[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2079-E2080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ABUSE OF PROCESS ON OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION BILL

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 31, 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the process 
the House followed in considering the omnibus reconciliation bill. 
Those concerns are outlined in my statement before the Committee on 
Rules on this bill.
  I believe that his process represents an unprecedented attack on this 
institution. I hope my colleagues will keep in mind the concerns 
outlined in my statement as the House and Senate meet to conference 
this bill.

               H.R. 2517, The Omnibus Reconciliation Bill

       Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moakley, and other members of the 
     Committee on Rules, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 
     before you on H.R. 2517, the omnibus reconciliation package.
       I am here today because I am troubled by the pattern of 
     abuse of the legislative process that has been developing 
     during this Congress. This bill exemplifies that abuse.
       Now I know that reconciliation bills under Democratic 
     majorities were not pure. Problems with the process have been 
     growing over the years, given that the original 
     reconciliation bill dealt with $8 billion, and today we 
     cannot even estimate the total sums both ``reconciled'' and 
     authorized in this package.
       This reconciliation bill enters a new universe in its 
     breadth, the sheer number and complexity of proposals, and 
     the extent to which committees of jurisdiction--and thus, all 
     Members of the minority--were shut out of developing this 
     package.
       The reconciliation package contains three large items and 
     several smaller provisions that fall within the jurisdiction 
     of the International Relations Committee.
       First, H.R. 2517 contains a major legislative proposal 
     dramatically changing the configuration of the Commerce 
     Department. The Committee has jurisdiction over international 
     trade issues, so the dismantlement of the Commerce Department 
     causes great concern. The Committee never considered the 
     measure.
       Second, the bill ``deems'' enacted the entire foreign 
     affairs agencies' reorganization bill. Action has not yet 
     been completed in the Senate.
       Third, the bill contains the text of H.R. 927, the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, approved by the House 
     last month. This bill was altered substantially by the 
     Senate, and should be scheduled for conference.
       The purpose of a reconciliation bill is to bring direct 
     spending in line with the targets set by the budget 
     resolution. Among the many problems with this bill, these 
     items in the jurisdiction of the International Relations 
     Committee have nothing to do with budget reconciliation. 
     These items will cost money.
       Quite simply, this is the wrong way for the House to go 
     about its business.


                       problems with the process

       (1) This process places enormous power in the Leadership, 
     who will consult only with those persons and groups they want 
     to include.
       The Committee is bypassed, an entire House of the Congress 
     is bypassed. All decisionmaking about the issues occurs 
     behind closed doors in a group formed by the leaders of the 
     majority. Final decisions are made by the Speaker. You have 
     created a largely secret system.
       This is a system which reduces accountability. It is an 
     entirely closed process. The average American has no way of 
     learning which Members are involved, which special interest 
     groups are consulted or locked out, and what positions 
     Members have taken on a proposal until it is too late and the 
     House has voted.
       Many members of both parties with significant expertise 
     were simply not welcome to contribute to the process.
       (2) This process bypasses and undermines the entire 
     committee system.
       When the Chairman decides to waive consideration of bills 
     that are central to the committee's jurisdiction, most 
     Members--including all Members of the minority--are shut out. 
     The Commerce proposal in a case in point. Our Committee had 
     no role in developing that proposal. We held no hearings on 
     this proposal, there was no debate, we had no markup, no 
     amendments were permitted, we did not vote. We defaulted on 
     our responsibilities.
       The Committee is also stripped of its responsibilities when 
     items that it has considered and moved through the House are 
     included in the reconciliation package. Moving the 
     Committee's foreign affairs reorganization bill or the Cuba 
     bill through the reconciliation bill removes the Committee 
     from meaningful participation in a conference. It puts these 
     major foreign policy bills into a conference with a mix of 
     1000 other domestic items. The substance of these bills will 
     not likely be discussed in a reconciliation conference.
       In the last Congress, Republicans and Democrats working on 
     congressional reform talked about streamling, modernizing, 
     rationalizing, and enhancing the committee system. 
     Congressman Dreier and I worked many long hours on these 
     issues. But we did not talk about what has come to be in the 
     Congress: bypassing committees on major policy issues.

[[Page E2080]]

       (3) This process produces a monster bill.
       This bill is simply overwhelming. What we have before us--
     all 1754 pages--is not really the entire bill. It does not 
     yet include the Medicare package. There are several other 
     bills that are hundreds of pages themselves--such as H.R. 
     1561 and the welfare reform package--that this bill 
     incorporates by reference.
       This reconciliation package will include bills that 
     majority votes in committees rejected. The ``Freedom to 
     Farm'' bill, for example.
       In includes bills the bulk of which the House has rejected, 
     such as the mining patents and national park concessions 
     proposals.
       It includes bills such as the Cuba bill, that have passed 
     the House and Senate in very different forms. There is every 
     reason to send this bill to conference under regular process.
       It includes bills--for instance, the Commerce proposal--
     created by a task force made up only of Members of the 
     majority party, after committees have reported out different 
     measures and some committees--such as the International 
     Relations Committee--were apparently instructed by the 
     Leadership not to act at all.
       (4) This process will include a tightly constrained rule.
       Reconciliation bills traditionally impose severe 
     constraints on time for debate and the opportunity to amend. 
     You will undoubtedly prescribe a restrictive rule, a rule 
     designed to keep the package intact.
       The Senate accords only 20 hours of debate (12 minutes per 
     Member) on the bill. In this bill, that means just over one 
     minute per page.
       We have had only a few days to digest this enormous bill. 
     And the contents of the bill we take up on the floor are 
     anyone's guess-- I expect your rule will include significant 
     ``self-executing'' changes.
       We will probably know even less about the contents of the 
     reconciliation conference report before we must vote on it.
       (5) This process is not defensible because the ends do not 
     justify the means.
       I understand that the current Leadership has a very 
     different view of the committee system. If the Leadership is 
     driven only by outcome then process is irrelevant. Having the 
     votes at the end of the day is all that matters.
       I believe that the essence of democracy is process, and 
     that the end does not justify the means, that the means is as 
     important as the end.
       That means a process that guarantees that all Members will 
     have an opportunity to be heard, if they do not have the 
     chance to prevail.
       It means a process that allows every Member to offer 
     amendments and to vote, and every constituent to track how 
     their representative has voted as a bill winds its way from 
     committee, to the floor, to conference, and to the President.
       It means a process that allows those who have spent time 
     developing expertise in a particular area to have a seat at 
     the negotiating table.
       Eliminating consideration by committees, by one House, 
     silencing voices, reducing the number of people at the 
     negotiating table may get bills through the House faster. You 
     may get bills out of conference more quickly. But in the end 
     we will not get better laws. And we will erode the 
     foundations of this institution.


                               conclusion

       We are subverting the entire legislative process here, 
     decision by decision. We are taking bills to the floor that 
     have not been written or even considered by the committees of 
     jurisdiction and expertise.
       Protecting the committee system in this House should not be 
     a partisan issue. Safeguarding the legislative process is not 
     partisan.
       For these reasons, I urge you to support Mr. Hall's efforts 
     to strip the foreign affairs reorganization provisions from 
     H.R. 2517. I would also support any efforts to strip the 
     Commerce and Cuba provisions from this bill.
       And I ask that you think very seriously about the entire 
     way you're planning to move this reconciliation package. 
     Subverting the legislative process does a grave disservice to 
     this body, and to the American people.

                          ____________________