[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26233-26240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time in the 110th 
Congress that I have stood here taking out a 1-hour Special Order, and 
I don't do this very lightly and obviously I don't do it terribly 
often. But, Mr. Speaker, I am here to address an issue that, frankly, 
doesn't get a great deal of attention either in this House or among the 
American people.
  Last week my very distinguished colleagues, with whom I am pleased to 
serve on the House Rules Committee on the minority side, the gentleman 
from Miami, FL, Lincoln Diaz-Balart; the gentleman from Pasco, WA, Doc 
Hastings; and the gentleman from Dallas, TX, Pete Sessions; and I came 
together. And we, after a great deal of research, have compiled a 
report and unveiled this.
  This report, Mr. Speaker, is entitled ``Out of Order,'' and I would 
commend it to all of my colleagues. It is relatively short, about 10 or 
11 pages, has got a number of graphs, and it is available for any one 
of our colleagues who would like to see this report. You can get it on 
the Web right now if you'd like, Mr. Speaker, at rules-
republicans.house.gov. And I will repeat that again. It's rules-
republicans.house.gov.
  And what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, over the next hour is we 
are going to hear about this report, and a number of our very 
distinguished colleagues who have, for lack of a better term, been 
victimized by the actions of this Rules Committee are going to share 
with our colleagues some of the experiences that they have had.
  Now, one might say that we are here whining or complaining about our 
mistreatment. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here because the 
American people, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, were 
promised something much different than what they have gotten. We are 
not here to whine. We are not here to complain. We are here to fight on 
behalf of the American people's right to be heard, the right to ensure 
that our deliberative democracy is, in fact, that; that our process of 
representative democracy is able to flourish. And, tragically, if one 
looks at this report, over the last 9 months we have found that that 
has not, in fact, been the case.
  Now, many might argue these guys want to just talk about process. Mr. 
Speaker, I say to my colleagues process is substance. It has been 
through this horrendous process that we have seen, in the farm bill, a 
massive tax increase that was written into place by the Rules 
Committee. We have found, through this Rules Committee, that they have 
prevented us from having the opportunity to bring gasoline prices down, 
and we all know that gasoline prices are incredibly high. How did they 
do that? By denying an opportunity for us to have an amendment that 
would have done what virtually everyone says is essential in our quest 
to reduce gasoline prices, and that is to increase refinery capacity. 
Unfortunately, the permitting process is so onerous that it has been 
literally decades since we have seen a new oil refinery put online.
  What happened? Right upstairs, just one floor above where we are now, 
Mr. Speaker, we saw that process utilized to prevent us from having the 
ability to even have a vote on whether or not we would create the 
potential to increase refinery capacity.
  And then in the dead of night, in the very dead of night on the so-
called SCHIP bill, which virtually every single one of us want to make 
sure that poor kids are able to have access to health care, we want to 
do that, but we don't want us to proceed with something that was done 
in the dead of night at 1 o'clock in the morning by the Rules 
Committee, and that is take the Medicare Advantage program and 
basically throw that out the window, undermining the ability for senior 
citizens to have access to quality health care.
  And so this notion of our, as some have liked to say, whining about 
process is not the case. We are here fighting on behalf of the American 
people so that we can have some success with the process of 
representing them as effectively as possible.
  Now, we know that throughout the last couple of years and, in fact, 
at the

[[Page 26234]]

beginning of this year, we, as Members of the United States House of 
Representatives, were promised an awful lot. And, Mr. Speaker, I know 
that often the other side will simply raise criticism about how we as 
Republicans managed this institution. And I have admitted that we have 
made mistakes. I admitted that we didn't do it perfectly. And I know we 
have three present members of the Rules Committee and one former member 
of the Rules Committee here, and I have acknowledged to them that we 
didn't do everything perfectly.
  But I will say this, Mr. Speaker: our discussion here is not about 
what we did. It is about what Members of the new majority promised they 
were going to do.
  I would like to share a couple of quotes, and we have got some charts 
here. I don't often use charts, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is 
important to point to some of the things that were said.
  Here is a quote from Steny Hoyer, the majority leader. Let's look at 
this, Mr. Speaker. In testimony that he gave before the Rules Committee 
on June 23 of 2003, he said: ``Mr. Chairman,'' I guess he was 
addressing me at that point. He said: ``The lack of a free and fair 
debate on such important matters is an embarrassment to the Members who 
are privileged to serve here. It demeans this House. It cheats the 
American people, and it offends our democratic traditions.''
  So we were promised that there would be a new day, a new day when 
they became the majority. Let me just take a moment to look at the 
track record, and then I want to begin yielding to some of my 
colleagues.
  In the last 9 months, this Rules Committee has issued more than 
double, in fact, many more than double the number of closed rules than 
our Republican majority Rules Committee did. Now, Mr. Speaker, for 
those of our colleagues who may not have been following this all that 
closely, it means no amendments and very limited debate. So we were 
promised this new open process that was denied in the past, and yet 
they have come forward with more than twice as many completely closed 
rules, shutting out any opportunity for amendment.
  This Rules Committee has rejected more minority-sponsored amendments 
than the Rules Committee of the past did.

