Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 502, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2008

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 502, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 22, 2007)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history.

Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product.

The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule, with both bipartisan and Democrat-sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to this floor under a closed process.

However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the arbitrary deadline.

And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made in order.

So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history.

Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of this bill to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate.

However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would ``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the floor of the House.''

Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And they are, again, today.

So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to be ignored today.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody, except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at this time that the Rules Committee does not do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would do. It did not.

Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7-percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body. So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much money.

Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress in the Republican Rules Committee last year.

The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need, the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to debate such a thoughtful amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over $4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion is a lot of money to run this ship.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my friend, if a $4 billion increase is, in fact, a 6.76-percent increase over last year's funding level, which does round out to be a 7-percent increase in the spending over last year's funding level, I just ask my friend from Dallas if that, in fact, is correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the proper way to grow this government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source