[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3147-H3149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I understand that there 
is substantial angst among the minority. I empathize with that angst. 
I've been there.
  Having said that, I do not empathize with the abuse of process. And 
because

[[Page H3148]]

I do not empathize with the abuse of process, as I have said before, I 
am going to ask the Speaker to limit the time in which voting is 
allowed to that which is provided for in the rules. You did that; we're 
now going to do it.
  Somebody said, ``About time.'' I agree with you. Abuse of process is 
when, and everybody knows this could be done. On our side in the 
minority we could have kept open for 2 hours with having every 30 
seconds somebody come down the aisle. We all know that's possible. I've 
known that was possible for some period of time. We try to accommodate 
people who want to change their vote. We try to accommodate people who 
want to vote. We try to accommodate people who are late.
  The problem with accommodating people who are late, if we make it in 
order in effect, not because of the rules but because of the comity of 
the House, to allow what just happened, we can, you're correct, in 
effect do a filibuster by vote changing. We don't have filibusters in 
the House. They have it in the Senate. I don't think the Senate works 
particularly well.
  You can have your motions. I haven't said anything. Our Members 
haven't said anything. You're certainly entitled to that. But what just 
happened, as I said, in my opinion, is an abuse of the Chair's 
forbearance. The Chair has the responsibility to determine when the 
vote is concluded.
  The vote changing on a motion to adjourn, I know that probably all of 
you did polls on that and focus groups on whether or not you should 
vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on that vote and that led to your changing your 
vote one way or the other, sometimes maybe twice because you were 
having difficulty deciding.
  But I just want to let everybody know that while we cannot nor are we 
going to preclude you from doing your motions to adjourn, what just 
happened is not appropriate for the House, for either side, to simply 
use a device of changing votes, of voting late, of lining up in the 
aisle and coming down every 30 seconds or so with a ``one more vote.'' 
That, in my opinion, is not appropriate for the House to pursue.
  Mr. Gingrich sent out a letter, as we have said before, said he was 
going to call votes 15 minutes and 2 minutes later. You've all heard 
from Mr. Gingrich lately. He has a lot of advice and counsel. I don't 
always follow it. But on this, he made the point that I'm making, that 
we have now had, I don't know, 20, 25 motions to adjourn in which we 
voted on, reconsiderations to be voted on. Nobody has said anything 
about that.
  But I want to tell my friend, the minority leader, that, as I have 
said before, my inclination at this point in time will be to ask the 
presiding officer to limit the votes to the 17 minutes, the 15 minutes 
that is provided and 2 minutes which have been historically accorded.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I know this has been a difficult several days, but I just want to 
remind everyone that there are some serious process fouls that are 
going on. And the majority leader, the Speaker, members of the majority 
during 2005 and 2006 made significant efforts to be critical of the 
then-majority, some of it, frankly, earned.
  But what is happening here, the process that's being used for the big 
housing bill, the process that's being discussed for the supplemental 
spending bill closes the minority out of any amendments and any motion 
to recommit.
  I just hope that the majority leader and the members of the majority 
understand, and I think many of you who have been here for some time 
understand clearly, the grievance that we have. We don't have many ways 
to express our grievance on the housing bills because we have no 
amendment that we can offer. We have no substitute that we're allowed 
to offer, no motion to recommit. As a result, all we're asking for is 
to be treated fairly.
  The gentleman will know, and other members of the majority and 
minority will remember, that in 1994 when we took the majority, some of 
our leaders wanted to treat the minority the way they had been treated. 
I argued to no end that we should treat the minority the way that we 
had asked to be treated when we were in the minority. I didn't always 
win, I'll be the first one to admit that, but I would suggest that 
given the statements that have been made in 2005 and 2006 about how the 
then-minority was treated, all I would suggest to you is just treat us 
the way you asked to be treated, simple as that.
  Mr. HOYER. As I indicated at the outset, I understand your feelings. 
I said angst, but I understand your feelings. My point is that I 
understand while you have been making motions to adjourn and making 
your points, you've made it every time you've stood up, I have made the 
point that I remember voting on omnibus appropriation bills numerous 
times, 4 months, 5 months after the appropriations process should have 
been concluded, long after the year began, which were omnibus bills 
which we could not change. So we understood that that was, we didn't 
think, fair.
  We understood that we sat here for an hour and 45 minutes while we 
were winning a vote, and no vote ever changed during an hour and 45 
minutes, and the vote was not closed down until, in fact, you changed 
votes on your side and we lost. We understood that. We didn't like 
that. We thought that was unfair. I didn't think it was against the 
rules. I've said that. But I thought it was unfair.
  All I am saying to my friend, the minority leader, and to my friends 
on the minority side, that what just occurred is not an acceptable, in 
our opinion--my opinion, forget about our opinion, I haven't talked to 
anybody else--in my opinion, way for us to operate the House. The 
motions, yes, but simply changing votes for the purpose of delay could 
take an hour, could take 2 hours depending upon how many times people 
wanted to change.
  Mr. Gingrich, we don't hold to it, we understand that, but he said 15 
minutes plus 2. I have said that before and some people cheered. 
Fifteen minutes plus 2, or 5 minutes plus 2 if it's a 5-minute vote, is 
what we have set as the norm and the comity and the fairness to 
individuals to exercise their deliberative judgment.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Leader, most of us are 
institutionalists here, and we have great regard for this body, and I 
think we're all a bit discouraged when the regular order does not 
proceed, and my friend, the minority leader, spoke eloquently of what 
he feels to be a process that's been limited.
  But the concern that many of us have is that for 6 years at the Ways 
and Means Committee, the minority could not pass one amendment. Not one 
amendment passed in what should be the most deliberative committee in 
this House, and there were no protestations from the other side that 
were ever raised.
  In this instance here on the housing bill, there were two Republican 
amendments that were accepted. The vote was 30-5, I believe, or 35-5. 
So there was a process. Actually, people got to talk at the Ways and 
Means Committee who disagreed with the outcome of the bill, and I 
understand how the minority feels in this instance.
  But I wish that there had been some voices raised during those years 
about what was happening to shut down the process in the Ways and Means 
Committee, and Mr. McCrery has moved vigorously to change the tone, as 
Mr. Rangel has included him in everything at the committee level.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, it was not my purpose to stand here 
and exchange recriminations or look at history. I think both sides 
could do that.
  It was my purpose to stand and say what we have just done we cannot 
allow because we would stop the business of the House. We're slowing 
down the business of the House, and that's allowable, but we're not 
going to allow the business of the House to be stopped by, we believe, 
conduct inconsistent with the rules.
  Dilatory tactics are not allowed under the rules. Dilatory tactics 
are specifically provided for as being conduct which need not be 
countenanced by the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

