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're going to get our work done that's necessary. we have -- we believe it has been amplely shown, amply shown in 2007 and because we were unable to reach over 2 1/2 months on agreement on time constraints that the only way you're going to allow us to get our work done is if we limit the time frame in which we can act. i yield back. . mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. that is our desire as well. knowing when we talk about time, we believe we can get our work done as well, but only been in this house 2.5 years and knowing

when we brought the stimulus and knowing about time, somebody rushed the bill, there were a.i.g. bonuses. i think the american people believe it's ok to have checks and balances and a little debate on the floor and ok to have some amendments on the bill process. i ask my good friend when he brought up the number of amendments, the thing that i would recall, though, this is in a world of pre-printing and deal with pre-printing of amendments, there are numerous that you submit, but will not come to the floor, but like the debate when we started this week. even though a 100 amendments, that's not the number we'll take up. and talking about an agreement, that came to pass after the bill had started. and i would think and the idea

of making sure the best products come out of this floor, that a time idea is not when you start the bill, but look to where the process is and how would it be wrong to have a debate. in the legislative branch, we only had one amendment. we had one chance at a motion to recommit, which we were able to save money and people came together and said, yes, we can do better. how much more money could we have saved had we had that opportunity to offer it? if we did have an open rule and we talked about maybe taking away the pre-printing, maybe we could be faster in the process. and looking at history, what happened this week, we could have gotten through faster with an open rule. i ask the gentleman, when he talks about having a closed

structure in the process, is there any assurance you will agree to that plan or have an open rule? mr. hoyer: would you repeat the question. what was it at the end, you asked the question and i'm not sure what the question was. mr. mccarthy: is there any ability to have an open rule? 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 in an open and honest fashion, the agreement was, we would do exactly not within the minute but within the

framework 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 two weeks. two 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 seven weeks left to complete the appropriations process, house, senate and send them to the president if we do it in a timely fashion. usually, we do not do that. both sides don't that. but i'm very hopeful that we will do it. let me make one additional comment. you mentioned the a.i.g. bonuses. clearly, the a.i.g. bonuses weren't in that bill to which you referred. that bill came from the administration of your feart and

the -- party, and the secretary of treasury from your party. and as you know, when they originally submitted the bill, it was a three-page bill for $700 billion. now the gentleman is correct that we didn't have the appropriate constraints in there to preclude a.i.g. from doing that, but they weren't in the bill and to represent that as the case, i'm sure the gentleman did not mean to imply they were in the bill. they clearly were not. so i say to my friend, we have had experience on this. it's not as if you would like to believe or represent that we have a clean slate, we're coming at this 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 one another -- the blame. we didn't do it.

i didn't like that. i want to see the regular process pursued and i intend to provide for time frames 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 agreement, as we gave to you in 2006. we have been unable to do that and i think that's unfortunate. i want to tell the gentleman that i will not advise mr. obey, the rules committee or the speaker to proceed for an hour or two hours or five hours or 10 hours before we get agreement on time constraints, which was the practice, frankly, in 2007. and i don't intend to go down that road again. and i yield back. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and just to clarify to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, they had passed the amendment to

deny the right to those a.i.g. bonuses. as i recall sitting on this floor, those lights were all green, saying yes to the resolution that they would have 48 hours, the american people to see that bill. but within the next day, that was not to be true. that was not the agreement that transpired on this floor. yes, it was hanted out after midnight and voted on the next day. mr. hoyer: would my friend yield on that point? fro what purpose was the 48 hours asked for? mr. mccarthy: motion to ininstruct. mr. hoyer: what purpose was the -- mr. mccarthy: if i may finish. i was asking the american people to read it and understand it. mr. hoyer: isn't that what pre-printing of amendments attempts to do? i yield back. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

one thing i will say as we continue forward, if i could just finish with this discussion, it is your intention to close down or continue to have a pre-printing. is there a number in the gentleman's mind that he could tell this side of the aisle that the republicans would be able to have a number of amendments to just to have a check and balance for the american people when we talk about the billions of dollars being spent, even though we are being denied the amount of time to debate it. mr. hoyer: that's exactly what i offered your leadership. mr. mccarthy: do you have a number in mind? mr. hoyer: i didn't mention a particular number, but i offered to your leadership for over 2 1/2 months. your leadership concluded they would not make such an agreement. i tell my friend it's difficult to put a number on the amendment, 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 just considered, the six. you may say you whittled 102 down to a lesser number. i don't know what the lesser number would have been, whether it would have been 70, 50 or 40. but as you know, without a structured rule with five 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's probably correct. it probably wouldn't have been 102 amendments. and it's impossible to put a number on unless we know how many amendments are requested. as if were the case for us in 2004 and we only asked for six, ten wouldn't have made sense. if we asked for 20, maybe a

higher number would have been in order. i say to my friend, we have to see how many amendments are sought. but we're not going to go down the road we went down in 2007. the problem they are hoisted on the patard in trying to argue that 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. many hearings were canceled on health, safety, statutory pay-go 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. i yield back. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i appreciate the decades of service you have provided. i have only been here 2 1/2 h -and-a-half years.

