I think the gentleman has some merit with this, although the experience on this legislation with unfunded mandates, as it pertains to State and local government, has not raised the specter of problems that the gentleman from New York suggests in his comments here where we have had the opportunities, through amendment, to raise these objections. I think over a total of five times this was raised in the last Congress, and it has not been dilatory, has not deprived this body of the opportunity to debate fully the merits and allow the House to debate the particular mandate on the merits. The theory of this bill, the actual practice we have seen in the unfunded mandates bill that has worked well, is to give committees an incentive to do their work up front before bills ever reach the floor. By making points of order not apply to amendments sends the message that it is all well and good to do the work on the floor and not in the committee. That is a concern. I think the gentleman does raise some interesting points that have intrigued me, that, should we accept this amendment, that in point of fact in a number of instances we might be able to have a more full and straightforward debate on the amendment. The question is, if this is a gutting amendment, which is what I am afraid the gentleman is indicating to me, I would be prone to be against it.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of unfunded mandates legislation during House debate.
Share
More from Hon. Thomas M. Davis
Just a few years ago, the District of Columbia government faced a financial crisis of epic proportions. That situation was so severe that the District could not deliver basic services, and there was a very real concern that it would run…
I wanted to pay tribute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and his contribution to this House just in the short time I have been here. First elected in 1984, an article in the Texas Observer called him one of the Texas 6-packs that…
this has been a good team effort. I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is here, as well and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has also been very active in this. Some Members oppose this because they think this is going…
This legislation, S. 550, increases the total number of judgeships on the Superior Court from 58 to 61. In response to reports of abuse and neglect in child family services cases pending in the D.C. Superior Court in 2001, Congress created…





