[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H10021-H10023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2997, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kingston moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2997 be 
     instructed to not record their approval of the final 
     conference agreement (within the meaning of clause 12(a)(4) 
     of House rule XXII) unless the text of such agreement has 
     been available to the managers in an electronic, searchable, 
     and downloadable form for at least 72 hours prior to the time 
     described in such clause.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I

[[Page H10022]]

also want to thank the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
Ms. DeLauro. I have enjoyed working with her throughout this process. 
We've had a very good debate, we've had a number of good productive 
hearings, and we've had a lot of good discussions outside the scope of 
the hearings that have been helpful. So we have been, I would say, 
moving the ball forward in good communication.
  One of the things, though, that Members of Congress need that are not 
on this committee is time to read bills. And this was really brought to 
our attention by Mr. Baird of Oregon who introduced a bill earlier this 
session that said that a health care bill should lay on the table for 
72 hours.
  To underscore this, I think back at the TARP bill that we had almost 
a year ago in November last year. And what happened during that bill, 
as we remember, Secretary Paulson was in a rush to do something big and 
bold, I think those were his exact words, something significant to send 
a signal to the Wall Street markets that the Federal Government was 
going to stand behind their financial travails.
  And I remember at one particular point posting that bill on my Web 
site on a Sunday night which was the weekend that we were in Washington 
and people back home were calling, but they couldn't get any 
information. And we put it on our Web site as soon as it was available, 
which I think was about 10 p.m. at night. By the morning, I was floored 
by the number of constituents who had already read that bill who 
appreciated the bill being put on the Web site.
  I think also about the cap-and-trade bill, which was not a very 
popular bill. Indeed, it hasn't passed the Senate because of the public 
outcry on it. But during the time in the House, the way the Democratic 
majority passed the bill was through the usual system which we, both 
parties, use around here called ``arm twisting'' and sometimes 
sweetening the pot of the bill. And in that case, the cap-and-trade 
bill was actually being renegotiated, I believe, at 3 in the morning 
when the House was convening at 9 a.m.
  Now, I was sleeping, and I would suggest that 435 Members of the 
House were probably sleeping. Maybe a handful of Members were still 
awake. Maybe they were in the Speaker's office having their arms 
twisted. And maybe they said, In exchange for my vote, I would like to 
see some language that's put in the bill. I don't know what happened, 
Mr. Speaker. But what I do know is that bill was amended. At 3 in the 
morning, there were things that were put in that bill.
  I think because of that, Mr. Baird, a Democrat from Oregon, has 
reacted and said we need to make sure. Because Democrats and 
Republicans have been guilty of last-minute bill changing and last-
minute arm twisting, let's put the bill out on the Web site. Let's lay 
it out on the table for 72 hours so that everybody has an opportunity 
to read about it.
  I think in this case the sunshine is always helpful. I think in this 
bill I believe I know what's in this bill. I feel very comfortable 
about this bill, voting for it, and I think most members of the 
subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee will. But I will also say 
that Members who are not on the Appropriations Committee, who always 
kind of jump on us for doing things behind the scenes, they would 
benefit by having the bill out on the table. I know I would have 
benefited from the Energy and Commerce Committee having the cap-and-
trade bill out on the table for 72 hours.
  So what we are asking in this amendment is that Members have time to 
read bills by putting it on the table for 72 hours. That's all that 
this motion does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I, too, want to compliment my colleague, friend and ranking member, 
Mr. Kingston. I think we have worked together on a bipartisan basis 
with regard to this piece of legislation, and I think we both feel that 
we've had sufficient input and we have come through this with 
identifying the needs that this Agriculture appropriation bill focuses 
on, the needs of the people who rely on this piece of legislation. And 
we've had a very thorough examination. We've had hearings, not only 
with regard to the budget processes, but as well external to that on 
issues that impact a rural community, people who care about 
conservation, people who care about nutrition, people who care about 
research in these areas. So, again, I think that within the 
subcommittee, we have had a very, both at a member level, and at a 
staff level, a very, very close-knit effort.
  I might also say that in translating that as well to the conference 
with the Senate, that Members were engaged in that process as well as 
staff for several weeks as we tried to meld the two views together so 
that it was a thorough examination of all of the issues that are there, 
and that we could come to some common resolve about it. So I think we 
can feel good about both the work done at the subcommittee level in the 
House and our work with the Senate on this conference report.
  Now, I think we have some specific time constraints, which I wish we 
didn't, but we are guided by a September 30 deadline in terms of being 
able to pass a bill and what happens if that doesn't happen with an 
appropriation bill. There is that time constraint, but in addition, and 
the fiscal year coming to an end, if you will, tomorrow, which would 
then, with this motion to instruct would really tie the hands of the 
managers, of the conferees, in trying to be able to move forward given 
the weeks that have gone into producing the conference report.
  Also, the time constraints in this institution which have to do with, 
and it's none of our doing, we were not in session yesterday with 
regard to a holiday. We come back, we are in session today, we have 
other constraints when people are coming and going, so that you're 
looking at time is of the essence in trying to pass legislation. 
Particularly, I might add, what we are trying to do is to keep the 
bills moving, appropriations bills moving, because we know what that 
means in terms of that fiscal year deadline. And we want to try to get 
bills passed into law without delay.
  I know that there has been talk of 48 hours; now I understand this is 
72 hours. I think that I want to, if I can say it this way, responsibly 
oppose my colleague's motion to instruct. I don't know if we can meet 
that deadline, but I also do believe fundamentally that we have, in 
fact, had a thorough examination of all the issues that are in this 
appropriations bill and in the conference bill that I think we can take 
to our colleagues who as well have been following what is going on 
because they have specific and particular interests in what this bill 
means for them.
  I'm someone who agrees that we need to look at bills, read them, 
understand them, et cetera. And I honestly do believe that on this 
piece of legislation we have that kind of understanding.
  With that, if I may, I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume to my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Let me say this is a 
very interesting institution, and we have all kinds of demands placed 
upon it which are often contradictory. Example: many a Member in this 
Chamber will loudly request that we limit earmarks.

