[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 168 (Thursday, November 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12432-H12435]
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 my friend, the majority leader, 
for information about next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-
hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled 
until 6:30 p.m.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list 
of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.
  On Tuesday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 
10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House 
will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and 9 a.m. on Friday.
  We expect to consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' 
Defense Act of 2007; and H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007; 
the conference report on the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill. If the President vetoes the WRDA bill, we will expect to take up 
that veto as well.
  Also, Members should note on Wednesday, President Sarkozy of France 
will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate. I would like to 
say to all the Members who are listening, I would hope that they would 
make a special effort to be here for the address of President Sarkozy.
  I would make the observation that the new President of France is 
someone who, I think, holds great promise for partnership with the 
United States. I think he has expressed that inclination. I think that 
is a very significant, positive step forward, and I hope that most of 
us that will be able to, within the framework of legislative business, 
be here to hear his address.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate my friend's comment there, and I agree 
totally that a leader of France who has been so open and receptive to 
America as an ally and a friend deserves that kind of welcome in the 
joint session of Congress next week. I hope we have the kind of 
presence here that would indicate our opportunity and our optimism 
about the Sarkozy government.
  On appropriations, I wonder if you have any update on the Labor-HHS 
conference and the conference report, if you have any sense of that 
yet.
  Mr. HOYER. As I said in my announcement, it is my expectation that 
the Labor-HHS conference report will be on the floor next week. I don't 
know whether it will be Wednesday or Thursday of next week, but I 
expect it to be on the floor next week.
  The conference, much of the work of the conference, as I indicated 
last week, the preconferencing was occurring, both parties were 
involved in that preconferencing, and hopefully that has led to what 
will be a relatively brief conference. I do not have information 
whether or not they were able to conclude today. I know they met this 
morning and into this afternoon. I don't know whether they have 
concluded.
  Mr. BLUNT. The press reports today were that that conference would 
not likely include the elements of the Defense appropriations but still 
would include the Veterans and the Military Construction appropriations 
bill.
  Is that my friend's sense of where they are headed on that bill?
  Mr. HOYER. My sense is those were the press reports.
  I can neither confirm nor deny, as they say, that that is the case.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, of course the stated goal of the majority earlier 
this year to move these bills one at a time would be my preference, and 
if Defense is not part of that conference report, it seems to me it's 
only one bill away from being done the right way. I would have 
preferred to see it the other way.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I would.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  And I know that point has been made, but I want to tell you, very 
honestly, I hear you make the point, but not only did you package 
almost all, the majority of bills in 2005 and 2006, but you packaged 
them in the calendar year, that is to say, 3 months from today, before 
they were passed. And so that, although that is your desire, and it is 
my desire, we share that view, you're absolutely right. These bills 
ought to be considered individually, one at a time, on their merits, 
sent to the President, and he ought to have the opportunity to veto 
them or sign them individually.
  But I would remind the gentleman that in fiscal year, I believe, I 
may be wrong on the fiscal year, fiscal year 2005, it was not until 
February 2005 that that bill was passed, with eight or nine of the 
bills incorporated in an omnibus. And in either the year before that, 
or the year after that, in January, eight bills were sent.
  Now, I may be off one or two bills on the numbers, but my point is, 
the gentleman is correct. Unfortunately, that has not been the 
practice, either under your leadership or our leadership. And I think 
it's unfortunate, personally. But we're going to move these bills, as I 
said last week, hopefully as quickly

[[Page H12433]]