                              {time}  1830

  And Mr. Speaker, this Rules Committee has, unfortunately, reduced by 
a full day the amount of time that Members and their staff have to 
review the bills and to submit their amendments. So they promised that 
all this great deliberation was going to take place, and they've 
actually cut nearly in half the amount of time the Members have to 
review and look at and offer amendments to measures.
  One of the most outrageous things of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the 
most outrageous policies to come forward is one which is a slap in the 
face at any American who has their Representative here trying to offer 
an amendment for them. For management purposes, if the Rules Committee 
obviously establishes that they are going to have some kind of 
structured rule, we have a deadline for filing, and that deadline is 
stated, for example, at 5 p.m. on a certain date. And we have instance 
after instance where Members have literally arrived at the door 1 or 2 
or 3 or 4 or 5 minutes after 5 p.m. and they've been told that their 
amendment can't even be considered, can't even be submitted for the 
Rules Committee to consider. Now, I will say that this is something 
that has never been done in the 220-year history of this institution.
  The Rules Committee was established, Mr. Speaker, on the 2nd of 
April, 1789, which was the second day of the first Congress. Since that 
period of time, we have never had this kind of treatment of Members. 
And that's a new policy that has been put into place under this so-
called enhancement of deliberativeness, openness, transparency, 
disclosure and accountability, and all of those words that we've 
continued to hear from so many in the past who have touted all the 
changes that need to be made.
  So let's see what we've got. Okay. We've got a quote from the very 
distinguished chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. 
Slaughter). Now, this was on the 20th of April in 2005. And in this 
quote, she was describing the job of ranking minority member of the 
Rules Committee in a press release that was put out. It is the job that 
I now hold as ranking minority member. And in this press release she 
stated, ``My job on the Rules Committee is to serve as the guardian of 
the democratic process in the House. That process and the democratic 
values of everyday Americans are under attack by an out-of-control 
majority. Someone has to step up to the plate and ensure that the 
business of this House is conducted in an ethical manner, without 
corruption and without arrogance. I didn't ask for that job, but I 
humbly accept the responsibility.'' Now, that's a statement that was 
made by the very distinguished present chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that when we look at this record over the 
past 9 months, it is, to me, a very, very sad commentary that every 
single American has had their rights undermined on dealing with 
substantive public policy issues.
  Just upstairs about 2 hours ago in the Rules Committee, we, 
unfortunately, reported out a rule dealing with a very important issue 
that we're going to be considering this week, and there were some 
questions that were raised. The minority was promised last August 2, 2 
months ago today, that that issue would be resolved. And unfortunately, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), who serves as the ranking 
member of a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on the issue in 
question, which is one that we want to address, it's one that's getting 
a great deal of attention now, but what happened? The issue and the 
concerns that were raised in a bipartisan way were completely ignored; 
so, no opportunity whatsoever to address that.
  We offered two amendments upstairs to try and address those and, 
unfortunately, by a partisan vote we saw the American people, through 
their Representatives on the Rules Committee, denied that chance to 
have this issue dealt with in a bipartisan way, as had been promised in 
the past.
  There are a number of issues that I would like to get into to 
discuss. We know probably the one that has gotten the most attention 
within the last week had to do with the aftermath of the unveiling of 
our very important out-of-order report, which again I would say to my 
colleagues, I encourage them to look at this report. It's available at 
rules-republicans.house.gov. And any of our colleagues can go online 
right now and get a copy of this. And Mr. Speaker, I would encourage 
them to do that.
  After we unveiled this plan last week, Mr. Speaker, in which we 
talked about this problem, the Rules Committee took action which I find 
to be absolutely reprehensible, and there was bipartisan concern voiced 
over the action that was taken. We were considering a critical issue. 
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the other natural disasters 
that we faced in this country, the issue of flood insurance is one 
which clearly is not partisan at all. I mean, Republicans, Democrats, 
independents have tragically been victimized by these natural 
disasters. They've hit primarily the Gulf Coast, and my friend from 
Florida certainly has been often victimized by hurricanes in south 
Florida, and others have dealt with this very serious challenge. Well, 
there were a number of amendments that had been proposed. Our friend 
from Georgia (Mr. Price) is here, and he is going to talk about one.
  When the Committee on Financial Services went through its markup 
process, there was an indication provided, and I will let him expand on 
this, that the process of dealing with flood insurance would be 
addressed going through the process and that there would be opportunity 
for amendments to be considered. In fact, the chairman of the Committee 
on Financial Services came before the committee on Rules and asked that 
a number of Republican amendments be made in order.

