[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8057-H8060]
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 rise for the purposes of inquiring of the
majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I am pleased to
yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished whip for yielding
to me.
Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday 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. The final list of those
bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any
votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider additional
legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as two measures
under a rule: H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and H.R.
250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that
information.
First of all, on the general proposition for the month of October, we
had had discussions last week; and it is clear that the second week of
October, it will not be practical to meet because of the various
important dates on that week. The first week was somewhat in flux at
that point in time.
Could the majority leader bring us up to date on where currently the
thinking of the leader's office is on where we will be on the first
week of October?
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 yielding. As the
gentlemen knows, the Rosh Hashanah holiday falls in the middle of that
week; and while we wanted to plan the voting schedule for that week
around that holiday, and we are still trying to do that, we still
believe it may be necessary for the House to be in session at some
point in that week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I realize the problems
of doing that; but many of our Members, particularly those who come
from
[[Page H8058]]
far away, are concerned about traveling on that Wednesday, as the
gentleman knows, which makes it problematic because we will have to be
very late Thursday. We will obviously accommodate what the majority
believes it is going to do.
In that regard, last week, we had thought we probably, or might, be
in tomorrow. We are not going to be in tomorrow. Can the majority
leader give us a view on what might be the status of next Friday? I
yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. At this
point we believe that we can complete the legislation we have scheduled
for next week by Thursday night of next week. However, however, given
the still fluid situation in the gulf coast area, we are not yet
prepared to cancel the session next Friday.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am presuming, and there
was some discussion about this last week, that at some point in time in
the next couple of weeks, we are going to have to do some sort of
continuing resolution. Is that the gentleman's belief as well? I yield
to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Yes, the way
things look, the gentleman knows that we have passed all of our
appropriations bills out of the House and did so before July 4. The
Senate does not have the same schedule, and it is quite obvious to all
of us that they will not be able to get all of their appropriations
bills across their floor in a timely manner. So we do anticipate to do
some sort of CR before the end of this month. Whether it is next week
or the following week, we do not know yet.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any thoughts at this
point in time regarding the length of time of the initial CR that we
would consider? I yield to my friend.
Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. No, I have not been
advised by the Committee on Appropriations as to what they are
thinking. I am sure they will start having those discussions with the
Senate and the gentleman's leadership starting next week, because we
are going to have to deal with that issue.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
The GSE, the GSE bill was initially, our thought was that would be on
the floor this coming week.
{time} 1715
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on
the Committee on Financial Services, is on the floor and has been very
involved in this bill.
I am not sure you even know this, but the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) informs me that there are very significant
sums that would be available to the gulf area for housing in the GSE
bill, which will be regular order, and the benefit would be that this
money would be available, and we know we are going to have to spend
money in that area.
Can you tell me why the GSE bill is not on the floor? This deals, as
you know, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Mr. DeLAY. Well, we do understand that this bill came out of the
Committee on Financial Services I think with a vote of 65 to 5.
It is a bill that is anticipated, and we really want to bring it to
the floor. To be quite honest with you, we have some Members on this
side of the aisle that are still wanting to negotiate some changes in
that bill before we bring it to the floor; and we are in that process.
As soon as we can get a consensus of where our Members are on that
bill, then we will bring it to the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does
not object, let me yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), the ranking member, because I know he has worked very hard with
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), as you well know, in a very
bipartisan way. You mentioned 63 to 5, 65 to 5; and so we did not
perceive there to be much opposition to the bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we did obviously get overwhelming consensus in the
committee; and the vote among the Republican members of the committee
was something 6 to 1 in favor of the bill. By the way, we have had some
negotiation since, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) knows
because he has been participating in them.
Some of the objections of some of the more conservative Members have
been accommodated. Some safeguards were put in. Not everything was done
that we liked on our side. We have been trying to be conciliatory,
although people obviously had the power to go ahead.
Then, most recently, we decided this is a way to get money, if this
bill were to pass quickly, to do housing so badly needed in the gulf
area, frankly bypassing some of the normal problems you would have in
terms of the need for regulations at OMB.
It would not go on the deficit. There has been a lot of concern about
relief efforts that add to the deficit. This would be hundreds of
millions of dollars, because it comes from the profits of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, not on the deficit.