and effectively as possible; and, hopefully, the President will sign 
them. They've passed with an average of 285 votes, some closer, some 
different than that. Averages lie in that respect. But they have passed 
pretty handily both Houses of the Congress. In the Senate every one has 
passed with a veto-proof majority. That's not true in the House. But 
we're hopeful that we can get these bills to the President and signed 
by the President, whether they're individually or in packages.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend.
  Looking backwards at this, I think that my friend is right that there 
was a pattern that developed with the bill that included the Veterans 
bill that we didn't like. And so in the Congress that started in 2005, 
we tried to restructure that so that that would not happen in the 
future. We were trying to break that pattern, and, in fact, we did. And 
in 2005, that bill passed individually, as did every other bill.
  In 2006, unfortunately, that was not the case, and there was a 
penalty to be paid for that, and I guess we paid it. But we were trying 
to break that pattern of coupling veterans benefits with something that 
was much more controversial than veterans benefits. It was part of at 
that time Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development, 
and so we took Veterans and put them with the Military Construction so 
that military families, military personnel, veterans and retirees would 
all be in a bill that we hoped would be the least controversial of all 
bills and not be the subject of that packaging to get those most 
controversial things done. Frankly, I think the 2005 experience showed 
that we were on the way to achieving that.
  My concern on this would be exactly that, that the pattern of using 
the veterans benefit bill, to couple that with bills that are less 
popular, and not only appropriations bills, but I can certainly see, 
even in this Congress, that bill becoming the host for authorizing 
bills that are not popular, I think is a very unfortunate development 
and I regret it. I wish that we could have stayed with the pattern that 
we tried to create in the last Congress and successfully did create in 
the first year of the last Congress. Again, as we look back on history, 
this is the first time in 20 years that not a single bill has passed 
now.
  Also, when we coupled bills together in the 10 years I was here, we 
coupled those bills together to try to get a signature rather than 
anticipating a veto, and we got those signatures.
  Mr. HOYER. Is there any doubt that that's what we're trying to do?
  Mr. BLUNT. I think there is. Well, we'll see. We'll see if that's 
what happened.
  I have a couple more questions, but I would yield on that point.
  Mr. HOYER. On that point, because I think it's important for our 
Members to understand and for the public to understand what's going on. 
The gentleman is correct. You took the Veterans bill out of the Housing 
bill. We think you liked the Veterans bill. We're not sure you liked 
the Housing bill, and so you took them apart so you could pass what you 
liked and leave what you didn't like alone.
  As you know, the first 2 months that we came in, we dealt with the 
eight bills that you had not passed. They were all domestic bills. You 
passed the Defense bill, the MilCon bill, Homeland Security bill, all 
of that, broad bipartisan support on our side, your side. Education was 
left on the table. Health was left on the table. Environment, left on 
the table. Space, left on the table. Law enforcement, left on the 
table.
  We understand the decoupling. Decoupling is to put us in a position 
where we don't have any options. You'll take what was passed with 409 
votes in this House. It was $4 billion over what the President 
requested, billions of dollars under what the veterans said they 
needed.
  And now the President says he is going to sign that bill. Why is he 
going to sign that bill? Because I think he believes it's politically 
feasible to do it. It's $4 billion over what the President asked for, 
and he said we shouldn't ask for more than he asked for. We asked for 
$4 billion more than he asked for for veterans, and he's going to sign 
it. Overwhelmingly supported here in the House, and we would override 
his veto. He knows that, so I don't think he's given us much, very 
frankly.
  And we are trying to figure out how we can get Education signed by 
the President, funding No Child Left Behind signed by the President, 
NIH, cancer research, heart, lung and blood research, diabetes research 
signed by the President.
  So very frankly, your decoupling was to make sure that you got the 
bill you liked signed. Our coupling may be to ensure that we get the 
bill that we like signed. So very frankly, the efforts, I think, are 
the same. The priorities just may be different.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, if we want to try to determine the motives of each 
other, which is, I suppose, what we do in this place, that's one thing. 
But you're the one that started that.
  What we were trying to do, I'll advance again, was to take the 
Veterans bill out of the tug of war that always went on over the 
Housing bill, and that's what we did.
  Now, your assertion that that's because we didn't like Housing, I 
don't agree with that. I do agree with the idea that we thought that 
the Veterans bill did not need to be needlessly held back by a bill 
that was assured to always be intensely debated. And that's why we did 
that. And that's why we passed the bill. And that's why if we would 
have passed this bill 60 days ago when it came over from the Senate, 
military families and veterans would have $18.5 million every day that 
they haven't had the last 32 days now.
  On the other issue, I don't have any reason to believe that the 
President is not for all of those health care issues you talked about. 
That's not what this veto will be about. I know I'm for advancing all 
of those, partly because I've benefited from research in some of those.
  But I think you said at the first of the year, and you were right 
when you said it, that the best way to advance these bills is one at a 
time. Now, I think I'm hearing a different argument than that today. 
But I agree with your first-of-the-year view of this; and I would hope, 
after this process, we can get back to that.
  Another thing I wanted to ask about, I read in one of the Capitol 
Hill newspapers this week that the majority continues to look at the 
possibility of limiting the minority's right, and it has been a right 
of the minority since 1822, to have the opportunity to have a motion to 
recommit at the end of the bill.
  I will point out, I believe yesterday, on the bill we dealt with 
yesterday, the first substitute that the minority had been allowed in 
this entire Congress, the last day of the 10th month of the Congress, 
we finally get a substitute.
  No question, we've had to maximize our use of the motion to recommit 
because, while we appreciate the amendments we had on the bill today, 
we haven't had many amendments before today. And while we appreciate 
the substitute we had yesterday, we had had no substitutes before 
yesterday.
  I'm wondering if the gentleman will want to talk a little bit about 
any discussions going on, the majority has going on, about limiting the 
1822 right of the motion to recommit.
  And I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I don't have the figure in front of me, but I will find it out. I 
believe, very frankly, very few substitutes have been brought to the 
Rules Committee by your side. But that aside, I will get that number so 
we will know it.
  But I take your point. That aside, I take your point.
  Let me say that what we intend to do is continue to try to facilitate 
the work of this House, facilitate passing legislation, and we will 
continue to try to do that.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, I would only say my concern on that would be when 
the majority says ``facilitate the work of the House,'' that may mean 
to further restrict the ability of the minority; and, of course, we 
would object strenuously to that.
  Another topic that, I don't believe, it may or may not have been 
mentioned, was the AMT patch topic. Did you mention that as something 
you expect to come up next week?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, I think I mentioned that.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thought maybe you did. Does the gentleman have any more 
information about that than he has already given?
  Mr. HOYER. No, I don't know whether it will be Wednesday, Thursday or

