Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 3161, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Ac

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3161, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - August 02, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded for 10 appropriation bills with an open rule with an agreement we would reach a unanimous consent agreement on those rules within the framework of the time that we spent last year.

I said on the floor that we spent approximately 52 hours longer on the first 10 bills than we had last year under unanimous consents that Mr. Obey agreed to. I am informed by Mr. Obey that our staff has recomputed the time, and when one includes the Agriculture bill, it is closer to 80-plus hours longer under open rules. That was certainly not shutting anybody down or out. That was not our intent. In fact, it was not our practice. As I pointed out then, we complied, we think, with the letter of that to which we agreed.

We now find ourselves in the context of trying to move forward on very important legislation. This bill was open, of course, for debate and amendment for an extended period of time. The debate was not used for amendments or debate about the substance of the bill before us.

In fact, it is my understanding the Rules Committee talked to those who wanted to offer amendments in this rule. It is not shutting out all amendments. In fact, what it is doing is including a number of amendments on both sides of the aisle. It includes in the self-executing, to which the gentleman refers, a balanced group of amendments, all of which, we think, will be agreed to.

Mr. Flake is going to offer some amendments, one I have a particular interest in. He was given the choice of what amendments that he wanted to offer. Yes, we have limited amendments, because we have limited time and we want to complete this bill.

When we complete the debate on this bill, it will be just a little shorter than the bill that was considered last year. Just a little. We think it is fair. But we are here because we did not pursue the agreement that we thought we had with the open-rule process.

Now, we still have one additional bill to go, the Defense bill. We are discussing that. We are hopeful that perhaps we can proceed as we have proceeded in the past, with an open rule on that bill.

But we are trying to facilitate the doing of the people's business. We said we would do that. That is what we are doing. We believe that Members have been treated fairly.

Yesterday, on SCHIP, there was a request of me to include an additional hour of debate. That was agreed to. I think that was a good and full debate. We had very significant differences on that bill. The bill was approved by the House. I think this bill will be approved by the House and moved. That will leave us just one appropriation bill. I think by the end of this week, we will have passed all of our appropriation bills.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that my very good friend, the distinguished majority leader, as am I, is an institutionalist. He is just a little junior to me in this House. I came here just a few months before he did in his special election in 1981.

Mr. HOYER. I will try to show the gentleman the appropriate respect, given that seniority.

Mr. DREIER. That is the reason I reminded my friend of that, of course, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say that getting the people's business done is a priority for every Member of this House. I recognize the responsibility of ensuring that we move through with our appropriations work. As the gentleman knows very well, we were able to complete the House's work on appropriations bills in the past. The distinguished majority leader wants to do that as well.

I do believe that if we look at the, you can call it a bump in the road, we have had very, very strong disagreement, as I said earlier, over the SCHIP bill. There was a lot of consternation about this. But the fact of the matter is, the additional hour was granted. We have now moved beyond that bill. We are now at nearly 2:30 in the afternoon, and things have moved certainly relatively smoothly today on the floor. I am just saying that I am very, very concerned about setting this kind of precedent to the appropriations process itself.

I recognize we came forward with closed rules in the past. You all, unfortunately, have had twice as many closed rules at this point from the beginning of the last Congress. But on the appropriations process, I just hope, for the good of the institution, that being the half of the American people who won't be able to be heard, there were more than 60 amendments that were in the queue to be considered for this measure, that we don't go down to only 12 amendments. I just find that very troubling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his observations, and I reclaim my time.

[Page: H9582]

Mr. Speaker, very frankly, as I have said, we have spent almost 80 hours more on the first 10 bills than we spent last year under the unanimous consents we granted to you under Mr. Obey's leadership. Given that fact, we considered a lot of amendments.

From my perspective, frankly, in a group of 435, the reason you have a Rules Committee is because you can't possibly accommodate all 435 Members if they want to offer one.

Mr. DREIER. Thanks for telling me that. I was wondering.

Mr. HOYER. As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, you know that.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, in my opinion, although we allowed it, there were an extraordinary number of redundant amendments, 1.25 percent, 1 percent, .75 percent. I understand that. They were message amendments. I understand making messages. That is part of what we are about.

This rule that the gentleman is very concerned about is a precedent. Frankly, we argued for following the precedent of last year. That was not done.

We are now trying to get the business of the people done, while at the same time giving a fair number of amendments, as we do on almost every other bill, but not every amendment. We think that we have done that. We think that we are fair in terms of the amendments that are included in the self-execution, because they are not just Democratic amendments. There are a balanced, equal number of amendments, and one other significant amendment I think will be unanimously supported, I hope and believe, and will facilitate the consideration of this bill and substantively move ahead the work of our country and our people.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I mentioned the fact that this is the 27th year for the two of us to be serving in this great institution. If one goes back and looks beyond last year but instead at the appropriations process which during our 27-year period has been considered under an open process, there are times when we would be here late at night voting on appropriations bills in the past. It has allowed Members to work their will as they have gone through this.

So while you have looked at the precedent of last year as part of this agreement that you and Mr. Boehner had, the concern that I have is that this is setting a precedent for the future, which is a very, very troubling one.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat: We are hopeful that we will be able to move forward in the future, next year, as we do the appropriation process, consistent with what we did on the first 10 bills and what we may do on the twelfth bill, in a manner that honors and respects one another's ability to make their point but also to do the business of the people. That is what they expect us to do. That is what we are going to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source