[[Page 26235]]

  Mr. Speaker, we couldn't believe what happened. There were 13 
amendments made in order on that bill; not one single Republican 
amendment was made in order on that bill. And what happened? We saw 
bipartisan outrage. There were people, including the chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services, who could not support that rule. And 
that was unprecedented. I've been here 27 years and I've never seen a 
circumstance like that. And so what this shows, Mr. Speaker, is the 
Rules Committee is being used very arrogantly to undermine the rights 
of the American people to deal with an issue as critical as flood 
insurance reform.
  And so it saddens me that we've had to take this time out, it truly 
does, because I know that I would very much like to be able to work in 
a bipartisan way on all of these issues. I've continued to try and do 
that in the past, and I will continue, as all of my colleagues will, to 
strive for bipartisanship on behalf of the American people in the 
future.
  Let me say that I am very privileged again to be joined by my 
distinguished colleagues on the Rules Committee, and we now have two 
former members of the Rules Committee who have come to the floor as 
well. And I begin by recognizing my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). I'm happy to yield to my 
friend.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it's sad to have to take the floor to discuss the issue 
that we are discussing this evening. We recognize we are in the 
minority, and in this great representative democracy, as in all 
representative democracies, the majority gets to rule. We recognize 
that. But as indispensable and a key ingredient of representative 
democracy as the rule of the majority is respect for the minority.
  So what we are speaking about this evening, Mr. Speaker, first, I 
would say it's the great contrast, the extraordinary contrast between 
the promises made by the new majority they would institute fairness and 
transparency as they ran and when they ran the House of 
Representatives. The contrast between those promises and the 
performance of almost now the entire first year of this Congress, first 
session of this 110th Congress, the contrast between the promise and 
the performance is really extraordinary.
  I would like to read a quote by the now distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee last December. She stated, ``We are going to give 
people an honest and contemplative body that they can be proud of once 
more. We are going to have a much more open process.''
  Mr. Dreier, our ranking member, stated how the number of closed rules 
in this first year of the rule of the new majority, closed rules being 
rules that bring bills to the floor to this great body that do not 
permit amendments by any and all Members of this body. Rules that 
permit amendment by any Member of this great body are called open 
rules. Closed rules, obviously, are the opposite. The number of closed 
rules, of exclusivist rules, rules that close out debate by this body 
on bills, have more than doubled, more than doubled in this first year 
by--they have more than doubled during this first year of rule by the 
new majority that promised to go in the other direction, in other 
words, to increase the amount of transparency and openness. So it's 
sad, it's sad, Mr. Speaker, to have to point out that extraordinary 
contrast between their promise and their performance.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would just like to ask my 
friend to repeat that again. We've got this chart here that shows this, 
that if you juxtapose the 109th and the 110th Congress, you can see 
that if you look at the number of closed rules, we have had a dramatic 
increase in the number of closed rules. I think it's even more than 
this chart has shown, more than double. And again, today, we just, in 
the last couple of hours, had more closed rules.
  And I'm happy to further yield.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I think the ranking member is 
pointing to a very important point, and that is that as the time 
approached and when we issued our report, and I think it's important to 
point out that that report was put online last week. I think other 
distinguished members of the Rules Committee are going to point out the 
problems that we had with regard to even getting authority to have a 
Web page.
  Mr. DREIER. Now, is this the report that our colleagues can actually 
get by going to rules-republicans.house.gov? Is that the same report?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes. And I would, Mr. Speaker, 
highly recommend to our colleagues that they read this report. Because 
as I'm sure will be explained, it was difficult for the minority even 
to get the report posted because we couldn't have a Web page until last 
week.
  What the ranking member has been pointing to is that that posting of 
the report, making public of our report with regard to the great 
contrast between the promise and the performance, the promise of open 
transparency and the promise, the reality of further closing the 
process and making it even more unfair, as the date approached when we 
were going to make public that report, the number of closed rules 
increased. And we've seen, the ranking member pointed out, that the 
day, that same day, Mr. Speaker, that we made public that report 
explaining the reality of closed rules and the excessively exclusivist 
process during this entire year, the first year of the new majority's 
rule, that day, when we made the report public, as the ranking member 
pointed out, not one amendment by the minority, not one Republican 
amendment was allowed in legislation that was nonpartisan. Even the 
chairman, the ranking member said that in his 27 years he has never 
seen something like that. In my 15 years I've never seen something like 
that. The chairman of the committee stated that it was unfair, that it 
was unjustified. He is a very eloquent Member of this Congress. So I'm 
not going to quote him. I don't aspire to remember word for word what 
he said, but I do remember that the chairman said that it was unfair 
for the rule to have closed out every single Republican amendment. And 
he didn't vote for the rule. That's something I've never experienced in 
my 15 years here. I've never seen that. That was so dramatic.

