[House Report 108-179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-179

======================================================================



 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

   June 25 (legislative day, June 26), 2003.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 297]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 297, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides 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.

                     HISTORY OF THE STANDING ORDER

    On January 7, 2003, the House of Representatives adopted 
House Resolution 5, its Rules for the 108th Congress. Clause 1 
of rule XV makes in order motions to suspend the rules and pass 
certain legislation on Mondays, Tuesdays, and the last six days 
of the congressional session. Also, on that day, the House 
approved a separate 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 authorized the 
Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules until June 
25, 2003.

                         RULES COMMITTEE ACTION

    On June 23, 2003 the Rules Committee held an original 
jurisdiction hearing to solicit testimony from the witnesses 
and the views of the Subcommittee's members on a proposal to 
extend this standing order for the remainder of the 108th 
Congress. The witnesses included the Chairman of the Rules 
Committee David Dreier (R-CA), the Minority Whip Steny Hoyer 
(D-MD), and the Honorable Barney Frank (D-MA).

           WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF JUNE 23 SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

  Opening Statement of Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House 
                          Chairman John Linder

    As the members know, this Subcommittee has jurisdiction 
over a number of matters including the Rules of the House, 
relations between the two Houses of Congress, relations between 
the legislative branch, judicial branch, and the executive 
branch, and the internal operations of the House, including 
committee structure and jurisdiction.
    In that capacity, the Subcommittee on Technology and the 
House is meeting this afternoon to discuss a standing order 
that would authorize the Speaker to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules on Wednesday for the remainder of the 108th 
Congress.
    When the House convened on January 7, 2003, we adopted 
House Resolution 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 six days of session 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 June 25th, this 
coming Wednesday.
    Through last week, there have been a total of 15 Wednesdays 
this year on which the House could have considered legislation 
under ``suspension of the rules.'' This authority has been 
exercised 12 times so far this year.
    Entertaining motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays has 
been a valuable and helpful tool for the House Leadership in 
its ongoing efforts to effectively manage the flow of 
legislation through the House. As such, we should welcome an 
extension of this authority for the remainder of the 108th 
Congress. Today's hearing is designed to solicit testimony from 
the witnesses and the views of the Subcommittee's members on 
this original jurisdiction matter, before any further action is 
taken. I look forward to the debate.
    Before yielding to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. 
Dreier, for his statement, I want to yield to the 
Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member, Mr. McGovern, for any 
comments that he may have.
                                ------                                


  Statement of Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House Ranking 
                        Member James P. McGovern

