Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 84 (Friday, June 21, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 84 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3812-H3814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about
next week's schedule.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed
its legislative business for the week. The House will next meet for
legislative business on Monday, June 24, at 12:30 p.m. for morning
hour, and 2 o'clock p.m. for legislative business.
I will schedule a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a
list of which will be distributed to Members' offices later today.
Recorded votes on Monday will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.
On Tuesday and the balance of the week, I have scheduled the
following measures for consideration of the House: H.R. 4954, the
Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002; the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003; and the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
Mr. Speaker, conferees are also working hard to complete work on the
President's emergency defense and homeland security supplemental, and I
hope to schedule that conference report next week, as well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule. I am
just seeking a little more precision. On what day will H.R. 4954, the
Prescription Drug Act of 2002, be scheduled?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry. I know the
Committee on Energy and Commerce worked long and hard on that last
night and early this morning; and we believe that that being the case,
we should have the bill on the floor Wednesday of next week.
Ms. PELOSI. Wednesday of next week. In relationship to fast track,
will the House appoint conferees next week on the trade promotion act?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlewoman again for her inquiry. If the
gentlewoman will continue to yield, we are hopeful that we will be able
to do that next week. Obviously, we want to make sure that we have a
parity in the House and Senate position with respect to the full scope
of trade issues; and if we can have a rule passed that makes that
possible, then we ought to be able to get to work on that in conference
next week.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, will the rule be the
same one as reported from the Committee on Rules this week?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the inquiry. I must say that
that is under consideration. I will be in touch with the chairman of
the Committee on Rules and make sure that if he has any news to share
with us, we all get it as soon as possible.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman. Continuing, Mr. Speaker, the
leader said that the conferees are working hard to complete the
President's emergency defense and homeland security supplemental. I had
some questions on that conference.
As the gentleman may recall, Democrats were united in opposing
another increase in our Nation's borrowing

[[Page H3813]]

limit when this bill was considered in the House. We believe it is
time to sit down and work in a bipartisan way to fix our Nation's
budget.
Is the gentleman's leadership planning another increase in the debt
limit without a separate vote on the House floor?
Mr. ARMEY. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry. If the
gentlewoman will continue to yield, obviously, the emergency
supplemental is very important to the Nation's ability to respond to
the threat of terrorism across the globe. We want to move that as soon
as possible.
There is a relationship between our ability to actually acquire the
funds for the purpose of the emergency supplemental and the necessary
increase in the debt limit. We have the two connected and are prepared
to resolve that.
By the same token, the Senate, the other body, has passed an increase
in the debt limit of $450 billion as a freestanding piece of
legislation. Should we have the votes to pass that, we would be more
than happy to bring their freestanding bill to the floor. It is my
estimation it is of utmost importance that we move that as quickly as
possible; and indeed, even while I myself have grave hopes and
ambitions regarding how we might reform the budget process, but that is
not something that I can see being done effectively in the short run,
while both the emergency supplemental and the debt limit increase are
imperatives in the immediate short run.
Ms. PELOSI. This issue is of such grave importance to our country
that I would hope that we would have an open debate on the subject and
not have it treated the way the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), treated it when he
said, Do you expect us to have a vote on every single item that we deal
with in the Congress? And yes, when it comes to raising the debt limit,
that would be the case, especially when it raids Social Security.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Texas,
for clarification to see if I understood what I think I heard him say,
that he meant to say regarding the debt ceiling: that we do have a
crisis that has been ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury; that
June 28 seems to be the last day that they can juggle the books without
us doing what we are supposed to do, and that is, raise the debt
ceiling, June 28.
I believe I heard the gentleman say that it would be his hope that he
could add it to the supplemental so that there would not be an up-and-
down clean vote on it; but if that were not able to be done, then he
would entertain the possibility of bringing the Senate clean bill of
$450 billion to the floor for an up-and-down vote.
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, it seems to me
at this point most expeditious for us to hope to have the debt limit
increase in the emergency supplemental. In this instance, we would be
able to pass it.
My concern is not over in what venue the vote is taken. My concern is
in what venue the vote will pass. I believe it would be an unnecessary
and undesirable impact on the confidence of the American financial
markets for us to in any way bring a debt limit increase to the floor
and not pass it, and I am reluctant to do so.
If, on the other hand, I have heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) correctly, it seems to me that I may have found a new ray of
hope. Because we have a certain number of Members of our own conference
who are not willing to vote for the freestanding $450 billion increase
in the debt limit, we would need some votes from the other side of the
aisle.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has an association with a
fairly large number of Members on his side of the aisle who perhaps
might be rallied to that vote, in which case we could combine our
electoral resources and bring the resolution of the Senate to the
floor, pass it, and have this matter resolved, which would, I think, be
a favorable resolution for all of the Nation.
If the gentleman would give me that assurance, I would certainly feel
encouraged to take the Senate-passed measure to the floor.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I like the spirit of optimism that my
friend, the gentleman from Texas, has taken. I would encourage him to
look at the letter that a large number of Democrats have sent to the
Speaker offering a considerable number of votes for a clean debt
ceiling next week in order that we might avert a crisis and send
unnecessary signals to the marketplace.
What we ask in return is not a blank check, but that we have a debt
ceiling, and we revisit our budget in September when we come back after
we have seen the reestimates.
As the gentleman knows, we are now currently estimating that the
deficit this year is going to go over $200 billion. That is after we
have used all the Social Security trust fund, all the Medicare, all the
civil service, all the military retirement fund.
I would hope the gentleman would agree and would accept the hand that
is coming from this side of the aisle from the minority leader as well
as the Blue Dogs of saying that we are ready to work with the gentleman
in that endeavor, and I hope he puts that as a third option.
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentlewoman from California would continue to
yield, I will look for every avenue possible to make a reasonable
increase in the debt ceiling that allows us to conduct the Nation's
business with as little political consideration and interference as
possible; and in that regard, I will reconsider the gentleman's letter.
I thank the gentleman for his kind offer.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, if I heard correctly, the gentleman is the
majority leader of this body. Am I correct on that?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentlewoman from California will continue to yield,
I am more than happy to remind the gentleman that that is the case.
Mr. FILNER. The majority means that the gentleman has the
responsibility of setting the agenda and running this floor. As I
understood what the gentleman just said, he does not have a majority on
his side to raise the debt limit.
I want to know, where is the responsibility for the governing party
to do what is necessary for this Nation?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
thank the gentleman for his inquiry, and promise the gentleman that I
will give his inquiry every bit of consideration that it deserves.
Mr. FILNER. I know the gentleman always does.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have concern about another bill, the
AmeriCorps bill.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from
California, for yielding to me.
In the distinguished majority leader's comments about outlining the
calendar for next week, he did not mention this bipartisan initiative
that has been reported out of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce with overwhelming bipartisan support to support the increase
of the President of the United States in both volunteers and resources
for AmeriCorps.
We know that we have been very busy the last couple of weeks naming
post offices, but we would hope that maybe next week we could get to
AmeriCorps and do one of the bipartisan priorities and one of the
President's priorities.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Let me just say parenthetically,
it is my fond hope that there may be a time in the near future when I
observe the behavior of this House as it names a post office after the
gentleman himself. So this is, of course, we believe, an important
business.
But the bill with respect to which the gentleman raises his inquiry
is an important bill. The committee of jurisdiction has just reported
the bill just the past few days. I will be speaking with the chairman
about it; and I am sorry to report I have no scheduling announcement to
make at this time, but