                              {time}  1845

  So I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, two examples. We have 
distinguished colleagues waiting to speak. One I have never seen in my 
15 years here. I was appointed to the Rules Committee in December of 
1994. During the entire time that I served in majority in the Rules 
Committee, I never saw anything like this. A Member came to introduce 
an amendment. Now, obviously, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there are 
many chairs here. This is a House of 435. The reason that on that 
second day of the first Congress the Rules Committee was established, 
even though the House was not as large in membership, it still was a 
large body even then, on the second day of the Congress of the United 
States, the first Congress, the Rules Committee was created so that 
this body could function. It is understood by every Member of this 
House that if every Member on every bill, on every piece of legislation 
could debate an amendment or two, that would, in effect, constitute a 
filibuster, because 435 Members, obviously, even though they had only 
one amendment per bill, would take up days and days of this body. So 
the Rules Committee was devised. It was created on that second day of 
the first Congress to manage this House.
  Now, most of the time, at least much of the time, it is understood by 
the membership that you are not going to be able to have your amendment 
debated here on the floor of this great test, Congress, in the world. 
But you have somewhere where you can go when you've worked hard and you 
have an idea to improve legislation.
  When you have an amendment, there's somewhere you can go. It is right 
above here. We are on the second floor. It is on the third floor right 
over

[[Page 26236]]

there. You can go to the Rules Committee with your idea, with the 
product of your work and study, your idea to improve a bill in the form 
of an amendment. Your colleagues there, the majority and the minority, 
they have to listen to you, hopefully with respect, listen to your 
idea, listen to your amendment, and really pass judgment on it in the 
sense, in the process of managing this House, either making in order or 
not making in order your amendment. But there is that place where you 
can go, and that is the Rules Committee.
  When I saw that one of our colleagues this year, a distinguished 
colleague, Todd Akin, was, because he was a few minutes late and he got 
to the Rules Committee with the product of his hard work and dedication 
to improve legislation, it was somewhat technical, Mr. Speaker, it was 
called a second-degree amendment, in other words an amendment to an 
amendment. Obviously, he could not draft that amendment to an amendment 
until he had seen the amendments. So he didn't have time to get there 
before the deadline. Well, as the ranking member said, and we don't 
espouse to have been perfect, but one thing I never saw, and never 
thought I would see, is that Mr. Akin, when he arrived with the product 
of his hard work and dedication, because he was literally a few minutes 
late, he wasn't even allowed to enter the committee room to file the 
amendment. That is something that is very sad.
  So I will say, Mr. Speaker, this may seem technical and overly 
procedural to some of our colleagues perhaps who may be listening to 
the debate, or others, the American people, perhaps, it may seem like a 
technical debate. But it is important for the following reason: When 
Mr. Akin is not allowed to enter the committee room to present, to 
introduce his amendment because he is a few minutes late, that affects 
policy. That is profoundly unfair. As I said before, it is just as 
important to democracy, to representative democracy, for there to be 
rule of the majority, as it is for there to be respect of the minority.
  One final example, just last week, before us came legislation that 
the distinguished ranking member referred to as ``consensus'' 
legislation. We all support, or almost all, certainly in this body, 
support the health insurance program for children of economically 
disadvantaged families. It is called SCHIP, the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. There is a consensus here of support, bipartisan 
support for that program.
  Unfortunately, the Democrats have come with a massive increase in the 
program, and we were debating that, the ranking member pointed out, the 
first time we debated it was late at night or early in the morning, and 
we sought to have input for debate. I was most disappointed in the last 
version that, in my view, excessively and unreasonably increases taxes, 
and while massively expanding that program, did not include something 
that I thought was elementally responsible to include, and appropriate 
to include in a massive increase of the program, and that is legal 
immigrant children.
  I pointed that out, how disappointed I was. I had an amendment so 
that the House could debate that issue. Well, the amendment was not 
made in order. But in addition to that, in something that I think was 
very unfair, the ranking member, the lead Republican in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, he had been shut out from the discussions, it is 
called conference committee, the final discussions on formulation of 
the bill, of the legislation. And he pointed out, because, when I said 
how sad and unfortunate it is that in this massive expansion of this 
program, you are not including legal, I repeat, legal immigrant 
children and pregnant women, and friends on the other side of the aisle 
pointed out, well, the Senate in conference didn't want that, so it is 
not in the bill.
  Well, the lead Republican minority member from the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, said, you know, if I would have been 
called into the room to the conference meeting, I would have pushed the 
Senate. Did you say the Senate Republicans didn't want that? Well, the 
House Republican leadership, I, Mr. Barton, said this, in the Rules 
Committee, when we met, would have been pushing that issue because we 
separate the issue of illegal and legal immigration. While there is 
opposition to illegal immigrants receiving benefits, Mr. Barton said, 
with regard to legal immigrant children and pregnant mothers, pregnant 
women, I would have been there, Mr. Barton said.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I would say parenthetically it 
is very interesting to note that this program that has passed, which 
has now been sent down to the President's desk, which he will veto 
tomorrow, is a program that actually does include an opportunity for 
benefits for people that are in this country illegally, which is 
incredible.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Barton pointed out with 
regard to the issue of legal immigrant children and pregnant women, he 
would have been there in the conference room had he been allowed to be 
in the conference advocating for the position.
  In summary, as I yield back to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Speaker, I would say that an excessively restrictive process is not 
only technical; it leads to bad policy in addition to being most 
unfair. What is truly sad is that this majority promised time and again 
to be the most fair, the most open, and the most transparent majority 
as it ran, in the way in which it ran this House in history, and in 
effect, it has been exactly the opposite.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful 
remarks.
  We have 25 minutes left, and we have a lot of our colleagues who need 
to be heard on this issue. I think the gentleman from Miami makes the 
point very, very clearly, the fact that this is not simply a technical 
issue. This is about the American people's rights being undermined by 
this new leadership here in the House of Representatives. It is very 
unfortunate.
  I thank the gentleman for his fine service on the Rules Committee and 
again for his thoughtful remarks.
  I am happy to yield to my very good friend from Pasco, WA, who labors 
long and hard on the Rules Committee, as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate your getting this time. I appreciate my colleagues that are 
going to speak later.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is about promises, because we live in the 
greatest country in the world where people make their decisions on who 
will govern them by the promises that they made. I would really like to 
emphasize the point that has been made several times by the 
distinguished ranking member and the gentleman from Florida, that 
process has consequences, because ultimately process turns into 
substance, it turns into laws, and, of course, that is what governs us.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could point out, let me just point to the statement 
that was made by the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, since 
my friend mentioned the word ``promise.'' I will point to this one 
first. It says: ``We promise the American people that we would have the 
most honest and open government and we will.'' I am happy to further 
yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman saying that. I 
note that that statement was made after the election. Presumably, there 
was a decision made that the campaign was about change, and so this 
statement was made after the election.
  The statement that I have up here by the distinguished chairman now 
of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, was also made after the 
election. It says: ``It is our goal to use rules responsibly, opening 
up the workings of the House and using it to usher in the most honest 
and ethical Congress in history. An open process will mean that more 
commonsense legislation written in the national interest will get to 
the House floor and be voted on.''
  Mr. DREIER. If I could just interject, I would like to make this 
point one