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing 
today and I want to thank the witnesses--the Chairman of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the Minority Whip, Mr. Hoyer, and 
the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Frank--for taking time out of their busy schedules to be here 
today.
    Current rules allow the House to consider suspension bills 
on Mondays and Tuesdays. A special provision in the rules 
allows the Majority to place items on the suspension calendar 
on Wednesday, as well. That special provision expires soon, and 
it is my understanding that the Majority would like to extend 
it through the rest of this year.
    Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about not only the 
suspension process, but about the way this House is being 
managed.
    The suspension calendar should be reserved for non-
controversial items that do not require lengthy debate by the 
full House. Bills that rename post office buildings; resolution 
congratulating Mr. Rogers or the NCAA hockey champions; 
measures to allow a charity to use the Capitol grounds for an 
event--all of these items have their proper place, and all of 
us have sponsored them.
    But I am concerned that this House is becoming a place 
where trivial issues get debated passionately and important 
issues not at all.
    The Majority in this House already allows far too little 
debate on critical issues facing the American people.
    For example, the other body has been debating the amending 
and working on legislation to provide prescription drug 
coverage to seniors. For many of the families I represent in 
Massachusetts, this is the number one issue facing the country.
    The other body has spent a week on this bill, and their 
work is continuing.
    In the House, however, the issue of prescription drugs for 
seniors will get less than a day. Less than a day!
    Prescription drug coverage for seniors will be squeezed in 
among a bunch of suspensions, two major appropriations bills, 
perhaps a bill on medical savings accounts and who knows what 
else.
    Thus it is already clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican 
leadership has no intention of allowing enough time for full 
debate, full discussion, and the full consideration of relevant 
amendments. It just isn't possible to do all of that in a few 
hours.
    The question is quite simple: Rather than naming more post 
offices on Wednesday, why don't we have more debate. What's 
wrong, for example, with the House spending a few days or even 
a week on the Medicare prescription drug bill? Why not let more 
Members--Democrats and Republicans--have an opportunity to be 
heard? We obviously have the time--otherwise you wouldn't be 
asking for more suspensions to be scheduled.
    I understand that the majority has the responsibility to 
run the House, to move legislation through the process.
    The Rules Committee can be a tool in that effort. But under 
this Republican leadership, the Rules Committee has become not 
a tool, but a weapon. A weapon that stifles debate, 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 of this Committee know, and the American people 
are noticing, the Rules Committee is where the sausage gets 
made, and it's not pretty.
    The facts speak for themselves. Two-thirds of the rules 
reported by this Committee in the 106th Congress were closed or 
restrictive. That increased to 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 47 rules reported by the Rules 
Committee, 4 have been open rules. 4 for 47. That's a batting 
average of .085, which would get you kicked off of my five-year 
old's T-Ball team.
    All of this may sound like inside baseball to most 
Americans, but this stuff matters. In the House of 
Representatives, process determines a great deal. And lately, 
Mr. Chairman, 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, than call it payback. But please don't claim that this 
is fair and balanced, when it's clearly not.
    Americans are better served with an open, democratic 
process. It's in the public interest to allow a full and free 
debate, and to have many different points of view heard and 
considered by the Members of the People's House.
    In 1994, while still in the Minority, Chairman Dreier gave 
a speech about the undemocratic nature of the Rules Committee. 
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.'' (Congressional Record, p. 
H4871, 6/22/94, during Special Order on Congressional Reform)
    The wisdom of his words still apply today. The arrogance of 
power is indeed a dangerous thing.
    So I look forward to the testimony here today. I am 
interested in hearing how extending the suspension calendar 
will make the House a more open, democratic place; how 
extending the suspension calendar will make the people's House 
more responsive to the people's concerns.
    I thank the Chairman for the time and I yield back.
                                ------                                


