Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I said I rose for two purposes, one was happy. Obviously, that was the happy one. I came to Congress 29 years ago. John Dingell came to Congress 53 years ago. Sally Crowe came to Congress 57 years ago. You may not know Sally Crowe by name, but you know Sally Crowe. Sally Crowe was the hostess who greeted all of us in the House restaurant. She was a wonderful spirit. She died while we were on break this month. She died after having had a very substantial fall. And others may have retired, as she surely could have. She chose not to retire, however, and she returned to the place that she loved and served so well. We are all advantaged by those who are not known widely outside this institution, but who served this institution with a devotion to country, devotion to the institution, and devotion to each and every one of us and, in Sally's case, to the guests who came and visited with us and ate with us in the dining room or were visitors here and ate there. She was courteous, kind, respectful, affectionate. I will remember Sally with great affection. Her family lives in my district. I want to say on behalf of all of us to her family how much we appreciated her love, her service to us and to her country; and I want to yield to my friend, Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank my friend, Zach Wamp, for his memory of Sally and his expression of love on behalf of all of us. Sally was awarded the John W. McCormack Annual Award of Excellence for Service to the House. Without Sally Crowe, life in this building would have ground to a halt in many respects. Now it won't grind to a halt, it won't grind to a halt because we are advantaged by so many who care for this institution. And we thank them all. But today, we remember a wonderful, decent, good, loving human being, our friend, Sally Crowe. God rest her soul. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of two individuals who have been key in the success of St. Mary's College of Maryland. Unfortunately, both of them have chosen to move on to new challenges and will be leaving this summer, so I wanted to reflect on the incredible contributions they have both made to the College. Jane Margaret O'Brien leaves as the president of St. Mary's College of Maryland, having served in that capacity since 1996. Maggie is a personal friend and I want to salute her years of leadership as President, along with Torre Meringolo, who has served during much of that time as Vice President for Development. Together, they brought to St. Mary's College a strong reputation for excellence in scholarship, research, and community engagement. Dr. O'Brien received her bachelor's degree from Vassar College in 1975 with a major in biochemistry. She completed a Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Delaware in 1981. In her early academic career she was a member of the chemistry and biochemistry department at Middlebury College where she also served as dean of the faculty. She was president of Hollins University from 1991-96. Dr. O'Brien received a Kellogg National Leadership Fellowship from 1989-92, served as an International Fellow with the American Association of Colleges and Universities in 1990-91, and was an Eisenhower Fellow to Malaysia and Hungary in 1999. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the science honors society Sigma Xi. After stepping down as president, Dr. O'Brien will continue to work for the College with the Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Oxford, England. Dr. O'Brien assumed her post in July 1996 and dedicated herself and the College to the newly adopted Honors College Curriculum. She provided critical guidance to the College's external relations and fundraising, which included the $40 million Heritage Campaign in support of the faculty's academic leadership, the extension of the residential college, and the enhancement of community programs. Fundraising during Dr. O'Brien's tenure reshaped the College's scholarships, professorships, lecture and learning series, and arts, athletic, and community programs. External support made possible the Paul H. Nitze Scholars Program, the annual River Concert Series, over 40 new scholarships, nine endowed professorships and chairs, and many student and faculty awards presented at the annual Awards Convocation. The Center for the Study of Democracy was established with a $2 million NEH grant and challenge matches. Private funds now support the William Donald Schaefer Internships, the Ben Bradlee Lectures, the Andrew Goodpaster Lecture Series and the Patuxent Defense Forum. In honoring the successful accomplishments at St. Mary's College under Maggie's leadership, we should also recognize the accomplishments of Torre Meringolo, who has been instrumental in carrying out much of Maggie's vision for the College. Torre also leaves this month after serving most of his 15 years at St. Mary's College as the Vice President for Development. He has accepted the position of vice president for university advancement and external relations at the University of Mary Washington. Torre leaves a proud record of accomplishment at St. Mary's. Hired originally as director of the library and information services, he directed a comprehensive modernization effort that encompassed library partnerships with the University of Maryland System, raised $2 million for library endowment, and provided the foundation for a contemporary IT system. Torre's previous employment at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Penn State University, and UNC Charlotte brought a strong knowledge of information systems to St. Mary's, which he deftly adapted for a smaller-scale campus with modest resources. In concert with Trustee Terry Rubenstein, chair of the board's development committee, Torre led a professional development team that successfully completed a $40.4 million campaign. During his time, endowment funds at the College grew to over $24 million. Torre worked to create a modern, professionally run Foundation, which granted over $16 million for the College's programs over the past 10 years. His passion for supporting students with financial needs made possible the graduation of many alumni. Under Torre's leadership, the Alumni Office now serves 11,000 proud alumni with regular events and mailings to keep alumni involved and informed. His work has led to the creation of major campus events such as Reunion Weekend, Governor's Cup, Madrigals, and now the River Concert Series on the Townhouse Greens, all successful programs that bring thousands of alumni and friends to the College annually. As Maggie O'Brien and Torre Meringolo depart, St. Mary's College is today a nationally recognized leader. Newsweek has called it ``an Ivy- level College with a public-school price tag.'' It is now consistently ranked as one of the best liberal arts schools in the nation by U.S. News and World Report, and the Princeton Review named it a ``best value college'' this year. I want to congratulate Maggie and Torre for their contributions to higher education. Their accomplishments at St. Mary's College of Maryland have greatly benefitted their community and our State of Maryland. Both of them will be sorely missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mark this day, June 26, 2009. My colleagues, we have an opportunity to serve in a historic session of the Congress of the United States. We have an opportunity to take action that will make a major difference in the security and independence and environment of our globe as well as our country. We have been given the privilege by our fellow citizens to serve at a time of historic change and meeting challenges that were the subject of this past Presidential campaign. And in this past Presidential campaign there were three major candidates. You could perhaps name more, but there were two, certainly, at the end. And the campaign of Senator McCain and Senator Obama had something in common. They were both for comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation, the candidate you supported and the candidate I supported. They put an agenda of action before the American people that they would pursue if they were elected President of the United States. Only one could be elected, but presumably both would have followed through on their commitment, as this President has, and we are today. This is a transformative moment. This is a moment to build a clean- energy future for our country. This is a moment to create jobs in America. This is a moment to take on, at long last, a defining challenge of our time--global warming. I know my colleagues can seize this moment, if they only will. The substitute talks about a Manhattan Project. I think the sentiments expressed in the substitute are good ones. The objectives are good ones. But Americans voted for action, not additional studies. America voted to make a difference, not to make a point. America voted for the change we could believe in. That's what this bill represents. I know they can look back from a future in which America is independent of foreign oil. There has been much talk about taxes. Tragically, almost every debate we have on this floor devolves into: We're going to raise your taxes. My fellow Americans know about having their expenses raised and because the foreign potentates who hold us hostage because they provide so much of our energy gave us a new tax at the gas pump--and every American remembers it. Why? Because we have not taken the action necessary to become energy independent. And so our gasoline prices at the pump for my commuters who drive sometimes an hour or an hour and a half to get to work to support their families paid an additional $2.50 per gallon tax imposed by those from abroad who provide us energy. This bill is about making sure that foreign interests cannot raise the expenses of our families. This bill is about making sure that we in America provide our energy, efficient energy, clean energy, energy that will not bring our globe to a heating process that will drown out what the Navy calls the littorals, the seashores, where most of our people live. My colleagues, this bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a true turning point. This is one of the historic actions we will take not just in this Congress, but as Members of Congress, for however long a tenure we may have. It's a complex bill because we face a complex problem. But we can sum up its outcome simply: new American jobs, less dependence on foreign energy, a reduction in the carbon pollution that causes global warming. How does this bill accomplish those goals? Among its most important provisions are a requirement that utilities meet 20 percent of electric demand through renewable sources and energy efficiency by 2020. I'm old enough to remember the lines of the seventies when you waited in line an hour or two or