[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 26 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H1181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MAKING IN ORDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FULL-YEAR CONTINUING 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011--Continuing

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I guess I am a dissenter in this orgy of self-congratulation, 
and I want to explain why. And I may not object if I have a chance to 
explain why, but if I can't explain, I have to object. So that is the 
choice. I either explain or object.
  I object not to the UC at this point, but to the self-congratulation 
that the majority is engaging in because they said they had such an 
``open process.'' In fact, the refutation of that was best stated by 
the gentleman from Kentucky. He just said we have debated the whole 
government. Yes, we have--and very inappropriately.
  To debate the whole government and to debate fundamental policy 
issues under the guise of a budget, under the constraints of a budget 
debate and not three, not a whole week, 2\1/2\ days so far. Maybe we 
will get a third day. We have dealt with the most fundamental 
questions. In the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve, 
issues came up under great constraint. The reform bill of last year has 
been damaged by what was done here. Fortunately, it will never become 
law. And we were constrained because we had to choose between the SEC 
and the IRS. That is not the way to legislate.
  This was not an open process. Yes, you could offer amendments. You 
could offer amendments in a very narrow compass. You could offer 
amendments according to the jurisdiction of subcommittees. The 
jurisdiction of subcommittees is somewhat accidental. It doesn't 
determine public policy.
  And, yes, we are talking about it now. We are boasting about debating 
the whole government. Did my colleagues listen to the UC? You will get 
to debate whole aspects of the government tomorrow for 10 minutes. We 
are the model of democracy. The next thing you know, they will be 
rioting in parts of the world so they can have 10 minutes per issue to 
debate fundamental issues.
  This is a travesty. I very much objected to this procedure. My 
leadership, for which I have great respect, had asked me if they could 
go forward. I am prepared to allow that because of some conditions. One 
is that I am confident that this awful, distorted, ill-thought-out 
process has produced a bill that will never see the light of day. And 
by the way, no one should be surprised. We are now going to recess 
after we finish with all of these other parts of the government in 10 
minutes per issue, or up to an hour for a couple of important ones, 20 
minutes for some only moderately important ones.
  The Senate will then get this with 4 days left before it expires. No 
one realistically thinks this is going to happen. So perhaps some of 
the constituencies were mollified by this show; but I want to stress 
again, this has been awful procedure.
  The gentleman from Kentucky is right: we have debated the whole 
government, fundamental issues that go far beyond budgetary issues in 
3\1/2\ days. We will have debated fundamental issues in 10 minutes. 
This is openness? This is a travesty of the democratic process.
  So, Mr. Speaker, because I have been given a chance to explain why I 
think this is a terrible process, why I am going to say now I don't 
expect the Senate to accept this. We will have to come back and do it 
again. There will have to be, I assume, a short-term extension.
  I want to give notice now to all parties, I will object strenuously 
at every procedural opportunity to any effort to repeat this travesty.

                              {time}  0000

  So with respect to the ranking member and to the minority whip and 
the minority leader and to others and to people who have worked so hard 
and to the poor long-suffering staff, yes, I will remove my 
reservation, and I will not object. Having made it clear, once the 
Senate gives this awful product an appropriate burial, I will not be a 
party to its resuscitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object because just 
to sit here and listen, after having spent the last 4 years dealing 
with the most closed Congress--the last Congress, in fact, had more 
closed rules than any Congress in American history--and then to be 
lectured about what is a travesty is itself a travesty. That's the real 
travesty. That many closed rules, and you come down here and want to 
tell us what is awful? Try standing here for the last 4 years and 
dealing with closed rule, closed rule, closed rule, no amendments. 
We're not going to let you represent your people because we're going to 
cram everything down. That's a travesty.
  Let's get on with the democratic process because that's what it is 
when you get to hear from both sides. We heard from one side. We heard 
``travesty'' several times, and now we'll get back to the democratic 
process.
  And with that, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________