[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 96 (Thursday, June 26, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5946-H5951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 297 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 297

       Resolved, That during the remainder of the One Hundred 
     Eighth Congress, the Speaker may entertain motions that the 
     House suspend the rules on Wednesdays as though under clause 
     1 of rule XV.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 297 is a simple, straightforward measure that 
authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on 
Wednesdays for the remainder of the 108th Congress. I strongly 
supported this proposal and urge all of my colleagues in the House to 
join with me in approving this measure.
  This past Monday, the Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House, 
which I chair, held a hearing to consider this very proposal. The 
chairman of the Committee on Rules testified on this proposal, and the 
subcommittee gathered testimony from the minority whip, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) as well.
  During the debate on H. Res. 297, I urge my colleagues to keep their 
remarks to the underlying measure, rather than use this modest proposal 
as an excuse to debate other matters. Extending the Speaker's ability 
to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays provides the 
House leadership with another tool that can be used to easily move 
noncontroversial legislation through the Chamber.
  By way of background, when the House convened on January 7, 2003, we 
adopted H. Res. 5, the House rules for the 108th Congress. 
Specifically, clause 1 of rule XV provides that it is in order for the 
House to entertain a motion to suspend the rules on Mondays, Tuesdays, 
and in the last 6 days of session

[[Page H5947]]

of Congress. That very same day, the House also approved a standing 
order that authorized the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules on Wednesdays, through the second Wednesday in April. On April 
30, 2003, the House adopted a unanimous consent agreement that extended 
the authority of the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules 
through yesterday, June 25. There have been a total of 16 Wednesdays 
this year on which the House could have considered legislation under 
suspension of the rules. Through yesterday, this authority was 
exercised 13 times.
  Entertaining motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays has been a 
valuable and helpful tool for the House leadership. In fact, just a few 
weeks ago, the minority showed how much clout they can have actually in 
defeating these suspensions when they opposed two Senate-passed public 
lands bills and both measures failed under suspension of the rules. 
Eventually, we brought both measures back to the floor where they were 
overwhelmingly approved. There is simply no evidence to support any 
claim that permitting the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules on Wednesdays limits or infringes on the rights of the minority.
  Madam Speaker, approving this resolution is the right thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  This resolution is simple. It allows the Republican leadership to 
consider suspension bills on Wednesdays. Current rules allow this body 
to consider suspension bills on Mondays and Tuesdays. A special 
provision in the rules allows the majority to place items under the 
suspension of the rules on Wednesday as well. That special provision 
expires soon, and it is my understanding that the majority would like 
to extend it through the 108th Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I am rising today to strongly oppose this resolution, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the resolution. I 
have serious concerns about not only the suspension process but about 
the way this House is being managed. Suspensions should be reserved for 
noncontroversial items that do not require lengthy debate by the full 
House. Controversial issues or substantive issues should not be brought 
to the House floor under the suspension process, a process that allows 
little debate and no amendments.
  But, Madam Speaker, this House is becoming a place where trivial 
issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The 
majority of this House already allows far too little debate on critical 
issues facing the American people. Later today, we will debate the most 
sweeping changes to Medicare since the program was created 38 years 
ago. Two days ago, I asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules when 
as a Member of the House I could examine this hugely important bill, 
and I was told emphatically that it would be available online yesterday 
morning. So I got up early yesterday morning, and I logged on at home; 
but there was no bill. I checked again during the day, but again no 
bill. Finally at 11:50 p.m. last night, we were given a copy of the 
bill and told the Committee on Rules would hold an emergency meeting an 
hour later to consider this bill, and we reported the rule at 5 a.m. 
this morning.
  Why the rush to do this bill in the middle of the night? Is this bill 
so important, so time sensitive that the Republicans need to force it 
through the Committee on Rules in the dead of night? When I asked the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules why it was considered 
an emergency hearing, all he could tell me was that he called the 
emergency hearing because it is his prerogative as chairman of the 
committee and he wanted to do it this way. We had only an hour to look 
at this final bill, a bill that is close to 700 pages long.
  This process, Madam Speaker, is disgraceful. It demeans this body, 
and it insults the American people who rely on us to read, to debate, 
and to vote knowledgeably on legislation. It is clear that the 
Republican leadership wants to rush this bill through this body as 
quickly as possible. The other body has already spent 2 weeks debating 
this bill. They will consider over 70 amendments before they are done. 
Republicans and Democrats alike have been able to bring their 
amendments to the floor in the other body and to be heard and to debate 
these issues. Fifty-eight amendments on the Medicare bill were brought 
to the Committee on Rules this morning. Only one substitute was made in 
order. Everything else, including some very thoughtful amendments 
offered by Republicans, was denied. We will have a grand total of 4 
hours to discuss a bill that will fundamentally change the way 40 
million Americans pay for the medicines that they need.
  This process is awful, Madam Speaker; and this resolution will make 
it worse. The question is quite simple. Rather than naming more post 
offices on Wednesdays, why do we not have more debate? What is wrong, 
for example, with this House spending a few days or even a week on the 
Medicare prescription drug bill? Why not let more Members, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, have an opportunity to be heard? We obviously 
have the time; otherwise you would not be here asking for more 
suspensions to be scheduled. I understand that the majority has a 
responsibility to run the House, to move legislation through this 
process. The Committee on Rules can be a tool in that effort; but under 
this Republican leadership, the Committee on Rules has become not a 
tool but a weapon, a weapon that stifles debate, that shuts Members and 
their constituents out of the legislative process, destroys the 
committee process and harms the public interest, all behind closed 
doors and often in the middle of the night.
  As Members know, and the American people are noticing, the Committee 
on Rules is where the sausage gets made and it is not pretty.

