[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7935-H7938]
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 would be glad to yield to my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purpose
of informing us of the schedule for next week.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, next week 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. We may
also consider one or more motions to go to conference. Any votes called
on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
On Tuesday and the balance of the week, it is likely that we will
consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We also
expect to consider three bills under a rule: S. 878, the Bankruptcy
Judgeship Act; H.R. 5107, the Justice For All Act; and H.R. 10, the 9/
11 Commission Implementation Act.
In addition, there are a number of potential conference reports that
we are working through, including several appropriations bills, the
American Jobs Creation Act, and the Department of Defense Authorization
bill. Members should be aware that these conference reports may be
brought to the floor at any time next week.
Finally, I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that we are expecting to
consider a second supplemental request for disaster relief sometime
next week. We may have additional requests resulting from Hurricane
Jeanne, so we are working through these requests and trying to figure
out how best to address these needs.
Obviously, we are expecting a very busy week. Members should expect
to work some late nights and possibly into Friday evening or Saturday
as we resolve these important pieces of legislation.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be happy to answer any
questions he may have.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for the
information. I want to assure the leader, as he says we ought to be,
that the Members on this side are, in fact, prepared to spend the time
necessary to address the important issues, as the leader requests. And
I want to assure the leader of our cooperation in being ready to do our
work.
Mr. Leader, initially, may I ask, the motions to instruct, can the
gentleman give us a time when those might occur, and will they occur
relatively close to the votes, the suspension votes at the end of the
day? I yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As the
gentleman knows, we have three appropriations bills that are out there
that are eligible for motions to instruct. I do not know of any others.
They are available when those Members want to bring a motion to
instruct, and we are trying to fit them in as best we can during the
week.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information.
Mr. Leader, as all of us know, today is the end of the current fiscal
year, and 12 of the 13 2005 appropriation bills have not been passed.
We do not have a budget. The new fiscal year starts tomorrow. The
highway program is still pending. We extended that for 8 months. The
FSC bill, which is subjecting businesses in the country doing
[[Page H7936]]
business in Europe to an additional 11 percent tariff is still not
passed. The energy bill, obviously we have not gotten to at this point
in time. We have not enacted legislation on the intelligence apparatus,
although I understand the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act that the
gentleman speaks to.
Mr. Leader, on that, might I ask this question: there is a bill in
the Senate and there is a bill that has been introduced in the House
that mirrors essentially the 9/11 Commission report. Is that the bill
to which the gentleman is referring, or the bill that is in the process
apparently of being marked up and, apparently, at some point in time,
will be put together to come to the floor? Which of those three
alternatives does the gentleman refer to? I yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The
gentleman touched on many issues; I will take the 9/11 Commission
Implementation Act first.
I do not agree with the gentleman's characterization of the Senate
bill, because what I have seen in the Senate and what they are debating
nowhere mirrors the 9/11 Commission Report or all of its
recommendations.
{time} 1745
The bill being marked up by the House all of this week does mirror
every recommendation by the 9/11 Commission in one way or another, and
that is why it has taken us longer to get it through all our 12
committees. It is going to take us a little longer to get it to the
floor. I expect that, looking at all the work that needs to be done in
order to bring that bill to the floor, we would have to pass that bill
sometime next week, probably at the end of the week. I believe there is
a good chance that the Senate could pass their version even this week.
Assuming that both bodies pass next week, I would expect that we
could appoint conferees next week and work towards completing a
conference report as soon as possible. In planning their schedules,
Members should know that a conference report could be completed later
in October, and that if it was completed, the House would certainly
come back and vote on it.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, on that last point, I have heard a
rumor or discussion about the possibility of coming back on November 1,
the day before the election to vote on the conference report. Can the
majority leader tell me whether there is any merit to that speculation?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman informing me of
rumors, but that is a rumor that I have not yet heard nor has anyone
discussed such a thing. I would hope that the conference committee
could go to work immediately and complete this as soon as possible. It
is important.
The conference report, as it comes out, I am sure will have many
reforms that need to be implemented to keep the American people and
American families safer, and we want to get it out as quickly as
possible.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's assertion of
wanting to keep America safe, and I think that he speaks for 435 of us
in that regard. He certainly speaks for me, but I think he speaks for
all of us.
In that vein, as I indicated to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) two weeks ago, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, while
we apparently have a difference of opinion on the Senate bill, which is
introduced here in a bipartisan fashion on this side of the Capitol, I
believe that we have overwhelming support on this side for that
proposition. In light of the fact that we are interested, as the
gentleman says, in protecting America and implementing this legislation
in as timely a fashion as possible, might it not be in pursuit of that
objective advisable to allow that bill to be on the floor either in
lieu of the bill that, frankly, has been marked up by my colleague's
party exclusively?
I have talked to all of our ranking members on the committees that
the gentleman talked to. All of them believe they have been informed of
what was going on, but they were not participants in the drafting of
the legislation. As a result, there may be greater contention than
would be hopefully called for if, in fact, we want to pass the
legislation as quickly as possible.
In addition, it is my understanding that there are substantial
differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, which may
require a very long conference, rather than short conference, if we do
not pass something that is relatively compatible in the first instance.
I would be glad to yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brings up many issues.
First and foremost, I do not know if the gentleman has been advised,
but I would refer the gentleman to the votes of the committees that
have been marking up this bill. If I do recall exactly what the vote
was, it was a very bipartisan effort. I think and I hope that the bill
that is coming to the House floor is very strongly supported by both
sides.
In the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for instance, I
think there was a 17-to-2 vote in passing that bill out. Now, 17 to two
tells me that most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans voted
for that bill. So I am very encouraged by the markups that we are
having and the kind of support that the Democrats and Republicans are
showing for the product that is being put together.
Having said that, the gentleman may support the bill that came out of
the Senate committee. I looked at it. I think it is woefully lacking in
sufficient reforms, particularly in immigration policy, border
security, law enforcement. It basically is a bill that creates a
national intelligence director and a counterterrorism center. There is
more to protecting the American people than creating a new bureaucracy
and keeping our borders safe, giving our law enforcement officials more
tools to go after terrorists. There are many things that we need to be
doing.
Having said that, the bill the gentleman refers to may not be the
bill that comes out of the Senate because I have been informed that
there are over 100 amendments, 100 amendments, filed for the debate in
the other body. So who knows what that bill is going to look like when
it comes out of the other body, and I think it would be highly
irresponsible for this House to pick up something that came out of the
Senate committee and bring it down here on the floor, unseen by most
Members and not worked on by our committees, and just vote on it, up
and down. I do not think that keeps the American people safer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will simply observe
that although the votes may have been bipartisan, and I will tell my
colleague very honestly, there is no confusion over here on the timing
of this bill. The gentleman expects Democrats to either vote for it or
to be attacked about being against protecting the American people if
they vote against it. We went through the creation of a bureaucracy,
the Homeland Security Department. I voted against it. I think it was
not what was needed. What was needed was the coordination of
information. I said that at the time.
The commission in a bipartisan way has said that is what is needed.
We still know that there is not the kind of coordination of information
gathering, analysis and recommendation for implementation of action
based upon the information gathered that we would like to have. The 9/
11 Commission found that.
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission, as I understand it, has indicated
support of the Senate bill as it came out of committee.
Now, there are obviously a lot of other things that need to be dealt
with, including items that are either in the PATRIOT Act or could have
been in the PATRIOT Act. Those items in some respects are very
controversial. One of the problems, very frankly, that we have found in
getting legislation passed, as the gentleman knows, in a relatively
short period of time has been the addition of very controversial items,
not necessarily related directly to what the 9/11 Commission had
recommended, and because of the controversial nature of those
additions, as it has occurred in other legislation, will slow that
legislation down.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman
obviously did not read the 9/11 Commission recommendations because many
of those recommendations were very general in nature, very unspecific.
Yet, we took their recommendations in those areas and did actual
detailed pieces of
[[Page H7937]]
legislation, much beyond what the 9/11 Commission even envisioned
because they did not have the expertise to recommend specific items.
It is unfortunate the gentleman questions my motive, but I must tell
the gentleman that ever since the 9/11 Commission has come out we have
reached out to any Democrat who is willing to work on this issue. Those
Democrats that have been willing to work on those issues, we have been
working with them, and I have not been privy to every discussion or
every meeting on this issue, particularly within the committees, but I
think if my colleague will go back and check with his ranking members,
those who wanted to work on the legislation were more than just
informed. They have a very big part to play, particularly in the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations.
So we worked with the willing Democrats that wanted to work on this
issue rather than to have a political issue, and they had a very big
part to play in it. I think that is reflected in the kinds of votes we
are getting coming out of committee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his response, and let me assure the gentleman I did not think I
questioned the gentleman's motives. I may question the results of
actions we take, but I do not intend to question the majority leader's
motives in any event. I do not think that would be appropriate nor do I
do it, and if the gentleman took it to be that, I apologize because I
do not question. I may have different motives of my own and I may not
agree with him, but I do not question his motives. I may question his
judgment. I may question that which is for or against but not his
motives.
I am not going to prolong the discussion on this because we are going
to have discussion about this next week, but I would like to make one
example of something that we feel strongly about that the 9/11
Commission felt strongly about, which the bill at least that we have
seen does not deal with.
One of the concerns which the Commission had was that we are not
moving quickly enough or effectively enough to identify and to secure
materials which could be used for the production of or creation of
nuclear weapons, even dirty bombs. The Commission spoke to that
directly. The Senate bill speaks to that, and the bill introduced in
the House speaks to that, at least at the point yesterday, and I am not
sure whether markups have occurred in committees. I guess, some
committees, the answer to that is yes; some no, but that was not
addressed. So, at least in that one instance, and I have got about 15
others but I am not going to prolong and go through those, that was not
addressed in the gentleman's bill, while some other things that the
commission did not deal with are addressed, and I understand my
colleague's observation.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, first of all, I
do not think this is a proper forum to debate the bill, and I am not
prepared to debate the bill.
I have not personally been able to go over the volumes of work that
has been done by 12 committees. So the provision that the gentleman may
be speaking to, all I can tell him is that I remember in the list of
things that were presented to me a day or so ago, it did address that
very issue. I can go back and look at it, but the gentleman will have
plenty of opportunity during the debate of this bill to debate the bill
up or down, to amend it, to substitute for it, and the gentleman knows
he can go before the Committee on Rules and ask for that kind of
action.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's advice that I have
the opportunity to go before the Committee on Rules. I always enjoy the
opportunity to go and testify before the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) and his committee.
Let me move on to some other legislation. I mentioned a number of
pieces that we have not done, Defense Department authorization, I
mentioned, and the Higher Education Act. My question, does the
gentleman anticipate that we will leave next Friday or Saturday having
accomplished some or all of those pieces of legislation?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield and repeat all
the legislation he is talking about?
Mr. HOYER. Sure. We have 12 of the 13 appropriation bills we have not
passed. We have not passed a budget. Highway program has not passed.
The FSC bill has not passed, resulting in 11 percent additional tariffs
to people. The energy bill has not passed. The Intelligence bill, we
have been talking about, Defense authorization and the Higher Education
Act. None of those have been done to this point.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. I think I addressed in my opening remarks the Defense
authorization conference. We are hoping to get that out.
The highway bill I think has been debated or talked about a lot on
this floor in the last couple of days. The House is ready to go. The
House is ready to negotiate with the Senate, and the House has cleaned
out a lot of the brush, but it seems that the Senate is going to have a
very hard time getting their members in the conference committee to
support a highway bill. So that is why we did the extension today on 8
months to give them more time to work.
The FSC/jobs bill, the conferees met on that bill last night. It was
a very good conference. Democrats were certainly included, and we have
scheduled another meeting for next Tuesday. I believe there is a good
chance that a conference report could be ready for the House to vote on
later at the end of next week.
{time} 1800
The appropriations process, the gentleman being on the Committee on
Appropriations, knows very well, as he stated, that we passed 12 of the
13 bills. The thirteenth bill has problems. We know there is going to
be an omnibus bill, and we will solve those problems in an omnibus
bill, but the problem is in the other body. They are passing as many
bills as they can get done, and we will go to conference on every one
of those bills to try to get them done before the end of next week.
That would include Homeland Security appropriation, MilCon, Foreign
Ops, the Legislative Branch, and D.C., which are the only ones I know
of that the Senate has passed so far.
The rest, as the gentleman knows, we did a continuing resolution
until November 20. We have instructed our committees, and the Senate
leadership has instructed their committees to work on those as best
they can so that, when we get back in November, the Members can vote on
those bills up or down.
The higher education bill, right now, I am not advised where it is,
so I cannot answer the gentleman on that one.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate,
A, the majority leader's taking the time to go through those and
letting us know where he thinks they may be and whether we will address
them next week.
Additionally, when we leave next Friday or Saturday, can the leader
tell us, for scheduling purposes, and I know we are going to have the
leader's organizational meeting, I think we will schedule our
organizational meeting the same week, but is it your view that we will
have a lame duck session on November 15 or November 16 and days
thereafter?
I yield to my colleague.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is still hard to say. I can answer that
question better at the end of next week. I am still hoping, against all
odds, that the appropriations process could be done. Willing people
coming together can get a lot of things done in a very short period of
time around here. It is just a matter of finding the willing people to
get it done, and we are still working on it. It could happen. Lightning
could strike. And if it does, then we would not have to come back in a
lame duck.
Obviously, the appropriations process is the most important. And if
we cannot get all the appropriations done, then I would anticipate
having a lame duck sometime in that week that both parties are
organizing.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think the leader is
right. I think for that to happen lightning is going to have to strike.
Lastly, Mr. Leader, we talked about the intelligence bill being on
the floor next week. Can the minority be assured that we will have a
substitute for that bill? The gentleman indicated there are 100
amendments pending on the Senate
[[Page H7938]]
floor. This is a very important piece of legislation, obviously. The
bipartisan commission has spoken to this.
I have read the report, by the way. I think it is an excellent
report. We are very hopeful that we not only will have the opportunity
to amend any and all sections of the bill, but that we will have the
opportunity to offer a substitute, not just simply a motion to
recommit, but a substitute at the appropriate time. I would hope that
the leader, given the importance of this legislation, would assure the
minority that we would have that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the
gentleman knows, the chairman of the Committee on Rules is sitting
here. I think he is going to make an announcement about amendments and
substitutes.
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, and I
appreciate his request. The announcement I am going to be making in
just a few minutes, as soon as the colloquy between the distinguished
minority whip and the distinguished majority leader is completed, is
one which will call for the establishment of new Federal judgeships.
At this juncture, probably on Monday, we will likely be making an
announcement as we anticipate the work product that will be emerging on
the
9/11 report.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
those comments.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the majority leader and to the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, this legislation was introduced less than a
week ago. It has been marked up this week. It will be on the floor next
week. That is a very rapid progression.
I think, Mr. Leader, respectfully, that that calls for even greater
opportunity for Members to work their will on the floor, with the
ability to offer such amendments as they deem to be appropriate and
would include the opportunity to offer an entire package in the form of
a substitute. I would hope that that would happen.
____________________