[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21971-21973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order 
for 1 minute for the purposes of informing the Members of the schedule 
for the week to come, for today and for tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, obviously, the American public 
sent us here to get its work done. Obviously as well, we have 
differences on what work we ought to be doing and what the substance of 
that work ought to be, and they expect us to debate that, and they 
expect us to have our differences, and then they expect us to resolve 
those differences through voting and moving legislation.
  The Agriculture appropriation bill is on the floor. Mr. Obey, myself, 
and Mr. Boehner had very long discussions about how we would consider 
the appropriation bills. On or about June 14, it was June 12 and 13 
that we really discussed, we came to agreement. We came to agreement on 
how we would consider the appropriation bills, essentially the time 
frame that would be accorded to those bills, that we would have open 
rules on the appropriation bills, and that we would come to only 
unanimous consent agreements on the constraint of debate.

                              {time}  1930

  Furthermore, we agreed that we would offer a rule the Monday 
following June 14 to provide for a point of order on items added to 
appropriation bills.
  I believe that I have, as leader, done everything I said I would do.
  On Monday, I offered a unanimous consent, a request to add to our 
rules the point of order that the minority felt important to protect 
its rights. That unanimous consent, obviously, was not objected to. It 
is now part of our rules.
  Since that time, on 10 appropriation bills we have had open rules, as 
we said we would. The agreement, as you have heard me state before, 
contemplated that you would give us, on the minority side, essentially 
the same unanimous consents that we gave to you in an election year 1 
year ago.
  Notwithstanding that understanding, we have taken 50 hours longer to 
consider the appropriation bills since that time than we took last year 
when you were in charge and Mr. Obey gave the unanimous consent. You've 
heard me complain about that because I thought that was not consistent 
with the agreement.
  Notwithstanding that, we have proceeded on this floor with open 
rules, and the Agriculture appropriation bill has come to the floor 
with an open rule. The Agriculture appropriation bill has been on the 
floor for some, 4, 4\1/2\ hours, and we are not really considering the 
substance of the Agriculture appropriation bill.
  I know there is upset on your side of the aisle, I say to my friends 
on the minority side, about another bill. But there was nothing in the 
agreement that said if you were upset with another bill that the 
agreement reached between Mr. Boehner and I and Mr. Obey would not be 
honored. There was nothing that said that if we're angry about another 
bill that we will disrupt the appropriations process.
  And, therefore, it is my perception, and I think, based upon the 
facts that everyone in this country has observed over the last number 
of hours, that my perception is the agreement has not been honored. I 
regret that.
  I will tell you that I pride myself on honoring my agreements, even 
when it may anger my side of the aisle, because I believe that if we 
are to proceed in a civil way, in a way that we can trust one another, 
that is what we ought to do. Notwithstanding the extra 50 hours that 
we've spent, we were prepared to proceed.
  Now, let me read just briefly, Mr. Shadegg was on the floor just a 
little while ago and spoke. This is what Mr. Shadegg said on the 14th:
  ``As I understand it, this'', meaning our agreement to move bills 
forward, ``is an attempt to make sure that we don't waste time on 
dilatory tactics; that, rather, we proceed through these bills in an 
orderly fashion, but if someone has a substantive objection that should 
be accommodated. Is that correct?'' Mr. SHADEGG asked me.
  In response, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated, and 
I quote Mr. Obey: ``It is our hope that you will respond as we did in 
the minority by agreeing to reasonable time limits on each of those 
bills in return for that.'' In return for that was giving reasonable 
time for substantive amendments.
  Again, my friends on the minority side, you have had 50 additional 
hours above and beyond the time that we debated the bills last year 
when you were in charge.
  And Mr. Shadegg responded, ``Certainly. And I think we will.'' We do 
not believe that that has been done.
  During that same debate, on June 14, I stated to the minority, ``We 
expect to move forward on open rules.'' We have done that. ``But I want 
to make clear, if we are subjected to what we believe were dilatory 
tactics, then that would not be consistent with the agreement, and 
therefore our provision would be that, in lawyers' terms, the agreement 
has been breached.''
  I also stated, and again I quote, ``We are proceeding with reliance 
on the good faith of each to proceed in a manner that we believe 
accommodates what has been done last year and what we hope will be done 
this year, and that is consider these bills with the inclusion of 
earmarks in the bills in a manner that facilitates their being passed 
through this House.''