                              {time}  1115

  The facts speak for themselves. Two thirds of the rules reported by 
this committee in the 106th Congress were closed or restricted. That 
increased almost three-fourths in the 107th Congress. In fact, less 
than 30 percent of the rules reported by this committee in the 107th 
Congress were open. And so far this year of the 52 rules reported by 
the Committee on Rules six have been open rules, six of 52.
  All of this may sound like Inside Baseball to most Americans, but as 
we can see with the prescription drug bill this stuff matters. In the 
House of Representatives process determines a great deal, and lately, 
Madam Speaker, the process around here has been lousy.
  When they were in the minority, Republicans consistently complained 
about their treatment by the then Democratic majority. So if this is 
payback for the way Democrats ran the House, then call it payback, but 
please do not claim that this is fair and balanced when it is clearly 
not. Americans are better served with an open democratic process. It is 
in the public interest to allow the full and free debate and to have 
many people and many different points of view heard and considered by 
Members of the people's House.
  In 1994, while still in the minority, Chairman Dreier gave a speech 
about the undemocratic nature of the Committee on Rules. In that speech 
he said that ``the arrogance of power with which they prevent Members, 
rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, from being able to offer 
amendments, that is what really creates the outrage here.'' The wisdom 
of his words still apply today. The arrogance of power is indeed a 
dangerous thing.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the House 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let us be very clear about what is happening on the floor today. The 
United States Senate has a procedure called a filibuster where Members 
can get up and talk and fill time. Up until today the House does not 
have a filibuster. What we are doing is to pass a

[[Page H5948]]

bill, a change in our rules, that would create a filibuster on the 
floor of the House and prevent Members from having the opportunity to 
debate substantive matters.
  Why do I say that? We are going to add an extra day of suspensions. 
Why do the Republicans want to add an extra day of suspensions? They 
want to use our valuable floor time for minor noncontroversial matters. 
Why do they want to use our valuable floor time for minor 
noncontroversial matters? Because they do not want to provide full 
debate on matters like changing Medicare and the new prescription drug 
plan. Why do they not want to provide full debate on Medicare and 
prescription drugs? They do not have enough time. There is not enough 
time for us to do this. Why do not we have enough time? Because they 
are bringing more noncontroversial bills to the floor.
  It is very interesting. This is of course the oft remarked case of 
the young person who killed his parents and throws himself on the mercy 
of the court because he is an orphan.
  Let us be very clear what the Republicans are doing. They do not want 
to debate the key substantive issues that face this country. What did 
they do in the rule last night, this morning? We were here until 5:15 
a.m. this morning. Why were we here until 5:15 a.m. this morning in the 
Committee on Rules? Because our meeting did not start until 12:50 a.m. 
this morning. Why did it not start until 12:50 this morning? Because 
the Republicans did not want a meeting that would be widely covered by 
the press and it would be easily accessible to our Members to come and 
testify. A lot of very good Members, a lot of conscientious Members on 
both sides of the aisle stayed up. They were there at 12:50 a.m. and 
they testified until 5 a.m. this morning, and what did the Republicans 
on the Committee on Rules do? They told them thanks for coming but no 
thanks, they are not going to give them any time on the floor, they 
will not give them an amendment. They did this to some of their own 
Members as well as to Democrats. Why are they doing that? Because they 
do not want their own Members to have to vote on things that might be 
embarrassing for them when they go back to the next election.
  So that brings us to where we are today. We are going to create a 
filibuster rule in the House. We are going to permit the Republican 
leadership to filibuster, to use our time, our valuable floor time, by 
bringing noncontroversial bills commending people for things they have 
done, naming facilities, all kinds of things. We used to just do those 
in a day or two. Now we are going to have 3 days of those bills and 
now, ``Oh, by the way, we will not have any time for you to offer your 
amendment on Medicare, we will not have any time for you to offer your 
amendment on prescription drugs. We have used up all our time. We have 
created another suspension day.''
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), another member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. And the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member who is a most 
distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, is very generous to my 
colleagues on other side when he says they will bring up nonsubstantive 
matters on the suspension calendar under the rule that is proposed now, 
to add a day where suspension matters of the rules can be brought to 
our attention.
  I am not that generous because among the things that I believe that 
are likely to happen is that we are going to see substantive 
legislation here on the floor of the House under the suspension 
calendar. And when that happens that means it did not come to the 
Committee on Rules. Members did not have an opportunity to amend it. 
When it is here on the House floor they each have 20 minutes per side 
and one can bring the most major matter; for example, we were up last 
night, as has been pointed out, from 12:50 until 5:15 this morning in 
the Committee on Rules. That is all right, but would the Members 