                              {time}  1815

  And then they will also ask when we go into conference that their own 
earmarks be funded at the highest possible level. I've had two Members 
of the House talk to me just today about those matters. Didn't seem to 
be at all bothered by the conflict in what they're asking.
  We have people who say these bills should be available for 72 hours 
before we vote on them, but some of those same people will not want the 
House to meet on Monday and they will not want the House to meet on 
Friday. And if that's the case, then that means that this bill, for 
instance, even if it is conferenced tomorrow could not be voted on any 
day in the remainder of the week.
  We have people who want us to push these bills through before the end 
of the fiscal year, and yet, when we say, Well, can you go to 
conference at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, we were just told today, no, 
they couldn't; can you go to conference at 9 o'clock, no, they can't; 
and then when we talk to the Members of the other body and say can you 
go to conference at 11 o'clock

[[Page H10023]]

tomorrow, no, we can only go to conference at 2, if it's in the 
afternoon.
  So anyone managing a bill, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
going to have to manage this one, is faced with all kinds of 
conflicting demands from Members who seem to be almost unconscious 
about the fact that their demands, in fact, are conflicting. And all I 
can say as chairman of the committee is we will try to give Members the 
maximum time possible to review the bills, consistent with our 
obligation to get the work done.
  So I think if anyone is concerned about a specific item in the bill, 
I'm sure the gentlewoman and I'm sure the gentleman from Georgia will 
be willing to walk them through what the committee has in mind.
  But in the end, I would simply--I'm not going to vote for this motion 
because I can't with a straight face both promise to make these bills 
available for 72 hours and meet all of the other conflicting demands 
that Members of the House are making. We've got an obligation to try to 
balance those requirements, and we will do that to the best of our 
ability. And in the end, I think we will have reasonable bills, and we 
will let the public be the judge of just how reasonable they are.
  I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as may consume.
  I want to say this, as my friends on the Appropriations Committee 
know on the other side, that this concern really is far beyond this 
bill. I do believe this process, particularly on the subcommittee, has 
been open and that Members on our side of the aisle have had plenty of 
time to read it.
  However, I know there are Members who are not on the Appropriations 
Committee who are constantly criticizing our committee for doing 
things, and I believe that they do deserve the time to view the bill. 
It is a $23 billion bill in terms of the discretionary spending and I 
think around $80 billion for the nondiscretionary spending. So $100 
billion is probably worth 3 days of scrutiny.
  Yet, I think what's really more concerning is because the process of 
appropriations has gone through regular order--and I think the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentlewoman from Connecticut have done 
a great job of being open to all members of the committee and all 
Members of the House on it--other bills which have been significant, 
which have not gone through our committee, did not have the sunshine of 
this bill or the sunshine of some of the other bills.
  And so a lot of the things that are concerning the constituents back 
home right now--and I think that Mr. Baird from Oregon has picked up 
on--is that people are thinking about the stimulus bill, $787 billion. 
And I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin had hearings in December 
on that, and we were appreciative of it, but a lot of the Members of 
the House did not have the opportunity to read that bill and scrutinize 
it as much as they would like to. And then the most recent one was the 
cap-and-trade bill, which Members were aware was getting amended at 3 
a.m. and we were supposed to vote on it the next day. We convened 6 
