[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION TO THE CRIME BILL RULE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, it is utter nonsense to say that all of 
those who voted against the rule on the crime bill yesterday afternoon 
put the interests of the powerful National Rifle Association above 
those of their constituents. Yet, that is what some who are uninformed 
are saying.
  This Member happened to campaign for a ban against assault rifles. 
This Member voted for a ban against assault rifles. This Member will 
again vote for a ban against assault rifles when the conference report 
on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 properly 
comes before this Chamber.
  What bothered a number of us, Madam Speaker, was the arrogance and 
the misuse of the rules which was involved in the rule that preceded 
yesterday's conference report. It violated what this Chamber is all 
about; that is, a Chamber that seeks to reflect the people's will.
  The minority is tired of having proposals brought in here that you 
cannot read in time, that are rammed down our throat with some pseudo 
sense of urgency. Of course there is urgency about crime. We see it, 
those of us from urban America. But where was the sense of urgency when 
this was happening 2, 3 years ago, months ago, et cetera?
  The conference committee certainly took its time. They finished in 
late July. On the Republican side, we did not get the printed report 
with the agreed measure to be submitted to the Senate and the House, 
and then to the President, until 3:20 p.m. yesterday afternoon. We 
voted at about 5 p.m.
  The conference report contained hundreds of pages, many of which had 
never been considered by the Senate or the House. They were add-ons put 
in by the Democratic majority in that conference committee.
  What particularly concerned us, Madam Speaker, is when the very able 
and powerful chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary went before the 
Committee on Rules and was specifically asked to identify where were 
the point of order problems. That means where were the activities, 
programs, legal language, et cetera in the bill that violated existing 
House rules in the final reconciled version submitted by the conferees.
  He refused to answer that question. He said he was not sure he knew, 
and then he said even if he did know, he would not tell them since it 
might be used against the bill on the floor. The Committee on Rules is 
an agent of the House of Representatives. When you insult our agent, 
you also insult our House. It is tragic that the nine member Democratic 
majority of that committee did not pursue what the four member 
Republican minority sought.
  When a committee chairman seeks to waive the House rules prior to 
consideration of a bill, the members of the Committee on Rules are 
entitled to know what it is that they are waiving. To the average 
citizen, this might sound complicated, but if the Members do not know 
what they are voting on, how can they possibly reflect the will of the 
people? It is the people to whom we are responsible. We are not 
responsible to a chairman, we are not responsible to a committee, we 
are responsible to the people, and to civility and following the rules 
of this Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, when we swear and take an oath on opening day to 
support the Constitution of the United States, that includes the rules 
of the House of Representatives, pursuant to that Constitution. I 
suspect some rules we have here such as the ``King of the Hill'' rule 
and other modern creations which prevent the process should be 
challenged in court. Certainly the founders would never have dreamed 
them up.
  The timing of the vote violated the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, in that the 443-page conference report was not available to 
Members of the House 3 days ahead of its consideration. That situation 
is intolerable. That is why the chairman of Judiciary sought a waiver 
of the rules.
  In addition, on another subject related to the crime bill, I am 
informed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the author of 
many of the Republican anticrime bills, and the most knowledgeable 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, that when the anticrime bill 
left the Senate, it left at a price tag of $22 billion.
  When it left the House, it left at a price tag of $26 billion. When 
it was done with by the Senate and House conferees who prepared the 
conference report which contained the final version of the proposed 
law, the price tag had increased to $33 billion. That is an $11 billion 
increase! That amount of an increase has seldom been seen.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, items were added in conference, as I 
noted, which had never been in either bill. They came as a surprise to 
the Republican members in the conference if they were ever consulted. 
The Representatives in the House, each of us elected by the people, 
have a right to know what is in the legislation before them.
  Besides great changes in the amount of money involved, there were 
vital matters of substance, which were drastically changed.
  Items which had been passed by both the House and the Senate by 
overwhelming votes were simply thrown on the cutting room floor.
  One example was offered by our distinguished colleague, Susan 
Molinari, a Republican from New York. Her amendment would have changed 
the Federal rules of evidence to allow prosecutors in sexual assault 
and child molestation cases to introduce evidence that the defendant 
has committed similar crimes in the past. The Senate approved it by a 
vote of 75 to 19. The House supported it by a vote of 348 to 62 on a 
motion to instruct the House conferees to include this language in the 
final version of the proposed law.
  Similarly, the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington [Jennifer 
Dunn] also a Republican offered the Sexually Violent Predators Act. 
This amendment would notify communities when convicted sexual predators 
moved into their area, giving families warning that danger exists in 
their neighborhoods. The Senate had adopted the language unanimously. A 
motion to instruct the House conferees to support this language was 
adopted by the House by a vote of 407 to 13.
  Madam Speaker, with this type of disregard to the will of this House, 
when both of these important proposals were overwhelmingly approved by 
this Chamber, yet ended up littered on the cutting room floor, with no 
respect for the democratic process of this Chamber, I think many more 
should have voted against the rule than did.
  Last night I watched the press conferences held by several of the 
contesting parties to the issues involved in this legislation. I had a 
feeling that several of them should have had a good night's sleep 
before commenting on the defeat of the rule.
  If the Democratic majority in the next conference will get the 
message that not only Republicans but dozens of Democrats want to 
reduce the proposed legislation by several billion dollars in social 
programs which compete with already existing ones, then we will have a 
better bill.
  If the Democratic majority in the next conference will get the 
message that not only Republicans but dozens of Democrats want to 
restore the Federal rules of evidence re those who commit sexual 
assault and molest children to the language approved by both Houses, 
then we will have a better bill.
  If the President and the Democratic leadership in the House will wake 
up and accept the offer repeatedly made by the Republican whip and 
Republican leader to be Newt Gingrich to engage in bipartisan 
collaboration so that Republicans will participate in the takeoffs and 
not simply the crash landings, then we will have better public policy 
and a more united Congress and Nation. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] has made that offer ever since the successful collaboration 
we had on [NAFTA] the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Let us work together and we can adopt an effective anticrime bill and 
a sensible health care bill.
  Madame Speaker, I was particularly impressed with the comments of the 
ranking Republican on Judiciary when he spoke on the problems with the 
handling of this legislation. There are few members of this body more 
respected than the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. Hamilton Fish is 
dedicated to public service just as his family has been for almost two 
centuries. When he is upset, it is time for the House to listen to his 
thoughtful and wise comments.

