[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.
____________________