hours later at 9 a.m.
  Now, we also have out there in the realm of possibilities a massive 
health care bill, a bill that the CBO has scored at $1.29 trillion, and 
our constituents are very concerned. In fact, I've never seen a 
petition like this before, but there's actually been a petition sent up 
to Members of Congress saying, Will you agree to read the bill before 
you vote on it? And I think that's a fair request by our constituents, 
the minimum bid, for Members of Congress, to read the bill.
  And I think that the Appropriations Committee can lead by example on 
this by allowing 72 hours, but I think there are also concerns, you 
know, perhaps this should be regularly part of the process when we have 
a large spending bill. This one's $100 billion; again, the health care 
bill is $1.29 trillion. People deserve the opportunity to look at it.
  Now, I also know, having served in the majority, how difficult it is 
to manage a bill in a House with 435 independent contractors and 
conflicting schedules, and then you go to the really hard job and 
that's the other body, and sometimes it's difficult to get everybody 
just in the room at the same time. But that's why we passed last week 
in the House a continuing resolution, which actually builds in some 
time now, that we will have--should the other body pass that this week, 
we will have until October 30 to pass these bills. So the 72 hours 
won't put in jeopardy any of the funding levels or force the government 
to go back on some money or scramble around. So we do have until 
October 30, but there certainly would be no reason to wait that long. 
We're just asking for 72 hours.
  And we feel very strongly about this. We have done this already on 
the energy and water bill, and I think that we're just concerned about 
spending, Mr. Speaker.
  That's kind of what this bill boils down to, and again, it goes well 
beyond the Appropriations Committee and certainly beyond this bill, but 
we are hearing from the folks back home, and I represent Georgia. Mr. 
Baird represents Oregon. I share his concern. We have a discharge 
petition on his bill trying to get it on the floor of the House right 
now. I don't know if it's bipartisan, but 160 Members have already 
signed that discharge petition expressing concern to have more time to 
read bills once they are out of the conference committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time. We do not have any other speakers 
on this side, so if my colleague is ready to yield back, I would be, 
too.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman, and I would just, with the 
remaining few comments, because I think that we have had this 
conversation, discussion, about it, focus my attention on this 
particular piece of legislation, and I understand the gentleman is 
talking about other areas.
  But I think that this is particularly and maybe unique in the sense 
of the kinds of efforts that have gone into making this a very open 
process, a process where people are knowledgeable about what they're 
doing and how they're doing it and what kinds of input have gone in. 
And again, there are not too many folks around here, whether they're 
from north, south, east or west, and the folks from the Northeast who 
care about animal and plant disease. There are folks in the west coast, 
east coast that care about dairy. There are people who have expressed 
their views who are on the committee, off the committee with regard to 
our settling the issue of the Chinese poultry. So I think everyone has 
had a very adequate amount of time to look at this and to be able to 
reflect on it so that they can come to a conclusion.
  Let me just ask the gentleman if he does have any more speakers?
  Mr. KINGSTON. No, I do not have any speakers, and I'm ready to yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. As am I.
  Mr. KINGSTON. With the exception that I have been admonished that, as 
I was looking at the Speaker from Oregon, I was thinking Oregon. Mr. 
Baird is from Washington, and so I'm asking for forgiveness from Mr. 
Baird. And they're both great States, of course, and I just want to 
make sure that's a matter of record.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________