[[Page 21972]]

  In fact, Mr. Hensarling stated, and again I quote, ``I believe I 
heard that there is hopefully an expectation of open rules. I 
understand the majority leader's caveat.'' That was my caveat that 
dilatory tactics would not be employed during the course of 
consideration of appropriation bills.
  He went on to say, ``I understand there is an anticipation of 
unanimous consents,'' he said, ``UCs, as historic norms dictate.''
  I carry around in my pocket, I've shared with my friend, Mr. Blunt 
and Mr. Boehner, the times that we spent considering the appropriation 
bills last year. Those were the historic norms that we referred to when 
on the floor we talked about generally replicating the time constraints 
of last year.
  ``I understand,'' Mr. Hensarling went on, ``there is an anticipation 
that if bills are of historic norms, that debate time may be of 
historic norms.''
  Again, I say to my friends on the minority side, I believe we have 
followed those dictates and that understanding to the letter.
  Now, as to the schedule, I want to tell my friends that I have, for 
many months, articulated the bills that we were going to consider this 
week. Among those bills were the appropriation bills, the Defense bill, 
the Agriculture appropriation bill. I've discussed with my friend, Roy 
Blunt, the possibility of considering a FISA bill. We also have some 
conference reports. The WRDA conference report is ready, we believe. 
We're also going to consider the Defense appropriation bill, consistent 
with our agreement; and we're going to consider an energy bill.
  There may be some other conference reports that will be ready. The 
Higher Education conference report possibly would be ready, although I 
think that may not occur. There are other bills that we're going to 
consider.
  The reason I rise is, first of all, to discuss the agreement that we 
had, which I think has not been honored, with respect to the 
considerable appropriations bills. It was not with respect to other 
bills, but we were considering the appropriation bill.
  And I tell my friend that I have discussed with the members of my 
caucus that we are going to complete this agenda. We will complete this 
agenda if it takes all of next week to complete. That will disrupt my 
schedule, it will disrupt your schedule, and it will not be a happy 
time for any of us in this body. I regret that.
  I hope that those of you on the minority side who have dealt with me 
through the years believe that I try to treat one another as I want to 
be treated by them.
  I regret that we are now going to go to the Rules Committee on the 
appropriations bills. We will go to the Rules Committee on the 
Agriculture appropriation bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on 
the Defense bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on each and every 
other bill.
  That does not mean I expect you to sit back and simply say, well, 
that's fine. I expect that we will not have a happy time over the next 
coming days. But I also believe that you have not left me or my party 
with an alternative, if, in fact, we are to proceed with the people's 
business.
  We have disagreements. That's fair. Amendments expressing those 
agreements offered on this floor is fair. Demanding votes on those 
amendments and on those bills is fair and what the American people 
expect.
  What the American people, in my opinion, do not expect is for us to 
simply do nothing, to simply circle one another, yell and scream at one 
another, point fingers at one another and not proceed with their 
business.
  We believe very strongly that children ought to have health care. I 
believe you think children ought to have health care. We have a 
difference of opinion as to how we accomplish that objective. That is 
fair.
  What is not fair, from our perspective, is to simply disallow the 
House to proceed to do its business, to have its disagreements, to make 
its votes, to express its will.
  And so I say to you that we will complete the agenda that I have set 
forth. I hope we pass all those bills. If we don't pass them, so be it. 
But if we pass, or whether they fail, we will consider them during this 
sitting, before we recess for our summer break. I regret that, but it 
is the only alternative with which I think I am left if, as majority 
leader of this House, I'm going to facilitate the accomplishment of the 
people's business.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  There is no question that there was an agreement between Mr. Hoyer, 
Mr. Obey and myself to try to facilitate the movement of the 
appropriation process. During the time in the minority, the Democrats 
worked with us to facilitate that process; and over the course of the 
last 4 or 5 weeks I think that it has worked reasonably well. Maybe not 
to everyone's satisfaction, but reasonably well.
  What's happened here is that we have the greatest expansion of 
government-run health care about to go out to the floor, where there's 
never been a legislative hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee 
on this issue. The bill has not gone through committee. We're about, as 
the minority, about to have this thrust upon us, a 488-page bill that 
was in the committee that no one ever really had a chance to read; and 
to bring this in such a rush in the last week has caused concern 
amongst members in our caucus from every wing of our caucus.
  Now I understand that the gentleman would prefer that we move the 
appropriations process quickly. But there was a discussion all of last 
year and the year before and a lot of promises made earlier this year 
about having a more open House, allowing Members the opportunity to 
debate, allowing the opportunity for the Members to bring amendments to 
the floor; and I and my colleagues on our side are very disappointed 
that not only have not all of those promises been kept, that we've 
actually regressed beyond the time that we were in the majority. And so 
it is unfortunate that we find ourselves at this spot. All that we've 
asked, all year, is to be treated fairly.
  And I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I 
understand that we have differences. I'm a big believer that we ought 
to allow the House to work its will. But, at the end of the day, for us 
to work our will and for other Members to work their will, there needs 
to be more open debate. There needs to be more opportunities for 
amendments. And I will say, from the point of view of the minority, all 
we're asking is to be treated fairly.
  In 1995, when we took the majority for the first time in 40 years, 
some of my colleagues in the Republican leadership wanted to treat the 
minority, the new minority the way we had been treated. I argued that 
we should never do that, that we should treat the minority the way we 
asked to be treated. And over the course of, again, the last several 
years, you have made your case about how you wanted to be treated and 
how the minority should be treated. You made it very clear.
  We're there. And I think all we're asking, all we're asking is that 
you treat us the way you wanted to be treated. And if that, in fact, is 
the case, we can do our work. We can do what the American people sent 
us here to do. But we can't do it when our voices are stifled and our 
constituents are not allowed to be represented with their views on the 
floor of this House.
  So I regret that it has come to this. It is going to be a tough week, 
but we are not going to sit here representing nearly half the American 
people and not allow their voices to be heard.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. That was the proposition that the 
gentleman put to us and Mr. Obey when we discussed the appropriations 
bills. We agreed, and we have followed to the letter, bringing every 
appropriation bill considered under an open rule, every one.

                              {time}  1945

  There were no constraints imposed beyond unanimous consent 
constraints so that we had an open process. Everybody got an 
opportunity to make their points and to vote.

[[Page 21973]]

  There is no one on this side of the aisle who has served for the last 
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 years who does not understand the pain that you 
express of your Members. They have all felt it. You know that, and I 
know that. Frankly, we had a previous majority leader who was not 
nearly as tolerant as the present majority leader, I say with some 
degree of perhaps humor but some degree, I think, of real truth. I 
believe we have complied with that agreement.
  We will now conclude the business for tonight, and we will back 
tomorrow, and we will complete the work that I have set forth on behalf 
of the majority that the House contemplates. And we hope that we can 
try, over the next few hours, to reach a greater level of civility on 
both sides so that we can proceed and try to accommodate the concerns 
of every Member. But that has not happened.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield, and then we will conclude.
  Mr. BOEHNER. We will be happy to work with you and the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee on a unanimous consent request for both 
the Ag appropriations bill and the Defense appropriation bill. We just 
want some understanding that there is going to be ample time for debate 
on the SCHIP bill that we expect to show up sometime this week. If we 
can agree on 2 or 3 hours of debate on the SCHIP bill, we will be more 
than happy to facilitate this process.
  Our concern, based on what we have seen of the schedule, is that 
there was going to be very little debate on the SCHIP bill. That is why 
Members felt compelled, the need to come down and talk about it today 
on this bill. But we can work this out. I will just throw that out 
there for the gentleman's consideration.
  Mr. HOYER. I will look forward to discussing the next 4, 5 or 6 days 
with my friend.

                          ____________________