[[Page 26237]]

more time. ``An open process will mean that more commonsense 
legislation written in the national interest will get to the House 
floor and be voted on,'' and here we are with twice the number of 
closed rules, shutting out any opportunity for amendment, limiting 
debate, preventing Members from having an opportunity to even submit 
their amendments to the Rules Committee, and that is what we were 
promised?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We were promised this after the election, 
I remind my friend from California, this was after the election.
  The reason for this is very obvious. The role of the Rules Committee 
is to funnel legislation so that every Member could have a possibility 
to be heard. We have 19 standing committees. Because we have two 
vacancies, there are 433 Members of the House today. We simply couldn't 
control this unless we had the standing committees doing their work.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee this year is on track to 
rewrite more bills in the Rules Committee than we ever did during the 
12 years that we were in control of Congress. They have done it with 
troops in Iraq. They did it with lobby reform. They did it with the 
farm bill legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the farm bill. I come from 
rural America. I was very much involved in that process as we are going 
forward. I recall very, very specifically that when the farm bill came 
out of committee, it came out of committee with strong bipartisan 
support. Yet, when we went to the Rules Committee the next day to 
report out a rule, there was a massive tax increase that was put on 
that farm bill.
  I remember the distinguished ranking member, last year's chairman, of 
the Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, came to the 
Rules Committee and testified. He said, I felt betrayed by what went 
on, because he was not a part of that process. I know, I can speak to 
the bipartisan nature of how this farm bill was put together as it 
relates to the farm because there was a hearing in my district. There 
were four Republicans and four Democrats that showed up to this hearing 
last June, so this was a process in the making. Yet, at the last 
minute, all that process was thrown aside, and it was a broken deal.
  It is bad because of what is happening. The policies that we have in 
place have potential detrimental effects to the farmers. The farm bill, 
I might add, expired at the end of September.

                              {time}  1900

  We put a 2-week extension on that. I suspect we will probably have to 
have another 2-week extension on that. It is not right, in a body of 
this size, to rewrite bills in the Rules Committee.
  I want to follow up on my friend from Florida who talked about the 
SCHIP bill. That bill was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1997. I 
supported that. It was part of a larger bill. That was probably the 
most egregious rewrite. We met at 1:00 in the morning, only had about 
an hour to look at what was in the bill, and there was a lot of rumors 
going around, but we met at 1:00 in the morning, a 500-page bill.
  I got a heads-up from a clinic in my district that is physician owned 
that they would be out of business if this bill were signed into law.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, they said they would be out 
of business if this were to pass?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. They said they would be out of a business 
because of a provision that related to the Medicare part that they 
added to the SCHIP bill as related to physician-owned facilities. This 
facility was put in place in 1940, 67 years ago, and yet the provision 
within this bill said that you could not have physician-owned 
hospitals.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, 
covers an area the size of the State of Maryland. Now, if the idea is 
to expand health care, why would you potentially shut down a facility 
that covers the geographic size of the State of Maryland?
  We went around and around with those that were testifying in favor of 
this particular bill, and they first started out and said no, you're 
mistaken, that is not in the bill. But after discussions going on with 
my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and me going back and forth, they 
admitted at nearly 3:00 in the morning that yes, that provision was in 
there, and it was intended to be in there.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, they said, and I do remember 
this very well, but I think it's important for my colleague to repeat 
this, they said that they intended it to be here because they didn't 
want any physicians to have even the slightest interest in hospitals, 
so for that reason they were going to deny the opportunity for a health 
facility for a quarter of a million people in an area that is 
geographically the size of the entire State of Maryland in eastern 
Washington?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is exactly right. It was done 
purposely. They first said we must be mistaken. But after probing and 
asking questions, they were essentially saying that you could not get 
any Medicare reimbursement if you were a physician-owned facility.
  Now, I just don't understand what the motivation is behind that. But 
the point is, and we are obviously working on this because we don't 
want this to happen, but this is what happens when the process gets all 
messed up and you start rewriting bills in the middle of the night.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out those two examples. I think it's 
contrary to the promises that were made by the new majority and what 
they have carried out. I think that is something that needs to be 
talked about.
  I want to thank the ranking member for putting this Special Order 
together so we can discuss these issues in an open manner.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his dedication, his hard work, and 
thank God President Bush is going to veto that SCHIP bill tomorrow, 
because if we end up with that legislation potentially jeopardizing a 
quarter of a million Washingtonians' access to health care at that 
health facility, it is something that we all would find frightening, 
and clearly no one wants to see that happen. And yet they said, I mean 
none of us want to see it happen, but they said they intended to close 
down this facility.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. They said they intended to. And let's 
look at this from a little different perspective. This facility has 
been in business for 67 years. Clearly, clearly they have a following 
in that community, or they wouldn't have survived in that competitive 
atmosphere unless there were people that wanted to go to that facility.
  Mr. DREIER. Is that in Pasco?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It's in Wenatchee, Washington, the 
Wenatchee Valley Health Clinic. So it's an egregious abuse of the 
rules, in my view. I don't want to take all the time. I yield back to 
my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful statement and 
his hard work and dedication to his constituents in the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a load of Members here who have been victimized, 
for lack of a better term, by the Rules Committee. I would first like 
to yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey), who served long and hard on the Rules Committee in the 
majority, and he now sees what has happened, and it's very unfortunate. 
We miss him in the Rules Committee, I will say, Mr. Speaker. But we are 
very happy he is taking time from his busy schedule to join us here 
this evening. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the 
distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Rules 
Committee, my colleague, for yielding a little time. I know we have got 
other Members, Mr. Speaker, who want to address this issue.
  I do thank the ranking member and all my former colleagues on the 
Rules Committee for the work they have done in regard to this issue. I 
look forward and I encourage all my colleagues and anybody who's got a 
computer that is interested not just in process, Mr.

[[Page 26238]]

