Although the facility is now housed in a brand-new, state-of-the-art complex, this was not always the case. In the early 1980's, the Social Security Administration sought to consolidate and modernize its operations in Wilkes-Barre, which at that time were scattered about several buildings in the area. The operation needed more space and the possibility existed that the entire operation would leave northeastern Pennsylvania. After several setbacks in finding a location for a new facility, I testified before the Appropriations Committee on the need for funding a new building. In the fall of 1986, the House and Senate approved my amendment to provide funding for a brand new facility in the Wilkes- Barre area. For almost 2 years, problems were encountered in finding an appropriate site for the new facility. Then, in late 1988, I worked with Governor Robert Casey and State senators and representatives to draft legislation to sell 200 acres of land in Plains Township to the Greater Wilkes-Barre Industrial Fund which would convey 35 acres to the GSA for construction of the building. In the months to follow, GSA determined that the construction of the new facility would actually save more than $9 million over the life of the facility. More funding was appropriated for the project in 1990. In continued partnership between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Government, the appropriate State legislation was passed, and in late 1990, the legislation for the transfer of the land from the Commonwealth to the industrial fund was signed into law. In 1991, the site for the new building was announced to the public. Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my tenure in Congress came on November 29, 1993 when I joined Federal, State, and local officials in dedicating the new Social Security Center in Plains Township. Dedicating the facility signified the realization of a goal which I set when I was first elected to Congress. This new building assured the continued presence of the SSA in my district and secured more than 1,000 jobs for my constituents. The building stands today as a tribute to the work ethic of the people I serve. It is also a monument to the cooperation and partnership possible among the Federal, State, and local governments. I am extremely pleased to congratulate the WBDOC on its 50th anniversary and to have this opportunity to thank the Social Security Administration again for its continued faith in the people of northeastern Pennsylvania.