Permission to File Supplemental Reports on H.R. 2641, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008; H.R. 2643, Departmen

Floor Speech

PERMISSION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS ON H.R. 2641, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008; H.R. 2643, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008; AND PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2638, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 14, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would echo the comments of both Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obey. We were pleased to support and will be offering very shortly that protection. So I say to the gentleman from Kentucky, we expect to do that in the next few days, and his conference report, when it comes back, will be subject to this point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me clarify that point briefly. The proposed rule change will not take place until some time later.

Mr. HOYER. It will be done very soon.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. In the meantime, we are taking up this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Yes. If the gentleman will yield further, I have indicated to the minority leader that no conference report will be considered on the floor until we adopt that amendment, but I expect to adopt that amendment, frankly, before your bill gets to the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is going to, I think, outline our understanding of the agreement. But the answer to your question is yes. Every earmark starting with Monday forward, obviously we know that these two bills are moving tonight, our agreement is that every earmark going forward will be included in the bills.

The only complication is both sides have recognized that on the Energy and Water bill, it is going to take a very substantial time, so that the earmarks that would otherwise be included in the Energy and Water bill will be included in a subsequent bill, to then be attached prior to the Energy and Water bill going to the Senate. But that will be open for full debate and amendment to remove those earmarks.

So the answer to your question is yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield again to me, it is my understanding, as I said earlier, and Mr. Obey, I believe, the Energy and Water earmarks will be attached to a subsequent appropriations bill so that, in fact, it will have its own earmarks and the Energy and Water earmarks, all of which will be subject to review, notice, transparency and action on the floor.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, then, as I understand it, for the nine bills other than Energy and Water, the earmarks will be included on those bills before they come to the floor for debate. For the Energy and Water bill, because of the additional time that is required, the earmarks would be listed, then subsequently attached to a bill that comes to the floor and could be debated and challenged on the floor before that bill is presented to the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, and I want the gentleman from Wisconsin to correct me, but my understanding is they may not be listed because the problem is that the time to vet those, and both sides agree, is a longer time. But we want to move the Energy and Water bill. It will not move out of this House. All of the earmarks that would be attached to that bill will be attached to another bill, will be listed, will have the author and the assertations and they will be subject to a vote on the House floor as any other.

So prospectively all 10 bills moving forward will have it. It is just that the Energy and Water will be not done together; they will be done separately.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, but those earmarks would be subject to challenge and debate here on the floor.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG. At least a point in time before the bill is transmitted to the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. That's correct.

Mr. OBEY. Yes.

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me ask a second question.

As I understand it, there is some discussion, and perhaps I should yield to the minority leader on this point, with regard to an attempt to reach a unanimous-consent agreement on each bill as that proceeds forward. Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

The minority leader might want to answer that as well.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the minority leader.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And, yes, we on both sides of the aisle over the last number of years, the appropriators have worked through a unanimous-consent request to provide for the consideration of a lot of these bills, under an open rule. We still have an open rule. But the agreement has been, over the past several years, that we work through that process with the Members to make sure that Members have all the time they need to debate their amendment. But, again, it's a unanimous-consent agreement, which means unanimous.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I don't want to undermine our full explanation of this event, but when the minority leader says, ``all the time they need,'' neither the minority or the majority have ever thought that other Members needed as much time as the Members think they need. So with that caveat, you can consider it in that context.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. No, it was part of the agreement. And we expect to move forward on open rules. But I want to make it clear and don't want to undermine the agreement but I want to make it clear, if we are subjected to what we believe were dilatory tactics, then that would not be consistent with the agreement and, therefore, our provision would be that, in lawyer's terms, the agreement had been breached. But it is part of the agreement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. That is the understanding of the majority. The leader, your leader and I, have spent substantial time together over the last 48 hours discussing this agreement and discussing it with Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis. Clearly we are proceeding in not as a definitive way as we might otherwise have proceeded, and we are proceeding with reliance on the good faith of each to proceed in a manner that we believe accommodates what has been done last year and what we hope will be done this year and, that is, consider these bills with the inclusion of the earmarks in the bills in a manner that facilitates their being passed through this House.v

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.

I want to tell my young friend from North Carolina, that is the representation I have now made three times. I have made it to your leader. I suggest you ask your leader whether he trusts me to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.

I said ``yes.'' I have said it three or four times. I will say it again. But I want an understanding made clear, and I will reiterate it. We have an agreement. We have an agreement between people who are trying to move America's business forward. That agreement assumes conduct on both sides. There are going to be open rules. But if the conduct that is expected on both sides is not met, I expect both sides will feel the agreement has been breached.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman knows, the question was asked, has the unanimous consent been modified. It has not. So that whatever agreement, at whatever time it's reached, will have to have the unanimous consent of the body, each and every Member. That part will be the protection against any arbitrary or capricious action. We are pursuing that. As the minority leader said, there's been no change in that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, first, for his comments. Secondly, I thank the gentleman for his question. I happen to believe, I want the gentleman to know, that the rule you were involved with that the minority leader and I have discussed is a good rule. It's a good rule because if something is dropped in conference that nobody knows about it, whatever it may be, I'm not going to mention any specific projects, but we've talked about some during the course of the last 2 days, we will in the rule provide for 10 minutes on each side. So, essentially, what we're doing is expanding under those circumstances by a third the time available for debate on a conference report.

So it is a pretty substantial extension of time. I think to the extent, again, the gentleman was involved, it's an appropriate extension of time so that we do ensure what all want to ensure and that projects that do not justify inclusion in bills and this House or the Senate rejects them or wants to reconsider them, that we have that opportunity. So the debate will be included in the rules recommendation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source