believe that under this particular rule that is coming in the middle of 
a session that what we could also do is bring this same Medicare 
measure up if we wanted to under the majority provision?
  I cannot say it too well, but I said to the chairman of the 
committee, why are we doing this in the middle of the night? It would 
seem to me that what we can do is work 9 to 5 Monday through Friday 
rather than having to have this lack of time. The American people send 
us up here to work. They do not send us up here to avoid time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And let me 
begin by expressing my appreciation to him for the hard work that he 
put into the Committee on Rules meeting last night.
  My friend just mentioned the fact that measures that are considered 
under suspension of the rules are nonsubstantive and his concern is the 
fact that we may bring up substantive measures under suspension of the 
rules. The fact of the matter is major substantive pieces of 
legislation should come up under suspension of the rules. They can only 
pass if there is a two-thirds vote. The only requirement is that in 
fact 61 Democrats joined with every Republican to pass the measure.
  I thank my friend for yielding. I just wanted to make that clear.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will speak to that a little 
later and tell us how tricky that is when they put matters on and 
Members cannot, for example, make a distinction between whether they 
want to vote yes or no and when many times they will want to vote no 
and find themselves in a box. I believe the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be able to explain it better than I.
  The gentleman's chairman and mine, the gentleman's good friend and 
mine, Gerald Solomon, said the following: Every time we deny an open 
amendment process on an important piece of legislation, we are 
disenfranchising the people and their representatives from the 
legislative process. The people and their representatives are not being 
even treated as second class citizens. And what I said to the chairman 
is that roughly 48.9 percent of the people in this country are 
represented by Democrats.
  Let me end by saying what Gerald Solomon said: The people are sick 
and tired of this political gamesmanship. They want back into their 
House, and they do want it open and democratic, not closed and 
dictatorial.
  Anybody that believes that this measure is going to help this House 
of Representatives is participating in what Gerald Solomon described as 
a closed and dictatorial body, and time will tell.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and rise in strong opposition to this rule today. Imagine, a bill 
that will affect over 40 million people. But not until 2006 they tell 
us, which is very interesting, and we do not even get a chance to read 
the bill before we vote on it. Last night, I was one of those people 
that managed to stay in the Committee on Rules until 5 a.m. this 
morning trying to amend this bill. I thought: ``What a punitive 
process.'' Yet this is how they are treating the American people, too. 
It will be harder on them than it was obviously on us staying up all 
night on this measure that is so vastly important to grandmothers, 
grandfathers, to older citizens across this country.
  They want to privatize Medicare. They want to take this prescription 
drug benefit and put our seniors into Medicare HMOs. Try to find one 
that still exists in your area. And they denied me the opportunity to 
offer my amendment to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to have negotiated prices for prescription drugs. Everybody knows bulk 
buying gets one a better price. They denied me that ability, and not 
only that but in the base bill in section 8-1800 they forbid the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to have negotiated prices to get 
people the best price for prescription drugs, moreover, in their bill, 
if a

