Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2892, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - June 24, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am sorely disappointed at the rule that has been proposed for the consideration of this Homeland Security Appropriations bill, one of the most important of the bills that the Congress will face. Our constituents are entitled to have us speak for them. That is the reason that they selected us. And yet now we are being denied the opportunity to register the thoughts and opinions of the constituents that we represent.

There were some 70 amendments proffered to be offered on the floor on this bill. Only 14 will be allowed. Never in my experience, and I have been here 28 years, on the Appropriations Committee 26 of those years, have I ever seen a rule this restrictive on allowing members of the committee, as well as the Members of the body, to express their views.

This is a muzzle of the minority. You are muzzling the people that we represent. You say, well, there are so many amendments, it would take us forever, and it would slow down our process of spending. That is what this is all about. The majority is attempting to muzzle the minority to speed up the process of spending, borrowing, and taxing. I regret that. I think it is sad for the institution, not to mention our constituents and the Members of this body.

Well, those 70 amendments we could go through in no time flat. Last year, well, for the 2008 appropriations for this department, there were 178 amendments offered. We didn't shut down the process and deny those people the chance to offer their amendment and to say their piece about what their constituents thought about the bill. We simply went through them, 2 days. After a certain period of time, we were able to work out unanimous consent agreements amongst the Members of the body to reduce the time allotted to each amendment. Or we substituted a colloquy with the other offerer of the amendment instead of offering the amendment, and that satisfied them. They had their day in court, so to speak. Other amendments were not offered. This is nothing new. This is the practice of this honored institution to allow Members to offer their thoughts and opinions and amendments.

If it takes time, that is what democracy is all about. It may not be pretty. The making of sausage is not pretty. But that is what we are in the process and the business of doing. You are shutting down the Members of this body who have legitimate, in-order amendments, almost in toto. And I resent that. The ranking member of the subcommittee was denied the opportunity to offer his own amendment, a legitimate, in-order amendment.

That has never happened, to my knowledge, before. You are making history, but in a sad, sad way. Give us the chance to speak for our constituents, the people that want to know why you are shutting off their voice in this great deliberative body. Give us an open rule, as we have always had it. We have never had a restrictive rule like this on appropriations bills. Give us a chance to be heard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source