Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and for his presentation of this rule, which I rise with great reluctance to oppose. My reluctance springs not from the substance of the rule, that is easy, but reluctance springing from my respect and regard for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
The chairman is my friend, and this is probably the last rule which we will be contending with each other over. I want to take the opportunity to say what a pleasure it has been to serve in Congress with the gentleman. The gentleman knows of the respect that I have for him, and that is why it is very difficult for me to oppose the gentleman on this rule. But the gentleman made it easy, because I think this rule is a contortion and, in my view, violates the agreement that we had with our committee.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation, and it seems like an annual event, where we get an agreement with the Republican leadership of this House that we will have free and fair debate and vote on the international family planning issue. No matter where one stands on that issue, Members understand the unfairness that is contained in this bill.
The record of our Committee on Appropriations was clear. When our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), spelled out very clearly how our rights were protected on this issue on the floor or in any other arena that it would be taken up.
My complaint is not with our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), nor is it with my colleague and the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). It is a joy to serve with both of them, and I respect them highly.
My complaint is with this Republican leadership of this House which, after agreements are made in our committee, has to go and run and check with the far right to see if it was okay.
We specifically conveyed to the Republican leadership that a second-degree amendment was not part of the agreement. They knew that. The reason my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) says, well you usually get the second degree, why are you complaining if I do. The point is that, in the interest of comity and cooperation, we said, okay, proceed and put the gentleman's language in the bill if we get a chance to amend it on the floor.
So, indeed, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has a privileged position. His language is part of the legislation. Why should he have two bites at the apple, especially when that is in violation of our agreement.
So one of the casualties of this will be, of course, the trust that we can have working together in the Committee on Appropriations, because, clearly, we should be talking to the far right wing if we want to be sure about what the arrangement will be when we come to the floor.
It takes the rug out from under our own committee leadership and any commitments they make to us in committee. When that commitment was made, it specifically mentioned that the leadership, the Republican leadership of the House was a part of the agreement. So here we go again. That is just one point, the point of unfairness, which of course seems to be the banner of the day around here.
But this rule, even if that unfairness were not an issue, and let us for a moment put it aside, I call this rule a rule suitable for ostriches. Let us put our heads in the sand on all of the troubled spots in the world.
For example, Korea, North Korea, the rules committee would not allow an amendment on Korea. International environmental issues, we cannot have an amendment on that issue. The list goes on and on. Africa, we cannot have an amendment on what is going on in Africa.