[[Page H5949]]

person's drugs cost over $2,000 a year, well, it's just too bad. 
Seniors will have to pay between $2,000 and $4,000 for what they cannot 
afford. How many seniors earning $8,000 a year on Social Security can 
afford that?
  What is the matter with you people? What is the matter with you?
  And then they try to limit the amount of time for debate on the floor 
here. Let's look at negotiated prices on this accompanying chart, which 
I am trying to get in this bill, take this medicine for high blood 
pressure, for example, in Canada that costs about $152. In our country 
it costs about $182 if one goes to the regular drugstore. And if one 
has a negotiated price like the Department of Veterans Affairs has, you 
can get it for $102. The consumer saves all that money.
  All my amendment tries to do is to use what the Department of 
Veterans Affairs does to have bulk buying, to have negotiated prices, 
and apply it to this program so we use the power of the people, the 
consumer power of the people, to get them the best price for 
prescription drugs. They will not allow my amendment on this floor 
today.
  I should at least have the right to offer my amendment. You can vote 
no on it, but you have no right to do this to the senior citizens of 
our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, on my time, I would like to ask the Clerk 
to reread the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the Clerk 
will reread the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk reread the resolution.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thought I was correct. This is a rule on 
suspensions, not on Medicare.
  Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time.
  What are the consequences of what we are talking about? I will give 
an example. When we were debating the tax bill a couple weeks ago, we 
found out after the fact because we only had an hour to debate this 
major tax bill that 12 million children of working parents, 6\1/2\ 
million families, were left on the editing room floor not getting a tax 
cut that they were promised, a $1,000 tax cut. It costs us $3.5 billion 
to make those children whole while millionaires were getting their tax 
cut.
  General Musharraf of Pakistan came to the White House the other day, 
walked out in 24 hours with a $3.5 billion check, equal to the amount 
it would be to keep the children, 12 million children, 6\1/2\ million 
families, the same amount of money to give them a full $1,000 child tax 
credit.
  They do not have time to debate these things. They learn the 
consequences later that 12 million children, American children, have 
been left on the editing room floor because they did not have a 
lobbyist in the conference room. And we did not know this fact because 
we had to debate this bill and move it immediately within 1 hour. Six 
and one half million working families who make $12,000 a year, equal to 
what a Member of Congress earns in 1 month, yet General Musharraf of 
Pakistan walked out in 24 hours with that check, equal amount.
  That is a consequence. It is a real consequence about whether we have 
time on the floor to debate these issues, give voice to our values and 
principles. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, there are common 
values, common principles we can find.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, if we want to have noncontroversial time on the floor, that is 
fine. But find in your heart, in your mind, that same sense of justice 
for controversial issues to debate. Respect the public that we are here 
to give voice to their values, that we should debate those issues. That 
is just one consequence.
  I had a bipartisan amendment on the prescription drug bill that would 
allow generics to come to market to compete with name brands to reduce 
prices. It would also allow us to import drugs from American-made drugs 
that are sold in Canada, Germany, and England at cheaper prices, that 
would bring market forces to bear, bring real competition, make drugs 
affordable, would save close to a half of $1 trillion. There was no 
room for this debate on prescription drugs for that amendment.
  So whether we want noncontroversial, it is not controversial to me, 
but whether we have real issues debated here on this floor, so people 
can vote and be held accountable, that, to me, is significant. Let us 
have time to bring our common values and common principles, to debate 
them, and stand up in front of our public to let them know where we 
stand.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for allowing me to talk on this rule, but mainly talk 
about a rule that will come up in a few minutes.
  Madam Speaker, a critical part of the legislative process is to be 
able to amend legislation so that we can improve it. The rule on 
Medicare prescription drugs does not allow us to do that. The continued 
efforts by the leadership of the House to stifle debate on this issue 
can no longer be tolerated.
  Although the rule does allow a substitute, which is better than last 
year, which I appreciate, there are so many other important amendments 
that should be debated on the floor on this, one of the most important 
issues this Congress will consider this year, this prescription drug 
package for our senior citizens.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up this legislation for 3 
days last week, the Democratic side offered dozens of amendments that 
would significantly improve the legislation. Several of these 
amendments were very close or tie votes, including one amendment that I 
offered to close that gap in coverage that is part of the so-called 
prescription drug benefit plan. That would close that doughnut hole 
that our seniors are going to fall into under the majority Republican 
plan. But the Committee on Rules would not let us offer these same 
amendments, amendments which should have been offered and may have 
passed on this floor.
  One amendment was discussed by my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, regarding a provision in this bill that prohibits the Health and 
Human Services Secretary from negotiating for cheaper prices for our 
seniors. That is just wrong. We do not prohibit the VA from doing it. 
We do not prohibit our States from doing it. In fact, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce bill that passed allowed States to do that; yet we 
are saying that the Federal Government cannot get cheaper prices for 
our seniors. That amendment should be on this floor.
  Madam Speaker, it is far too important for us to rush a debate on a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors and only have 1 day. The Senate 
has been debating this bill for the past 2 weeks, but in the House we 
are going to do this and rush it through in one afternoon. That is not 
the way our forefathers designed this House to legislate.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule when it comes up and 
obviously to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the disrespect that the 
majority has for the democratic process is evident today.
  The majority brings this to the floor, does not deign to discuss it. 
Perhaps they are going to wait until they have the very last word, 
which they are entitled to under the rule; but I do not understand why 
they should think it is not worth their time and energy to discuss the 
issues we are trying to solve.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia on his time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to give the gentleman 2 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I have explained this rule, and the Clerk 
has

[[Page H5950]]

