[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1650
 
     CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sangmeister). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman 
from California, [Mr. Brown] is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, if we stick to our calendar, 
Mr. Speaker, this distinguished legislative body has just three more 
working weeks in which to handle some of the most important legislative 
items of this session. Hopefully, these items will include six 
appropriations bills, campaign finance reform, GATT implementation 
legislation, telecommunications legislation, health care reform, and 
superfund reauthorization as well as our own House reform initiative.
  We can anticipate that these issues will be debated at great length 
and with some passion. That is as it should be. For all the pundits' 
criticisms of this body for its endless disputation, the fact is that 
we are charged with helping write the laws and set the direction for 
the governance of this great Nation. That is important work and its 
success should not be measured by how much legislation we pass or how 
quickly we can move a bill off the floor or how little discussion there 
is about the contents of a bill.
  All of us know this, and many of us spend a great deal of our time 
back in our districts trying to explain to our bosses--the citizens of 
this Nation--that when we debate and argue and disagree and, 
ultimately, compromise our differences, we are doing precisely what the 
drafters of the Constitution expected us to do and precisely what we 
are sent here to do. It is good and proper work, if slow and laborious.
  The alternative to lengthy debates would be to spend almost no time 
in passing legislation that spends our taxpayers' dollars, regulates 
our Nation's industries and sets new policy directions.
  Do any of us really believe that the Nation really wants us to make 
decisions about spending billions and billions of their dollars in just 
a few minutes and without complete information about the contents of 
the legislation that we endorse?
  This is supposed to be a deliberative body--which implies both that 
we should deliberate--consider, debate, discuss--and be deliberate--act 
with purpose, with intent. I believe our constituents would be 
justifiably outraged if they learned we were moving hundreds of 
billions of dollars in spending out the door of the House without 
meaningful debate or careful discussion.
  Yet that is just what we did almost a year ago in passing the 
conference report making fiscal year 1994 appropriations for the 
Department of Defense. That bill came back from conference to the Rules 
Committee at 5 p.m. on the evening of November 9 and was on the floor 
at 9 a.m. of November 10. Note that the House had been scheduled to 
come in at 9:30 a.m. and there was little notice of the earlier 
starting time.
  That bill contained 220 amendments and the statement of managers and 
conference report stretched across 312 typed pages. However, neither 
the amendments nor the statement of managers was made widely available 
to Members prior to passage--the Congressional Record containing the 
conference report was not available until noon--almost 3 hours after we 
had already passed the legislation.
  And the rule that came with the conference report waived all points 
of order against the bill. Such points of order are the best tool 
authorizers have to keep appropriations bills free of attempts to 
legislate. I believe that points of order should never be waived on 
appropriations bills and I hope that my colleagues will endorse this 
position as we move toward reforming the rules of the House in the next 
Congress.
  How much time was spent on the rule and conference report? About 15 
minutes and both the rule and conference report passed on a voice vote. 
As I said at the time, ``it is difficult to claim that we engage in 
informed legislative deliberation when we move legislation before 
Members have even had a chance to see its contents.''
  That DOD appropriation spent $240 billion in taxpayer dollars. It was 
the single largest appropriation bill we considered and represents 48 
percent of Federal discretionary spending. But we moved it in 15 
minutes. That works out to about $16 billion for every minute of 
consideration.
  Some observers might ask whether last year's debate on the DOD 
appropriation wasn't just a fluke driven by the rush of Members to 
finish up business and get out of town. That is a reasonable question 
and I can provide a reasonable answer: No, it was not a fluke. Earlier 
this year we spent just 30 minutes considering the House DOD 
appropriation, 15 minutes of which were on a roll call vote on passage, 
for a bill which again contained $240 billion in spending.
  Some of our colleagues who happened to be on the floor at the time 
can testify that every effort was made to prevent a more extensive 
debate, block opposition, and slip the bill through before anyone 
noticed. That effort was bipartisan, with leaders from the majority and 
minority--normally sticklers for demanding roll call votes and open 
rules--telling their colleagues to sit down while Mrs. Maloney 
attempted to get a roll call vote on her amendment.
  In contrast, earlier this year we spent 10 hours over 2 days 
considering the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation 
bill--I remember it vividly because I was in the Chair during 
consideration. That bill contained just $26.5 billion in spending--just 
one-tenth the size of the DOD bill. That debate worked out to a mere 
$44 million per minute.
  At that rate, calculated by dollars per minute of debate, it would 
have taken us over 90 hours to dispense with the Defense bill, 360 
times as long as we actually spent. That is probably much longer than 
is truly necessary, but it does indicate that the Defense bill gets 
nowhere near the scrutiny of our other appropriations bills.
  There is a disturbing pattern emerging here. The Defense 
appropriation bill, which effectively sets funding and policy on 
everything from new weapons systems to pay raises for our troops to 
research initiatives at our Nation's labs and universities, has been 
slipped through this body in a way that is specifically designed to 
avoid discussion, deliberation, debate, and amendment.
  Both the conference report last year and this year's House bill came 
up at an unexpected time, outside of the announced schedule, and when 
Members were unprepared to be on the floor for the bill. As I note 
above, such activities require the cooperation from the leadership on 
both sides of the aisle.
  This has got to change. All of us are saddened at the declining 
respect our citizens have for this, the greatest legislative 
institution in the history of the world. All of us have friends in this 
body--good, dedicated legislators--who have announced their retirement 
during the last few years. Candidly, they confess that one of the 
strongest reasons for leaving is that they are simply tired of the 
abuse heaped on them by angry constituents and the general disrespect 
for them and the work they do as Members of Congress.
  The loss of these experienced Members is a tragedy for this body and 
the Nation. For all the shallow popularity of term limits, the fact is 
that it takes some years here to learn how to legislate, to learn the 
complexity of the Federal Government, to begin to grasp the connection 
between actions this body takes and the impact of those actions on the 
Nation at large, and to learn how to conduct oversight of the executive 
branch. New Members are wonderful for their enthusiasm, but experienced 
Members bring hard-earned wisdom; it is the balance between these 
forces that helps ensure that this body remains effective and relevant.

