[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6898-H6900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, 
the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule 
for the rest of the evening.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, I want the Members to understand the context in which we find 
ourselves. I have indicated--and I have had discussions with Mr. 
Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis with reference to the 
appropriations bills--that none of us likes the omnibus appropriations 
bills.
  In order to pass appropriations bills individually, you have to take 
appropriately significant time, but if you take so much time that you 
can't possibly get them done, then you are left at the end of the day 
with an omnibus appropriations bill which nobody likes.
  In discussions with Mr. Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis, 
Mr. Obey and I have tried to come to an agreement on time constraints. 
There was a discussion on the floor during the course of the rule 
between Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis with respect to time constraints, and at 
that point in time, that was not possible.
  Subsequent to that, there were further discussions between Mr. Obey 
and Mr. Lewis in which there seemed to be some progress, perhaps, that 
was possible. As a result, we proceeded with the preprinting 
requirement that, I know, some people felt was an unnecessary 
constraint, but it is, after all, the opportunity to give notice to 
Members of what amendments can be anticipated; but I know that I've 
discussed it on your side of the aisle, and you felt that was an 
imposition. We felt it was an open rule because the amendments were not 
specified.
  Notwithstanding that disagreement, there were 127 total amendments. 
One amendment just now was offered by Mr. Schock, my good friend. He 
and I have a good relationship. We've traveled together, and I think he 
is a good Member. We accepted. Notwithstanding that, it took 20 minutes 
of debate and was going to be subject to a vote.
  Now, if you multiply, say, 25 minutes--and we had a 15-minute vote. 
If

[[Page H6899]]

you multiply that by 127, you come to a pretty high number, making it 
impossible for us to complete, in my view, the appropriations process 
by the end of July. If we don't complete it by the end of July, 
frankly, we won't have the opportunity to conference with the Senate 
and, therefore, will not be able to complete the process in a timely 
fashion. I don't know whether that's the objective of some, but it is 
certainly not my objective.
  As a result--I was not here--Mr. Obey felt it necessary for us to go 
to the Rules Committee for the purposes of constraining time. In a body 
of 435 people in which everybody has an opportunity to do 5 minutes and 
to then, perhaps, even get yielded some additional time from somebody 
else who takes 5 minutes, it would be impossible to complete 10 
amendments, much less 127 amendments, in a time frame that we agreed to 
in a unanimous consent request in 2006 and in 2005.
  In fact, on this bill, the average number of amendments that were 
offered when you were in the majority was 30, the average number. There 
was a high of 46. In 2004, 16 amendments were offered--10 Republicans 
and 6 Democrats. In other words, for your bill, you offered more 
amendments to your bill than we offered to your bill. We would like to 
proceed in a fashion that is reasonable and that provides for 
opportunities for amendments to be offered, but we also believe that it 
is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriations process is 
completed.
  So, when Mr. Obey asked that the Committee rise, it was, at that 
point in time, the intention to go to the Rules Committee to provide 
for amendments in order, not all 127 amendments--I can't predict how 
many amendments. There are a lot of duplications in that--and to 
provide for, however, time constraints within which we can do our 
business. We do not think that's unreasonable, and we certainly don't 
think it's unfair.
  I will tell you that, in 2007, we proceeded for 10 bills without time 
constraints. From our perspective, we thought we had an agreement that 
we would use the same time that we gave to you in 2006 when you were in 
the majority and were controlling. We gave this to Mr. Lewis. 
Notwithstanding that, we believe we went at least 53 hours overtime. 
That is 53 hours longer than the unanimous consent constraints that we 
gave to you when you were in the majority and we were in the minority. 
As you know, the last two bills were very contentious because we did, 
in fact, pursue them under a rule.
  I want to say to the Members, particularly who are new, that, while 
appropriations bills have historically been open, they have 
historically not taken--as a matter of fact, some of the biggest bills 
have taken some of the shortest times--the Labor-Health bill and the 
Defense bill. I've served on the Appropriations Committee from 1983 
until I became majority leader 2\1/2\ years ago, so I'm fairly familiar 
with the procedures under which we operate.
  So I tell my friend, the Republican whip, that the reason for rising 
was to give us the opportunity to go to the Rules Committee and to 
provide for, as I said, time constraints in which we can effectively 
complete this bill.
  I want to say to the Members that we did not expect to have votes. We 
had votes. Your side believed that we ought to have votes, so we had a 
vote to rise, but we have made efforts to try to reach agreement to 
provide a process in which we can complete the appropriations bills.
  Very frankly, we think that, in years past, there have been a lot of 
amendments that have been offered, not for the purpose of the substance 
of the amendment but for the purpose of simply delaying the ability to 
get our work done. We've been in the minority ourselves. We understand 
the frustration that exists; but my responsibility as the majority 
leader and as the manager of this floor is to provide for the 
completion of our appropriations process one at a time so that we can 
consider them on their merits and then, hopefully, pass them 
individually and have them signed. It would be my hope to have them 
signed before the beginning of the fiscal year. That's our thought and 
plan.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would, first of all, respond to speak to the issue 
of the 127 amendments having been filed. I think that it's certainly a 
result of and, perhaps, due to the unintended consequences of imposing 
a preprinting requirement.
  As the gentleman and I have discussed, many of our Members felt it 
necessary to prefile their amendments to preserve their right to 
proffer an amendment without necessarily having the intention of 
following through with offering that amendment. There are several 
amendments that are duplicative. There are many amendments that our 
Members have already said that they would not offer.
  So I would say to the gentleman that it is hard for us on this side 
of the aisle to stand here and to accept the notion that somehow, 30 
minutes into the debate and on page 2 of line 7 of the bill and while 
in discussion of the first Republican amendment, that was where you 
drew the line and decided that the tactics by us were going to be 
dilatory. It certainly seems to me, I would say to the gentleman, with 
all due respect, that there was some preconceived notion that this was 
the direction in which the majority was going to head regardless.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman--and the 
gentleman and I have spoken about this--it is our intention to practice 
some good faith and to ask the majority to engage with us, to allow our 
Members to come to the floor, to deliberate in the context of the only 
constitutional duty of this body, which is the expenditure of taxpayer 
dollars, and to allow our voice to be heard.
  I hardly think, Madam Speaker, that the decision to close this 
process after 30 minutes, to close this process after just the first 
Republican amendment, is at all being made in good faith.
  So I ask the gentleman again: What is the thinking of the majority 
here? The first appropriations bill. The first Republican amendment. 
How is it that we can expect a good-faith debate?
  Our Members complied with your rule-- unprecedented. The gentleman 
speaks to prior years and to the number of amendments that came up on 
this bill and on others. He knows as well as I that the preprinting 
requirement was not in place. This is the unintended consequence of a 
preprinting requirement, the 127 amendments. We have had that 
discussion. There will not be discussion and debate and votes asked for 
127 amendments. So we stand here in good faith and want to engage with 
the Members on your side of the aisle.

