[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 73 (Thursday, May 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4168-H4170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time for the purposes of
inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for
morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider
several measures under the suspension of the rules, and a final list of
those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of this
week. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
on Monday. For Tuesday and the balance of the week, we expect to
consider additional bills under suspension of the rules, as well as
H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, and the
Department of Defense authorization bill.
And, finally, I would like to note for all the Members that we are
waiting on Senate action on a variety of issues such as the jobs and
growth package and the President's Global AIDS Initiative. Members
should be aware that we are likely to be in session Friday next,
possibly late into the evening, as we work to resolve these important
pieces of legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for
his information with respect to our schedule for next week, and when we
go in, and the fact that we expect certainly to meet on Friday or
perhaps late on Friday.
With respect to the forest bill, Mr. Speaker, what type of rule does
the gentleman anticipate? It is my understanding that an unlimited
number of amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, and I
would hope they would be made in order.
I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules on the floor. Obviously
we are hopeful that we will have our opportunity to offer our
alternatives to this bill. There are obviously some controversial items
in it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I will simply say that we just a couple of hours ago completed the
hearing portion for consideration of the measure, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking minority member on the
Committee on Resources, came forward with a substitute which he asked
that we make in order, and we had four other amendments that were
proposed, and we are working with Members of the minority right now to
see which of the proposals we might be able to accommodate. So we are
going to try our darnedest to make sure there are options that our
colleagues have as we proceed with this very important piece of
legislation, which I am happy to see there is strong bipartisan
consensus to move ahead with this bill.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear that they are
considering the options, but considering the options and approving the
options appear to be two different things.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just do not want to predetermine what the
Committee on Rules might do as we want the committee to work its will
and take into consideration these proposals, and I know the gentleman
would not want to predetermine what the Committee on Rules might do.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the chairman's appreciation of
the vigorous debate and differences that are sometimes debated within
the bosom of the Committee on Rules. I remember those same kinds of
disputes when we were in the majority. I am aware of the fact, however,
that sometimes those vigorous disputes as to what ought to be and ought
not to be in the rule are sometimes resolved by leadership suggesting
alternatives that then create consensus very quickly. It has been my
experience in the past. So I am hopeful that the leadership will work
its will on the creation of consensus to allow full consideration.
We are being lighthearted in this effort, but I do not want anybody
confused by the lightheartedness, that we feel very, very strongly
about having full consideration of the alternatives that we offer, just
as the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, felt so strongly about
in 1991, in 1992, in 1993, and 1994 when we were in charge. And I would
hope that the gentleman would pursue those concerns on behalf of the
minority in our party as vigorously as he pursued them on behalf of the
minorities of his party.
To the majority leader, the DOD authorization bill will be on the
floor, I understand, as the gentleman pointed out. Again, we have the
same situation, as he knows. There are some extraordinarily
controversial items included within this authorization bill. I might
say to the leader some of these, as the gentleman knows, are issues
which have been brought up within the last 30 days that make some of
the most sweeping changes that have been made in the Civil Service
System since its creation and exempt fully, when we include Homeland
Security, one-half of the Federal employees from protections that they
now enjoy under title 5, title 41 and other pieces of legislation
passed by the House and the Senate.
In addition to that, as the gentleman knows, there are some very
substantial questions with reference to environmental statutes that are
on the book and possible exemptions from certain statutory requirements
dealing with endangered species, dealing with clean air, dealing with
other items.
Could the gentleman tell me the rule that is contemplated and whether
or not amendments will be made in order, particularly those two items,
and there may be multiple amendments, but whether or not there will be
full consideration of those very controversial items?
I will tell the gentleman, as he knows, I have consistently, since
1981, supported authorization bills and am a strong supporter of
defense, and I have always supported appropriations bills, but at the
same time the fact that something is included in a bill, if no
opportunity is given to debate those items which may be controversial
as opposed to those items which are ensuring the strength of our
country and the capability of our Armed Forces and the quality of life
for our personnel, we do not want to have to vote against those,
clearly, and probably will not. But we do want the opportunity to
debate these very controversial items and to provide alternatives.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the gentleman knows, the Department of Defense authorization bill
is a huge, huge piece of legislation, which includes providing for our
national defense, fighting the war on terror, providing for the
military and their families, particularly their quality of life. It is
a very complicated, very important piece of legislation.
The gentleman is correct that some provisions were brought to some
people's attention some 30 days ago, but
[[Page H4169]]
those two issues that the gentleman talks about, Mr. Speaker, are
issues that have been worked on for a long time by a lot of people and
have gone through regular order. Both the environmental issue and the
personnel issue have been worked on by their respective committees, the
Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Resources, and have
been voted on by those two committees to be sent out of those
committees and put into the Department of Defense authorization bill.
