[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 186 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H14445-H14448]
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 from Maryland, the
majority leader, for information about next week's schedule.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 3 p.m. in a pro forma
session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour
debate and noon for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30
p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for
legislative business and at 9 a.m. on Friday.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list
of those bills will be announced before the close of business tomorrow.
Under a rule, we expect to consider a conference report on the
Intelligence authorization bill and on the Department of Defense
authorization bill and further action on appropriations and terrorism
risk insurance. There may well be other legislation, if it comes from
the Senate.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.
I am wondering, on the appropriations process, the remaining 11
bills, if
[[Page H14446]]
the gentleman has a sense of when those might come before the House. I
know there was at least a discussion of a same-day rule for Tuesday for
that purpose. So whatever information my friend has, I yield to get his
ideas on when we might see the first effort on the appropriations bill
on the floor or maybe the final effort on that bill.
Mr. HOYER. I will tell my friend, the first action we had on
appropriation bills was of course when we passed all of our
appropriation bills before we left for the August break. We now hope to
have action on the remaining appropriation bills. We expect those to be
included in an omnibus appropriation bill. Obviously, we have
considered all of them. They essentially have been conferenced,
notwithstanding the fact that the other body did not pass through the
Senate five of their bills, as you know, but they did in fact pass them
out of subcommittee. So we had products to conference with.
Both the House and the Senate have been working together to get them
in a place where they could be considered, and it would be my
expectation that we would consider an omnibus appropriation bill
Tuesday night after we come back. I would hope to be able to pass such
a bill on Tuesday. Again, that is being worked on between the House and
the Senate. There have been discussions, as you know, with the
administration as well trying to reach agreement so that we can ensure
that the Government certainly doesn't shut down.
{time} 1545
The CR expires on the 14th of next week. We would hope that we can
pass an omnibus appropriation before that.
Mr. BLUNT. On the remaining 11 of the 12 appropriations bills, some
of which the Senate did not pass, was the minority involved in these
nonconference conferences that you described?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Obey is not here, and I think the answer to that
question is ``yes,'' but you would know better than I. I am sure you
would hear complaints if that were not the case, and perhaps you have
heard complaints.
Frankly, as you know, and you and I have discussed this experience by
the House before under both parties, because of the lateness of the
Senate's actions, we are not in a position where we had all of the
bills passed. Furthermore, there was not an inclination on some of the
bills to go to the conference. Thirdly, we have been facing, as you
know, a veto threat from the President on all of the bills except the
Veterans MILCON bill and perhaps Homeland Security. Defense was signed,
as you know. Notwithstanding the fact that the MILCON bill is very
substantially above the President's request, he said he would sign that
one, but bills like the Labor-Health bill were vetoed, so we have to
consider that one again.
Mr. Obey has had a meeting with Mr. Nussle, as you know. It has been
reported in the paper. That meeting was to try to figure out whether
they could come to agreement. That meeting was not dispositive over
that issue. Others have had meetings, including myself. We are hopeful
to get to a place where everyone will not get everything that they
want, but hopefully we will have agreement. I can't guarantee that.
The answer to your question, as I told you at the outset, I don't
have specific answers to. My presumption is, however, the staffs have
been talking to one another.
Mr. BLUNT. That's what I thought, the possibility of Tuesday.
I would point out to my friend that the bill that the President did
sign, the Defense bill, was very close to the amount of money, a
reduction in the amount of money that was equal to the increase on the
Military Construction and Veterans bill the President said he would
sign, which is actually in the context of both what most of the Members
on this side of the aisle had hoped for and what the President said he
would insist on, which is the obvious ability of the majority, within
the 6.5 percent increase that he proposed, to stay below that number.
Actually, Military Construction and Defense, while they are not a
perfectly balanced outcome, come close to the way that system can work
and still be within the President's number and an example of two bills
that he said he would be willing to sign, neither of which are the
bills he proposed, but the combination of which certainly are within an
amount of money that could be adjusted in the other bills.
On the military question, those two bills we are talking about, does
the gentleman anticipate any opportunity to have funding, either full
or partial, for Iraq and Afghanistan without withdrawal language in the
bill we would send over to the Senate or at some later time next week?
Mr. HOYER. I anticipate at some point in time that will be the case.