  So I ask the gentleman: What is it? What is the intention tonight--to 
go back to Rules? Our Members have already been told their amendments 
will be accepted. Now how should they proceed?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me reiterate what the gentleman knows to be the case. He and I 
have discussed this matter on at least three different occasions. They 
were, I think, friendly discussions. The gentleman indicated that he 
did not believe an agreement was possible on the time constraints. Mr. 
Boehner indicated that to me as well, so it's not as if we haven't had 
significant discussions about this. You also, in fairness, did indicate 
to me that the preprinting requirement would be something that your 
side would take umbrage at.
  Mr. Obey, I think correctly, said both sides like notice of actions 
that are to be taken on the floor. In fact, when we take notice, when 
we do less than 24 hours, you rightfully believe that's inappropriate. 
I agree with you on that, and we try to do that. Sometimes we don't 
make it.

                              {time}  2115

  But the fact is that this is not as if we haven't had some 
discussions over at least the last 2 months about this issue. And from 
my perspective--I don't want to speak for Mr. Obey, who has spoken with 
Mr. Lewis as well--but over the last 2 months I have seen nothing that 
indicated to me that time constraints would be agreeable to your side 
of the aisle, not from you, not from Mr. Boehner, not from anybody 
else, not from Mr. Lewis, who on this floor just hours ago indicated 
that there would not be any time agreements possible.
  So in that context, I am in a position where, if that's the case--and 
you may

[[Page H6900]]

well be correct that 127 wouldn't be offered, but very frankly, our 
experience in 2007--now, in 2008, the appropriation process was 
attenuated, as you know. It upset you and disappointed me that we 
didn't have bills. The reasons for that, obviously, dealt with mainly 
the Appropriations Committee fighting about energy, as you know. One 
can blame one another for that, but in any event, it didn't go forward. 
Nobody was pleased that we didn't consider the bills individually, and 
we ended up, as you well know, earlier this year doing an omnibus 
appropriation bill. We did omnibus appropriation bills frequently when 
you were in charge of the House, as well. Neither side liked that then 
or when we did it.
  So I tell my friend, the intention is going to be to try to construct 
time frames--and we would be glad to have further discussions with you 
on those--which will allow for these 12 bills to be done in the time 
available to us between now and July 30. Because if we don't get them 
done, I guarantee you that when we get back in September, with 21 days 
left to go, we will not be able to conference these bills and get them 
done. That is a practical matter. For those of you who are new, I will 
tell you that. For those of who have been here, you understand that 
that's the case.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would respond, first of all, to the suggestion that 
the discussions that we've had, and others, over the last 2 months as 
to whether an agreement was possible, frankly, is unprecedented. 
Because in years past in the appropriations process, time agreements 
were arrived at once the number of amendments were known, and we worked 
out the agreements and debate ensued thereunder.
  We did not know prior to the deadline and the cutoff of preprinting 
requirements as to how many amendments there would be. So we do know 
now how many amendments there would be. But again, Madam Speaker, I say 
what sticks with us, and not very well, is your decision to cut debate 
off on page 2, line 7 of the bill after the first Republican amendment. 
Madam Speaker, again, with all due respect, that does not speak in good 
faith about the majority's intention to allow us the opportunity to 
speak to the issues surrounding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. 
That is not good faith.
  We stand here in good faith, as the gentleman and I have discussed 
prior, and we want the opportunity to show you that we can conduct 
debate in good faith, deliberate on the people's business, and not be 
shut out summarily. And it is very hard, again, Madam Speaker, for us 
to accept that the majority had any intention of allowing debate if we 
shut it off after 30 minutes and the first Republican amendment.
  So I say to the gentleman, we stand here and we ask you to allow us 
to proceed this evening, allow us to demonstrate good faith so that 
then the majority can then match that good faith and we can proceed in 
this House in normal course in the appropriations process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________