BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time and yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to this unorthodox rule brought forth by the majority. It continues the precedent the majority set last year when they decided to no longer allow the House to consider appropriations rules with open rules and instead use a restrictive rule that requires Members to preprint any proposed amendments in the Congressional Record.
So this is a restrictive rule, even though the majority calls it an open rule with a preprinting requirement. It was not long ago when the majority felt quite differently. At the end of 2004, the current distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then a member of the minority and ranking member of the Rules Committee, released a report called, ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy.'' On Page 26 of the report the chairwoman said that she considers rules with preprinting requirements, like today's rule, restrictive and not open. Why exactly is this a restrictive rule? Let, me, again, quote the chairwoman's 2004 report. ``A preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of debate.''
For example, Mr. Speaker, Members will be blocked from offering germane changes to their own amendments if an issue surfaces during debate, or if there is a minor drafting error. That is why, during yesterday's rules hearing, I made a motion to modify the rule to allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in this rule, to make germane modifications to such amendments. My commonsense amendment was defeated by a straight party-line vote.
I will provide you an example, Mr. Speaker, why I believe my amendment was important. During last year's consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, Representative Buyer submitted an amendment for consideration. However, the amendment had a drafting error and did not comply with one of the rules of the House.
Once Congressman Buyer realized the problem, he asked unanimous consent to change his amendment to achieve its original purpose, and also to comply with the rules of the House. However, the majority blocked his unanimous consent request.
If the bill had been considered under an open rule, Representative Buyer could simply have introduced a new amendment. But, just like the bill being brought to the floor today, that bill was not considered under an open rule, and Members were blocked from making germane changes to their amendments, unless they received concurrence of every Member through a unanimous consent agreement.
Yesterday, during the hearing on the supplemental appropriations bill, the Rules Committee ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, how the majority would handle another occurrence like occurred last year with the Buyer amendment.
But when Mr. Dreier began asking his question, the Rules Committee chairwoman did not allow Mr. Dreier from going forward with the question. The Rules Committee chairwoman explained her ruling by saying, the hearing on the underlying legislation was complete, and the committee was now considering the supplemental funding bill; a bill that is an appropriations bill just like the underlying legislation. And yet, the chairwoman found that asking the Appropriations chairman about the upcoming appropriations process during a hearing on an appropriations bill was inappropriate. I think that was unfortunate.
Please let me quote Chairwoman Slaughter's report from 2004. Restrictive rules block ``duly elected Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a manner that they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and the Nation as a whole.'' They also block, and I continue quoting, ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions.''
Mr. Speaker, I will insert the relevant parts of the chairwoman's report into the Record.
If the rule was restrictive under the majority's definition in 2004, why is it not the same today?
What makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills in order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendment or receive approval from the Rules Committee.
Other than the recent use by the majority to restrict debate on appropriations bills, we have to look back nearly 15 years to the last time a restrictive rule was used. So this is not a one-time aberration but, in fact, the way the majority plans to continue to consider all of the appropriations bills this year.
So I believe that the majority is really not only subverting the rights of every Member, and also bipartisan and open debate on appropriations bills, but I think they're setting a dangerous precedent that is unfortunate. Excessive partisanship is unnecessary and unfortunate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy and all who have participated in the debate on the rule for bringing this appropriations bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in the rule, to make germane modifications to their amendments.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this restrictive rule we are considering today will not allow Members from amending their own amendments, even if they are simply trying to correct a minor drafting error or make changes to the amendment to comply with the rules of the House. One of the reasons we have so many amendments filed is because Members have filed duplicative amendments to avoid the possibility of errors such as this.
In order to make sure an amendment complies with the rules of the House, Members must consult with four different offices: the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Budget Committee. If any of those offices find an issue with an amendment, then the Member has to make changes to the amendment. This becomes particularly difficult when Members are only given an average of 2 legislative days to draft their amendments and consult all the relevant offices and make changes and then consult with the offices again. Given this scenario, it is quite plausible that a Member didn't have enough time and included a
minor drafting error and that, for example, is not caught until it is too late. We saw it last year with an amendment by Mr. Buyer on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. So as to not have a repeat of that unfortunate incident, I propose to change the rule to allow Members to make germane changes to their amendments.
I remind Members that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or to delay the underlying Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members will be given the opportunity to make changes to their amendments if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT