[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24958-24959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2030
 LIMITATION ON CERTAIN AMENDMENTS DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
3289, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE 
              RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
during further consideration of H.R. 3289 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 396, before consideration of any other 
amendment, except pro forma amendments by the chairman or ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees 
for the purpose of debate, it shall be in order to consider the 
following amendments:
  An amendment by Mr. Shadegg; an amendment by Mr. Goode; an amendment 
by Mr. Kirk; an amendment by Mr. Filner; an amendment by Mr. Spratt; an 
amendment by Mr. Markey; an amendment by Mr. Holt; an amendment by Mr. 
Waxman; an amendment by Ms. Slaughter; an amendment by Mrs. Maloney; an 
amendment by Mr. Blumenauer, an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
California.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated or a 
designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. An amendment may amend a portion of the bill 
not yet read, except that an amendment proposing to transfer 
appropriations among objects in the bill must conform to clause 2(f) of 
rule XXI.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would simply 
say to the House, I do not even know what the content of most of these 
amendments is, but what is going on here is that the staff has been 
attempting to work out understandings under which a huge number of 
amendments can be disposed of in the most efficient way possible.
  As I understand it, there are approximately 39 pending amendments 
which are probably in order and about 69 that are not, and those 
numbers may be off a little bit but they are not bad for government 
work at 8:30 in the middle of a Red Sox game. But having said that, 
what this represents is that the sponsors of these amendments have 
agreed--all but two of these amendments as I understand it are in 
order, and those amendments, the sponsors have agreed to a severe time 
limit in order to have them considered. And in the case of the two 
amendments offered by persons who did not have germane amendments, my 
understanding is that those Members have agreed to drop all of their 
other amendments in return for a 5-minute consideration for their 
amendment before the point of order is lodged.
  I think that is roughly what it is that we are agreeing to, if this 
is, in fact, agreed to by the body. So it is simply an attempt to try 
to take a huge universe of amendments and to create some smaller, 
manageable universes so that we can move the process along.
  Let me say that, without even knowing the content of these 
amendments, I have strong feelings about the fact that Members are 
being reduced to having important issues on something like this 
considered in such a reduced

[[Page 24959]]

time frame, but that is the choice we have under the rule that we have 
been given, and so we can either try to extend Members opportunities as 
much as possible or not, and that is what we have been trying to do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as usual the gentleman understands 
the process well and has explained it well, and that is certainly our 
intent, to offer every Member every legitimate amendment.
  For those that are subject to a point of order, we will raise the 
point of order, but we believe that Members should have the opportunity 
to debate the important issues, and at the same time, we would like to 
get finished sometime this week so that we can go to conference with 
the other body as soon as possible.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, first I would 
inform the gentleman from Wisconsin that it is the Yankees as well as 
the Red Sox game.
  Secondly, I would ask the distinguished gentleman, the distinguished 
chairman, there are a number of Members who desire at some point 
tonight to strike the last word, and if we agree to this unanimous 
consent request, would that preclude an opportunity at some point 
tonight of striking the last word?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, striking the last word will be in 
order, but I would urge our colleagues, we had 6 hours of debate under 
a special ruling of the House. We had another hour of debate on the 
rule. We had another hour of debate under general debate on the bill 
itself. We have had a lot of debate. However, if Members feel inclined 
to prolong the debate even further beyond those many hours already 
concluded, that would be in order.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that some Members would be 
interested in doing that after the last vote tonight, but as long as it 
will be in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
if I might, my question is to the chairman.
  What is the status of the other amendments? I appreciate the desire 
to move forward on this compromise, this unanimous consent. There are 
other amendments that are equally in order, and what is the position on 
those amendments?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this unanimous consent that we 
have propounded at this point, like the one earlier today, would have 
no prejudice on any other amendment that may be offered following these 
11 amendments. So this does not affect anyone's right to offer their 
amendment that they intend to offer. It is just a matter of trying to 
get some cohesive organization of how we are going to proceed to 
conclude this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, these amendments simply represent negotiations 
that we have been able to reach with the sponsors of the amendments. 
Negotiations are still going on with the other sponsors of the other 
amendments, and as those are resolved, the hope is to have other 
packages to bring before the House.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for his comments.
  Since this is a place of speech and debate, I would hope that we take 
our responsibility seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________