[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.

                          ____________________