three to put gasoline in your car so you could get your child to school, get to work, pick up your child from child care. America should have acted, but we did not. Today, we're going to act. Significant new investments in renewables, carbon capture and sequestration, electric vehicles, and cutting-edge energy research, all of that is in this bill to take action, change that America can believe in. And energy savings standards for buildings, appliances, and industries. This bill also creates a clean-energy bank to fund promising energy projects across America. Investment in America's ingenuity and innovative entrepreneurial spirit, that's what this bill is about. That is why it's so important to America. It invests in high-tech transmission lines to build the essential foundation for a more efficient grid. That is essential if the energy we produced can be delivered to those who need it in businesses and in homes. New transmission lines comprised of superconducting cable and other efficient wires will carry more power within existing rights-of-way with less land use is included. The result will be a more secure, environmentally friendly grid. That's what this bill does. I worked with the chairman and Representative Inslee to ensure that those transmission provisions were included because they are such an important part of a more cost-effective, energy efficient future that our country needs. Of course, the bill also includes the reduction of our carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020. Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less. But we have reached a compromise. That is the legislative process. And it is compromise that can pass this House and pass that Senate and be signed by the President and become law. And make progress. That's what our responsibility is. And then, more than an 80 per reduction by 2050. We can fight global warming with the same kind of market-based cap- and-trade solution that was so effective in combating acid rain at minimal cost in the 1990s. Global warming threatens every one of us. There was disagreement on that for a long period of time--some 7 years in the Bush administration, until the last year, President Bush, our President, decided that, yes, global warming was in fact a challenge that must be met. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue on which we have reached consensus. Global warming threatens every one of us. It will affect the kind of lives our children will lead and the kind of prosperity our country and our world will enjoy. To those who complain about the cost of the bill, I answer that we are all paying the cost of carbon emissions already, and certainly, as I pointed out earlier, paying the cost of being hostage to those abroad who provide our energy. The longer we wait to act, the more we will pay year after year after year. But if we take action now, we can get jobs, growth, clean energy, and energy independence for less than the price of a postage stamp a day for each of us, according to the EPA and CBO. And with this bill passed and signed, the United States will finally be able to argue persuasively and credibly for global action on a challenge that knows no borders. We understand that if the Chinese do not act, or the Indians don't act, the air that they belch will soon come to this continent and our children and families will be at risk. This is a global problem. But America is the leader. America must lead. America must set the example. This bill does exactly that. At the same time, action on global warming will send a powerful job- creating price signal to the private sector, spurring innovation in every part of the renewable energy economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs. That is one of the reasons why the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a business coalition dedicated to fighting climate change has argued that ``the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change both nationally and globally''--and that this coming change represents an excellent opportunity for economic growth. And that is why another coalition of 19 businesses, including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Duke Energy, National Grid, H.P., Starbucks, and Nike wrote to President Obama that this bill ``will drive investment into cost-saving, energy saving technologies and job- creating innovation, create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy and will provide the predictability we need to plan for future business success.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words of leaders in the corporate community in America who know something about innovation, enterprise, and free markets. It has long been understood that acting on global warming is a moral necessity as well as an intellectual necessity. But now, more and more of us are realizing that it makes powerful economic sense as well. Madam Speaker, let me as an aside thank you for your presiding at this time on this historic bill and for presiding over so much legislation in such a fair and effective fashion. This House will miss your service, but the country will enjoy your continuing service. I thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a future of clean energy is well worth the price. A Republican governor, inaugurated in the State of Maryland, in his inaugural address said that the cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. The cost of failure for the last three to four decades has cost this country. Progress will be far less expensive than failure. My children, my grandchildren and the generations to come will be either the beneficiaries of our stewardship or the victims of our neglect. I urge my colleagues this day to reject this substitute, not because it is bad for the words that it incorporates, but because its effect would be to stop action so desperately needed by this country and this globe. I urge my colleagues, defeat this substitute, pass this bill, and take this historic opportunity for our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on Monday evening, as millions of Americans were making their daily commute home, tragedy struck in our Nation's Capital. The collision outside of the Fort Totten station in Northeast Washington, the worst in the 33-year history of Washington's Metro system, claimed the lives of nine people and left more than 80 injured. Among those lost were Ana Fernandez of Hyattsville and Cameron Williams of Takoma Park from my State of Maryland. My heart and my thoughts, as I know all the Members' thoughts, are with the loved ones as well as all of those suffering the sudden loss caused by this tragedy. Those include the family and friends of train operator, Jeanice McMillan, and passengers, Lavonda King, Mary Doolittle, Veronica Dubose, Dennis Hawkins and Ann Wherley and her husband, Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. Let me also extend my gratitude to the first responders and medical professionals whose work at the scene was so critical in preventing further tragedies. While the cause of this accident is unknown at this time, we do know this: The safety of our citizens is our highest priority, and we must take every precaution to make sure this loss of life does not occur again. In the very near future, I will be joining with my colleagues from the region in introducing the final measure required to authorize $3 billion in dedicated Federal and local funding for Metro. Millions and millions of tourists from throughout this Nation ride on this system as well as tens of thousands of the employees who work for this country. We received formal notice from the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia that the jurisdictions had amended the WMATA Compact to enable such funding just last week, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this legislation critical to meeting Metro's capital and maintenance needs. We don't know that that was the cause, but certainly it is a consideration. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on Washington's Metro system every day, from the Federal employees who keep our Government running to the visitors from every corner of the country who come to our Nation's Capital. Let it be our tribute to those we mourn today to ensure America's subway is safe for all who use it. I know my colleagues join me in expressing our sympathy and prayers to all those who were struck by tragedy the other night.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Chuck McCall as he retires from the Official Reporters, a division of the Office of the Clerk, after 33 years of service to the House of Representatives. During his long career with the House, Chuck has been responsible for providing a broad range of technical support for the electronic systems that make the operations of this body possible. His responsibilities have included the Electronic Voting System, the House Publication System, and the daily production of the Congressional Record. He has contributed to the design, configuration, software development, installation, system testing, vendor contracting, operations, maintenance, user assistance, training, and system documentation of these valuable House systems. Chuck came to the House in 1976 as a Courier and Production Control Specialist in the HIS Computer Center. In 1977, he became a Computer Operator tasked with supporting the Electronic Voting System, the Member Correspondence System, and the House Publication System. In 1980, Chuck was named a Computer Programmer and his projects included the House Legislative Information System, the House Committee Meeting Scheduling System, and the Legislative Database System. In 1984, he was named Senior Systems Specialist for the Electronic Voting System and the House Publication and Communications System. Chuck joined the Office of the Clerk in 1989 as an Operations Supervisor and, in addition to his EVS responsibilities, became involved in the House Document Management System and the House Floor Audio System. He was named Technical Manager in 1996. It was in 1999 that Chuck assumed his present position with the Office of Official Reporters as System Analyst. In that role, he has been responsible for the daily transmission of the Congressional Record to the Government Printing Office each evening, often working into the wee hours of the morning to ensure timely publication of the Record. It only seems appropriate that we honor his service in that Record today. After dedicated service to this House for 33 years, we wish Chuck the very best as he now has the opportunity to spend more time with his wife, Mary, and his beautiful daughter, Kathleen. He will retire to his home near the Chesapeake Bay and will enjoy fishing, boating, camping and, we hope, strumming his guitar.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. For what purpose was the 48 hours asked for?

