[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H489-H491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, 
for a discussion of next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will not be in session so that 
Members can join with their communities in observance of the birthday 
of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate 
and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills 
under suspension of the rules. You will be getting notice of those, 
hopefully, by the end of the day. We will consider several bills under 
suspension. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m., as has been our 
practice.
  On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will meet at 10 
a.m., although let me say to my friend that I may well be requesting 
again, as I did for today, unanimous consent that we meet at 9 on 
Friday. It has historically been the practice to wait until about May, 
the middle of May, when we get into heavy legislative business, to meet 
at 10 on Fridays if we were in on Fridays. My view is, however, and I 
want to say to all the Members, that it will be my intent to make every 
effort possible to have us adjourn on Fridays prior to or no later than 
2 p.m. in consideration of Members' need to get back to their districts 
where they have events that are going on where they need to be. I want 
to tell my friend that we will, therefore, quite possibly ask for 
unanimous consent to come in at 9 rather than 10 next Friday.
  In addition to other Suspension Calendar business, and all suspension 
bills, as I said, will be announced later today, the House will 
consider H.R. 5, a bill to cut in half the interest rates on student 
loans; and H.R. 6, a renewable energy bill.
  In addition to that, I want to give notice to the House, and I have 
discussed this with Mr. Blunt and have discussed it with the leader, 
Mr. Boehner, that Nancy Boyda of Kansas is introducing a bill which 
will provide that Members who commit felonies while Members of Congress 
and in the course of their duties will be precluded from receiving 
pensions.

                              {time}  1430

  If they are receiving pensions, they will have those pensions 
discontinued.
  That is obviously legislation which I think is appropriate. We have 
passed similar legislation that the majority proposed in the past. I 
believe this will pass with bipartisan support.
  Mr. Boehner and I and Mr. Blunt all agree we need to look at this 
carefully, even though it has already passed, and so we have talked to 
Ms. Slaughter from the Rules Committee, and we will speak to Mr. Dreier 
and give him notice. I have not personally spoken with Mr. Dreier. But 
they will be considering this legislation on Wednesday, and we expect 
to have this bill on the floor next Friday.
  In addition, it is quite possible again the House Administration 
Committee, and I am perhaps anticipating Mr. Blunt's question, has 
jurisdiction over the Page Board, we will also have, we hope, on the 
floor on Friday legislation that will deal with the Page Board, 
oversight of the page system, and the various procedures we can put in 
place to make sure that our pages are protected and treated with the 
respect and care that they deserve and that their parents expect.
  I tell my friend, that is the anticipated schedule for next week. As 
I said, we will make every effort and it will be my very strong 
commitment to the Members that every effort will be made to adjourn on 
Friday no later than 2 p.m.

[[Page H490]]

  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the information he has provided. It 
does raise a number of questions, and I will try to keep them in mind 
as you answer them a few at a time.
  One, I think it is only fair to say that while we did discuss these 
two issues, the last two bills you mentioned, it was only in moments 
before the colloquy, and I think our leader only received notice these 
things were coming up within a few minutes of coming to the floor.
  So more notice, as the former minority whip would know, more notice 
is always a good thing. Particularly, my good friend, on these issues, 
issues that affect Members and their families, notice, appropriate 
hearings, and we did pass similar legislation on the issue of the 
access to pensions for people who had committed a felony, we passed 
that in the last session. It did go to committee. It had a chance to be 
amended. We debated it on the floor, but this is a new Congress with 
many Members who were not part of that process.
  In the case of the last Congress, I believe that issue went to both 
House Administration and the Rules Committee and possibly the Committee 
on Government Reform before it came to the floor. I think you are 
telling me next week you anticipate only the Rules Committee would see 
and have a chance to look at this legislation before the floor, and 
even the Rules Committee ranking Republican is getting that notice as 
we are talking right now, that that important issue is coming up next 
week?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, it is an important issue; 
you are correct. I believe a number of committees have already 
considered this legislation carefully. The issue is not new. What we 
want to ensure, Mr. Whip, is that the legislation is properly drawn and 
drafted because obviously it is an important piece of legislation with 
serious consequences, and we want to make sure that it is done 
properly.
  The Rules Committee, in answer to your second question, we do believe 
that the Rules Committee can consider this and will consider the work 
that has been done by other committees because again this subject 
matter is something we have already considered. We believe it is 
important to move this matter early in the session so the public has 
confidence that there are consequences. There are not only consequences 
in terms of criminal convictions which we have seen, but also 
consequences in terms of the pensions that are earned during the 
performance of your duties, and that the American taxpayer is not happy 
with pensions being paid to those who have abused their oath of office 
and their responsibilities to the American public.
  But the gentleman is correct, we have just given notice; but we do 
have Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Wednesday we will 
consider that, and then you will have another 48 hours or thereabouts 
before it comes to the floor.
  I am hopeful that we will work together on this. I think we share the 
view that this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about making 
sure that Members comport themselves properly; and if they do not, that 
there are consequences. And I think then we can assure the taxpayer 
that they will not be subsidizing, through pensions, wrongdoers who 
fail to meet their duties under the Constitution.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that information. I share your sense this is 
an important issue. We dealt with it on our side of the building in 
what I expect will be a highly similar way in the last Congress. I say 
that not to defend the idea that it is not going through committees 
this time but to suggest it is not a new idea. It is something that we 
have dealt with. I expect there to be a significantly bipartisan debate 
here, depending on what the legislation says.
  I would say, however, to my friend that while we haven't been really 
passive about these first six bills that haven't had a chance to have 
amendments, haven't had a chance to have debate in committee, they were 
six things, some of which we had dealt with, but the six things that 
the majority talked about in the last election, and at some point the 
suggesting that this is such an important issue that we need to move 
forward without the regular progress begins to wear pretty thin on our 
side of the building and I think on the public generally. I would hope 
that we don't have many more of those instances.
  Apparently the House Administration Committee will not have a chance 
in this Congress to look at the intricacies of the pension issue.
  I know this week we brought a bill to the floor dealing with minimum 
wage and then find out that while this is supposed to be an expansive 
minimum wage proposal that includes everybody, whether they were ever 
included before or not, that American Samoa is somehow left out. I have 
a feeling that if that would have gone to committee, there is a great 
chance that would have been pointed out. I don't know if the majority 
intends to go back and put American Samoa in the minimum wage package 
or not.
  My friend who has been here longer than I have loves this institution 
and knows better than anybody the benefit of regular order. I hope we 
are nearing the end of us being asked to accept the fact that we can't 
do regular order on this issue for some extraordinary reason. Both the 
Page Board issue and any misconduct by Members are critically important 
issues, but so is the opportunity for every Member of the 110th 
Congress to be involved at their committee level and every other level.
  I might ask about that American Samoa question. Do we expect to see 
that oversight taken care of in upcoming legislation?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, let me say with respect to 
the specific question on American Samoa, as the gentleman undoubtedly 
knows, the minimum wage in American Samoa, unlike the Marianas or Guam, 
is set by the Department of Labor and Industry Committee so that it is 
determined in a different way than the others, including our States.

  So it was not an oversight to that extent; it has historically been 
not treated. Having said that, I can tell the gentleman, I have talked 
to Mr. Miller, the chairman of the committee that dealt with the 
minimum wage bill, and he is going to look at that to make sure that 
American Samoa is consistent with, and that does not mean exactly the 
same wage scale, but consistent with our concerns that were 
incorporated in the minimum wage bill, which received, as you know, 82 
votes on your side and all of the votes on our side; a very bipartisan 
bill.
  But American Samoa has been treated in a way different in the past. 
So it was not an oversight. But the question has been raised by people 
on your side and our side, and so Mr. Miller and the people on his 
committee will be looking at that. So the answer to your question is, 
yes.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, I just make the point that if the 
committees had looked at this in advance, that oversight might have 
been eliminated. There is a reason for the committee process, which 
leads to my other question which is, what time does the majority 
believe that we will be organizing the committees in a way that the 
work of the committees of the Congress can get started?
  Mr. HOYER. Many of the committees are already organized, as the 
gentleman probably knows. I don't have a list which committees have 
completed their organizational structuring, but many have and are ready 
to do their business.
  I am confident that all committees will be organized, and they may 
not have every member because there are still some Members that have 
not been finally assigned to committees, but by the middle of next 
week, we are confident that all committees will be organized to do 
business.
  I would like to comment on the second part of your question. I want 
you to know that although we believe that the two bills that I have 
discussed that may well be on the floor on Friday, I want Members to 
have notice of that, are dealing with ethics and the safety of our 
pages, both issues are of substantial concern, and I would suggest 
immediacy. While they will be considered, I want you to know on both 
sides of the aisle, there is a desire for and a commitment to regular 
order. The points the gentleman makes with respect to considered 
judgment being given are well taken, and I agree with him, and we hope 
to proceed in that manner.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that commitment to begin to move 
forward as quickly as possible. I look forward to the time when there 
is actually legislation on the floor that has

