For many of you the last fifteen months of life during a Republican Congress have been a fascinating time. I might choose a word other than fascinating; nevertheless, I've noticed a few changes in the way the Congress operates. This morning, I'd like to share with you a few observations.

It used to be that when we worked on legislation, we would follow a somewhat regular procedure. A bill would be introduced. We would hold public hearings to receive reaction and comments. We might make a few changes, and then we would proceed to mark up the legislation in Subcommittee. There, it would be amended, and we would do much the same in full Committee. The legislation would then go to the floor, and be sent on to the Senate or to conference.

These efforts were always fully bipartisan. That's why virtually every measure reported by the Commerce Committee -- on a wide range of issues, from energy to Clean Air to Superfund or telecommunications -- would pass the House by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.

Unfortunately, that procedure has been the exception rather than the rule in the 104th Congress. The 104th Congress has to this point operated by peculiar methods.

About 10 minutes before a Committee convenes to markup legislation, a draft of the legislation miraculously appears in our offices. The Committee then proceeds to markup the legislation without hearings or without anyone having read the bill. All amendments are rejected on party-line votes.

At midnight before the full House is scheduled to take up the legislation, gnomes on the third floor of the Capitol complete a full rewrite of the bill. The Rules Committee gathers shortly thereafter to make the rewritten bill in order, allowing only for a substitute to be offered.

The House then passes the legislation, by a party-line vote. The bill is then sent to gather dust in a drawer over in the Senate. If, by some act of divine intervention, the Senate should pass a companion bill, House Members wait around for two or three months before conferees are appointed. Sometimes -- as with product liability legislation -- a conference agreement is reached without the conference meeting at all.

This new way of doing business is one reason the 104th Congress has been among the least productive, and most partisan, Congresses I have seen.

Journalists used to write that between 40 and 75 percent of all legislation to pass the House came through the Commerce Committee. In the 104th Congress, all of five bills to come through Commerce have been signed into law. The telecommunications bill has been to this point the only bipartisan product. We have also passed securities litigation reform over the President's veto, two noncontroversial bills (one dealing with salad oil, the other with philanthropic organizations), and unfunded mandates. This is not a sterling record of achievement.

I say this without anger or rancor. I don't fault the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, or any of his subcommittee chairmen. They are all experienced legislators. They have told me privately on many occasions that they would prefer to work with the Members on my side of the aisle, and treat us the way they were treated when they served in the minority, but they have not to this point been granted that freedom.

Given these circumstances, those of us in the minority are compelled to play a very different role. One past Republican Speaker of the House once said that the function of the minority was simply to constitute a quorum. We approach things somewhat differently.

If we cannot contribute to writing good legislation, then we are forced to block bad legislation when we can. So we have fought to preserve Medicare, nursing home quality standards, spousal impoverishment protections, environmental protection, education funding, and a whole host of other ill-advised proposals.

If there were rhyme or reason in what the majority has attempted to accomplish, it would be much easier for us to work with them. But that's not the case, and let me give you two examples.

Today the House is going to vote on a health insurance bill. We face a clear choice. We can do something very simple: we can pass a bill that makes health insurance portable and prohibits discrimination or restrictions because of pre-existing conditions. This simple bill would help 25 million Americans. Another provision in this bill on the tax deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed would help 3 million Americans.

We could pass this bill, sail it through the Senate, and have it on the President's desk for signature tonight. Instead, we're going to be voting on a Christmas tree bill adorned with ornaments for various special interests. And like a Christmas tree, it's soon going to be put out on the lawn for garbage pickup.

Let me give you one other example. We hear the constant refrain that power should be returned to the states. Fine. But what I see is a completely inconsistent application of that principle.

The majority's health bill today will preempt the states on their regulation of multi-employer health insurance plans. The product liability bill similarly preempts state law. (And, as most of you know, I am a longtime supporter of product liability reform.) Yet on Superfund, the majority proposes simply to turn toxic waste sites over to the states, who will be forced to choose between raising taxes or letting them fester. On Medicaid, the nation's governors want to get their hands on federal funding, but they want to be freed from any obligation to care for the elderly or children or other vulnerable people. The majority seems to forget that the very reason the federal government is involved in Superfund and Clean Water and these other areas is because the state governments simply were not doing the job.

Let me be clear: I have no problem with state flexibility. But I do have a problem with writing blank checks to the governors on the federal taxpayer's account. It seems reasonable to me to insist on certain minimal standards.

I want to conclude with one final observation. Many things have changed in the 104th Congress, and not all of them to the good. But for me at least, one very important principle has not changed. Whether or not I serve in the majority, chairing a Committee, or in the minority as a ranking member, the people I represent are the same. Their hopes and aspirations are unchanged in a Republican or Democratic Congress. They want to maintain and improve their standard of living and quality of life. And whether I chair a Committee or not, I still consider it a great honor to serve and help them. The tools available to do the job may change, but the goal does not. With the help of the good Lord, and the support of the people of Michigan, that will also be true for me in the 105th Congress.

I thank you for your time and attention.

Back to the Public Record Home Page