[[Page H3149]]

  Mr. BOEHNER. With all due respect, the minority in this House has a 
right to be heard.
  Mr. HOYER. That's correct.
  Mr. BOEHNER. No amendments, no substitutes, no motions to recommit. 
Last night, we get rid of all the Special Orders. At some point, the 
majority has an obligation to treat the minority with respect. It is 
not happening, and that's why we're going to continue to wage this 
fight to be heard on this floor and represent nearly half of the 
American people that we're here to represent.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think my 
comments go as spoken. I expect you to continue to follow those actions 
which you think are necessary, but I did want to put you on notice 
because I don't want anything to happen that you're not on notice of.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  Under the rules of the House, the Members have the right to vote if 
they're in the well. You're certainly not suggesting that the presiding 
officer or the Speaker is going to not abide by that privilege that a 
Member has when they're in the well of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't want to shock anybody on this floor. My belief is 
that comity requires that, not the rules. I believe comity ought to be 
followed to that extent. But if your contention is that you can have 
200 people stand in that aisle and one every 20 seconds come in and 
take 20 seconds to change their vote and submit it and the Speaker is 
hostage to the 199 people waiting to step into the aisle while they're 
standing there, the answer to your question is yes, I believe the 
Speaker has the authority under the good order of the House, and I 
believe the presiding officer has the absolute authority.
  Mr. Linder, who is sitting here, shut down a vote. I think he was 
within the rules. There were two people in the well. Now, that was 
changed----
  Mr. LINDER. I would object.
  Mr. HOYER. You object to the action or the assertion?
  Mr. LINDER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I certainly will.
  Mr. LINDER. As a matter of fact, I was in the Chair and I was accused 
of shutting down the vote while people were in the well seeking to 
vote. And the next day the C-SPAN tapes proved you were wrong and I was 
right. The people coming in to vote were not even not only in the well, 
they were not even on the floor. They were shouting ``one more.'' But 
Dick Armey reviewed the tapes to critique me and concluded that you 
were wrong and I was right.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me correct my statement. They were not in the well. 
They were coming down the aisle. But I think the point is the same. 
Somebody was seeking to vote. Mr. Linder decided the vote was over. I 
think Mr. Linder acted within the rules.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________