[[Page H12434]]

Friday; but it will be one of those three days is my expectation. I 
know Mr. Rangel wants to move the AMT patch. I'm for moving the AMT 
patch. I'm for paying for it. But I'm for moving it. The Temporary Tax 
Relief Act.
  Mr. BLUNT. So that would be the AMT patch?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, that's what we're referring to. So the answer is, 
yes, we intend to move that next week.
  Mr. BLUNT. And the amount of money involved there?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't have that dollar amount, but I know that it's in 
the $50 billion category to do a temporary patch, which we have done 
over the last few years. We borrowed the money each time we've done 
that, but it's about $50 billion. We intend to pay for it.
  Mr. BLUNT. And your intention is for that to be under the PAYGO rule 
to be paid for.
  Mr. HOYER. As you know, we have followed the PAYGO rules since we 
adopted them, and we intend to hew to that practice. And we think it's 
the appropriate practice, rather than borrow $50 billion today to give 
taxpayers relief so that our children can pay for that tax relief in 
the future. We feel strongly about that and we intend to do that.
  Mr. BLUNT. I think the view of that, if we were debating the bill, 
which we won't do, I assure you, would be that this kind of tax relief 
actually produces tax revenue. But in a static scoring model you don't 
see that revenue.
  Do you have any more information about November's schedule? I know 
next week. You said you anticipated we would work Friday of next week.
  Mr. HOYER. We anticipate Friday of next week. And I'm not yet 
anticipating the 16th, which is Friday, because I'm not sure exactly. 
The continuing resolution ends on the 16th of November. It is my 
expectation that we will do another continuing resolution while we 
continue to try to pass the balance of the appropriation bills, and I 
expect to do that earlier than the 16th, but we can't give away the 
16th at this point in time because we have no intention of shutting 
down the government and, therefore, we're going to make sure that we 
provide for making sure the government stays in operation. But if we 
can conclude our work by the 15th, I'm sure the Members will be happy. 
But the 16th is still on the schedule.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that information. I'm sure that we would be, 
at least I'm confident we would be more than happy to work with the 
majority so that we don't run into a needless last-minute crisis on the 
16th in the almost unavoidable circumstance now that we don't have all 
of the appropriations bills done by then, and I would think the earlier 
that process starts, the better off we are.
  And I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding one more time.
  I have not mentioned something, but I do want to mention, so the 
House knows and, frankly, the public knows as well. As you know, we 
have been working very hard on the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
trying to get as many children as possible covered by children's 
health. I want to thank the whip. I had the opportunity of meeting with 
Mr. Boehner. Their staffs have been engaged. Our staffs have been 
engaged. Senate Democratic and Republican staff and Members have been 
engaged. We're still working on that.

