On the recordJuly 26, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say: But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you. I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in my own conference. But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because of the amendment. So there is always that calculus when you put these things together. There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that decision, but that is the reality of where we are. There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation that I think is worth noting.…





