Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I cannot hear you, sir.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me start from the beginning and say I was aware of no gentleman's agreement. In order to purchase the right to speak on this bill, we just gave up the right to vote on this bill because of the coercion by the Republican majority. We had to purchase the right to speak on this bill for 10 minutes on our side instead of 30 minutes, because my colleagues are trampling on the rules and the customs and the procedures of the House, because my colleagues do not want any debate on this bill, because it will not stand the light of day, especially what my colleagues are doing here. This is a State Department reauthorization bill, but who is managing it? Do we see the foreign affairs committee people here on either side of the aisle? No, everybody knows that is a fiction. This is a bankruptcy bill, and therefore the Committee on Judiciary people are here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Conyers), myself in order to deal with this bankruptcy bill in the guise of the State Department authorization bill, a motion to go to conference on the State Department authorization bill, a bill that was signed into law last year, number one. Number two, why? Why are we trampling upon the normal procedures and rules of the House? Because $40 million has been spent on lobbying and campaign contributions by the big banks and they must be repaid. They must get their way. People in the margins of society, those who have had their jobs sent overseas, who have suffered serious illnesses, who have had to face the economic consequences of divorce or the death of a breadwinner, these Americans have very small voices in this Congress, and they are drowned out by the millions spent by the big banks, by the shopping centers, the credit card companies. This dominates and will have their way on this, even if the majority just trampled the rules and the procedures and customs of the House. Mr. Speaker, we are not getting prescription drug relief. We are not getting campaign finance reform. Farmers have been without chapter 12 relief for months while family farms are still being held hostage to the banks' wish list. We have not even done our basic business and passed the appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government. But today we have before us in the guise of a motion to go to conference on a State Department bill, a 400-page list of favors for the large special interests. We should pay our debt to the American people, first. No one knows what is in the bill that is going to be proposed in this conference. Nobody here will get to review it. This will be another secret shame on the House and on the voters. This is a perfect illustration of the depths to which our failure to pass serious campaign finance reform a few years ago has brought us. I am sorry that we do not have a full hour to debate this bill, that we have only 20 minutes because of the wish of the majority to trample on the rules of this House, because they do not want to see this bill really debated, to see the light of day, because if the American people really knew what was in it, they would be outraged.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), chairman of the subcommittee, since he assured us a moment ago that this House has voted on this bill, can he assure us that the bill that we are going to see is the same bill the House voted on, or is it a different bill? How do we know?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, if it is in deference to the wish of the majority to move expeditiously, I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate to 15 minutes on each side.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct simply instructs the managers on several points: one, that all meetings of the conference committee be open to the public and to the print and electronic media and be held in venues selected to maximize the capacity for attendance by the public and the media; that is, that it be held in a large room and that it be open and public. Secondly, that the committee of conference allow sufficient opportunity for members of the committee on conference to offer and to debate amendments to the matters in conference at all meetings of the committee of conference. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we are sending this bill to a conference committee, it should be a real conference committee, not the sham, shadow conference where only people who basically approved of the bill were consulted, and not the sham conference we had 2 years ago where, after a ceremonial opening where no one was allowed to offer amendments, everything else was done in camera and the members of the minority were presented only with a written report to sign or not to sign. There were no further meetings. If the spirit of democratic procedure, with a small ``d,'' in this House is to be upheld, then the conference committee ought to be a real committee. There ought to be meetings. The meetings ought to be held in a room with chairs and seats and space for the media to report on it as is generally the case with, as in fact is uniformly the case with the rules of the House for committee meetings. That is all this says. I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can vote against this because all it says is the meetings of the conference committee should be in conformance with the normal practices, open meetings, and the bill should be a result of open deals openly arrived at, to paraphrase Woodrow Wilson. It is a very simple motion. I expect everyone will support this obviously uncontroversial and constructive motion so that the bill and the changes that will be made in it can be done in the light of day, and everyone can be responsible for what they do. The media, whoever is interested can be there, and there will be seats in the room so people who are interested can watch it. It is hard for me to imagine any grounds for opposing this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for a question.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, do we have a commitment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a personal commitment, that the terms of this motion to instruct will, in fact, be adhered to, because we have a record here of motions to instruct being ignored. So in other words, do we have a commitment that, in fact, the meetings will be open to the public as it says here and members of the conference committee will have opportunity to offer amendments and so forth? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, frankly, no one has to confirm the rules of the House. The rules of the House are what they are. But despite the rules of the House, past conferences on this bill and conferences on other bills have not been done this way. Some have. Many have not been. So I ask if we have the gentleman's personal commitment as a member of the majority, perhaps the chairman of the conference, that the conference will be done in accordance with the urgings of this motion that we are apparently about to pass. Because the rules of the House have no enforcement mechanism. That is why I am asking for his personal commitment as the enforcement mechanism on this situation. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is looking at me with a quizzical look on his face----

Mr. NADLER. Well, sometimes, I deserve that.

Mr. NADLER. And sometimes not. But in any event, the rules of the House are often waived. So that is why I am simply asking for the gentleman's word, his commitment that, in this case, the rules of the House, as expressed in this motion to instruct, namely, that the meetings will be open to the public and to the print and electronic media, that they will be held in rooms large enough so people can attend, and that members of the conference committee will have the opportunity to offer and debate amendments, that that in fact will be done. Do I have the gentleman's commitment and assurance that that, in fact, will be done? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, that is not an answer.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, excuse me, it is my time now. Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, the best way, I do not know if it is the best way, but the easiest way to expedite the process of the bill is to walk out with a bill, have the majority members of the conference committee sign it, and come back and say this is the conference report with no meetings. So I will ask again, do I have a commitment that there will, in fact, be meetings in a room with the members of the conference committee present at the same time and with members of the conference committee able to offer and debate amendments? Simple request. Do I have that commitment, yes or no?

Mr. NADLER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Chair to be saying that the majority party has decided that the minority has zero time for debate on this bill because it is embarrassed by this bill, or because of some other reason?

Mr. NADLER. Continuing parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from what the gentleman has said and from what the Speaker is saying that the minority is to be denied its customary time to debate this bill; that there is no time to debate this bill at all? Is that what we are to understand?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we did not get any commitment that this will be adhered to. I will predict right now, and I will say it on the floor, and, in fact, let me pose a challenge to the Republican leadership. I do not believe they are going to adhere to this. I do not believe there will be a meeting. I do not believe members will have the opportunity to offer amendments. I do not believe there will be votes on those amendments. I do not believe anyone will be able to sit at that meeting. I challenge them to show me I am wrong. I predict that I am right. I challenge them to show me I am wrong. I challenge them to show me they can, in fact, proceed on this bill in an honorable way under the rules of the House. I bet they do not. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Under the rules of this House, how much time will the minority get to debate this bill, this motion?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering the question. The gentleman said it will be different, so we have not debated that bill. We may have debated a bill with similar core values. I am not going to say I concede that, I assume that, but it is not the same bill. Mr. Speaker, I would ask one other if the gentleman wants to answer. What on earth does this have to do with the State Department authorization? What on earth does this have to do with reauthorization of the State Department?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. In other words, we are using the State Department bill for something that has nothing to do with the State Department, because we cannot find an honest way under the rules of the House to do this.