Date: 2010-07-29
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I would like to thank my friend. the gentleman from New York . for the time. and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my rules associate. general counsel. legislative director. This is the last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman MARIO DIAZBALART. who is aware of Cesars talent. has made what I consider a very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not going to be working on rules together. but we will always be friends. And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So Cesar. thank you. Madam Speaker. yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know its almost August. but thats the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process. that unfortunate process. with yet another restrictive rule. this time on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor. the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 amendments that were submitted to be debated. Thats 22 percent of the amendments submitted. As you know. Madam Speaker. that used to not be the case. Always throughout the history of the Republic. appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules. And you know. Madam Speaker. we have been here for some years now. sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But thats the way democracys supposed to work. So the way that for centuries weve worked out that process. Congress has worked out that process. is that. you know. the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor. after a while. after days. they come together with a unanimous consent agreement and they limit debate. The Congress. we limit debate by unanimous consent. Thats the way its worked out. You know. you dont close the process at the beginningat least we didnt before. Starting last year. this majority decided to. however. And thats unfortunate. Now. under the traditional process that was followed since the beginning of the Republic. no one from the majority leadership or the Rules Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words. as long as they were connected. the issue was connected to the bill at hand. Now. thats what an open rule is. an open process. And as I say. its been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate appropriations bills under an open process. under open rules. I outline what an open rule is because its been so long since the House has considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members. because they have never experienced an open rule. But thats why I outlined what an open rule process is. The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31. 2007. almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill. For a nonappropriations bill. February 8. 2007. the month after they took the majority. That was their last open rule. the last open rule that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You know. thats sad. But especially its unnecessary. But there is extraordinary power in the majority. obviously. and our friends on the majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You know. its a record that no one should be proud of. but it is the legacy of this majority. Now. what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. but they didnt. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks before Christmas. As I said last year. as I said yesterday. as I say now. this process is unjust and its unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a mistake yesterday. Its a mistake today. Its a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret. I reserve the balance of my time.