never did i think when you came to the floor on the very first amendment, somehow it got called a filibuster. and from one's perspective on this side of the aisle, you set the rules. nowhere did we not abide by the rules. you asked for pre-printing and we provided our amendments pre-printed. we got into the debate. and i think the american people like debating on this floor. but if i may move on. just one final question along this. the reason i asked you about amendments on the republican side, you have to understand the questioning of why i would. we took up the legislative branch and you said you aren't sure how many republicans in the future. there wasn't one republican amendment. our ability within the rules, we have one motion to recommit. 374 people in this chamber joined hands together. that doesn't come around very often to save $100,000.

you look in my district where there is 15.9% unemployment, it helped them a great deal. i would like to ask about cap and trade. the speaker has announced and i have read a lot of what she has said if you don't finish this bill in agriculture and ways and means by a certain date, you lose the right, the authority. and the speaker had a goal of considering the cap and trade bill on the floor prior to the july 4 process. does my friend believe that time will still be the case? we will see that bill before july 4? mr. hoyer: the energy independence bill 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 say that the committees with concurrent jurisdiction ought to act by the

19, 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 three months been telling people, particularly the press who asked me the schedule, that i thought the energy bill, 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 time frame 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. agriculture committee, ways and means in particular working on this bill. we believe this is a very critical and important bill. this is one of the president's priorities. so i think to the gentleman i have not announced it on the

schedule. my present expectation is 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 had the time to do that, it is possible we would consider it next week. mr. mccarthy: if i may follow up on that. should i believe what i read in the paper that even though this bill has three different committees of jurisdiction with the agriculture and ways and means, if it was not taken up by a certain date, would they lose the jurisdiction rights to take up the bill before it came to the floor? would we expect it to come out of those committees before it goes to the floor? mr. hoyer: that will be up to the speaker and committee chairs as they discuss this, but i think, again, when 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. you set target dates to get things done and that's what she has done. not only a question of losing jurisdiction as is a sense of trying to get something done by a date so that you can move on to final passage on the floor of the house. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. if i move on to another subject. during the debate of the war supplemental, one major issue was dropped from the bill, the bipartisan provision to prevent the release of detainee photos. and this is in the region that our troops are now fighting. the senate unanimously passed the leiberman bill yesterday preventing the release of detainee photos.

why didn't the bill come to the floor today to protect our troops and do you consider that to be brought up next week? mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's question and many of us share the view that the president's action was well advised as it relates to the safety and security of our troops. on june 11, as the gentleman may know, a few days ago, the president wrote to the chairs of the house and senate appropriations committee and said as follow, quote, i deeply appreciate all you have done to secure funding for the troo. i assure i will continue to take legal and administrative remedy to make sure that detainee photographs are not released. in light of that, the court has put a stay on the release, as i'm sure the gentleman knows, so that there is no present intention by the administration to release these photos. so, while the senate acted yesterday, obviously, there was no need for us to act

immediately on this and i'm sure the committee will consider it in due course. . mr. mccarthy: do you believe we could do it next week? mr. hoyer: excuse me? mr. mccarthy: do you believe we could take it up next week? mr. hoyer: i believe we can do a lot of things next week. mr. mccarthy: i appreciate the gentleman. mr. hoyer: you asked me we could. we could. mr. mccarthy: i would never bet against you. i appreciate the opportunity to bring that up. and to my good friend from maryland, knowing that this is the last colloquy before the fourth of july break, as we look forward when we come back there is a lot of big topics coming before this house, and i will tell you from a personal level it was a little disturbing on some of the items i am reading about. because in this house and on this side of the aisle i participated really in the first time coming back this year inviting our president to

our conference. inviting president obama to the conference because we wanted to work in a bipartisan manner. we worked on the idea of the stimulus bill where we got together and we created ideas that he asked for and we gave it to him. and create twice as many jobs with half as much money, scored by his own administration in there. and when i look forward, one thing we did early on was this leadership of this side of the house signed a letter to the president with our talking about we want to work together on health care. we want to find common ground. we want to make sure that all americans have access to health care. we want to make sure that we solve this problem. and in doing that we even put together our own working group. we set our principles. we continued to put them forward. and one of the concerns i had when i tried to find information from the other side of the aisle i'd go to the president's webpage and first there were hate items. as we got closer we got down to three items. they were taking things off the

website. but then when i read in the newspaper "politico" where people are being directed on your side of the aisle not to talk to republicans on the health care issue -- i don't know if you read that quote but i can provide it to you. but then when i hear of other people outside these chambers working on it not to talk to republicans or they would not be put in the room, i'm just wondering if there's a chance that that behavior will change, that we will have the  opportunity to work together, we will have the opportunity with our ideas to be presented that this is something that the american people would want that we could work bipartisan, much like earlier when a republican produced a motion to recommit and 374 people came together to save the taxpayers $100,000. and i yield to my friend from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not sure what quote or who was instructed not to speak to republicans because i've had a number of discussions with my good friend, roy blunt, so i didn't follow that direction.

