[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5639-H5642]
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 and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring
of the majority leader the schedule for the House.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to the majority
leader for the purposes of informing us of the proposed schedule for
next week.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding to me.
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 suspension of the rules. A final list of those
bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any
votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. Monday.
For Tuesday and the balance of the week, we will consider several
additional measures under suspension of the rules. We will also
consider the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill;
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004; H.R. 1, the
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act; and the Fiscal Year
2004 Military Construction Appropriations bill; and, finally, we may
consider H.R. 2351, the Health Savings Account Availability Act.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am happy to answer any
questions he may have.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for providing us with that
information. The leader points out that the Medicare prescription drug
bill will be on the floor.
First I would like to know, Mr. Leader, if you know which day of the
week or days of the week can we expect to see the Medicare prescription
drug bill on the floor?
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I would anticipate that the
Medicare bill would probably come later in the week. I cannot give the
gentleman a firm time, but I would anticipate either late Wednesday or
certainly no later than Thursday.
Mr. HOYER. It would be the intention of the leader to have this bill
finished prior to the end of next week?
Mr. DeLAY. We anticipate to finish that bill. I know it is a big,
complicated measure, but it would be our intention to finish that
before we broke for the July 4th district work period.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, obviously this will be one
of the most important bills that we consider during this session of the
Congress of the United States, and I would ask if it is the gentleman's
intention and the leadership on your side's intention to provide a rule
which will allow the minority to offer such amendments as it deems to
be appropriate, to offer a substitute that it deems to be appropriate,
and to provide sufficient time to debate those amendments?
I yield further to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding further.
As the gentleman knows, this gentleman is very hesitant to speak for
the Committee on Rules, but we do understand how important the Medicare
Modernization Act is, how important it is to the seniors of this
country, and we would give the minority every consideration to provide
a substitute.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we appreciate the fact that the
gentleman will be, I am not sure I heard you, you will be giving us a
substitute or you will consider giving us a substitute. I am not sure I
understood.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, it concerned me when the
gentleman said ``what the minority deems as a substitute.'' Obviously
we need to look at all of these things individually and considerations
need to be made.
For instance, one consideration is, is the substitute within the
bounds of the Budget Act and the budget rules of this House? That may
not be the qualifying issue, but that is one example of issues that we
consider.
The bill marked up, at least, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I
know the Committee on Energy and Commerce has not finished yet, but the
bill
[[Page H5640]]
marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means fits within the budget
rules of the House.
So we have to look at everything on its own merits and make that
decision, and the Committee on Rules will make that decision.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, we understand that, but
everybody on this floor, every Member, perhaps not the American public,
but every Member knows that the majority, when it needs a waiver of the
rules to present something on the floor that it wants to present,
waives those rules.
{time} 1715
So when I said something that the minority wants to offer, I meant
that, very frankly, if the democratic process is going to operate
openly and effectively so that there can be different alternatives
considered, alternatives that we believe are appropriate, as well as,
obviously, the majority can present the alternatives it deems to be
appropriate. Clearly, if one fashions a bill so that the alternative we
believe is appropriate is not consistent with those rules and will not
give us a waiver, you effectively have precluded us from offering that
substitute or those amendments. I mentioned the substitute, but I also
would hope that there would be a willingness to make in order numerous
amendments from the minority side of the House.
As I have pointed out, Mr. Leader, we represent approximately 140
million Americans on this side; you represent approximately 150 million
Americans. That is pretty close. The Americans who sent us here
obviously would want to see their alternatives considered by the full
House. And if they are rejected, so be it. But I would urge the leader,
particularly on a bill as important as this, as controversial as this,
having such ramifications to 40 million Americans on Medicare, that you
would be, you and the Speaker and the whip on your side, would urge the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules to be
as broad in their approval of alternatives as they could be.
I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is on the floor. I
carry around with me, as he knows, quotes. I do not know how many
people carry around quotes of the gentleman from California, but I
carry around quotes of the gentleman from California in my pocket. From
time to time I bring them out. He made the point as a minority Member
that a Member ought to be given the ability to offer alternatives; and
if they lose, they lose. But in a democratic institution that prides
itself on being the people's House, all of the people's representatives
ought to be given an option to offer their alternatives.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate the fact that my friend from Maryland has again raised this
issue.
I will tell the gentleman that the Committee on Rules is anxiously
looking forward to considering the measures that will emerge from both
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and
Means as we deal with this extremely important issue. The American
people have spoken very clearly. They want us to put into place, and
the President very much wants to have, a package which will provide
access to affordable, quality prescriptions for seniors. We want to do
this in a way that will allow for a wide range of issues to be
considered. And I know that based on the 8 hours that was expended by
all of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, through their
markup, that many proposals were offered there, and I know that this
process is an ongoing one. I will assure my friend that the Committee
on Rules will deliberate, and we will make a determination as to
exactly what it is that we will move forward with.