[[Page H491]]

gone through a committee and had a chance to be amended and discussed 
before it got here.
  I believe fewer than a handful of committees are actually organized 
at this point. None of the committees that had work on the floor this 
week have yet been organized to the point they have had a meeting. I 
would like to point that out.
  The other thing, in waiving points of order, another issue of the 
regular order of the House, on every bill that came to the floor this 
week, the majority waived points of order on anything that was in the 
bill but maintained points of order on the one chance we had to say 
anything at all about the bill in an official way which was the motion 
to recommit.
  Again, I hope we are getting to the point where the things that the 
majority has talked so much about, and PAYGO would be an example of 
that, won't continue to be waived in every rule waiving points of order 
on the bills that do come to the floor.
  I yield to my friend to respond.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Let me say that none of the bills that we adopted this week violated 
the PAYGO rule, as I think the gentleman is aware. The 9/11 bill was an 
authorization subject to appropriation. Those programs will be paid for 
within the budget, we believe. We are committed to doing that.
  The student loan bill will comply with the PAYGO rule. And the energy 
bill will raise revenues. That clearly complies with the PAYGO rule.
  But the gentleman's point that they did not go to committee is 
accurate. When we adopted the rule, that was debated fully. The rule 
was adopted. We had a commitment as you know on our side to do those. 
We had a commitment to do those in the first 100 hours. That is what we 
are doing. We believe that they are overwhelmingly supported by the 
American public, and we are very pleased there was substantial 
bipartisan support for these bills as well.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would say on the significant portions of those bills 
that we voted on in the last Congress and passed, virtually every 
Member of the majority then, the minority now, voted for 39 of the 41 
9/11 provisions. We voted for increasing the minimum wage, though we 
thought with a more helpful balance, and we hope to continue to work 
for that balance so that the wage producer is not affected, the job 
creator, doesn't stop creating these important entry level jobs into 
the workforce.
  I would also say, on the PAYGO issue, I believe in the 9/11 bill and 
perhaps in the other bills, but in the 9/11 bill, I think the 
authorization was more often than not such sums as necessary. I don't 
know how that doesn't trigger some thought about cost in the future. I 
do know we were told it would be at least 3 weeks before we could get a 
score on what the bill would cost. So whether it violated a PAYGO 
provision or not, we are 2 weeks and 5 days from knowing the answer to 
that question.
  But I am expressing some of my concerns as we move forward. I do 
sympathize with the leader's job of having a schedule that works for 
Members, not only their events at home but their families at home.

                              {time}  1445

  As the year progresses, I suspect the challenge of that will 
progress.
  I yield to the gentleman to make a response.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me one 
additional time.
  I am constrained to say with all the charity in my heart that, of 
course, you didn't violate the PAYGO rule, you eliminated the PAYGO 
rule. So it was not an issue on your side.
  We have reinstated the PAYGO rule, which was adopted, as the 
gentleman knows, in a bipartisan way, and supported again in 1997, 
overwhelmingly adopted by the bipartisan Republicans and Democrats in 
this House and in the Senate. We hope that the PAYGO rule will lead us 
back from the abyss of what we believe to be a fiscally dire situation 
to a point that we were in 2001, where we had the President of the 
United States, President Bush, projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus. We 
are now, for various reasons, in part because we did not comply with 
and didn't have a PAYGO rule, confronted by a deficit in excess of $3 
trillion.
  So I say to my friend, I share his view that we need to comply with 
the PAYGO rule. We adopted a PAYGO rule, we intend to comply with it, 
and we intend to move towards restoring the fiscal discipline that we 
had. I think, working together, we can do that.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the information he has 
provided. I would just again say this is not the place, I suppose, to 
have the debate on PAYGO for taxes or the PAYGO for spending or all the 
PAYGOs, but you do have the PAYGO rule.
  Maybe I was inarticulate suggesting not to debate the merits of the 
rule, but if you are going to have the rule, my view is you should 
apply the rule. Waiving the points of order on that rule as a routine 
of rules for the last week hopefully does not become any kind of 
routine item in this Congress. I am sure that is not the gentleman's 
intention; particularly, though, when the rules are waived, the points 
of order are waived for the majority, but on the one small attempt that 
the minority has to improve a piece of legislation, we have every point 
of order still against us. The balance of that seems even more out of 
balance.
  If you want to have PAYGO that is in our rules now, we need to have 
PAYGO, we need to have enough time to know what we are paying for, so 
we can really have that debate on the floor.

                          ____________________