i haven't given that direction. i want to make is clear 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 anytime 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 are 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. i'm not sure, frankly, i'm not sure you made the change on education and labor. mr. mccarthy: we have. mr. hoyer: ok. in any event, i'm not sure, 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 think 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 and we have had discussions. 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. your side has put some principles out as well. i'm hopeful, i know the president is 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 half an 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. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman. the only thing i would say having been in that caucus, the president came to the caucus. we had invited him to. prior to our retreat, because we wanted to speak to this president before. i will tell you, knowing that this was in closed door sessions, but this was probably one of the best caucuses i have been to. i thought it was very honest, open, talked about the issue, discussed the issue. there were times that the president said i philosophically disagree. he said, you know what, that's a good idea. let's work on it. but as that president left that caucus, the other side of the aisle introduced the bill. so in essence i felt crushed

for an opportunity to work in a bipartisan matter. we put the working group together and we didn't go out and score the bill our way. we took the president's scoring, which will tell you how many jobs and how much money it will cost and our focus was on small business and job creation. it created twice as many jobs with half the money. and our whirp, mr. eric cantor, personally handed it to the president. the president said this isn't crazy at all. so we on this side of the aisle really look forward to working in a bipartisan manner. and especially after seeing the scoring on the latest health care bill from the democratic side where it will only help 15 million of those uninsured but cost more than $1 trillion, knowing that that does not solve the problem but continues to cost taxpayers tremendous amounts of money, we will look forward, and i appreciate your assurance that maybe the attitude has changed, that the quote from congressman jim cooper to "the politico" that he was told not to work with republicans that that will change. and i appreciate your work on

that in your words that you said today. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. mccarthy: gladly. mr. hoyer: i never said we changed our opinion. that has been our opinion expressed by our president, expressed by me and others that we desire to work in a bipartisan mode. but the gentleman surely understands that there were -- i can tell you people on your side of the aisle who indicated to me that they wanted to vote for a number of the pieces of legislation that dealt with the stimulus but the party pressure was so great that to vote no they wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. i will tell you the names in private so you can check the validity. mr. mccarthy: i saw 17 of your members voting no in a bipartisan support that there was a better way, that there was an opportunity. that kind of goes back to the whole debate about amendments. i always thought coming to this floor that maybe the power of

the idea should win and no one should be afraid of an idea or amendment that we can actually be better. but i thank the opportunity to spend some time with the gentleman and i appreciate if some members on your side of the aisle think differently in the past that we can get the message out. i appreciate the work that you have done. and, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will request -- the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. it has now been one week since the iranian people went to the polls to elect their new political leader, and in the last seven days the results of the elections have been questioned, the media in iran has been suppressed, thousands of demonstrators have protested and some of these demonstrators have been injured and killed. yet, this very morning the supreme leader of iran compared the election to a family disagreement. he offered no apologies for the deaths of civilian protesters and instead simply blamed the western media for being zionist controlled. so as a member of congress, i

am appalled at this response and the fundamental democratic freedom, the freed to protest and report on one's own government. we know the demonstrators were harassed rather than defended, and we know that internet connections were cut and cell phone services disabled. even foreign radio and television satellites were jammed. so i ask, is this the behavior indicative of a country that recognizes liberties? i was proud earlier today to vote for h.r. 560, and expressed my support for the iranian citizens who recognized the need for the voices to be heard. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to congratulate the lady golden tide softball team for capturing the state softball championship in their division. this is a team second

pennsylvanian athletic association class a title in two years. they ran against a powerhouse team, the lady blue devils, who had a record of 18 wins and three losses. the coach said in an interview, this group of girls has been great and we're really going to miss the seniors. they've done everything they asked and their winning attitude is just tremendous. winning pitcher -- tide pitcher holly lanceburg got the winning run. after the run was scored, the blue devils was shut out in the sixth inning. all the women deserve praise for their competitive spirit and team effort. the coach can be proud of these young women who worked hard to get to the finals and to come home champions. congratulations to the lady golden tide. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from tennessee rise? mr. wamp: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wamp: madam speaker, as the house and senate continue to look for solutions to a problem of climate change and global warming, as the chairman of the nuclear energy working group here in the house, i just would remind everyone that we built our first 100 nuclear reactors in this country in less than 20 years and we could build another 100 in the next 20 years if we really wanted to take a global leadership role on climate change, carbon reduction, pro-america, 5,000 jobs per plant. we can reprocess the spent fuel, turn it back into energy, as they do in other countries like japan and france, all around the world they're looking back at us and say, why does the united states not move towards nuclear power and nuclear energy? we need it from a competitive standpoint, a jobs and economic standpoint and lead the world towards cleaner air. nuclear is the way to go and i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pem