read it twice. I do not know what the gentleman does not understand 
about it or what needs to be discussed about it. This was a rule that 
was passed in April under unanimous consent. If the gentleman wants to 
discuss the rule, I will be delighted to engage him. But if the 
gentleman wants to discuss something else, he is all on his own.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
thank the gentleman for confirming my point. He said the Clerk has read 
it twice. Okay, America. You have heard specifically the language read 
twice. You should be grateful for that.
  There are philosophical implications here. We have been meeting only 
on an average of 2\1/2\ days a week. You are now going to make 3 out of 
2\1/2\ days eligible for suspensions.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules said previously, 25 years ago 
the Democrats went from 1 day to 2. That was 2 days out of 4 days. You 
have shrunk the time we are in session and increased the amount for 
suspensions.
  The refusal to discuss this announcement, arrogantly, Hey, I read the 
rule, what more do you want, is what we are getting at.
  What we have here is what political philosophers have called 
authoritarian democracy. It is a view that as long as ultimately a 
majority ratifies a result, that is all that counts. Well, that is a 
very unfortunate view of democracy. It is not the view of democracy of 
the U.S. Constitution, of the Rules of the House of Representatives, or 
any self-respecting parliamentary democracy.
  What we want to have is debate. What we want to have is to air for 
the public. We are here as the representative body for a great 
democracy. What is important is not simply the result, not simply your 
ability, which I envy, to get your Members to vote in a majority for 
things that they do not like. You are going to produce a majority today 
for a prescription drug bill for which most of your Members are going 
to go home and take a prescription drug to cure the headache and the 
stomach ache and the backache and the twisted arms that they are going 
to get either from voting for it or after voting for it. But you can 
get them to do it.
  Well, here is what happens. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules said as we debated this in the Committee on Rules, it is partly 
because there is such a narrow majority that you have to go to these 
tactics. That is backwards. The narrower the majority in the House, the 
more respect there ought to be for the procedural forums that allow 
things not to be forced.
  Here is what we have: an ideologically driven majority on the 
Republican side, very much controlled on key issues by their most 
extreme ideological cohort, and they are determined to put legislation 
through that many of their Members do not like. And the key, by the 
way, is not yes or no on the final bill. This is where you go on 
suspension. It is a terrible abuse of the democratic process to take a 
complex issue like we had on Israel yesterday, and I voted for it, but 
I would have liked to have voted for some amendments. I would like to 
be able to affirm that Israel has a right of self-defense, but ought to 
consider as a matter of prudence and as a matter of their own self-
interests whether or not they should use it as often as they are 
entitled to. But it comes up on suspension.
  And the important questions are often not ``yes'' or ``no,'' but 
``yes, but,'' and ``no, except.'' You do not allow that. You bring them 
up under suspension because this is your view, only the end result 
counts. If you can get a majority for the end result, the debate 
process gets collapsed; and whether or not there are amendments, 
whether or not there is any modification, that is not allowed.
  Here is why: there are people on the Republican side who campaign in 
their own districts on one set of principles and then come here and 
enable exactly the opposite to become the law of the land. And here is 
how they do it. They say to people, oh, I would not vote on that. We 
are going to vote next week on whether or not, or 2 weeks, whether or 
not you should be allowed to receive Federal money for secular 
purposes, and then deny employment to people because you do not like 
their religion. That is what is going to be up. And we are not going to 
get to vote on this if past practice is any guide, because we have 
twice asked to vote on that specific issue; and the Republicans said, 
no, no, we do not want you to vote on that.
  The reason is that if their Members had to vote individually on that, 
many of them would have to vote not to allow that discrimination 
because that is what they told people they stand for. So what the 
Republicans will do will be to bring forward what we call a rule. It is 
a procedure which will prevent people from voting on the very issue 
that they claim to support. And then having voted to prevent themselves 
from voting, they will go to their own constituents and say, you know, 
I agree; but I was not given a chance to vote. That is what we are 
dealing with.
  That is what happens when you have more suspensions, and this is very 
relevant to this rule. You take things like the Israel resolution and 
resolutions on the war and on the troops and on genetically modified 
foods, all of those were resolutions which I supported, but with which 
I had some subordinate cause differences. I would have liked to have 
been able to participate in a democratic process to try to amend them, 
I think, to strengthen them.
  You were afraid, you in the majority, Madam Speaker, to allow that to 
happen. You wanted to make some political points, so you bring these 
forward in an unamendable form and you say to people, you are going to 
have to vote for it. Even if you only agree with 90 percent, we are not 
going to let you try and change or modify the 10 percent, because then 
we will say, oh, you are not patriotic, you are not a supporter of the 
State of Israel, you are not a supporter of the American economy.
  That is an abuse of the process, because democracy does not simply 
means the end result. It means an open process of debate. It means 
letting people try to change each other's minds. It means letting the 
American people through the media understand what is going on. What we 
have is a systemic process here not to allow that.
  Madam Speaker, it is not a matter of time. We are told we do not have 
enough time.
  By the way, when I came here and was told by the majority, well, that 
is the way it used to be. No, it was not. By the way, to the extent 
that there were abuses in the past, I objected. When I was in the 
majority, I helped lead a change in the rules because too often, both 
sides in a conference report took the same position. And I fought for 
the rights of minorities to take 20 minutes on the conference report.