The only other point I would say, and I would hope the majority would
have something to say about it, he said people do not like some things
about the bill. Well, as I read the Constitution, I did not find the
word negotiation in private among the majority party as part of article
I.
I thought bringing bills to the floor and having debates and votes
was the way to do it. Now I understand you want to establish some
limits. But I do think we are reaching the point where democracy is
suffering.
A bill adopted in an open process with hearings and debates in
committee and amendments passes 65 to 5. It has been, what, months
since that bill was voted out of committee; and there have been some
negotiations.
The notion that the bill cannot come to the floor until all but three
Members of the majority are satisfied really flies in the face of
democracy. If there are differences, what is the objection to letting
the majority of the House of Representatives vote? We are not
enormously far apart.
I have voted in the past for this thing called Reg-Neg, negotiated
regulations. I do not think it ought to displace democracy. We have a
bill that has an overwhelming vote in committee. There are some
legitimate differences. Why cannot we let democracy work, and then,
whichever side wins, the bill passes and hundreds of millions of
dollars are available for the gulf.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the leader understands those
were largely rhetorical questions.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), however, does express a
view that a bill that can be very helpful to us that came out 65 to 5,
overwhelming agreement, came out months ago. We do hope that this bill
can be brought to the floor, certainly before, hopefully if not the end
of next week, the week following. Because we believe it is the kind of
legislation that people would be proud of. Democrats and Republicans
came together, worked on it, came out with a bill, and it is a very
good bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing, has said
giving assurance to the people of New Orleans, the poorer people in
particular of New Orleans, and, frankly, a lot of African American
people, that we will be committed to rebuilding the city so they can
come back home is very important. The longer we delay on this bill, the
longer we delay giving people what is very important reassurance at a
critical time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The bill that passed out of committee, by the way, would do nothing
for New Orleans, nor would it do anything for the disaster relief in
Alabama or Mississippi either.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is referring to is
a negotiation that has been ongoing to create, out of this building
fund, at the GSEs an opportunity to change the bill and allow housing
to be built in these devastated areas. That is the process around here.
It is democracy when Members are negotiating a change to the bill; and
in changing that bill in the way that has been suggested and
[[Page H8059]]
supported, obviously, by the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank)
other Members ought to have the opportunity to look at this bill and
negotiate a bill that would receive the same sort of ratio here on the
floor, rather than having a contentious battle on the floor and writing
the bill on the floor.
We try our best to write bills in committee, but when the bill
changes from committee to the floor, negotiations are created, and we
are in the process of those negotiations, and that is the way this
process works. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been here a lot
longer than me, and he understands that.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have been terribly
worried about is the inability of Congress to move quickly to do
something about the victims of Katrina. I am very, very worried that we
are going to be seen as a body that cannot get its act together when we
are confronted with this terrible disaster. We have an opportunity to
utilize resources that will not be taken from our budget. We have an
opportunity to use substantial resources that could be applied toward
the rebuilding of homes, to getting people started again; and if we
keep fumbling and if we keep fiddling, then we are going to come under
great criticism because we are not doing what we can do.
So I would just simply urge all of my colleagues, do not play with
this. There are people who are suffering and people who are depending
on us. We have got a great way by which to provide real assistance. Let
us get it done.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I guess the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
forgets or has a short memory. I think we came into special session to
spend $10.5 billion just a few days after the disaster hit, came back
the next week and spent $51 billion to go to immediate relief.
We have passed some six to eight bills in the last few days that
directly affect people and their ability to get their lives back
together. I do not think anybody, and certainly not this House, is
dragging its feet on anything.
What the gentlewoman is talking about is a process that, frankly,
will take months to get the money that we are talking about in order to
build the houses that she wants; and being able to negotiate a few
weeks or days to get this bill right and not get it wrong I think is
very much the responsible way to proceed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
I appreciate the majority leader's response. There obviously is a
difference of view of how soon that those dollars could flow from the
ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full
committee.
You mentioned days. I would certainly hope it could be days. Because
I think we would all be advantaged in a bill, particularly if we could
pass it with the overwhelming majority that was received both in the
subcommittee and in the full committee.
Moving on, Mr. Leader, in addition to the bills you have listed for
next week, do you anticipate any Hurricane Katrina-related legislation
will come to floor? And if so, will those bills go through the
committee of jurisdiction and be considered under rules on the floor
that allow full debate?
