[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE NEED FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE HOUSE IN PRACTICE, NOT JUST IN THEORY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in many months of
considering closed rules democracy has won in the House of
Representatives. The vote of 191 for and 227 against the rule to
consider the elevation of the Environmental Protection Agency to
Cabinet status is a sign that sometimes the majority is willing to
liberate this Chamber. As I said earlier today, America and we need to
wake up.
The people's house is not the people's house. By a 9 Democrats to a 4
Republicans party vote, a rule can be drafted which, if adopted, can
prevent this House of Representatives, which has always been elected by
the people, from freely working its will on behalf of the people. The
average citizen thinks it is simply a matter of procedure. It is not.
It is a procedure which denies us the right to do what you, the
American people, want us to do. You want us to use our judgment in your
behalf to decide, yea or nay, what is good public policy on issues
which affect your lives.
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3425, the legislation to
redesignate the Environmental Protection Agency as a Department of
Environmental Protection. That function would now have Cabinet status.
The Secretary of the Department could at last see the President eye-to-
eye.
I favored this proposal for years. In fact, I favored it years before
President Bush recommended it, and before President Clinton agreed and
re-recommended it.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a name change. What we will have
before us, and the 84-page committee report confirms it, deals with
much more than a simple name change.
Besides authorizing 14 or more Presidential appointees, this
legislation will create a Bureau of Environmental Statistics. I support
that. It will also create a Bureau of Environmental Justice. I support
that. The Director will be nominated by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, as other Presidential appointees are. That would be the
15th Presidential appointee.
The Secretary of the department is directed to establish an Office of
Environmental Risk. That Director would be appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. That would be the 16th Presidential
appointee.
But then comes the Committee on Rules, where its majority sought to
deny this Chamber the right to statutorily create a risk assessment and
cost-benefit analysis unit. As we heard throughout the debate earlier
today, if anything is needed in this new Department, as it has been
needed in this old agency, it is risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis. Prior to promulgating rules which affect every single
American and every business in this Nation, the Secretary of the
Department should know the full impact of an environmental policy on
our country, our economy, and our citizens.
The Senate adopted the approach we are talking about, the Thurman-
Mica approach, by a vote of 95-3. Yet the Committee on Rules sought to
deny 435 elected representatives of the people an opportunity to vote
up or down what the Senate overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, adopted.
Except for today, this House, the people's House, has been prevented
hundreds of times in recent years the right to vote up or down clear
issues of public policy.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a table which shows the
increasing hold of the Committee on Rules on this Chamber. Let us vote
on the relevant policy issues when there are policy issues in the bill.
That is what the people expect. That is what we have been denied, until
this afternoon. Not since 1910 and Czar Joseph Cannon, as he was
affectionately and not so affectionately called, have we had so many
restrictive and often closed rules. Cannon, who ruled this Chamber with
an iron fist, was overthrown that year and not since 1910 has this
Chamber been so limited in its options as it has been this past year.
We have a collective autocracy, and we have a chance, with this
precedent, if those in the majority are willing to scrutinize these
rules and realize that when the minority has its rights denied
ultimately it will affect those in the majority. We have a chance to
clean up this antidemocratic situation. But until we change that
lopsided majority of the Committee on Rules back to what it was between
1910 and roughly 1970, when the party ratios on that committee more
clearly reflected the ratio in the Chamber as a whole, this Chamber
will never be free. We will never be free until we have a Committee on
Rules that can make these judgments independent of what the majority
party leadership wants, and act on behalf of this House, which they
clearly misgauged today. The Committee on Rules must act on behalf of
the American people. That is what is important.
Wake up, America. Keep track of the procedure. Too often a rule is
adopted which hides the issues and prevents their consideration. When
that happens our democracy is in danger.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES, 95TH-103D CONGRESSES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules\2\ Restrictive rules\3\
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent Number Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)........................................... 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)........................................... 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)........................................... 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)........................................... 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)........................................... 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88).......................................... 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90).......................................... 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)........................................... 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)........................................... 50 12 24 38 76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration of
legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not
counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with the rules of
the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules,
as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical
percentages are restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Congresses; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d Congress,
through Nov. 17, 1993.
____________________