  Madam Speaker, when I came here, we had something called the 5-minute 
rule. We debated. We yielded to each other. We debated defense bills 
for 3, 4, and 5 days.
  The majority, in the interests of making sure that it gets its 
Members to do whatever they are told to do without being embarrassed on 
subordinate issues, has beaten down democracy. They have collapsed 
democracy into meaning simply the end product. And debates on 
amendments and public discussion, as evidenced by this today, hey, I 
read the rule; what do you need? Well, democracy needs debate, 
discussion. It needs a joinder of the issues, and we do not get that. 
And we do not get it, as I said, primarily to protect; and we have 
Members who are not as conservative as the center of gravity on the 
Republican Party, and I apologize to some in the Republican Party for 
saying ``center of gravity,'' because I know to many of them ``center'' 
is a dirty word.
  So there are moderate Republicans, so-called, who do not agree with 
their party's positions. What they are now doing is voting with their 
party on a series of procedures that disallow democracy, disallow 
debate, disallow amendments, and that allows them then to appear to be 
for certain positions when they have voted to collapse them. That is 
why this rule is a great disservice to democracy.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, let me echo a point that was made by my colleague from 
Massachusetts about the importance of the amendment process and how it 
promotes congressional accountability. Let me read my colleagues a 
quote: ``What does the ability to offer an amendment have to do with 
accountability? If a Member has the power to

[[Page H5951]]

offer an amendment, he can no longer claim to support one thing, but 
then say that he was blocked in his effort to make a change in the law. 
In addition, with more floor votes and more clear issues, Members will 
be forced to take clear positions with their votes. That is exactly 
what the American people want: fewer excuses and more elected officials 
who actually stand for something.''
  That quote, Madam Speaker, was made by the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I 
agree with that quote.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my friend, seems confused as 
to why we are having this debate. He has asked for the amendment 
resolution to be read over and over, so let me try to clear something 
up. The reason why we are having this debate today is because we 
believe that this House is becoming a place where trivial issues get 
debated passionately, and important ones, not at all. The fact that 
what they are asking for is an additional day to debate essentially 
nonconsequential, trivial issues bothers us because we are constantly 
being told by the majority that we do not have enough time to make 
everybody's amendments in order. We do not have enough time to allow 
this House to deliberate. We do not have enough time to make sure that 
the democratic process works, and that all Members, Democrats and 
Republicans, have an opportunity to have their constituents' voices be 
heard on this House floor. So that is why we are having this debate.
  We are having it in a particularly passionate way today because of 
what went on earlier this morning in the Committee on Rules. The 
prescription drug bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that we will deal with, an issue that impacts 40 million of 
our senior citizens in this country, this bill was brought to the 
Committee on Rules in the middle of the night, and virtually every 
amendment and all of the substitutes except one were ruled out of 
order, were denied. So these people will not have an opportunity to be 
heard on the floor today.