                              {time}  1515

  As you know, Senator Reid attempted to get a delay in the 
consideration of the bill on the Senate floor. That was objected to by 
Mr. McConnell, or actually Mr. Lott on behalf of Mr. McConnell, and 
they took it up today. Mr. Reid asked for another extension. That was 
objected to by Mr. McConnell this time. So they considered it today.
  But I want the whip to know that we are intending to continue to 
pursue discussions. Obviously the Senate has to send the bill back 
here. But we want to continue to pursue these discussions to see 
whether or not we can come to agreement so that we can send a bill to 
the President that, hopefully, he would sign but, if he doesn't sign, 
that two-thirds of us on this side of the Capitol and two-thirds on the 
other side of the Capitol would be prepared to see it move forward.
  Mr. BLUNT. If I could ask a question in that regard, do you 
anticipate some changes in the Senate bill so that it comes back here? 
I was assuming, based on your other information, that if the Senate 
passed the same bill the House had passed, it would go directly to the 
President.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, they have to send it back here as the House of 
origin, I believe. I'm not sure that it has to be sent back. I may be 
incorrect in that. But I am not sure how soon the Senate will send the 
bill down.
  Mr. BLUNT. We will be glad to continue work on that. And in regard to 
the failure to provide time on the Senate side, it seems to me that's a 
very interesting contradiction to our desire to provide time over here 
to change the bill. I will assure my friend we are working in good 
faith to try to address the less than a handful of issues, though they 
are all important, that we think need to be addressed, from who 
benefits from this program to how you determine your eligibility and 
legal presence in the country to benefit, to how you work effectively 
to see that adults are moved off the program. We are more than willing 
to work on that. We have been trying to work on that all week.
  And, of course, our request just a few days ago was the reverse of 
the problem that now we see is a problem in the Senate, which was give 
us some time to work this out. We were denied time on this side. 
Apparently the Senate has also been denied time to work this out. And, 
once again, I think we have headed toward a needless conclusion to this 
debate that could have been prevented if we would have all engaged more 
effectively before we sent the bill to the Senate.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Frankly, we have a disagreement on whether you were denied time. We 
did pass the bill, but we have been pursuing, as the gentleman 
observed, and I appreciate the participation of those Republicans, one 
of whom is sitting on the floor, who have participated in numerous 
meetings, whether or not we can accommodate the interests of both sides 
in passing legislation to include the children, expanding it to 10 
million. But notwithstanding the fact that we passed it, as I explained 
to the House, we wanted to get that bill to the Senate so that they 
could have it ready for consideration.
  We were in agreement that it ought to be moved over until next week. 
Senator Reid asked for that so we could continue to work. As I advised 
Senator Reid, the leader, I advised him that I thought there were good-
faith discussions going on. I thought there was an opportunity to move 
forward. I am still hopeful that that is the case. And as a result, I 
am hopeful that we will take the additional time, the next day, 
tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, to try to see if we can come to 
agreement.
  As you know, you, Mr. Boehner and I met, and Mr. Boehner's 
observation was there may be significant numbers that could accrue as a 
result of the discussions and negotiations. We're hopeful that that is 
the case. If that's the case, then we would be successful in adding the 
4 million children that we seek to add to the President's 6 million 
plus.
  What I wanted to indicate before we close this colloquy is that I am 
hopeful we will still take that time, and I have indicated to a number 
of people that I want to pursue, we want to pursue, those discussions 
with the opportunity to perhaps take some additional action if 
agreement is possible.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I will just say we are continuing to be more than 
willing to be helpful, the minority is, I am individually, to try to 
solve these problems.
  I want to repeat one more time, I think we would have been better off 
if we had taken these 2 days that we now would have liked to have had 
before we voted instead of now being at the mercy of the Senate to 
decide whether they are going to give us time to negotiate with each 
other or not. But we haven't, and, hopefully, we can continue to work 
for a good conclusion.

[[Page H12435]]



                          ____________________