[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17778-17779]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2829, FINANCIAL SERVICES 
            AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
further consideration of H.R. 2829 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 517, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no further amendments to the bill may be offered except:
  Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
  An amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding currency manipulation;
  An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas;
  An amendment by Mr. Poe or Mr. Cuellar regarding funding for the 
Federal district courts;
  An amendment by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia regarding funding for 
District of Columbia schools programs;
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa reducing funding for election reform 
programs;
  An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General 
Services Administration;
  An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General 
Services Administration;
  An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective 
Service System;
  An amendment by Mr. Sessions striking section 738;
  An amendment by Mr. Boozman regarding High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Areas;
  An amendment by Mr. Boswell regarding studies by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy;
  An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through 
amendment for deficit reduction;
  An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective 
Service System;
  An amendment by Mr. Ellsworth prohibiting funds for certain 
contractors with tax debt;
  An amendment by Mr. Emanuel limiting funds for the Vice President's 
office;
  An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds to enforce 
certain requirements under section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
  An amendment by Mr. Goode limiting Federal funds for registration of 
unmarried couples in the District of Columbia;
  An amendment by Mr. Hulshof regarding funding for High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas;
  An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 8.9 
percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Kingston limiting funds for contracts to entities 
that do not participate in a basic pilot program related to illegal 
immigration;
  An amendment by Mr. Lucas limiting funds to seize coins made or 
issued by the U.S. Government prior to 1933;
  An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas limiting funds to enforce certain 
regulations related to exports to Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Miller of North Carolina regarding Executive 
Order 13422;
  An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 
percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting funds for the Federal 
Election Commission regarding certain certifications for the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund;
  An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting the collection and 
distribution of funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund;
  An amendment by Mr. Pence limiting funds to implement the Fairness 
Doctrine, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 
percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for needle exchange 
programs in the District of Columbia;
  An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for certain entities in the 
District of Columbia;
  An amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for the IRS ``Where's My 
Refund'' program;
  An amendment by Mr. Upton regarding use of Energy Star certified 
light bulbs;
  An amendment by Mr. Wicker limiting the use of funds to implement 
section 5112 of title 31, United States Code;
  An amendment by Mr. Wolf regarding establishment and funding for a 
budget and entitlement reform commission;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for a project of the 
Barracks Row Main Street;

[[Page 17779]]

  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Fairplex Trade and 
Conference Center in Pomona, California;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Grace Johnstown Area 
Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Mitchell County 
Development Foundation, Inc. for the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree 
project;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Oil Region Alliance 
of Business, Industry and Tourism;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the San Francisco 
Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR Urban Center;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the West Virginia 
University Research Corporation for renovations of a small business 
incubator;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the City of Charlotte, 
North Carolina, Belvedere Business Park project;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Historic Downtown 
Retail project, Valley Economic Development Center;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Advantage West 
Economic Development Group Certified Entrepreneurial Community program;
  An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for Abraham 
Lincoln National Airport Commission;
  An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the 
Wittenberg University East Asian Study Center;
  An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for 147 
projects requested by Members of Congress and disclosed pursuant to the 
rules of the House;
  An amendment by Mr. Regula regarding the IRS;
  An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; and
  An amendment or amendments by Mr. Serrano regarding funding levels.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this 
request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on 
Financial Services and General Government each may offer one pro forma 
amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description 
stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object 
described.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my 
reservation I would like to simply bring a few facts of time to the 
House.
  If we are not prepared to stay here and work until around 1 o'clock 
tonight, it is my estimation that if all of these amendments are 
offered tomorrow, even if a handful of them drop off, I think it will 
be virtually impossible for the House to finish its business by 6 or 7 
o'clock tomorrow evening.
  We have over 50 amendments. Each of them will take at least 10 
minutes, plus the slippage that it takes to yield time and the rest. 
There are also three amendments which would take 30 minutes apiece, 
debating the very same issues that we debated for an hour and 20 
minutes earlier today. There would then be another amendment that 
requires 40 minutes of debate time to debate an issue which does not 
exist. Then we will have the added slippage that comes from yielding 
time in pieces to various Members of the House. Then finally we have to 
add to that the amount of time it takes for the votes themselves, the 
amount of time it takes on the recommittal motion and the amount of 
time it takes for final passage.
  I do not intend to object to this request, but I want it understood 
that if we proceed with a unanimous consent request that is being 
propounded now, and if we do not stay and consider amendments until 
around 1 o'clock, then it is a ``let's pretend'' promise to every 
Member of this House when we are giving them the impression that they 
will be able to get out of here soon enough in order to catch planes 
tomorrow.
  Now, I am not going anywhere. I am going to be here reading Members' 
earmark requests between now and next Wednesday. So I am not going 
anywhere. But for 90 percent of the Members, who I think would 
appreciate it if every Member of this place would sublimate their own 
egos just a mite for the good of the body, I would urge that both sides 
of the aisle demand that Members take up their amendments tonight, 
rather than waiting until tomorrow, at least enough to keep us here 
until 1 o'clock.
  Now, it is not convenient to me. It is not convenient to the 
gentleman from New York. It certainly is not convenient to the ranking 
minority member from Ohio for us to stay this late. Nobody else has to, 
except the persons who asked to offer these amendments.
  But if you ask to offer an amendment, then I think you have an 
obligation to offer it in a timely fashion and not wait so that 
everybody can be a TV star in prime time. Because, you know what? I 
participated in the debate today, and I watched the debate that I 
didn't participate in. It was, frankly, boring as all get out. With all 
due respect to everybody here who thinks they are Laurence Olivier or 
Daniel Webster, I ``ain't'' seen many of either lately.
  So I would simply suggest, Members need to understand why they aren't 
going to get their planes tomorrow if we don't stay here until 1 
o'clock tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________