The distinguished majority leader just talked about the fact that we
will hope that measures will fall within the guidelines of the $400
billion that was allocated in the budget over a 10-year period to deal
with prescription drugs; and when the majority leader was talking about
that, I know that what we are looking at will be something that will
fall within the strictures that were put forth in the budget, and that
is all that the majority leader was indicating. His hope is that if a
substitute is submitted that it will fall within those guidelines.
The gentleman from Maryland is correct when he refers to the fact
that the Committee on Rules does have the power to provide waivers. And
waivers are often provided to the minority just as they are to the
majority as well, for amendments, for substitutes. So I just want to
assure my friend that we plan, as we take this up next week, to take
this issue very seriously, as we do all others; and we will take
whatever requests that the minority makes into consideration as we
deliberate.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his comments. As we all know, the Committee on Rules is the least
representative committee in terms of distribution of numbers, and that
was true when we were in charge, so I understand that. It is not a
criticism. That is the way the Committee on Rules is run. It is an
agent, if you will, of the majority. It is how the majority runs the
House.
We are not deluded on our side, anymore than you were when you were
in the minority, deluded to the fact that you would be able to make an
impact in committee. So very frankly, taking under consideration
seriously our request is interesting and we are appreciative that you
will take it under consideration.
But more basically than that, the gentleman has sole authority to do
it. You can do it any way you want. We understand that. But our
expectation is that on a bill of this magnitude and importance, that we
will be allowed not only to offer a substitute, but amendments.
I will tell the gentleman that we understand the strictures of the
Republican budget and, by the way, our budget, both of which have close
numbers, we had $528 billion and I think you had $5 billion in terms of
a number of items in your budget. But the fact is, we understand those
strictures. And if those are the only strictures which we are
confronted with, we will work within those restraints.
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 would simply say that it is true that the Committee on Rules has
traditionally had this 9 to 4 ratio, and we continued another tradition
that we learned when you were in the majority of maintaining that.
My point is very simply that we will take this issue very seriously.
The Committee on Rules has yet to act. No decisions have been made. I
think that it is important for us to underscore that. I know that there
will be members of the minority who will come before the committee who
will offer proposals, and we will look forward to hearing about those
proposals, and then we will deliberate on it. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his representation.
Let me, reclaiming my time, make another observation.
In times past, the defense bill being, for instance, the
authorization bill which we passed very quickly a few weeks ago, we had
spent 6 days, 7 days on that piece of legislation. This legislation is
going to have an extraordinary impact on millions of Americans, and we
would hope that there would be sufficient time to debate the bill and,
again, substitutes and amendments, so that we could fully air its
ramifications to those millions of people, and to Medicare itself.
Obviously, there are different points of view on how to get to where
we all want to get, or at least most of us want to get. I think there
is a substantial difference on whether or not we want to see a program
in a viable, ongoing, healthy Medicare, or whether or not Medicare is
eliminated or shrunk very substantially and the private sector is in
charge of whether or not to offer such benefits. That is a significant
policy difference between us, I think; and it needs to be debated.
So not only would I urge that we be given the amendments and
substitutes that we seek, but also the time to develop those amendments
and positions
[[Page H5641]]
on those amendments, as it is appropriate for the American public to
understand the perspectives of the parties and of the individuals
offering amendments.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just one
clarification. I do not know of any Member of this House who has
offered a proposal that would eliminate Medicare. I do not believe that
either committee will be moving a proposal that would eliminate
Medicare.
Our goal is a very clear and simple one: it is to make the Medicare
program as efficient as we possibly can to ensure that our seniors have
the best quality health care and access to affordable prescription
drugs. So I just wanted to make it clear that I do not know of any
proposal to eliminate Medicare.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I
think we have made our point. I do hope that the chairman, although we
may differ on intents, but in any event, I think the gentleman is
absolutely correct, nobody has introduced something like that. Nobody
has been so bold as to introduce a specific proposal, although many
have been bold enough to discuss that objective and result, I say to my
friend from California. Some have been that bold to discuss that
result, if not introducing such a bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
On the appropriation bills, again, this is a concern that we have,
because we have heard some discussions, Mr. Leader, about having
restrained rules for appropriations. As the gentleman knows, more often
than not, when we were in the majority, we brought many appropriation
bills to the floor without a rule. As the gentleman knows, under the
rules, appropriation bills do not need a rule.