  When we take just a few moments to commit the Nation to spending and 
policy decisions of enormous, lasting importance, as we did last year 
with the Defense appropriations bill, we create a situation ripe for 
exploitation by those pundits and critics who trade on deriding this 
great institution. What may seem like a necessary expedient to avoid 
the appearance of disruptive debate actually convinces our critics that 
we are careless, feckless, and irresponsible in our spending decisions. 
I do not like that one bit.
  I love this institution and am proud of my service in it. I ask, out 
of respect and affection, the leadership of this great House, to ensure 
that this year Members are given sufficient time to study 
appropriations bills, especially that largest of appropriations bills, 
the Department of Defense appropriation.
  I ask for at least 3 days time to elapse between delivery of the 
statement of managers and conference report and the consideration of 
that report on the floor of the House, as House rules require.
  I ask that the rule accompanying that bill not waive all points of 
order against the bill. In short, I ask that Members be given a chance 
to do what our constituents send us here to do: to carefully consider 
and weigh the implications of the legislation that we pass. For that we 
must have time--not a lot of time--72 hours provided for in the House 
rules ought to be adequate.
  If that bill comes back to this body for a vote, as it did last year, 
without the report having been available for three days, without 
sufficient time for Members to consider the implications of the bill, 
and with a rule that closes off points of order, I will ask my 
colleagues to defeat that rule.
  As much as we respect and cherish our distinguished friends on the 
Appropriations Committee, their assurances that we can trust them and 
don't need to see or review what they have done with our money, are not 
good enough. Accepting such sweet words would be a dereliction of duty.
  I hope that those who desire to reform this institution and those who 
care--as I do--for the public's perception of this body, and that is a 
solid majority of my colleagues, will join me in sending a signal that 
neither we nor our constituents are willing to blindly endorse hundreds 
of billions of dollars in spending. We demand the right to know what we 
are voting for.

                          ____________________