           Statement of Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier

    Thank you, Chairman Linder.
    We are having this hearing today to provide the minority 
the opportunity to address our plan to extend the current order 
of the House allowing the Speaker to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules and consider legislation on Wednesdays. This 
order, if adopted by the full House, would remain in place for 
the remainder of this Congress.
    There will be much discussion about statistic regarding 
percentages, substitutes, and waivers. I suspect we will hear 
many complaints about too few open rules, form versus substance 
on suspensions and too few amendments and substitutes.
    We will hear many of the same arguments and the same 
complaints that we voiced when we were in the minority.
    This hearing, however, is not about substitutes or open 
rules or amendments made in order.
    So, let me bring the discussion back to the center. At the 
risk of repeating myself, this is simply and only a resolution 
to give the Speaker the authority to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules on Wednesdays. This isn't about politics. It 
is about managing the legislative agenda.
    The Leadership clearly wants and needs this authority to 
conduct the business of the House. We have a lot of work to do 
and a sufficient amount of that work is non-controversial 
enough that another day of suspensions is reasonable and 
warranted. This change will provide what a former leader of the 
House described as ``a more even distribution of workload on 
the Floor.'' Those were the words of then House majority leader 
Tip O'Neill in 1973, in justifying the Democratic majority's 
doubling of the days of suspension.
    Rules Chairman Dick Bolling of Missouri said, when asked 
whether this was in the best interests of the House: ``I 
believe this procedure will be beneficial because it hews to 
the fundamental question: the degree of controversialness, the 
degree of opposition to a piece of legislation should have 
something to do with how it is considered and if there is major 
opposition to any matter it can be defeated on suspension.''
    Our record on the distribution of suspensions is actually 
quite good in a historical context. So far this year, 71 
percent of the bills under suspension have been Republican 
sponsored bills and 29 percent Democratic. Compare this with 
the last Congress in which the Democrats controlled the House. 
Then the sponsorship of suspensions were 89 percent Democratic 
and 11 percent Republican.
    We have been good stewards of the process. The minority 
clearly doesn't like everything we do, but it is just as clear 
that making this simple change in the process does not 
represent or portend any ominous new power or any abuse of 
existing power. In fact, when the Democrats expanded the 
suspension calendar they were in far better shape to win 
suspension votes than we are today.
    The Democratic leadership undertook the last major 
expansion of suspension days in the 95th Congress when they 
enjoyed a majority of 292, more than the two-thirds needed to 
win any suspension vote. Today, we have only 229 in our narrow 
majority, nowhere near enough. We require 61 Democrats to put 
us over on any suspension. What kind of risk is there for the 
minority when legislation is considered by suspending the 
rules?
    For me there is only one numerical fact that cannot be in 
dispute, but carries the most significance in any debate 
regarding the House of Representatives. That most important 
statistic is the number of Republicans and Democrats elected to 
the House. It determines who is the majority party and what is 
the margin of the majority over the minority.
    Republicians have averaged a seventeen-vote margin over the 
Democrats while we have controlled both Houses of Congress 
during the Presidency of George Bush. This compares with an 
average margin of control by the Democrats during Carter's 
Presidency of 134 and during Clinton a margin of 91 more 
members.
    You had massive majorities and you still found it difficult 
to run the House so one of the steps you took on two occasions 
was to expand the suspension calendar. You had the kind of 
control that we can only dream of. And what you did with those 
massive majorities? You didn't govern well enough.
    We do not want to make that mistake. We want to get done 
what needs to be done.
    The Democratic minority today has the votes to defeat any 
question considered under suspension of the rules. You have 
flexed that muscle when you recently defeated a couple of 
suspensions proposed by the National Resources Committee. You 
have made the case for us that you stop any legislative 
proposal considered under these procedures. When Republicans 
were in the minority, as I said, we didn't have that luxury.
    But we all know that for the Democratic minority this 
hearing and this debate isn't just about the Suspension 
Calendar, or about the mechanics of governing.
    So let's be sure that everyone within earshot of this 
hearing knows exactly what is going on. This is really about 
the nature of minority vs. majority politics. This is about the 
distribution of power and the exercise of that power.
    This is about obstructing our ability to govern and 
strengthening yours. It is a tug of war that is as old as the 
partisan divisions in the House.
    And, hopefully, the country is better for it. It is, after 
all, the contest for power between minority and majority that 
produces the best government, the best result.
    When Democrats controlled the House, their leaders found 
reason to limit debate, modify rules and control the time of 
the House in order to get the business of the nation done. We 
couldn't get substitutes. We couldn't get motions to recommit. 
We couldn't get debate time. We couldn't even get copy machines 
and bathroom keys.
    House Speakers from Sam Rayburn to Tom Foley all engaged in 
the traditions of denying the minority and the minority 
complained. But governance demands discipline and sound 
management in an area filled with 435 independent contractors, 
all of whom are building to their own blueprint. Republicans 
chafed under Democratic control for 40 long years. Do the 
Democrats now deny that era in history and condemn those great 
Speakers who used their majority status to conduct the nation's 
business?
    When Republicans have controlled the House, their leaders, 
too, have embraced styles of governance designed to get the 
work done. That is the case today, and today, we, too, stand in 
conflict with some of the things we said about Democratic 
control. We could argue that times were different, that 
circumstances were not the same, that you were more arbitrary 
and autocratic than we. But I will leave those arguments to 
you. It is time for us to demonstrate our ability to govern to 
the American people.
    We have a very thin margin within which to govern. We have 
to make the most efficient use of time and the rules. We don't 
have a margin of error. The American people expect nothing less 
and we do not intend to disappoint them.
    Let me finish by quoting once more one of the greatest 
reformers of the Democratic party--my most esteemed predecessor 
in this chair, Mr. Bolling of Missouri. This was when he was 
doubling the number of suspension days:
    ``I am sure that it would be relatively safe to say that if 
the shoe were on the other foot, that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle might well be proposing these . . . 
controversial items and we on this side might, in the interests 
of preserving to the minority, its greater ability to delay, 
might be saying essentially what the minority is saying about 
these propositions.''
                                ------                                


