Date: 2008-09-26
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

I thank my friend for his presentation. Mr. Speaker. its important to point out. that we make distinct and analyze a number of the matters that we have brought forth. With regard to the ability of the House to consider suspension bills. its evident that that is a process that has much tradition. My objection. and I know that in the last Congress it was done six times. and its done six times in this Congress. but I think its unfair. really. in an exceptional way to the membership. for them. for Members not to know even the title of legislation that is being brought forth so that. along with their staffs. they can study bills that are expected to be noncontroversial because of the twothirds requirement. but there is a great difference. We all accept that suspension bills are a part of the process towards the end of the session. but there is a great difference between authorizing suspensions that are identified. legislation bills that are identified. like we did yesterday. and. you know. in a blanket way authorizing the majority to bring forth any bills on suspension without even identifying them. which is what we are doing today. There is a difference. Yes. it was done six times in the last Congress. and it has been done six times in this Congress. What I pointed out was that the tendency toward unfairness becomes evident when one analyzes the entire spectrum of activity by the majority. procedurally. six and six on what I consider to be inappropriate formats for presenting suspension bills. But when we leave that particular aspect of the suspension bills unidentified. and we analyze. for example. the closed rules. there the majority broke the record in a significant way. 64 closed rules. Thats extraordinary. thats unprecedented. I would remind you that the closed rule is most undemocratic. Then my friend referred to the pingpong process. the process by which conference is avoided. In the last Congress. there was a similar situation of one party in control of both Houses as there is in this Congress. Yet the times in this Congress that conference has been avoided just went through the ceiling. went through the roof. in comparison to the past. I think it was three versus 14 times. Its extraordinary. the difference. And when we analyze all of this in conjunction with and in the context of the promises made by the majority to improve instead of to worsen significantly. In other words. the promise was. with regard to these questionable procedural processes. or manners of acting. rather. the promise was. we are going to improve. we are going to have transparency. we are going to have openness. we are going to have fairness. That was the promise. Then when you see that promise and you juxtapose it to the reality of performance. and the reality of performance is much worse. is much more unfair. it really becomes dramatic. the contrast between promise and performance. Thats what I was alluding to. With regard to some points made by my friend. its almost inevitable for my friend from Vermont not to make appropriate and quite defendable statements. because he is one of the most respected Members of this House. and in the short period of time that he has been here. he has earned that respect on both sides of the aisle. But I think its appropriate to analyze. without passion. the points that I brought forth with regard to the great contrast between promise and performance of this majority. Its a dramatic contrast and an unfortunate contrast. I would ask at this time. my friend. if he has any other speakers.