[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H5563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CHAOS IN MAJORITY AFFECTS FLOOR SCHEDULE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to take this time to 
correct the impression left by the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
New York, about what happened on the House floor tonight.
  The fact is, the votes on suspensions which occurred tonight, to 
which the gentleman from New York objected, occurred at the insistence 
of the majority party, not at our insistence. In fact, we suggested 
five different propositions which would have enabled the Republican 
leadership of this House to close debate on measures in an orderly 
manner and at a reasonable hour tonight, and all five of those 
suggestions were rejected by the majority party leadership.
  We, in fact, specifically asked and our party leadership specifically 
asked that the majority party consider not having the votes on 
suspension until tomorrow, and that was also turned down by the 
majority party leadership.
  So lest the gentleman from New York be under the impression that this 
protracted session tonight occurred at the wish of the minority party 
in the House, that is specifically not the case. My staff tried. The 
staff of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] tried. The staff of 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] tried suggestions which would 
have avoided this meaningless extension of debate tonight. All of them 
were turned down by the majority party leadership.
  I regret the chaos which has afflicted the House on the latter part 
of this day. It seems to be simply an extension of the chaos which is 
occurring within the majority party caucus.
  I would note that I find it strange indeed that the Committee on 
Appropriations seems to be able to do its work in committee on an 
almost totally bipartisan basis on bill after bill after bill. But then 
when those bills come to the House floor, they are in fact first taken 
to the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Rules establishes a set 
of rules under which the bills can be debated which systematically 
denies to the minority member who has the responsibility for carrying 
the bill the right to participate in any meaningful way in the debate 
on the House floor.
  As the gentlewoman from California said the other night in discussing 
this, almost without exception the amendments that were allowed the 
minority party by the Committee on Rules on appropriation bill after 
appropriation bill are only those amendments which everyone understands 
will lose. Any time there appears to be an amendment that we want to 
offer that has a chance of winning, the Committee on Rules rules it 
out. That is what has caused the problems around here.
  I would suggest if you want the House to work, the majority party and 
the Committee on Rules needs to work out the same kind of working 
relationship with the minority that we have been able to work out on 
the Committee on Appropriations between the majority and minority.
  We manage within our committee to get our work done. And then every 
time it is frustrated by the overt and undue partisanship that 
permeates the way the Committee on Rules handles its business. That is 
the reason why I was told by a member of the majority party in the 
Committee on Appropriations that the reason the agriculture 
appropriation subcommittee came to the floor without a rule was to 
avoid the chaos in the Committee on Rules.
  I would suggest we have a fundamental problem with the leadership of 
the majority party in this House which is apparently in chaos. That 
chaos is spilling over into an incredible exhibition of arrogance on 
the part of the majority party in the Committee on Rules. Until that 
chaos is eliminated, until that arrogance is eliminated, we are not 
going to be able to proceed apparently in any orderly fashion to deal 
with the House's business. I regret that, but that is in fact the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  As ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee, I have to say what 
a true tragedy it is that a subcommittee that has labored hard to bring 
a bill to the floor that can pass has now been handcuffed under this 
rule, and tomorrow it is almost laughable that key amendments will be 
limited to 5 minutes on each side, not even enough time to explain to 
our colleagues what the content of these amendments are and to fully 
appreciate the debate on both sides.
  Whether we are talking about crop insurance, peanuts, whether we are 
talking about the WIC Program, our Members will be handcuffed and it is 
wrong. It is wrong for the Committee on Rules to do this to the 
Committee on Appropriations.

                          ____________________