You mentioned, as a preface to that, obviously almost all of us voted
for the $52 billion. But I think everybody on the floor was concerned
about the level of information we had about what had been spent of the
$10 billion, how much was going to be spent, on what, of the $52
billion.
In that context I ask that question.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the total of $62 billion that we have
authorized FEMA to spend is designated already in present law. FEMA
already knows what they can and cannot spend that money on, and that I
know has created some frustrations with people. You cannot have it both
ways. You cannot say this is too much money, and we do not know how to
spend it, yet be frustrated when FEMA is complying with the law and
when they are spending the money. That creates a problem.
As the gentleman knows, the problem is we have a disaster unlike we
have seen in this country, not just the hurricane but the displacement
of hundreds of thousands of people for a very long period of time and
displaced not just out of the area but out of their State, which has
created new concerns and new problems; and we are trying to address
those immediately.
But the administration is addressing many of these issues within the
law through waivers or redesigning certain programs, and a lot of it is
being taken that way. But there are some things that we must do. The
committees, hopefully working in a bipartisan way, are looking at all
of those kinds of issues; and that is where the six or eight bills that
we have passed over the last 2 weeks have been coming from.
Understanding that those students, for instance, that may have lost
their Pell Grants, in anticipation of going to universities that have
closed, need some fix. We fixed that. We tried to develop a system
where we could make available more TANF funds earlier, and we fixed
that. We went down the line fixing those things that we thought needed
fixing immediately. We are still working on others.
I have to tell you that the Senate does not see it the same way, and
they are sitting on these bills and not passing them, and I would urge
all Members of the House to contact their Senators and talk to them
about picking up these bills and passing them, because they are
incredibly important to people that need these changes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I thank the leader for
that observation and information.
I would urge the leader, as we bring additional bills to the floor,
that we give the opportunity to have these bills fully considered by
the floor. We want to move them. We want to move them quickly.
The overwhelming majority of us on both sides of the aisle have voted
for all of the bills that you just referenced on the theory, as you
said, that we need to move ahead on the Pell Grants and TANF and on the
dollars themselves, on liability issues.
But the failure to give full consideration to them, assuming full
consideration does not mean days and weeks delay but a full day of
consideration of these pieces of legislation, we believe is
appropriate, particularly if we deal with another very large money
bill.
We hope it goes through committee, and we hope it comes to the floor
with an opportunity for Members to make suggestions in forms of
amendment, either cutting or adding or shifting, as the case may be,
those resources. Because we think that is, you know, the theory of the
process is, our collective judgments are better than our individual
judgments. And that is what democracy is.
{time} 1730
Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is absolutely right, and I hope Members will
pay attention to this unusual process that we are using. The gentleman
is right. To what extent we can, we ought to use regular order, but
these are unusual times. And there are things that need to be done
immediately. And I do not think the people that have been devastated by
this disaster want us to wait a week to vet things and that kind of
stuff, particularly if you were one of those students that was trying
to get into another university and could not transfer your Pell grant
to that other university. I think they are appreciating that we are
trying to move as quickly as possible so they can do that. That is just
one example of many examples.
The point is that we are trying to do this in a bipartisan way. If
there are ranking members that are not being consulted, then I want to
hear about it. Members should understand that we are trying to get it
out to the Members and we are more than willing to hear anything from
anybody, so they should be working through their ranking member and on
our side of the aisle, their full committee chairman. But there are
some things that we need to get to the floor as quickly as possible.
At any rate, it is taking several days to get these bills done so
Members have
[[Page H8060]]
an opportunity to participate and have their input. We are going
regular order on most of the bills, but there are some that need
attention immediately; and that is why we moved quickly in consultation
and cooperation with the other side of the aisle. And we thought these
were all bills that had everybody's consent because we even checked
with the Senate, we checked with the administration, and we thought
these bills could move quickly. Unfortunately, the Senate sees it
differently.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I would simply add again that as
the gentleman indicated, trying to go regular order, obviously, both
sides understand that these are things we need to move with great
dispatch so we can help the people that need help and get it to them
when they need the help. We are all for that.
