Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow an open rule consistent with tradition and with fairness. I urge my colleagues to consider what we are about to do and to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, I believe if not, the majority will come to regret this decision and close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of openness on appropriations bills and fairness. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I sincerely believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills. Yesterday, the House passed an already unorthodox rule that broke the precedent. It was restrictive. And pursuant to that rule, 127 amendments were filed by Members of this House. After debate on the first Republican amendment, the first one, the majority decided to halt consideration of the legislation, and called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee, which began at 10:45 p.m. last night. In response to that first Republican amendment, the majority is now bringing forth this rule that will block consideration of most of the amendments that were made in order under the previous rule proposed by the majority and passed by this House. So all those Members who followed the rule previously passed and filed their amendments by the deadline will be left without the chance to represent the interests of their constituents. I think this rule is unjust. I think it's unnecessary. I think the majority's making a big mistake. During yesterday's late-night meeting, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee cited the large number of amendments that were preprinted pursuant to the previous rule as a reason for shutting down the appropriations process. He went on to cite what he considers to be his obligation to move the appropriations bills on schedule. As a matter of fact, he was kind enough to hand out to the members of the Rules Committee this copy of a proposed schedule. I understand his concern. But the reason, precisely, for the high number of amendments that were filed yesterday was because the majority had abandoned the use of the traditional open appropriations rule, and they had required Members to pre-print their amendments, and that forced Members to submit all of the amendments that they conceivably thought they might wish to introduce, to consider, rather, even if they eventually did not plan to offer them. Under the previous rule, Members were also barred from making germane amendments to their amendments, changes to their amendments, so Members submitted duplicative amendments to cover all possible angles. Members have an obligation to their constituents to represent them on appropriations bills and to represent the interests of their communities. Now, yes, even though over 120 amendments were set for debate, the reality, Madam Speaker, is that we never would have considered all of those amendments. Members were hedging their bets. They were submitting duplicative amendments that, in most instances, they didn't plan to actually offer for debate. Mr. Burton, for example, came before the Rules Committee last night. We were there till almost 2 in the morning, and he testified that he had submitted a number of amendments, but he only was going to ask for one of the amendments to be actually debated. So I ask, Madam Speaker, if the majority really believed that the minority was using dilatory tactics, why did they stop debate after the first minority amendment and call for an emergency Rules meeting? They should have followed the advice of my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, and allowed debate to continue last night and proceeded to work through the amendments. Instead, after one minority amendment, they halted the floor process so that the Rules Committee could meet late last night. Now, by the time the meeting was over at almost 2 a.m., the House could have actually considered already a number of the amendments, and most likely could have agreed by unanimous consent, which is the tradition on appropriations bills, to limit time on remaining amendments and the debate time. If, after debating for a reasonable amount of time, the majority sincerely came, then, to the conclusion that the minority was using dilatory tactics, the majority then could have called the Rules Committee to seek a structured rule. Instead, the majority gave up after just one minority amendment and immediately decided to use the heavy hand of the Rules Committee to close down the deliberative process. So I wonder if they really had any intention at all to follow through on their initial call for Members to be allowed to offer amendments that were preprinted in the Congressional Record. Now, under the rule that we're considering at this time, only 22 specific amendments chosen by the majority are made in order. The rule also calls for the Appropriations ranking minority member to decide which 10 additional earmark-related amendments will be considered. So the majority is bucking the decision to the minority on which of their amendments they will block. The minority must now have to silence our own Members even though it was not our decision to limit amendments. I think that really is unfortunate by the majority. If the majority wants to block amendments, they should have the courage to say whose amendments they wish to block. So, Madam Speaker, I think, today, we're witnessing a sad page in the history of this body. I think we're witnessing a day that, without doubt, will come to be regretted by the majority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I rise today to congratulate my friend Rolando Ochoa, vice president and branch manager of the Sunny Isles branch of BankUnited, upon earning a Doctor of Business Administration from Nova Southeastern University in South Florida. As part of the program, Dr. Ochoa completed a grueling program of at least 68 credit hours in difficult disciplines. Although already greatly respected for his career in the banking industry, Rolando Ochoa has continued to deepen his knowledge of business and the banking industry. His admirable pursuit of excellence in his field will be of great assistance to our South Florida community. On Saturday, Dr. Ochoa will graduate from Nova Southeastern, having been granted his doctorate. It is my privilege and honor to congratulate you, Dr. Rolando Ochoa, on this great achievement. I know that your dedication to excellence will continue to serve our community well.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

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.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

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. Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic Process in the 108th Congress. Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member 4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open Rules'' During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement. This provision requires Members to submit their amendments for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them ``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the appendices attached to this report. While we concede that considering a bill with a pre- printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules Committee report; \31\ there is a significant difference between an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing requirement. A pre-printing requirement forces Members to reveal their amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. In addition, a pre- printing requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier was in the minority, he made the following statement about the preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on national, service legislation: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ According to our records, 50% (64) of the non-conference report/non-procedural rules reported by the Committee in the 108th Congress were rules restricting debate to amendments printed in the Committee report. In the ``Additional Views'' they filed in the 102nd Congress Survey of Activities Republican Rules Committee members, including Chairman Dreier, complained this type of restrictive rule had become ``a favored method of the majority.'' Under this procedure, the Rules Committee ``selectively determines which [amendment] to make in order and which may not be offered on the floor. Usually, the amendments made in order are subject to strict time limits, as opposed to open debate under the five-minute rule, and are not subject to amendment. On rare occasions the Rules Committee has allowed all amendments submitted to be offered, but this is the exception, not the rule.'' H. Rept. 102-1101, 102nd Survey, p. 109. ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better.\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ Congressional Record July 20, 1993, p. H4820. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose of the amendment process on the floor is to give 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. It is not to help the foor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions'' would allow at least some House business to occur in an open format---in a procedural framework that allows Members to bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion and debate under the five-minute rule.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ As we have noted above, most appropriations bills are debated under technically open rules, but amendments are subject not just to the normal restrictions of germaneness, but also a number of other restrictions set out in rule XXI and in the Congressional Budget Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Republicans Expanded the Consideration of Suspension Bills to Crowd Out Real Deliberation in the House Another aspect of the disturbing trend towards curtailing real deliberation on controversial issues in the House has been the Republican leadership's tendency to devote more and more floor time to debating bills under the suspension of the rules. In the 108th Congress, standing House Rule XV permitted the House to consider bills under suspension of the rules on Mondays and Tuesdays, and during the last six days of a session of Congress. The suspension procedure allows for 40 minutes of debate, requires a two-thirds vote for a bill to pass, and allows no amendments except by the floor manager. The ostensible purpose of the suspension day procedure is, as the Republican majority describes it in one of its Parliamentary Outreach newsletters, ``to dispose of non- I reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.