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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 provides for further consideration of the FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.
I want to thank my dear friend from Connecticut, ROSA DELAURO, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for her work on this bill and her passion for fighting hunger in this country and around the world. I also want to commend Ranking Member Kingston and Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for all of their efforts and their hard work.
I very much regret that we have gotten to this point. I do not take the idea of structuring debate on appropriation bills lightly. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where structuring debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill is the only way to pass the bill before we break for the district work period.
As the distinguished majority leader so eloquently noted the other day, we have spent hours and hours and hours, beyond historical norms, to complete our work on the appropriations bills. Last June, Democratic and Republican leaders came to an agreement that, in exchange for allowing full and fair debate with up or down votes on dozens of amendments, Republicans would allow the appropriation bills to proceed through the House. We have been able to come to unanimous consents to consider those bills, and they have largely passed with large bipartisan majorities.
Now, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle were upset with the process used to consider the SCHIP bill, and after our discussion in the Rules Committee last night, I understand their concerns. But they have decided to use that frustration as an excuse to prevent completion of our important appropriations work, and we do not believe that that is in the best interest of the Nation. Clearly, my friends on the other side have decided to abandon the June agreement, and that is their right. But it is our responsibility, in the majority, to complete these bills in a timely way.
Unfortunately, it has become clear that a small number of Members on the other side was willing to use a filibuster-by-amendment strategy to shut down the House and prevent us from completing our work. Mr. Speaker, if Members wish to filibuster bills, they should run for the United States Senate.
There is a difference between serious legislating and obstructionism. And I believe that offering amendments to cut bills by $50,000 and then $100,000 and then $101,000 and so on, and debating these bills forever and ever and ever and using procedural mechanisms to unjustifiably delay the consideration of bills, not to move serious legislation forward, but to delay the consideration of bills, I think that's obstructionism. And I think what we saw on the floor the other day was obstructionism.
This rule makes in order 12 amendments, all of them Republican amendments on a variety of issues. Many of what I would call the ``usual suspect'' amendments were made in order, amendments by members of the Republican Study Committee to cut certain programs in the bill, an amendment to cut funding across the board, an amendment from my good friend, Mr. Flake, to eliminate earmarks.
Mr. Speaker, I also regret that tensions have risen over the last several days. Perhaps it's inevitable before a break, and perhaps it's the heat and humidity, but I hope that all of us can come back after Labor Day refreshed and rededicated to doing the people's business in a civil way.
Mr. Speaker, HILLARY CLINTON says ``it takes a village.'' Maybe for us it takes a recess. In this business, your word is everything; without it, there is no trust. And without any trust, this would be a very, very unhappy place to work.
I thought we had a very good discussion in the Rules Committee last night. I believe we understand each other and where we're coming from a bit better. I know my friend, Mr. Dreier, and other members of the Rules Committee are eager to look for ways that we can make this process better. They have my word and I think the word of all of us on the Democratic side that we want to work with them to make that happen.
In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to do the people's business. And the rule before us allows us to do that in an orderly way that allows for vigorous debate and votes on amendments.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me simply say to the gentleman that I very much regret the tone that the gentleman is taking here today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me finish what I was about to say to the gentleman from Texas.
I very much regret the tone of his remarks here on the floor today. Last night the gentleman talked about the need for civility and the need for us to have more comity in this Chamber. It is clear today that he obviously lost sight of at least the spirit of his remarks last night. I regret that very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that the gentleman feels he needs to personalize this debate; and I would only ask the gentleman, how many ranking Republicans are right now under investigation who continue to serve in their capacity?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source