{time} 1400
I know that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is on the floor to
make an announcement about the intentions of the Committee on Rules
meeting and dealing with amendments and their submission to the
Committee on Rules.
Again, it is very difficult to predetermine what type of rule would
be written for the Department of Defense authorization bill, but I must
say certainly this is vitally important to this country. We want to
have a full and open debate about it, and I am sure the Committee on
Rules will take a look at those amendments that will be offered and
make a decision as to what kind of rule to write, but I do not think
that will be done until next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman,
and yield to the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the majority leader is
absolutely right. We know there is a full schedule which the
distinguished majority leader has just outlined for next week, but,
clearly, most of the time for next week will be spent on this House
floor dealing with this very important issue, the defense authorization
bill. In light of that fact, my friend from Maryland can clearly be
assured that there will be a wide range of amendments that will be made
in order for consideration of the measure.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of
the Committee on Rules for that assurance, and again would reiterate
that I am presuming that those assurances go to the two particular
items, as well as other items that clearly are in this bill. I thank
the gentleman for his assurance.
Mr. Leader, you mentioned the tax bill, the jobs opportunity bill,
that passed this House and which Senate is now considering, as I
understand it. Assuming the Senate passes that piece of legislation
today or tomorrow--I see the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means on the floor--when is it your expectation that they will go to
conference on this bill?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do
believe that the other body expects to complete consideration of the
economic growth package later on this afternoon, or, if not this
afternoon, sometime tomorrow. The final product that passes the other
body will likely be dramatically different, if not dramatically less
desirable, than what passed this body.
At this point I cannot give the gentleman a good sense of how or when
this important legislation will be resolved. What I can say is that our
hope is that we get the best, most robust growth bill to the President
as soon as possible. As a tentative goal, we would like to get the bill
to the President before we break for the Memorial Day recess.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. I understand that
he cannot, with any preciseness, give us an answer. Is it, however, the
intent that this bill will be conferenced, that there will be a full
conference on this bill?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am not advised as to what procedures the
House will take, only because we need to take a real good, hard look at
what ultimately passes the other body before we can make a decision as
to what options are available to us.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comment.
I would only observe that we certainly on this side, whatever happens
in the Senate, would hope and expect that regular order would be
followed and that a conference would occur in which the minority, both
in the Senate and the House, for that matter, would have an opportunity
to make its observations and opinions clear on either alternative, or
portions of each.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, we are always
interested in protecting the rights of the minority.
Mr. HOYER. I wanted time for that comment to resonate in the body,
but I appreciate the observation, even though it stretches my
credulity.
The debt limit, Mr. Leader, do you expect we will have an opportunity
to have a full and open debate on this matter?
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, I am sure the
gentleman is aware that the House has already passed an increase in the
statutory debt limit. It is my understanding that the other body has a
unanimous consent agreement to consider the House bill, along with a
series of amendments.
Frankly, hopefully the Senate would not pass any of those amendments
and pick up the House bill and pass it sometime next week and send it
to the President.
Mr. HOYER. If the leader knows, is that debt limit extension still
$894 billion? Does the gentlemen know?
Mr. DeLAY. I am not advised at this moment. I apologize to the
gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. The last item I would inquire about, Mr. Leader, is the
unemployment compensation extension. As the gentleman knows by the
efforts that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) have been making, this is of great concern
to us.
Does the leader have any expectation that the unemployment
compensation extension will be on the floor next week?
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to make sure
that the gentleman is referring to the program that was created as a
result of the economic impact of 9/11. The Federal unemployment
insurance program that existed for decades is still around, and people
need to understand is still around and working well. So it seems to me
that if the gentleman and Members of this body are actually interested
in a broad expansion of the unemployment insurance program, I would
hope that those Members would work with the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means and move it through regular order so that every
Member of this body ultimately could have some impact on that piece of
legislation, that very important legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for those comments.
I will be more specific so the leader understands what I am talking
about.
In October of last year, as the gentleman recalls, we were hopeful
that we would extend unemployment insurance in our last day in session
in October and take up a Senate bill which was passed in a bipartisan,
overwhelming fashion. We did not do that, as the gentleman recalls,
notwithstanding the fact we gave our unanimous consent to that action.
As a result of not doing that, 800,000 Americans went off unemployment
insurance on December 28 of last year.
The President, of course, observed that he thought that was
unfortunate, and he was for us extending it. However, that was not
done, as the gentleman recalls, either until the last week in January
or to the first week in February, I think it was probably the last week
in January, which meant from December 28 through late January people
who were unable to find jobs were not included in an extended
unemployment insurance position. Therefore, they had no income coming
in to their families, at least from their perspective. That is what we
are concerned about.