Mr. HOYER. In any event, so I'm not exactly sure about Mr. Miller. But I know that Mr. Rangel has had discussions with Mr. Camp; and I know that Mr. Waxman has sought and indicates to me--and I wasn't there--but he's had discussions with his ranking member as well, Mr. Barton. So let me assure the gentleman that we welcome bipartisan participation. I told that to Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt and I, I think as you know, have a history of working together successfully on behalf of legislation in this body, and I have great respect for him. He heads up your health task force. We have had discussions; and I've asked him to provide me with any suggestions that his task force has that he believes would be useful for us to discuss further; and I'm very hopeful that he will do so. As you know, we put a discussion draft on the table today for discussion. Our side has put some principles out as well. I'm hopeful. I know the President's hopeful that we can discuss those. We did have an unfortunate experience, as the gentleman recalls, when the President said he wanted to sit down and talk about the stimulus, and he was coming down to meet with your caucus, and a half- hour before he got there, your leadership instructed all of your Members to vote ``no'' on the bill before talking to the President. I thought that was unfortunate. But notwithstanding that, it's our intention to continue to try to seek bipartisan input and agreement where that can be possible.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm not sure what quote and who was instructed not to speak to Republicans because I have had a number of discussions with my good friend Roy Blunt. So I didn't follow that direction, I haven't give that direction, and I want to make it clear that from the Speaker's perspective and mine, anybody on our side of the aisle who wants to sit down with anybody on your side of the aisle at any time to discuss health care issues, either in committee or in subcommittee, they are more than free to do so; and I would encourage them to do so. In fact, as I think the gentleman may know, all of the three committee Chairs of Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor and Ways and Means have been sitting down with their ranking members. Now there was a change in ranking members, as you know, on the Education and Labor Committee. Frankly, I'm not sure that you've made the change on Education and Labor. Maybe you have.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I didn't say that we would do that next week. You asked me, could we. We could.

Mr. HOYER. I think we could do a lot of things next week.

Mr. HOYER. I think that, obviously, is going to be up to the Speaker and committee Chairs as they discuss this. But I think, again, we deal with time constraints, and we want to do things right. But we know that if you simply do not set targets to get things done, the legislative process, which I have been at for over 40 years, sometimes can delay, and you don't get things done. So you set target dates to get things done, and this is what she has done. I don't think it's so much a question of losing jurisdiction as it is a sense of trying to get something done by a date so that you can then move on to final passage on the floor of the House.

Mr. HOYER. For what purpose was the 48 hours asked for?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H.R. 2892, the 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act. We will also consider the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. HOYER. The energy independence and climate bill to which the gentleman refers, as you know, was marked up in committee and passed out of committee prior to the May break. Since that time, there have been a lot of discussions, and the Speaker did, in fact, say that committees with concurrent jurisdiction ought to act by the 19th, today, to try to bring this matter to conclusion. As the gentleman knows, I did not announce that bill for next week. I don't want to say it's not possible, but I have, for the last 3 months, been telling people, particularly the press that asked me the schedule, that I thought the energy independence and climate bill would be on the floor either the last week in June or the first week we get back in July. So that was the timeframe from my expectations. At this point in time, I have no reason to believe that it's going to be on the floor next week, but I want to make it clear to the Members that work is being done as we speak on this bill. The Agriculture Committee and Ways and Means in particular are working on this bill. We believe this is a very critical and important bill. This is one of the President's priorities. So I say to the gentleman that I have not announced it on the schedule. My present expectation is that it will not be on for next week, but if agreement was reached today or tomorrow and it was possible to move forward, it is possible. And if we have the time to do that, it is possible that we would consider it next week.

