OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

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

Date: Aug. 2, 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Agriculture and Food Drugs Government Budget and Spending


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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree with the distinguished minority leader that this is disappointing. As a member of the Rules Committee, I regret this rule and I don't like it.

But what I like less are efforts to obstruct and stop the people's business. There is a difference between legislating and obstructionism. And I would say to the distinguished minority leader that fairness is a two-way street and what happened in this House on Tuesday, in my opinion, was pathetic.

What is at stake here is a bill to feed hungry people, is a bill to help rural America, is a bill to provide for better food security, and a bill to help our economy. This is serious business, and this is what we were sent here to deal with.

What happened on Tuesday, as I said, was pathetic. It stalled consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill. It dismantled an agreement that worked well during consideration of the last 10 appropriations bills.

And let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, where I come from in Massachusetts, a deal is a deal. Your word is everything. So, please, when you break your word, don't act shocked when there is a reaction from this side of the aisle.

I will close by saying to my colleagues that it is important for us to move beyond this. It is important for us to work together. It is important for us to be more civil. I will concede to my friends on the other side of the aisle that my side of the aisle can do better, but you need to concede that your side can do better as well. And that is the way we restore the trust that, unfortunately, has been lost.

I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward