[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 67 (Thursday, May 13, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2988-H2990]
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 yield to the distinguished majority leader
for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make all the Members aware that the
House has completed voting for the day and the week.
Regarding next week's schedule, 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.
For Tuesday and the balance of the week, we may consider additional
legislation under suspension of the rules. We also plan to consider
several bills that would amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970: H.R. 2728, the Small Business Day in Court Act; H.R. 2729, the
Review Commission Efficiency Act; H.R. 2730, the Independent Review of
OSHA Citations Act; and H.R. 2731, the Small Employer Access to Justice
Act. In addition, we expect to consider H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and
Regulatory Improvements Act; and H.R. 4200, the National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2005.
Finally, I would like to make all Members aware that we plan to
consider H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act,
which would make the full $1,000 per child credit permanent and expand
the number of families eligible for the credit.
I will be happy to answer any questions the gentleman may have.
Mr. HOYER. On the last issue, the Child Credit Preservation and
Expansion Act to which the gentleman referred, and he indicates that it
will expand the number of families eligible for the credit, we had
discussed this last week. Am I correct in presuming that that means
that those under $26,000 will be covered as well as those over $26,000.
As was the case with the Senate amendment that came over to the House?
Mr. DeLAY. I really hesitate to comment on what the content of the
bill will be as we bring it to the floor next week. My understanding,
as I have been advised, is the child tax credit that was to be given in
2006 will be accelerated to 2005, so that should cover the gentleman's
concerns.
{time} 1645
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it does we will be
pleased, and I presume the Senate would be ready to approve that,
assuming that it is paid for.
Under the procedures of these bills, in terms of the OSHA legislation
and the paperwork reduction, can the gentleman tell us under what
procedures they will be considered, and will substitute amendments be
allowed?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules has just made announcements
for the four OSHA bills, the regulatory accounting bill, and I believe
the DOD authorization bill. So on these I believe the Committee on
Rules is inclined to make multiple amendments in order for those bills.
Mr. HOYER. I am sorry. Declined or inclined?
Mr. DeLAY. Inclined.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was not quite sure whether it was
an ``in'' or a ``de.''
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the House be in order? The gentleman
cannot hear.
Mr. HOYER. The articulation I missed. That was the problem.
With respect to the budget, do we expect to see a budget next week?
It is not on the list, and I know we have been waiting with bated
breath for many weeks now for the budget, as has the leader. Can the
leader comment on the status of the budget?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has been waiting with
bated breath, and I know he checks every day to see the status of the
budget, and I appreciate his concern for getting this budget to the
floor. I wish I had more news than I did last week. There continues to
be discussions between the two bodies, and I hope and expect to have a
conference report ready for the House to consider sometime next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
Clearly, all of us know that the pay-as-you-go provision has been
apparently the stumbling block in the reaching of an agreement between
the two Houses. There was, as I understand it, our expectation was that
there would be a freestanding bill coming to the floor on the pay-go
issue. Can the leader tell us whether that is still contemplated or
whether we might see that at any time in the near future?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Yes,
we do have a bill that was marked up in the Committee on the Budget
that we are looking forward to considering in
[[Page H2989]]
the near future. There has been a lot of discussion about that bill.
The process by which we would consider it has been widely discussed.
However, I believe that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
would prefer to wait until the budget resolution conference report has
been completed and passed before we consider that bill. So it is very
difficult for me to give the gentleman any sort of time frame, but as
soon as the budget is passed, I think we can anticipate within a matter
of weeks the Budget Enforcement Act coming to the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
If one assumes that perhaps we do not adopt a budget resolution,
would it still be the intent of the majority to bring forth an
enforcement bill, the one that has been considered in committee, or is
it a condition for that bill coming to the floor that the budget pass?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I just
speak for this gentleman that I would like to see a Budget Enforcement
Act come to this floor. I think it is vitally needed for fiscal
discipline in this Congress, and I would anticipate, whether the budget
passes or not, that we would see a budget enforcement bill come to the
floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I
share his view on that issue that whether or not we have a budget or
not, the enforcement bill ought to come to the floor.
Can I ask him another question about that particular bill? Would the
gentleman know or be inclined to assure us that we would have an
alternative? As he knows, the dispute on the pay-as-you-go is whether
it affects taxes as well as spending. We believe that is a very
substantive issue that ought to be considered and voted upon by all the
Members. Would the majority leader be inclined to ensure that that
alternative will be in order for us to offer at the time, if it is not
included in the bill that is reported out of committee, at the time it
is considered on the floor?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
I think it is way too early in the process on this particular bill to
be talking about even process or amendments or substitutes or even
trying to speculate what the Committee on Rules would do. We do not
even know what form the bill would come out of the Committee on Rules
at this particular time. There is a lot of work that is being done on
the bill. But I can assure the gentleman that we would give his side of
the aisle every consideration for amendments and/or substitutes to this
very important bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for that representation.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we passed some weeks ago the transportation
reauthorization bill. I think both sides feel that is a critical piece
of legislation. We have noted that there seems to be some disagreement
between the White House and the House and the Senate on this piece of
legislation, but we are very concerned that it has not moved forward.
We believe that this is, as the gentleman knows, the single most
important piece of jobs legislation that we have under consideration by
this Congress. And I am wondering if he can give us some thought as to
when that bill may come to the floor and under what form it will come
to the floor. We would very much like to see it on the floor, and we
think, frankly, that given the votes on the bill as it passed the
House, with well over 300 voting for it and with a very substantial
vote in the other body, that clearly we have the votes to pass a bill,
whether it is at 275, 318, or, frankly, the gentleman from Alaska's
(Mr. Young) 375.
But I would like to have some information because we think this is,
and I know the gentleman does as well, a very critical piece of
legislation which is now 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, I guess, past
the date that we hoped to pass it on and we are in 60-day extensions,
which we have a very distinguished Governor on the floor. I do not know
whether I am in order by saying this, but I am going to say it anyway.
I want to acknowledge the presence of our former colleague, Governor
Ehrlich, on the floor, but I know he is very concerned about it because
he and I have worked on a lot of transportation issues in our State,
and I am sure that as soon as we finish the colloquy, he would like to
talk to the gentleman about this bill.
I yield to the gentleman on his response to where the bill is.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
And I am looking forward to talking to the Governor of Maryland, a
former very distinguished member of this body, Bob Ehrlich. He is a
very close friend of ours, and we are very glad to see him, but he also
knows the rules of the House, that one cannot lobby on the floor House,
because he served here.
As to the highway bill, the gentleman is very correct. This is a very
important jobs bill. It is very important to all of us here in the
House. It is very important to us because it is not just the most
important jobs piece of legislation, it is a vital part of our economic
agenda, along with tax relief and our 21st century careers initiative
and competitiveness packages and all the other things that we are
trying to do, energy bills. So we really want to see this bill, and we
want to see it enacted into law. We are having a little trouble with
the other body. The other body has repeatedly asked to go to
conference. Unfortunately, there is a group over there that will not
let them go to conference, and we are having a difficult time in the
other body going to conference. We can always go to conference here,
but we would like to see the Senate go to conference first so that we
can get the process moving.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's
observation. It is my understanding that the Senate, certainly on the
minority side, will agree to go to conference as soon as we are given a
number as to what we are going to conference. My understanding is,
however, that the gentleman's side of the aisle cannot agree with the
White House on what that number ought to be. So in fairness, there
seems to be a disagreement on the number that the President will sign,
and, I think accurately, that is the reason for the hold-up because I
think, frankly, the Senate could agree to the 318 and I would hope we
can agree to the 318. I would be for a higher number personally, but I
would hope that we could agree to that. The problem is, I understand,
the executive does not.
But I would suggest to the leader, with all due respect, that this
body can and should act independently and send the legislation that it
deems to be appropriate and if the executive disagrees, he has the
option of vetoing that bill and sending it back to the House. As one of
the Senators on the gentleman's side of the aisle observed, that is the
way the process is supposed to work. And I would think, because we
share the view that this is very important, we believe it is a jobs
bill, that we could pass a bill relatively easily with overwhelming
votes and certainly votes significant enough to show the President that
at least two-thirds of the Members of this body and the other body
believe it is an appropriate bill to pass forthwith.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. His understanding may be a little late because as of
almost over a week now, both the Republicans in the House and the
Republicans in the Senate have given up trying to come up with a number
agreed to by the President and have decided to go to conference. The
minority on the Senate side has been informed of that fact. We are
ready to go to conference to work out whatever the number may be within
conference, to work out all the other disagreements between the two
bodies, and they are ready to go to conference. I do not want to speak
for the other body, but it is the minority that is refusing to allow
the majority over there to go to conference.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, quoting the majority
leader of last week, I do not see it that way. Clearly, as the
gentleman has just pointed out, there is not agreement. I think we
could get agreement if we could allow the minority to have some
[[Page H2990]]
sense that they knew the parameters of where we were going, and I think
that is all the minority is asking for. I think that is a fair request.
But in any event, I think we ought to move this bill, and the
gentleman's side is in charge and we would hope that would happen.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, we can move this bill and
move to conference as quickly as we want to. Unfortunately, in the
other body, the minority wants certain concessions before they even go
to conference. The reason for conference is everybody getting in a room
between the two bodies and work out their differences, not make side
deals or those kinds of deals outside the conference before they allow
their body to go to conference. So when the minority decides to go to
conference over in the Senate, we will go to conference and we will
have a highway bill.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want the leader to know how happy I
am to hear that that is the purpose of conferences and that nobody
would want to reach outside deals outside of the configuration of a
conference. He will recall, I think, we had months of discussion about
the prescription drug conference to which no Democrats on this side
were invited. That is the concern. Mr. Daschle was not invited. Mr.
Reid was not invited. Other Members were not invited. There were a
couple of people who participated. But that is our concern. We could go
back and forth.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on that point I would just say this is a
different issue. Both Democrats and Republicans want this highway bill,
and in the case of the Medicare bill that the gentleman describes, the
names that he listed, none of those names wanted the Medicare bill.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time just for a minute for accuracy's sake,
all of them wanted a Medicare prescription bill. They wanted a
different kind of bill. That is what he says conference is trying to
iron out. That is my point. I think he makes it.
Mr. DeLAY. They wanted a bill that was impossible to pass, and there
was no use in wasting our time.
Mr. HOYER. As was yours almost, as I recall.
Mr. DeLAY. Ours passed.
Mr. HOYER. The hope is that we will, in fact, move this piece of
legislation and that there will be a bipartisan attempt made to move
this legislation which is critical to our country, and a bipartisan
agreement would be reached, as the leader points out, with the
minority, giving them confidence that they will play a full role in the
conference. I am hopeful that that happens.
I thank the gentleman for his observations.
____________________