        Statement of Rules Committee Ranking Member Martin Frost

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make a few 
comments today. The purpose of this hearing, as you have said, 
is to consider a proposal to allow the House to consider bills 
under suspension of the rules on Wednesdays through the end of 
this Congress. Bringing bills to the floor under suspension of 
the rules is a useful tool to conduct the routine and non-
controversial business of the House. However, I believe the 
Republican majority is using this tool as yet another means to 
stifle debate in the House and to close down the opportunity 
for Members to fully participate in the legislative process.
    And how might that be the case if, in fact, bills 
considered under suspension of the rules are routine and non-
controversial? The answer is not a simple one, but if I distill 
it to its essence, the answer is this: clogging the legislative 
calendar for three days of a work-week with innumerable bills 
naming and renaming post offices and other federal buildings 
limits the time available to debate important legislation that 
deserves extended debate in the House. By filling our days with 
consideration of bills that congratulate one group or another, 
or which extend sympathies or support or commendation, limits 
how much time we have to devote to pressing issues.
    Now, don't get me wrong. It isn't that I object to 
congratulating or sympathizing or commending. Today, for 
example we were to debate a resolution expressing support for 
freedom in Hong Kong--an important and laudable goal but that 
bill has now been moved to Wednesday. We have expressed 
sympathy for the victims of the Algerian earthquake--a terrible 
tragedy to be sure. We have congratulated the people of Kenya 
for their recent free and fair elections--a seminal event that 
moves that country further down the road to entrenched 
democracy. We also have commended the signing of the United 
States-Adriatic Charter. Most importantly, we debated a bill 
which extends bankruptcy relief to farmers, an issue that this 
body has passed nearly unanimously year after year after year. 
Tomorrow's schedule promises more of the same.
    But what is also promised for tomorrow is the possibility 
that a very important appropriations bill, funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security, will be considered under a 
restrictive rule. I suspect the full docket of suspensions has 
had little influence on the decision to consider Homeland 
Security under a restrictive rule, but it merely points out how 
suspensions can crowd out time to fully air, debate and amend 
legislation brought to the floor. In fact, I suspect this week 
we will spend more time debating and voting on bills considered 
under suspension of the rules than we will on any of the major 
legislative matters that are scheduled for the week--including 
two major appropriations bills, prescription drugs, and the 
authorization for the intelligence activities of the United 
States.
    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 stifling debate and gagging 
the House to new heights.
    The Democratic Members of this Committee, as do the other 
Members of our Caucus, believe the Republican majority has, in 
the years since it took control of this institution, made a 
concerted effort to shut down debate and stifle those voices, 
on both sides of the aisle, who believe that alternative 
viewpoints are deserving of consideration and debate in this 
democratic institution. We believe this effort by the 
Republican leadership is contrary to the public interest and 
contrary to the pledges made by a host of Republican Members in 
the years leading up to the 1994 election.
    Earlier this year, we submitted dissenting views to the 
committee's oversight report to the Committee on Government 
Reform. In that report we outlined a number of issues we 
believe point to the fact that the Republican majority has 
systematically shut down the ability of Members of this body--
Republican and Democrat alike--to offer amendments and to fully 
air their views when legislation is brought to the floor.
                                ------                                