On the supplemental, the President has indicated there is going to be
a need for another supplemental. Do you know when we might consider
such a supplemental; how much that supplemental might be for? And if we
start considering it early, while the $52 billion is still available to
be expended to assist those, it will give us a little bit of time to go
through the process that the gentleman indicates is the best process.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do not know, other
than in the press, and in many of these issues the press has gotten it
wrong, that there has been any supplemental suggested by the President
of the United States. He has not contacted my office. As far as I know,
he has not contacted the Speaker's office, nor the chairman of the
appropriations office about another supplemental. Quite the contrary.
They are trying to avoid having another supplemental and trying to
spend the money properly and get it to the people that need it. So I am
not aware of any supplemental certainly in the short term.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information.
Now, there is some speculation about an energy bill being considered.
Obviously, gasoline prices are extraordinarily high. The American
public is very concerned about their energy costs, about the policies
of this country. Do you anticipate an energy bill coming to the floor
any time within the next 2 weeks or 3 weeks?
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the question, because Members need to be
aware that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is working on a fuel
bill to try to address the concerns, particularly of supply and the
lack of refining in this country.
The gentleman knows that there were a lot of issues that were dropped
out of the energy bill that was signed by the President about a month
ago that would be having an effect right now. We are going to revisit
those issues.
There are other issues that have come to mind. People are starting to
understand that as the cold weather starts closing in on us that the
cost of fuel oil is going to be astronomical, that the increase in
electricity costs are going to be astronomical. The cost of natural gas
is going up, and we all understand that supply is the real problem; and
we are going to try to address that and hopefully address it as soon as
we can, do it in regular order, and bring it to the floor for
consideration of this House.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Do you have any idea what ``as soon
as possible'' is, the time frame? Next 3 weeks, next month, late
October, November? Do you have any idea on that?
Mr. DeLAY. There is really no way of knowing. It is really up to the
committee and how fast they can do their work. I might say that the
chairman of the committee's wife is having a baby today so that has
created a problem. Not for him, but for our schedule. So they are
working as hard and as fast as they can, and it is incredibly important
for us to deal with this issue as soon as possible.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I agree with you that is not a
problem. Please convey the Democratic congratulations to the chairman
and more importantly his wife, the mother.
Two last bills I will ask you about, Mr. Leader, and I appreciate the
time we are taking on this. Reconciliation: There was a discussion
about putting off reconciliation. We have put off reconciliation at
least until the end of the month, as I understand it probably until
October. Can you tell me whether or not we still anticipate
reconciliation moving forward and, if so, are there going to be two
bills? One the $35 billion in mandatory spending cuts among which is
$10 billion in Medicaid cuts, and/or the $70 billion in tax cuts that
was included in the budget reconciliation instructions.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and for the question.
The gentleman probably knows that I think today the Committee on the
Budget has sent a notice to the House that they have postponed the
process until the end of October because of what is facing us now. We
thought it would be better to do that, and the Committee on the Budget
agreed. And so this process will not even be started until the middle
of October.
As the gentleman also knows, the budget that was passed by the House
allows for two bills, one an entitlement reform bill and another a tax
bill. We anticipate taking advantage of both and trying to reform
entitlement spending so that real money is getting to real people that
need it. And we also anticipate some sort of tax bill because we feel
like, particularly under the present circumstances, to continue this
good economy that we have got, we hope to enhance it even more.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the last bill I would ask you about is
the subject matter that has been one of the biggest subjects that we
have been considering this year. The President put it on the agenda,
the Social Security privatization, private accounts act. Can you tell
me whether or not we anticipate a Social Security bill coming to create
private accounts or privatize in some way Social Security coming to the
floor this year.
Mr. DeLAY. The Committee on Ways and Means remains focused on
developing a comprehensive retirement security package. And I still
hope that the House will be able to consider legislation in this area
before we end this session. That is about as much as I am informed as
to where the bill is, what is in it, and when it will come.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me say on behalf of the
minority, the Democrat side of the aisle shares your concern and
commitment to assuring retirement security for our people. As you know,
we strongly disagree with the suggestion that has been made by the
administration with reference to the creation of private accounts and
what we perceive as privatizing parts of Social Security. But I want
you to be assured that we share your view that we want to make sure
that retirement accounts are secure and that Americans have
opportunities to participate in the creation of retirement accounts. I
thank the gentleman for his observation.
____________________