[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 51 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3000-H3001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the majority 
leader, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning 
hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider 
several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes 
before 6:30 p.m. on that Monday.
  On Tuesday next, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour 
business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional 
bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of these bills 
will be available by the end of the week. We also expect to consider 
H.R. 1401, the Rail Security Act, out of the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, 
no votes are expected. We will consider H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warriors 
Assistance Act, and the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.
  Mr. BLUNT. The gentleman said he expected that budget resolution to 
be on Friday?
  Mr. HOYER. On Thursday. I do not expect that we will be meeting on 
Friday, unless debate occurs longer than I expect. But otherwise we 
will not be meeting on Friday.
  Mr. BLUNT. Does the gentleman have a sense on the rule on the budget? 
Will there be substitutes allowed? What is the gentleman's sense on 
that?

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HOYER. I will tell the gentleman my sense is that substitutes 
will be allowed.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, we traditionally have allowed substitutes. I will 
express to the gentleman my disappointment in the rule on the bill we 
just passed, which as far as I know is the first closed rule on an 
appropriations bill since 1992. And the previous appropriations bill 
was largely closed, and I hate to see us headed down that path. I think 
it is going to be much harder to get our appropriations work done. I 
know our appropriators are concerned that a long-standing tradition on 
appropriations bills has been violated, and I hope we don't see that 
same thing happen on the budget resolution coming to the floor next 
week.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I understand 
his concern. Although I do observe that there was no motion made to 
either add or subtract from the bill that we just considered in a 
motion to recommit. But I do expect substitutes will be made in order.
  Mr. BLUNT. I think the gentleman's suggestion that if we don't take 
advantage of whatever small parliamentary procedure we are allowed, 
that somehow that justifies not allowing us any amendments on the bill 
is not a very good excuse for that. I hope that we don't continue to 
see that happen.
  I was concerned about the CR and the way it was handled. I was 
concerned about this bill. The next logical step, when we get to the 
appropriations bills, is that they, too, would not have the opportunity 
for debate and amendment as this was, in violation of long-standing 
traditions in the House. The last time this happened was when the 
gentleman's party was in the majority, and I hate to see us revert back 
to that lack of debate. I hope the gentleman will work with me and 
others to try to do everything we can to move the process along, not 
only rapidly, but also appropriately.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I would.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Having been in the gentleman's position for too long, I honestly 
empathize with his position. It is my expectation that the 
appropriation bills, as they have historically, will come to this floor 
starting mid-May and continuing through June, and we hope to complete 
our appropriations bills by the end of June. My expectation is they 
will be, as they are traditionally, on the floor with open rules, or at 
least structured rules. Obviously, open rules, if you have 500 or 600 
amendments from all

[[Page H3001]]

the folks, we may not get finished, which is why we have structured 
rules. But certainly the gentleman is correct that that is the 
tradition. I would expect us to follow that tradition.
  On supplementals, over the last 15 supplementals, I was looking 
around to see if I had it immediately in front of me, I don't, but on 
the last 15 supplementals there have been a variety. Seven of them were 
open, eight of them were less than open, some more structured than 
others.
  I understand the gentleman's representation, and I certainly look 
forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, I think to make the gentleman's point, none of them 
were closed, and none of the wartime supplementals came in the fashion 
that this one did today, and I am disappointed with that.
  What is the gentleman's sense on when the work that was stopped in 
the middle, right before a vote yesterday on the D.C. bill, when will 
we see that again?
  Mr. HOYER. As soon as possible.
  Mr. BLUNT. Do you think we will see it next week?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't know that we will see it next week, although I 
would like to see it next week.
  As the gentleman knows, I was very concerned and remain concerned 
about the interpretation of germaneness. And, frankly, that wouldn't 
have been a problem either had the minority been willing to offer the 
traditional motion, which was to recommit and have it immediately 
reported back to the floor. I will tell my friend we would have had a 
vote on that. I think you would have probably prevailed on the motion 
itself, and we would have prevailed on the bill. It would have carried 
that rider with it, of course. But the minority, frankly, from our 
perspective, chose to try to defeat the bill by not just making the 
motion to recommit to adopt the proposition that you offered, but 
sending it back to committee for that purpose, which was obviously not 
necessary, which leads me to believe, I want to tell you honestly, my 
friend, that this was a procedural device to kill the bill rather than 
let it come to a vote on its merits.
  As the gentleman knows, I feel very strongly personally, others do as 
well, but I feel very strongly personally that we ought to extend a 
full voting franchise to the Representative who sits on this floor and 
represents 600,000 of our fellow Americans. The answer to your question 
is, I hope to bring that to the floor as soon as possible under 
conditions where we will protect ourselves from procedurally losing a 
bill which has the majority of votes on this floor.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that response. On the issue of 
merit, I suggest that the use of the procedural availability to the 
minority wouldn't be nearly as necessary if this bill is meritorious 
and has a majority of votes on the floor to actually have a debate 
where the bill is amendable, where there are substitutes available, 
where the other side of this debate has an opportunity to truly offer 
other ideas. And so far in this year we have not really seen an 
openness on any bill that was a bill that didn't pass in the last 
Congress on suspension to competition of real ideas and debate. I think 
that is what we saw on that bill. That is one of the reasons that that 
is one of the few alternatives we had to push back a bill that was not 
adequately debated, that has significant constitutional questions. We 
look forward to the bill being on the floor again.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the views. Although, as the gentleman knows, 
that bill was reported out of the Government Reform Committee chaired 
by a Republican, with a Republican majority, with a majority of 
Republicans voting for the bill to report it out of the committee in 
the last session. So while I understand your view, it is not as if we 
were taking up a bill that hadn't already been processed by your 
committee in the last Congress, reported out of that committee, and 
because obviously there is opposition to it on your side of the aisle, 
not brought to the floor.
  I understand the gentleman's point; but very frankly, the only reason 
it has not passed, because it has the majority of votes on this floor, 
was because the motion that was made was not the traditional motion of 
adopting a proposition, in this case the gun control issue, and 
reporting it immediately back out with that amendment attached.
  I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but I can't feel too 
guilty about bringing to the floor a bill that was reported out of a 
Republican-chaired committee with a Republican majority.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate my friend's sense of that. But I would also 
say that if this bill has such broad support and such unquestioned 
merit, there shouldn't be any fear in having a full and open debate 
where the bill is amendable, where alternatives can be proposed, and 
where the only opportunity to slow this process down would not be to 
take advantage of the only possible rule available to us under a rule 
that was otherwise closed. That is my view of that.
  I thank my friend for his comments. We look forward to the budget 
debate next week.

                          ____________________