Speaker, because bad process leads to bad policy, but I would encourage 
anybody to go to this address.
  Mr. DREIER. I have got the address right here.
  Mr. GINGREY. I was just going to say: rules-republicans.house.gov. 
That is exactly right. The ranking member is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Miami on the Rules Committee, my 
former colleague on the Rules Committee, he is still there, Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart, brought up that point about the second-degree amendments 
in reference to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the same situation. As a former immediate past 
member of the Rules Committee who enjoyed, I thought, pretty good 
collegiality with both sides during the two years that I was privileged 
to serve on the Rules Committee, I had the same situation, a second-
degree amendment, and I couldn't really get it filed until a first-
degree amendment was actually brought in under the deadline.
  There was no way. Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed that out. A second-degree 
amendment, by its very nature, is going to be a late amendment. They 
absolutely shut the door; they, the new majority. I was just absolutely 
astounded that that happened to a former member and colleague on the 
Rules Committee.
  The whole point is, as the gentleman from California points out, this 
whole process where they promised to bring reform and openness has 
absolutely been a farce, a fiasco. They have closed down the process. 
They have done nothing of which they promised. I am glad to be here 
tonight to weigh in just a little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to yield back because other Members want to 
speak. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say again we very much miss the 
gentleman from Georgia's active participation on the Committee on 
Rules. He was very, very helpful to us time and time again. It saddens 
me greatly that his constituents, the American people, are denied an 
opportunity to have thoughtful proposals even considered whatsoever by 
the Rules Committee, not even a chance to be denied for consideration 
here on the House floor.
  I know that I want to recognize my friend Mr. Sessions, who's here, 
but we also want to recognize another very distinguished former member 
of the Rules Committee. I again am saddened that he is not able to 
serve with us on the Rules Committee any longer. That's what happens 
when you go under the minority. We look forward to one day, I hope in 
the very, very, very near future, to his return for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I 
realize when we talk about procedure, it is boring. People's eyes start 
to glaze over.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by it, I will tell you. It 
absolutely intrigues me when my friends talk about process here.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You are 1 out of 435. But one of the current 
senior Democrat chairmen 20 years ago wrote that if I let you write 
substance and you let me write procedure, I will win every time. 
Actually, he didn't use quite those words, but I don't think the actual 
verbiage can be used with the rules of our House. But it is the same 
sentiment that has to be there.
  Poor procedure has been said creates poor policy. And the ranking 
member has already said there have been more closed rules, fewer 
minority Members' rules allowed this year than ever before.
  I was in the Education Committee when Representative Ehlers made his 
amendment, accepted by the chairman on a voice vote; and yet, when the 
bill came out of the Rules Committee, the amendment had magically 
disappeared, a bill that affected my State in redistricting.
  Mr. Gohmert from Texas had made an excellent amendment in the 
Judiciary Committee, but when that bill came out of the Rules 
Committee, once again that amendment had basically simply disappeared.
  I realize the Rules Committee is a political type of committee, but 
it is coming to the point right now when someone says, ``Well, you 
better go make your case before the Rules Committee,'' you simply 
abandoned all hope. It is like being on the Titanic and being told that 
the ship coming to rescue you is the Lusitania.
  I have been on the Rules Committee, as has been said. I have been 
chairman of a rules committee in Utah. And I realize that more than 
just simply moving legislation, the committee should try and find 
bipartisan solutions; should make sure that we spend time in debate on 
the floor vetting issues that were not covered in committee, especially 
when so many bills are being written by the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. To reclaim my time, I will tell you we had a perfect 
example of that, as I alluded to earlier, and my Rules Committee 
colleagues know this very well.
  We were trying to deal with this military justice issue. The ranking 
member of the subcommittee said he was promised an opportunity to 
address these concerns that were there, and neither the committee nor 
the Rules Committee allowed that kind of free-flowing discussion to 
which my friend refers.
  I am happy to further yield.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The 
amendments I have actually brought to the Rules Committee were, in my 
estimation, trying to produce a bipartisan approach, or in dealing 
especially with one that impacted my State of Utah, an amendment that 
we were trying to talk about a bill that had been changed significantly 
in the Rules Committee from what had been discussed in the committee, 
but trying to do amendments that would have saved my State millions of 
dollars and allowed us to have the flexibility of creating the process 
that we wanted to have. Both Mr. Cannon and I presented those in Rules. 
All of them were totally shut down.
  The Rules, there is a little bit more to that. Allow me to quote once 
again from an issue that happened about 20 years ago when a Speaker of 
the House was forced to resign in a very partisan atmosphere. He said, 
all year, partisanship had fed on itself, frustrating each side, driven 
each side apart. The majority at that time, the Democrats, were looking 
at the majority. The majority group contemptuous of it, the minority, 
more determined to govern in spite of it, more arbitrary and faced with 
increasing arbitrariness of the majority, the minority grew more 
irresponsible and more destructive of the institution.
  The Rules Committee has a function more than just establishing the 
parameters of what amendments will be discussed and the debate. They 
have a responsibility to establish an atmosphere, indeed, a tone, on 
the floor. And they can either fan the flames of partisanship or they 
can build a process that encourages bipartisanship and encourages 
discussion of issues, issues that have not been vetted before on the 
floor. That is what the Rules Committee should be doing, and I am sad 
to say it has not been in evidence so far this year on the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, let me just say how much I 
appreciate, and, again, after having heard him, miss my friend from my 
Utah's very, very thoughtful and incisive insight on the Rules 
Committee.
  I mentioned earlier the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have dealt with 
this flood insurance bill. It should have been very bipartisan. We have 
two Members who were victimized by that right here, the gentleman from 
Georgia and the gentleman from New Jersey, and I am happy to yield to 
them. We just have a few minutes left. Obviously we could go on and on 
and on because there are so many Members.
  I am happy to yield first to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the 
ranking member, my good friend from California for yielding and for 
your leadership on this issue and on so many others that come to our 
House.
  You mentioned, and folks have mentioned, that we have been 
victimized.

[[Page 26239]]

Well, Mr. Speaker, we haven't been victimized; the American people have 
been victimized. Because we were promised, we in the House of 
Representatives were promised, but the American people were promised, 
an open process. They were promised a fair process. And, as you 
mentioned, the stories are too numerous to stipulate each individually.
  But the story that I bring is one of the flood insurance bill, the 
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act that came just last week. 
We had an amendment that we were essentially assured would be made in 
order through the assurances of the Chair of that committee, that we 
would have an open and deliberative process.
  Mr. DREIER. In fact, as I recall, the chairman testified and said he 
supported the notion of making the gentleman's motion in order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You are absolutely correct. The amendment to 
file with the Rules Committee was 5 p.m., an arbitrary deadline, but 
that is all right. It is a deadline, 5 p.m.
  My office submitted our amendment electronically to the Rules 
Committee, as we do all the time, 8 minutes before 5 o'clock, 4:52 p.m. 
In the process of bringing that hard piece of paper over to the Rules 
Committee, we got that there at 5:03 p.m., 3 minutes after 5:00.
  Mr. DREIER. So they had already the amendment electronic submitted 
before the 5 o'clock deadline; am I correct in saying that?
  Mr. PRICE of GEORGIA. You are absolutely right. The amendment was 
within the purview at that point of the Rules Committee. They had 
notice.
  Now, again, it is not that we were denied the amendment. It is that 
the American people were denied the opportunity to have a substantive 
amendment debated on the floor of the House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe that the President is going to veto that piece of legislation, 
and I believe he is going to do so because our amendment was not 
allowed to be acted upon by the House, because he supported the 
amendment that we would have offered, which was a very substantive 
amendment, a significant change in the flood insurance reform bill.