Mr. HOYER. No. I offered it to your leadership. I didn't mention a particular number, but I offered that to your leadership for over 2\1/ 2\ months. Your leadership concluded that they could not make or would not make such an agreement. I tell my friend that it's difficult to put a number on the amendments because, as the gentleman says and as I told you, we asked for six amendments. We offered six amendments in 2004 to that bill that was considered yesterday, six. Now you may say you would have winnowed 102 down to a lesser number. I don't know what the lesser number would have been, whether it would have been 70 or whether it would have been 50 or whether it would have been 40. But as you know, without a structured rule, with 5 minutes for each Member of the House to speak, you can do the math. Five times 400, obviously, is 2,000 minutes. Divide that by 60, you have a lot of days to consider that bill. I think the gentleman is probably correct, it would not have been 102 amendments, but I don't know what number there would have been, and it's impossible to put a number on it unless we know how many amendments are requested. If as was the case in 2004 and we only asked for six, giving us 10 would not have seemed to make much sense. On the other hand, if we asked for 20, maybe a higher number certainly would be in order. So I say to my friend, we will have to see how many amendments are sought, but we are not going to go down the road we went down in 2007. And I say to the gentleman, in my opinion, the problem with his party is they're hoisted on the petard of their performance in 2007 in trying to argue that somehow we don't have reason to be concerned by filibuster by debate. Yesterday was filibuster by vote, and we wasted a lot of time yesterday, unfortunately. Many hearings were cancelled on health, on safety, on statutory PAYGO and other matters that we couldn't have hearings on because we were voting four times on an issue with essentially the same result each time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The two appropriations bills are two of the 12 appropriation bills that it is my intention to see us send to the Senate by the end of next month. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the fiscal year ends on September 30; therefore, in order for us to get these bills completed and do them individually rather than bundled in an omnibus, which I think is a far preferable process, it's necessary for us to move these bills in a timely fashion. The rules, therefore, will try to accommodate both the Members and the time frame and the time constraints that we confront. I would say to the gentleman that we tried to reach, over the last 2\1/2\ months, some agreement on time constraints. Indeed, I offered to have a choice of amendments by your side after we reached a time agreement. We were, as the gentleman knows, unable to reach such agreement. In fact, I was told by your leadership that no such agreement was possible. In 2004, on the bill that we did yesterday, when the majority was then your side of the aisle there were 16 amendments in total offered to the bill we did yesterday, 10 by Republicans--of course it was your bill and you were in charge--and six amendments offered by Democrats. We asked for preprinting of amendments so we would have some idea of what amendments would be pending, and your side filed 102 amendments. That is more amendments total than were filed by either party in 2004, 2005 and 2006, so it was clear that if we had had a rule that provided for the 5-minute rule, with 434 Members having the right to 5 minutes on each amendment, that it would have been impossible to finish that bill, much less 12 bills, by the end of July, very frankly, so that ultimately we had to do a structured rule to accommodate doing the people's business in a timely fashion. I'm sorry that we couldn't reach agreement. There have been no further discussions, although I did talk to Mr. Cantor, who is not here today--or at least not here this afternoon--I did talk to him on a number of occasions about this as recently as the night that we went to the Rules Committee to get the structured rule. I have not heard from him or from Mr. Boehner with respect to any option available to us for time constraints. In fact, Mr. Obey, as you know, had a colloquy with Mr. Lewis on the floor on the rule that was essentially an open rule. And the colloquy essentially asked by Mr. Obey, Can we reach time agreements? And Mr. Lewis responded, I'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands and you might have a new ranking member, in which he indicated that time constraints were not possible. Therefore, I say to my friend from California that we are considering a rule which, as I said, will allow us to consider amendments on substance, but allow us to do so in a time frame that may well be shorter than has been the case in the past. Let me say to you that when we last considered the Commerce-Justice- Science bill in 2006 when your side was in charge, you got a unanimous agreement from Mr. Obey on time constraints. Those time constraints provided for consideration of approximately 17 hours on the bill. In 2007, we got--not time constraints, but about the same amount of time. Now, unfortunately, after we thought in 2007 we were going to have agreement to do about the same time that we gave to you when you were in the majority, notwithstanding that, we went 50 hours over. Now, 50 hours, in terms of legislative time, is at least 2 weeks of time, unless of course you have a day like yesterday. But in terms of a normal day, that's 2 weeks. We simply cannot complete and do our business in that context. So I tell my friend that we are considering a structured rule because we believe that if we are going to get our work done, that's necessary. We believe it has been amply shown--amply shown--in 2007, and because we were unable to reach, over 2\1/2\ months, an agreement on time constraints, that the only way you are going to allow us to get our work done is if we limit the time frame in which we can act.