I would reiterate, Mr. Leader, it is our view that there are some 3
million people at risk. It was 800,000 last October. We believe it is 3
million people under State programs and Federal programs that are at
risk if we do not extend unemployment insurance, as we did in the 1990
recession, as we did in 1982. In fact, we extended it in both those
instances beyond that which we had already. It was those programs which
I was referring to, Mr. Leader.
I yield for any comments the gentleman may wish to make.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct in reciting the
history of extending benefits. What I seem
[[Page H4170]]
to remember was that the House passed a bill, and the Senate refused to
pick it up back in October or November, I forget the time frame.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, if I might, Mr. Leader, what happened,
as I recall, was Mr. Nickles and Mrs. Clinton agreed on a bill that was
then passed overwhelmingly by the Senate in response to our bill and
sent here. In fact, some 2\1/2\ months later we adopted a very similar
piece of legislation, but only after people had gone off for 4 weeks
their extended benefits.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I just remind the gentleman
that our bill, the House bill, passed overwhelmingly by this House, and
the Senate did pass their own bill, but our bills crossed in the night,
and the Senate refused to take up our bill.
But be that as it may, the extensions are there, and certainly we are
interested in taking suggestions from Members about how we would
accomplish this in the shortest period of time. But I must tell the
gentleman that the best way to take care of people that are unemployed
is to find them a job, and, to do that, pass the job and economic
growth package, the energy package, a transportation package and a
pension security package.
All the economic development packages that this House has been in the
lead on, it would be nice to get them through the other body and to the
President so that jobs can be created and people can find a job, rather
than have to rely on unemployment benefits.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
observations. I certainly agree with him that in the long term the best
solution is the creation of an economy that creates sufficient jobs for
all Americans who are seeking jobs.
My friend knows that there are 6 million Americans who are unemployed
at this point in time, the highest unemployment we have had in
approximately a decade. It is nice to say that if we pass those bills,
we will create new jobs, but the people who lose their unemployment at
the end of this month and who will not have sufficient funds to pay
their mortgages, to purchase groceries for their families, are going to
have little solace because we are going to pass some bill that will
create some jobs sometime down the road. But I appreciate the
gentleman's observation.
Does the gentleman want to make an additional comment?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not an expert on
unemployment insurance, but it is my understanding that the
unemployment insurance program is still in place, and 26 weeks, every
State in the Nation gets 26 weeks when they are let off.
I know the gentleman is referring to those that are running to the
end of their benefits. I might point out to the gentleman that that is
not 6 million people, and those extensions of benefits are still in
place for those that are still receiving benefits.
Having said that, there is time, if we can work out some sort of
agreement, to do something for those that may have their benefits
expiring. So there is time to work, and there are vehicles by which we
could do it. But I hope the gentleman is not suggesting that we go
beyond regular order in accomplishing passage of such legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the leader, on
this side of the aisle regular order is a concept which we support, but
it will not be of help to people if we do not act, and by May 31, you
indicate 6 million, I am saying 3 million. I am not sure whether it is
Federal-State, about a million are at risk on the State program, or
maybe 2 million on State and 1 million on Federal. There is a total of
3 million at risk.
I tell the leader that it is my understanding in each of the
recessions in the early 1980s and in 1990, we extended the existing
program's coverage for substantially more weeks than we have done in
this recession.
With 6 million people unemployed, with jobs difficult to find for
those 6 million people, and, as the gentleman knows, under the program
you cannot receive benefits unless you are, in fact, looking for a job,
I would say that it would be appropriate for us to do this in the
regular order. Of course, a suspension bill is in the regular order. As
a matter of fact, we are going to do a number of suspension bills next
week.
The leader pointed out correctly that we passed unemployment
extension through the House last year in the fall on a largely, not
largely, but a large bipartisan vote, so I think that could be done.
But I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would just yield further, I really do not
want to tread in water that may get too deep for me, because, again, I
am not an expert on this, but I understand in our looking through how
we can accomplish what the gentleman may want or not want, it is my
understanding that there is a significant amount of money left in the
States at this moment, and that if the States themselves wanted to
extend their unemployment benefits and it was in their best interests
to do so, they could do it.
{time} 1415
So I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point, that
we have to move quickly and not deliberatively on this issue.
So we are looking at it. We are taking advice from Members. The
Committee on Ways and Means is looking at opportunities to address this
problem, and we will do it as soon as and as fast as we can.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his observation. We may differ on the nature of a crisis, but my belief
is that every family that faces its unemployment extension benefits
ending on May 31 for themselves believes that is a crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________