                              {time}  1915

  As my friend from California mentioned, there were 13 amendments made 
in order to that bill, 13 Democrat amendments, no Republican 
amendments. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is all politics, that is all 
politics. Again, it doesn't harm us personally. What it does is 
disenfranchise nearly half of the American people, and that is why this 
matters. What it means is that nearly half of this body is not given 
the opportunity and the right that they were given in winning their 
election.
  We all represent essentially the same number of people. When the 
majority does not allow a certain Member or Members to offer amendments 
or to offer their best ideas, what they do is disenfranchise nearly 
half of the American people.
  I can only think of three reasons why that would be done. One, it is 
a broken promise. We have seen the promises. Two, it is for political 
expediency. Or, three, it is what de Tocqueville called the tyranny of 
the majority. That is what I believe we have, a tyranny of the majority 
that is running this House right now. It doesn't hurt me personally, 
but it hurts the institution, it hurts our democracy, and it 
disenfranchises nearly half of the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend very much, and I yield to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who was also victimized by this process.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You spoke about the flood bill and the 
problem we had here. Anytime we stifle debate, and that is what 
occurred when the Democrats did this, they alter substance.
  What we were trying to do with an amendment that went through 
committee and we worked on with the chairman's staff, an amendment that 
the chairman said withdraw the amendment from committee and he will 
make sure that it gets through Rules and to the floor, our amendment 
simply said we should no longer have the rich and the wealthy who live 
in these great mansions on the coast and what have you, have them be 
subsidized by the poor widow in the house right across the street. We 
thought that was absurd. This amendment would have fixed that 
situation. The chairman was on board with us. He went to the committee 
and testified in favor of it as well.
  Mr. DREIER. And what happened?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. What happened was the Rules Committee 
decided to not allow the amendment to come to the floor. So at the end 
of the day, we have a bill where the rich are still being subsidized by 
the poor. Substance was altered by the stifling of debate.
  I will commend the chairman of the committee for all he did and by 
not voting ``yes'' on the rule because even he, a Democrat chairman, 
saw the error of their ways in what they did.
  Mr. DREIER. He was quoted as saying he believed it wrong that they 
were denied. Tragically, this was done in the aftermath of the 
unveiling of this report that we put forward simply stating the facts 
of what has taken place in the last 9 months.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would just conclude by concurring with 
the gentleman from Georgia on this. Although we are in the minority 
here, this is not an issue for the minority; this is for half of 
America. And it doesn't matter whether the Americans watching tonight 
are Democrat or Republicans. Their voices are being silenced because 
they cannot have their voices heard through us in the Rules Committee 
and have their important issues made part of the process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and now yield to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hardworking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the ranking member from California for not only 
putting together this Special Order tonight, but also talking about the 
Rules Committee which I think is so important. I have had an 
opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee for 9 years. For 9 years 
previous to this, I have seen the Rules Committee as being part of the 
process to make sure that the agenda of policy is done properly by the 
Speaker of the House through this committee. I would like to note to 
the gentleman from California, as he remembers that, Republicans 
utilized this committee to make sure that we balanced the budget, to 
make sure that we had responsibility and the opportunity to make sure 
that the American people benefited from that which we did here in 
Washington, D.C. by cutting taxes.
  Republicans balanced the budget when they said it was not possible in 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. We went in and we balanced the 
budget. We utilized the Rules Committee to make sure that we had 
responsible government.
  I have now seen during the last 10 months that we have been in the 
minority that it is also true that the new Democrat majority utilizes 
the Rules Committee to do things that I don't think that the American 
people can completely understand, and that is that they want to raise 
taxes, they want to raise spending, and they want to make sure that 
what happens is that loopholes are there in place for them to do 
earmarks despite the debate that has taken place on this floor.
  So I am pleased to join the gentleman from California tonight in 
summarizing that the Rules Committee is a very difficult place for all 
Members. It is a difficult place whether you are in the majority or the 
minority, but it is still the place where the political work gets done, 
and nothing has changed. The Democrat Party is still here to raise 
taxes and raise spending and to take away from the American people that 
which they earn, and that is called their hard-earned money.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dallas for his 
very thoughtful remarks and hard work.
  I recommend to my colleagues going to rules-republicans.house.gov to 
see a copy of this very, very important report that we have just 
unveiled, because it is on behalf of the American people, not any 
bipartisanship, the

[[Page 26240]]

American people, that we are fighting on behalf of their rights.

                          ____________________