Mr. HOYER. I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding because that's a good question. That's exactly what I offered your leadership.

Mr. HOYER. Isn't that what preprinting of amendments attempts to do? I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's question. I think many of us share the view that the present action was well advised as it relates to the safety and security of our troops. On June 11, as the gentleman may know, just a few days ago, the President wrote to the Chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and said as follows: ``I deeply appreciate all you have done to help in the efforts to secure funding for the troops. I assure you that I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure that DOD and detainee photographs are not released.'' In light of that--and of course, the court has put a stay on the release, as I'm sure the gentleman knows. So there is no present intention by the administration to release these photos. So while the Senate acted yesterday, obviously there's no need for us to act immediately on this. I am sure that the committee will consider it in due course.

Mr. HOYER. I know what I talked about, but at the end you asked a question, and I'm not sure I got exactly what the question was.

Mr. HOYER. Let me respond to the gentleman's observation with respect to starting the bill without agreements on time. We did that in 2007. We went 50 hours over what we agreed to in time constraints the year before when you were in the majority. My belief is, and I tell my friend this very sincerely, and I think my friend knows my reputation about working across the aisle and working in an honest, open fashion, is that the agreement was that we would do exactly, not to the minute, but within the framework of the agreement that we gave to you to consider the bills that you brought to the floor in 2006. We expected the same consideration. Notwithstanding that, notwithstanding that, we went 50 hours over what I thought the agreement was. Now, 50 hours, as I told the gentleman, is 2 weeks. And 2 weeks is a long time in terms of the weeks we have available to do our bills. In fact, at this current time, we have approximately 7 weeks left to complete the appropriations process, House, Senate, and sending it to the President, if we do it in a timely fashion. Now, usually we do not do that, and I think that's unfortunate. Both sides don't do that. But I'm very hopeful that we will do it. Let me make one additional comment. You mentioned the AIG bonuses. Clearly, the AIG bonuses weren't in that bill to which you referred. That bill, of course, came from the administration of your party and the Secretary of the Treasury from your party. And as you know, when they originally submitted the bill, it was a 3-page bill for $700 billion. Now, the gentleman is correct that we didn't have appropriate constraints in there to preclude AIG's doing that, but they certainly weren't in the bill. And to represent that as the case, I'm sure the gentleman did not mean to imply that they were in the bill. They clearly were not. So I say to my friend we've had experience on this. It's not as if you would like to believe or represent that we have a clean slate, that we're coming at this just brand new, clean, and everybody wants to be fair and balanced. The fact of the matter is that did not occur in the last year. Unfortunately, we didn't do the appropriations process very well last year. Both parties point the finger at each other for the blame. Irrespective of whom was to blame last year, we didn't do it. I don't like that. I want to see the regular process pursued, and I intend to provide for timeframes in which to do that. And as I say, for 2\1/2\ months I pursued an effort to see if we could reach time agreements, as we gave to you in 2006. We have been unable to do that. I think that's unfortunate. But having failed to do that, I, frankly, want to tell the gentleman that I will not advise Mr. Obey nor the Rules Committee nor the Speaker to proceed for an hour or 2 hours or 5 hours or 10 hours before we get an agreement on time constraints, which was the practice, frankly, in 2007, and I don't intend to go down that road again.

Mr. HOYER. Would my friend yield on that point?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield again?