[[Page H3814]]

I do appreciate the gentleman's interest and inquiry.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, does the majority leader think this is a
priority for the House, since it is a priority of the President of the
United States, to report this bipartisan bill to the entire House?
Mr. ARMEY. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. I would
remind the gentleman that this majority leader has routinely, over the
past several years, scheduled things for consideration in the House
that he himself did not believe were a priority.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the majority leader. I appreciate his comment
about getting a post office named after me. I would rather have the
AmeriCorps bill on the floor. I hope the gentleman from Texas gets a
post office or two named after him, since he is bowing out this year.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I just have one final question of the
majority leader about the schedule. I understand for Members' benefit
that we will be coming in and voting after 6:30 p.m. on Monday and that
we will be going through the week. Are there definitely going to be
votes next Friday?
Mr. ARMEY. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry. If
she will continue to yield, I think it is prudent for all Members to be
prepared to work through Friday.
At this time I have no expectation of any work in the ensuing
weekend; but certainly, we should be prepared to be here working
Friday. There are two very important appropriations bills, defense and
military construction, to be begun on Thursday and to be completed
before we complete business on Friday.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, can we assure Members that adjournment will
be 2 o'clock on Friday, or will continue later than that?
Mr. ARMEY. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for the inquiry. I am,
unfortunately, not able to give Members that assurance at this time.
Ms. PELOSI. Did I hear an assurance in the gentleman's voice that we
would not go through the weekend? Is our schedule contingent upon
completion of the work, or the calendar?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate what the gentlewoman's
inquiry is. At this time, I have no reason to anticipate any work
beyond Friday of next week.

{time} 1500

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, even if the agenda that the gentleman set
forth is not finished?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiry. We
all have our July 4 district work periods. We are all anxious to have
time with our constituents, and we will work with our committee and
floor managers to expedite everybody's ability to get home to do that
important work and spend that important time with their families.
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, indeed, very important time, the birth of our
country, Independence Day.
So I thank the gentleman very much for responding to these questions.

____________________