Can the gentleman tell me what the majority contemplates for
appropriation bills as they come to the floor and the rules that they
may be coming to the floor under?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows and has stated, we do
have a tradition of having open rules for consideration of
appropriations measures. I do not know what discussions the gentleman
is referring to. This side has had no discussions that I am aware of
about what the rules would look like on appropriations. I would hope
that we would continue the tradition of open rules on appropriations;
but obviously, we do have to look at all of these bills on a case-by-
case basis.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's assertion of what we have done in the past and that he
hopes we can continue to do that.
The intelligence authorization, when does the gentleman believe that
that would be coming up? I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am advised that it is quite possible that
the intelligence reauthorization bill would come on Tuesday or
Wednesday.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I saw a grimace, and I thought I would give
time for communication between the people who know what is going on
like our staff here and the gentleman and myself.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the source of my
intelligence says it is probably Wednesday.
Mr. HOYER. Okay. Fine.
The MSA bill. When does the gentleman expect that? We are trying to
get sort of the flow of bills so we can be prepared. The Medicare bill
we assume is going to come late Wednesday and Thursday, and then these
other bills will come earlier. The MSA bill, when does the gentleman
think that will come?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the Health Savings Accountability Act we
would hope to get to sometime next week, but this is a bill that is
just being marked up, I think today; and we do have a very ambitious
schedule for next week, and we just wanted to warn the Members that the
Health Savings Accountability Act could very well be brought up, if we
can find time next week to do so. But the other list of major pieces of
legislation will take priority over that, and we hope to get to it; but
I really cannot say what day we might get to it.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader.
Now, Mr. Leader, one of the things I was very concerned about in
hearing the schedule, it has now been just short of 7 days that we
passed the child tax credit legislation that many of us have expressed
real concern about. We went to conference that same day, as the
gentleman knows.
Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the conference is meeting?
Can the gentleman tell me whether we expect to consider a conference
report so that prior to July the 6.5 million families and the 12
million children that were left out when it came out of conference
might be helped? Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is
either the conference proceeding or whether or not there is any
expectation that we will take a conference report up on the floor next
week prior to going home for the July 4th break? I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding; and as
the gentleman knows, we are very excited about extending the $1,000 per
child tax credit beyond 2005, to extend it to 2010. Rather than leaving
out refundable tax credits, those that are getting refundable tax
credits will continue to get them. They just will not get the full
$1,000 unless we are able to pass this bill.
{time} 1730
And we are also very excited about the fact that the House put many
tax provisions tax relief for our military and military families. And
we are very excited about the fact that we gave some tax relief to
those families that lost their loved ones in the shuttle accident. So
we are very interested in getting this bill done as quickly as
possible.
I am sure the gentleman knows that the other body just went to
conference yesterday and, therefore, we are discussing how we can do
this conference and, hopefully, do it before the Fourth of July
district work period. However, the other body also is very much engaged
in the debate over their Medicare bill, which ties up their finance
committee and ties up those Members that would be serving on the
conference committee. So we are trying to work that out, and we hope
that we can call a conference and come to some sort of agreement on
this bill and have it out before the Fourth of July.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I also thank
him for his excitement and because he is so excited about passing this,
I want to tell him, and I say this very seriously on behalf of our
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and myself, we are
prepared to give you unanimous consent to take the Senate bill from the
desk, put it on the floor and pass it by unanimous consent. We were
excited about it, too. But much more than being excited about it, we
think it is an essential act of fairness to assist some of the neediest
working tax-paying families in America who were left on the cutting
room floor when it came out of conference. And if you share, as I think
you do, or at least you express that excitement and enthusiasm for
accomplishing that objective, we may not be able to accomplish
everything. But we can accomplish some things. And we ought not to have
everything fail or some things fail because we could not do everything.
And I say very sincerely to the leader, on our side, we are prepared
to give unanimous consent on Monday night, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
or Friday or Saturday or as long as we want to stay here next week for
the purposes of passing that, so those families who were included but
cut out in the conference would be included and would participate in
the advantages under the tax bill that has already been signed by the
President.
Mr. DeLAY. I greatly appreciate the gentleman's generous offer, but I
remind the gentleman that that Senate bill has nothing on it that would
give tax relief to our fighting men and
[[Page H5642]]
women and their families. And that particular provision passed this
House and has been sitting over in the Senate for a very, very long
time. It is a provision that had huge support in this House. And along
with giving working families their $1,000 per child tax credit and
extending it to 2004, rather than what the gentleman is suggesting,
allowing it to go away in 2005, giving the working families that you
have such concern for only 2 years of benefits, we think they ought to
get the benefits permanently, but if we cannot get it permanently, we
would like those benefits to be until 2010.