                 Statement of Minority Whip Steny Hoyer

    Chairman Linder, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of 
the Subcommittee: Thank you for calling this hearing on an 
issue that strikes at the very heart of the American 
legislative process and the long, proud tradition in this House 
of Representatives--the commitment of Members who serve here to 
engage in free and fair debates on the most important issues of 
the day.
    From the time of Speaker Henry Clay and the great orator 
Daniel Webster through the service in more recent years of 
outstanding Members such as Barbara Jordan, Claude Pepper, Bob 
Michel and Barber Conable, the history of this House has been 
marked by open and robust debate, informed by reason, in the 
pursuit of sound, wise and democratic decision making that 
serves the best interests of our nation and the American 
people.
    Thomas Jefferson remarked once (and I quote): ``Difference 
of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.'' And so it 
remains today.
    Mr. Chairman, shortly before the current House Majority 
obtained that status in January 1995, the incoming Chair of 
this Rules Committee--the late Gerald Solomon--said (and I 
quote):
    ``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness. . . 
. The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to 
contrive a predetermined outcome. From now on, the Rules 
Committee will clear the stage for debate, and let the House 
work its will.''
    Sadly, Mr. Chairman, despite repeated commitments by 
Republicans to run an open and deliberative process, the 
current House Majority has not lived up to its oft-quoted 
principles and commitments.
    Today, in this, the People's House, discussion is too often 
perfunctory, dissent is too often stifled, and ``debate'' has 
become a euphemism for a rigged process that is designed solely 
to allow the current Majority to achieve whatever result it 
desires.
    As the Chairman of the full Rules Committee told The 
Washington Post in an article published one week ago today: 
``Our number one priority is to move our agenda.''
    The American people may not know it, but today in this 
House 130 million citizens--the approximate number of citizens 
who are represented by Members who are in the Minority--are 
effectively having their voices silenced.
    Since 1995, the Republican Majority increasingly has passed 
procedural rules that limit debate, as well as the opportunity 
of the Minority to offer substitutes and amendments.
    In the 108th Congress, for example, we dedicate almost as 
much time to non-controversial bills on the suspension calendar 
naming Federal office buildings and post offices as we did to 
the House Resolution tax plan--a crucial debate for our nation, 
a debate in which the Republican Majority denied the Democratic 
Minority any opportunity to offer our alternative plan.
    We provided more time for debate on a Resolution naming 
Room 236 in the Capitol for former Majority Leader Dick Armey 
than we did to the momentous act of increasing the statutory 
debt ceiling by $984 billion--an amount that roughly equals the 
entire national debt in 1980, and which is the largest increase 
in the debt limit in American history.
    Mr. Chairman, 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.
    Unfortunately, tactics designed to shut down debate are not 
an aberration. They are becoming the norm.
    In addition to the two examples noted above, the Republican 
leadership in this Session has denied Democrats the opportunity 
to offer amendments to legislation extending unemployment 
insurance benefits--not once, but twice.
    The Republican leadership provided Members just a few hours 
to read thousands of pages of legislation that incorporated 11 
of the 13 annual appropriations bills.
    That was not only humanly impossible, it was a sorry 
introduction to the new Members in this body who had no idea 
what they were being asked to vote on.
    Not content with denying the Minority the opportunity to 
offer amendments and substitutes, the Republican Majority has 
even refused to permit Democrats the chance to vote on the 
Majority's own bills.
    That is precisely what happened on June 12th when the 
Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing 
for adoption of the GOP's $82 billion bill accelerating the 
increase in the child tax credit for low-income families.
    I would be remiss if I failed to note that barely one hour 
later, the House passed, on a bipartisan vote, a non-binding 
Motion to Instruct conferees to accept the substantially more 
responsible Senate version of that bill.
    House Democrats, of course, had tried to offer the same 
Senate bill as a substitute. But the Republican Majority 
blocked us from doing so.
    Mr. Chairman, clearly we can do better. And we owe the 
American people, this institution, and ourselves more.
    In these discussions on legislative process, I have always 
been forthright: When Democrats controlled the House, we did 
not always provide for fair debates. We should neither excuse 
those past practices, nor countenance the current ones.
    No one expects every rule to be open. But we do expect that 
the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the 
exception.
    Allow me to offer a few thoughts on how we may improve the 
legislative process and ensure fairness to both the Majority 
and Minority.
    First, bills should be developed following full hearings, 
open subcommittee markups, with appropriate referrals to other 
committees.
    Second, bills should generally come to the Floor under 
rules providing time for debate, as well as the opportunity to 
offer amendments, commensurate with the importance and 
consequences of the bill under consideration.
    Third, Members should have at least 24 hours to examine 
bill text prior to Floor consideration. And rules should be 
reported before 9 p.m. for a bill to be considered the 
following day.
    Fourth, the suspension calendar should be restricted to 
non-controversial legislation, with minority availability in 
relation to party ratio in the House.
    Mr. Chairman, these are just a few suggestions that would 
permit this House to run in a more fair and efficient manner, 
while also respecting the democratic tradition that has been 
the hallmark in this body for more than 200 years.
    Let me close by quoting a friend of mine, the current 
Chairman of the Rules Committee,
    Mr. Dreier: ``Frankly, it seems to me that the process of 
representative government means that a person who represents 
600,000 people here should have the right to stand up and put 
forth an amendment and then have it voted down if it is 
irresponsible. We are simply asking that we comply with the 
standard operating rules of this House.''
    David Dreier made that statement on the House Floor on 
March 30, 1993, when his party was in the Minority. He was 
correct then. He is no less correct today.

                                