                              {time}  1145

  I mean, we are stunned. We are shocked. We are appalled that on a 
bill this important that they are rushing it to the floor under an 
extremely restrictive process, limiting debate so that we are not going 
to have much of a debate here on this House floor.
  In the other body they have been debating it for 2 weeks, over 70 
amendments, and they are still debating it; but here in the people's 
House, we are supposed to represent the people. We are supposed to be 
the body of government closest to the people. We are being told that we 
have to do it in a matter of a few hours, let us do it quickly, no 
amendments and get out of here. That is not the way to do it.
  This is too important; and for some of us who worry that they are 
trying to privatize and weaken Medicare, it is appalling that we do not 
have an opportunity to have amendments on this floor to protect 
Medicare, to make sure that it does not wither on the vine, to make 
sure that it is there for future generations.
  That is what is at stake here. That is what we are talking about is 
so important.
  I want to close by making an appeal to some of my Republican 
colleagues who routinely come before the Committee on Rules and, like 
many Democrats, get routinely shut out of the process. Many of them 
were there last night, early this morning, at 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the 
morning trying to get their amendments made in order, very thoughtful 
amendments. They were shut out of the process. I want to speak to them 
just for one second and urge them to join with us in voting against 
this resolution. Send a message to your leadership that everybody in 
this Congress deserves respect and everybody should be heard, that the 
constituents that I represent are as important as the constituents that 
you represent, are as important as the constituents that are 
represented by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this 
Chamber.
  So this is an important vote, and the debate we are having today is 
very relevant and very relevant to the topic at hand. So I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this. We are 
spending too much time naming post offices and not enough time debating 
the issues that real people care about. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not agree with my Massachusetts colleague who said it is dumbing 
down democracy to do suspensions and not have amendments. To get to a 
conclusion at many times is good for the process, good for the country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 297 which provides for the Speaker the option to entertain motions 
to suspend the rules on Wednesdays during the remainder of the One 
Hundred Eighth Congress. Functionally, this proposal hinders the 
legislative business of the House. Furthermore, by implication, this 
bill appears to be nothing more than an another attempt by the Majority 
to diminish the opportunity of the Minority to debate more substantive 
issues on this floor.
  The purpose for allocating time for these items is to expedite their 
adoption and entry into the records because they are not controversial. 
To slow down the legislative calender with three days, instead of two, 
of non-controversial items is patently wasteful. Passing legislation to 
commemorate great citizens and to instill widely-held moral values is 
quite important but should yield to the simple principle of 
prioritization. An appropriations bill for projects queued by the 
Department of Homeland Security to protect our Nation's critical 
infrastructure and bioterrorism readiness clearly deserve's priority 
over non-substantive matters. We have a moral duty not to take lightly 
the lives of our children and grandchildren. Quite frankly, this bill 
appears to be somewhat of a mockery to our democratic process.
  In the years leading up to the election of 1994, the Republican Party 
in the House of Representatives complained loudly and vociferously that 
the then-Democratic majority ruled the House with an autocratic iron 
fist. The Members of the Rules Committee heard this complaint on a 
daily basis. Democrats were accused of stifling debate and gagging the 
House.
  After eight and a half years of a Republican-controlled House, the 
Democratic Members of the Rules Committee can report that the House of 
Representatives is less democratic and more autocratic than ever 
before. Instead of reforming the House, the Republican majority has 
taken filibuster and gagging the House to new heights. The Democratic 
Members of the Rules Committee, as do the other Members of the 
Democratic Caucus, believe that the Republican majority has, in the 
years since it took control of this institution, made a concerted 
effort to shut down debate and stifle the deserving advocates of this 
legislative institution. We believe this effort by the Republic 
leadership goes against the public interest and the pledges made by a 
host of Republican Members in the years leading up to the 1994 
election. Furthermore, the ``substance'' of this bill, if you will, 
completely obliterates legitimate legislative order.
  Mr. Speaker, I point that our children and grandchildren deserve 
better. The first responders on the front line awaiting the necessary 
funds to staff the ports and the posts against the threat of terrorist 
attack deserve better. Our brothers in Liberia who have been displaced 
because of civil and political strife deserve better. The seniors 
citizens whose ability to obtain prescription drugs in a reasonable 
fashion deserve better. We, as Member of the House of Representatives 
are charged to do better.
  For the foregoing reasons, I oppose H. Res. 297.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________