So if we just take up the Senate bill, they may enjoy it for 1 or 2
years, but then it goes away in 2005. We think they ought to be able to
count on it until 2010, and we think military families ought to have
the tax relief they deserve.
Mr. HOYER. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, very seriously that these
6\1/2\ million families, these 12 million children will, frankly, not
understand that the perfect of what you just spoke was the enemy of the
extraordinarily good, which is included in the Senate bill. And I will
tell the gentleman further, during the Senate bill, unlike the bill
that we passed in the House, the men and women in combat who fall
within the income constraints which were covered in the Senate bill
were not covered in the House bill. And while we certainly agree with
you on helping all of the military who qualify, we certainly believe
that the folks in combat whose combat pay is now counted against them
for qualifications under this bill, would be helped by the Senate bill.
So I think we could help the men and women in combat first.
And I will tell you also, Mr. Leader, we are prepared to offer
unanimous consent for a companion know bill as we pass the Senate bill
to fix the problem or address the problem of which you have spoken with
reference to the military. But we ought not to, Mr. Leader, with all
due sincerity, if we are excited, if we believe this is an important
thing to do, if you wanted to make it permanent, you could have done
so, of course, you did not make it permanent. You did it 5 more years
than we did it. We were in the constraints of the Senate bill.
We would like to make it permanent as well. However, what we would
not like to do is have July come and there be no relief for these
families which is going to happen if the perfect, if the objective of
doing everything defeats us in doing something.
Mr. DeLAY. I just cannot let the gentleman get away by scaring
working families in this country by saying they will get no relief.
That is entirely untrue.
In the bill that we passed and signed by the President in 2001, it
gave these working families refundable tax credits. It just did not,
what we are discussing is accelerating 2 years up to this year and
giving them an additional $400 from this, in addition to the $600 that
they are already receiving. So to say that they get no relief, I think,
is just untrue. And to say that the military families are not covered
by the bill passed by this House is also untrue, because military
families are covered by the bill passed by this House and is presently
in conference.
Mr. HOYER. Well, the bill passed, I think we disagree on some of the
information, Mr. Leader, that you have just said. I do not think you
are accurate on some of that information, but be that as it may.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I am not accurate that since
2001 working families have been receiving refundable tax credit?
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is accurate on that. As you know, in the
Senate bill, we increased from 10 to 15 percent the credit that would
be available to them. That was dropped, as you know, in the conference.
Mr. DeLAY. Were they not to receive that 15 percent starting in 2005?
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. DeLAY. And we were talking about accelerating the 15 percent to
2003?
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. DeLAY. Which is in the House bill sitting in conference right
now.
Mr. HOYER. The House bill has not been taken up, Mr. Leader. It is
very nice to say and, reclaiming my time, that it is in the House bill.
It is permanent in the House bill. We do a lot of things in the House
bill. On our side, we did not believe the House bill was going to be
taken up, and we said that, which is why we said we ought to take up
the Senate bill and pass it and do something, even though we were not
doing everything, and we still maintain that position. And as I am
reminded, and I would remind the leader, this House voted to instruct
the conferees to take the Senate bill.
So we are simply giving unanimous consent to do what the House has
already voted on that same day last Thursday to do, and that is, pass
the Senate bill. That is what we instructed the conferees to do. So it
is not as if we are asking for something that the House has not voted
on to do and to accelerate the passage of this legislation so we can
help these families.
Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield? The gentleman is correct. The
motion instructed the House to accept the Senate bill in a small margin
in doing that. Unfortunately, the Senate does not agree with our motion
to instruct. And as the gentleman knows, it is not binding anyway. The
Senate decided to go to conference. They could have and they decided to
work out the differences between the House and the Senate, and those
conferees will be meeting hopefully next week and produce a bill that
will give much needed relief to families in this country.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I hope we are not going to
give people the impression that a body that passed a bill 94 to 2 would
not agree to us passing their bill because, frankly, I do not think
that is the case.
I understand what you are saying, and I understand that they have
been told you are not going to take the Senate bill; and, therefore,
they need to go to conference. So they are bowing to practicality. What
I am saying is we ought to bow to needs and to practicality and pass
the bill. And I am saying to you that we can give you and will give you
unanimous consent to do exactly that so that these folks can get that
which they will not get, and that is, the additional payment which was
provided for in the conference but not reported out of the conference,
and, therefore, we are going to leave 200,000 armed services personnel
not advantaged as others were in the bill.
We are going to leave 6\1/2\ million families with 12 million
children not advantaged, as was the intent of the Senate, and I think
most of the House.
____________________