[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H10286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WHY SO LITTLE TIME FOR DEBATE ON THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE IN OUR 
                                CAREERS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I think many Members feel, as the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] indicated just a few minutes ago, that 
the vote tomorrow will probably be the most important vote that we have 
cast in our career; certainly in my 17 years it qualifies.
  Mr. Speaker, when we began this session of Congress, there were great 
protestations about past abuses, closed rules that did not permit open 
debate, and amendments of all sorts from all across the spectrum here 
to be offered. We talked a lot about open meetings. To quote Woodrow 
Wilson, it was all going to be open covenants openly arrived at. This 
was going to be a new era.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell you that what is happening to this most 
fundamental piece of legislation that all of us feel is so impactful on 
40 million Americans in the Committee on Rules at the moment is a 
travesty. There are people who have yet to commit to vote for this 
legislation being offered by the Republicans who are angling for a 
little amendment that hopefully the Speaker will unilaterally without 
any congressional committee approval insert into an amendment offered 
by somebody when we get to the floor, probably the manager of the bill. 
Those people up there who have yet to commit to vote for this on the 
Republican side are struggling to get some cover so that they can vote 
for a piece of legislation that will be terribly destructive, not just 
to senior citizens, not just to rural and urban communities, but to the 
fabric of American life and the quality of our health care. It is a 
travesty because most Members who are not about to vote for something 
like this are going to be excluded from the process. They are not going 
to be put in a position to have the opportunity to offer a rule that 
would, for example, cut this from a $270 billion hit over the next 7 
years, far more than the trustees would indicate is necessary, to 
something like $90 billion. We are not going to be able to repair the 
damage that this bill will do because we are being shut out of the 
process.
  I know people have heard it, they are probably sick of it, but 28 
days of hearings on Whitewater, 10 on Waco, 8 on Ruby Ridge. I do not 
mean to say these are not important issues, but it tells you something. 
We had 1 day of hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, none in 
the Committee on Commerce, and now not a week of debate on this issue, 
something far less: 3 hours of general debate. Why? Because people do 
not want to talk about what is about to happen. Republicans offering 
this legislation do not really want the American people to fully 
comprehend the impact it is going to have on them. Otherwise we would 
spend a week and take 8 hours a day extolling the virtues of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked today in the Committee on Rules that we have 20 
hours. I would be happy with 10. I would now take 5 based on what I 
expect. It is the antithesis of what we were told this Congress was 
going to be about when we kicked off in January and took up the vaunted 
Contract on America.

                              {time}  2130

  It is a great frustration to anyone who appreciates the legislative 
process, who thinks that, regardless of the outcome of these issues, we 
ought to have a full debate. We ought to be able to exchange words and 
language in amendment form, just as we do in committee.
  The committees attempted to make some changes. Those changes were 
unilaterally and uniformly rejected by Republican majorities. But that 
does not mean that those of us who are not on those committees are shut 
out of the process. We ought to be able to have some of those key 
debates right here on the floor, not have just one alternative made in 
order, not the ability at all to deal with the intricacies of Medicare, 
a program that probably more than anything but Social Security is the 
hallmark of what American government is all about, what means the most 
to the American people.
  So I am just here today to kind of let out a protest on process. I 
will have more to say, as many of my colleagues will, about the 
inherent weaknesses in this approach, this budget-driven, tax-cut-
justified approach. It is not, however, my purpose today.
  I am simply here to say that, from my perspective, this treatment of 
what is the centerpiece of the Republicans' effort to radically change 
the course of this country is being treated so cavalierly as to require 
protest by all of us simply because of the nature of the process in 
which it is being considered.
  I hope the Committee on Rules, before it finishes tonight, will hear 
our words, will make in order a number of amendments and will allow for 
the real debate that this radical legislation demands. I doubt if we 
will be satisfied by their ultimate decision.

                          ____________________