       Mr. Fish. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. 
     This conference report contains provisions which I oppose 
     and, in addition, the conference committee deleted provisions 
     which I supported. However, my opposition to this rule is 
     based as much on procedural objections as it is on 
     substantive policy.
       As we all know, violent crime is a devastating national 
     problem. Violent crime has increased in this country over 23 
     percent since 1988. A violent crime is committed once every 
     22 seconds and a murder is committed once every 22 minutes. A 
     rape occurs every 5 minutes and a robbery every 47 seconds. 
     Over 70 percent of the violent crimes committed in our 
     country are committed by repeat offenders.
       These are not just statistics. The victims of these crimes 
     are real people--they are our constituents--and the ultimate 
     victim is society. The crime epidemic has brought with it the 
     pestilence of fear and Congress should address this complex 
     problem in a comprehensive, realistic and bipartisan way. 
     Whether we are Republicans or Democrats this is a national 
     crisis that we share and partisan politics should not 
     interfere with the best solutions.
       Back in March, following action in the House Judiciary 
     Committee on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994, I went before the Rules Committee urging that 
     certain key amendments be made in order. Those were 
     amendments put forward by the Republican members of our 
     Committee and reflected a number of very valid and valuable 
     approaches to the serious problem of crime we have in this 
     country.
       Unfortunately, when this legislation was brought to the 
     floor in April, several of my Republican colleagues were 
     prevented from offering amendments under a highly restrictive 
     rule. Still other Republican amendments were allowed but they 
     were subjected to a king-of-the-hill procedure that prevented 
     any real genuine opportunity for success.
       Subsequently, after the legislation was passed by the House 
     of Representatives, I appointed the four most senior 
     Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee to serve 
     on the conference committee on the Crime bill. For many weeks 
     and months, the conference committee did not meet. Republican 
     members were routinely excluded from closed door meetings 
     during this time period. Then, finally, when the conference 
     committee briefly convened, Republican Members were routinely 
     refused key documents and several significant Republican 
     amendments were dropped or weakened. Numerous Republican 
     proposals were defeated in conference through the utilization 
     of the proxy vote mechanism. Ultimately, none of the 
     Judiciary Republican conferees signed the conference report. 
     How could they approve a document which they had no part in 
     formulating?
       Furthermore, the conference report itself is a document 
     that has been conspicuous by its absence. As of yesterday 
     evening, the Members of this House did not have a complete, 
     final copy of the conference report. The conference version, 
     as I understand it, is almost four inches thick, it is over 
     1,000 pages long. How do we evaluate a major piece of 
     legislation that no one has been permitted to read?
       Mr. Speaker, I stand here as the Ranking Republican on the 
     House Judiciary Committee. The upcoming vote on the rule is a 
     procedural vote that must be evaluated in the light of these 
     events. The rules process goes to the very heart of our role 
     as legislators and our rights as Members of this House. I am 
     angered and dismayed about the manner in which Republican 
     Members have been denied their rightful role on this very 
     important public policy question.
       Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this rule because of the 
     tactics used by the Majority party--tactics which insult the 
     Republican Members of this House and the American citizens we 
     were elected to represent.

  Madam Speaker, I attach an excerpt from ``How Our Laws Are Made'' 
which has been prepared by the Congressional Research Service. It 
explains the role of the Committee on Rules.

                 X. Obtaining Consideration of Measures

       Obviously certain measures pending on the House and Union 
     Calendars are more important and urgent than others and it is 
     necessary to have a system permitting their consideration 
     ahead of those that do not require immediate action. Because 
     all measures are placed on those calendars in the order in 
     which they are reported to the House, the latest bill 
     reported would be the last to be taken up if the calendar 
     number alone were the determinating factor.


                          special resolutions

       To avoid delays and to provide some degree of selectivity 
     in the consideration of measures, it is possible to have them 
     taken up out of order by obtaining from the Committee on 
     Rules a special resolution or ``rule'' for their 
     consideration. That Committee, which is composed of majority 
     and minority Members but with a larger proportion of majority 
     Members than other committees, is specifically granted 
     jurisdiction over resolutions relating to the order of 
     business of the House. Usually the Chairman of the Committee 
     that has favorably reported the bill appears before the 
     Committee on Rules accompanied by the sponsor of the measure 
     and one or more Members of the Chairman's committee in 
     support of the request for a resolution providing for its 
     immediate consideration. If the Committee on Rules is 
     satisfied that the measure should be taken up it will report 
     a resolution reading substantially as follows with respect to 
     a bill on the Union Calendar:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
     for the consideration of the bill (H.R. ____) entitled, etc., 
     and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall continue not to exceed ____ hours, to be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on ____, the bill shall be read for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
     the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       If the measure is on the House Calendar the resolution 
     reads substantially as follows:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider the bill (H.R. ____) entitled, 
     etc., in the House.
       The resolution may waive points or order against the bill. 
     When it limits or prevents floor amendments, it is popularly 
     known as a ``closed rule''.

                          ____________________