[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.

                          ____________________