Mr. BLUNT. I would hope that can be the case, and we'd hope for our
troops in the field and to prevent any layoffs that might occur between
now and the time we return in January.
Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield on that issue?
Mr. BLUNT. I would.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
As you know, I had a discussion with my good friend, and I know you
know him well, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England.
Obviously he is required, the Department of Defense is required under
contract agreements that if there is not funding at a certain point in
time, for them to send notice, not because they necessarily anticipate
that there will be a necessity to have RIFs, but because under the
agreement, when they contemplate running out of money, which would be
sometime in February, 60 days before that, they have to send out a
notice.
My expectation is that the Secretary will be sending us a letter. But
I think the Secretary's expectation, and I think the letter may say
this, his expectation is, pursuant to our conversations, that will not
be necessary nor does anybody contemplate that being done. And I
certainly want to say to any and all employees who are listening, that
is not going to happen.
Mr. BLUNT. I am glad with that assurance that won't happen, and I am
sure they will be, too. While we won't know on the 15th whether they
can run out of money by the date you mentioned, the middle of February,
it is very possible that we will know by the day we leave here, and a
January letter then would be required before we got back that indicated
that a furlough would happen.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield again?
Mr. BLUNT. I would.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
I am very hopeful and we are working very hard, as I know Mr. Obey is
and others, and I know Senator Reid is as well, trying to reach
agreement with the President.
Let me say respectfully that the discretionary spending that we have
provided for is less a percentage of the GDP in terms of the spending
of our national income than any of the bills that were passed from 2002
to 2006. We believe the differences are relatively small between the
executive and the legislative branches.
We are prepared, as you have undoubtedly read and, as a matter of
fact, you and I have discussed, to make some accommodations with the
President, as is appropriate, to try to negotiate those.
What we are not prepared to do is simply have the President say,
``Look, this is what I have determined you can do.'' He can veto, we
understand that, but we don't think that the proper place for the
Congress of the United States under article I of the Constitution,
which gives us the authority and puts in the Congress of the United
States, the Senate and the House, the responsibility to make policy and
appropriate funds for the priorities that we deem to be appropriate for
our national security and general welfare, we don't think that it is
appropriate to simply be given a number that we must meet. That is not
what the Founding Fathers contemplated. As you well know, the budget is
a relatively recent advent in terms of the President's authority over
the budget.
Having said that, we want to work with the President. We think that
the differences are very small. We think that they can be bridged
hopefully relatively easily, which is why we hope by next week we can
accomplish both of the issues you raise.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I hope you are right. I don't know
what the Founding Fathers contemplated for sure, the Founders when they
wrote the Constitution. I do know they gave the House the ability to
initiate spending bills and the President the ability to veto.
[[Page H14447]]
In the context of how much money we are really talking about, the
President added a 6.5 percent increase, and then the House-passed bill
added $23 billion to that, which is more than the individual budgets of
more than 35 of the States. So people, as they look at this discussion
that this isn't much money, it is more than all of the money spent by
35 or 36 of the States in the country. You know, I think in that
context, $23 billion is a significant amount of money.
Mr. HOYER. And the $196.4 billion that the President wants to spend
in Baghdad and Kabul is probably more than the budgets of those States
as well.
Mr. BLUNT. Well, that is absolutely true. And the money that we spend
to defend the country every day is important and it is the primary
responsibility of the Federal Government, and I agree with that.
Mr. HOYER. We agree.
Mr. BLUNT. On AMT, I am not sure the Senate has dealt with AMT yet,
but my understanding is that they may very well send that back without
the money to offset that tax relief in a tax increase. I am wondering
under what circumstances we might or might not see the alternative
minimum tax relief in the next 2 weeks.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question. We believe very,
very strongly, as you know, that the alternative minimum tax was never,
ever meant to apply to some of the people it may well be applied to
this tax year. We have passed legislation to prevent that. In that
legislation, as the gentleman knows, was also tax cuts for millions of
people on property taxes, on other taxes, tax relief for teachers who
buy things for their classroom, in effect, business expenses for making
sure that our kids are learning.
The Senate, as you know, tried to bring that bill, not that bill but
the chairman of the Finance Committee today made a unanimous consent to
place the alternative minimum tax relief bill on the floor of the
United States Senate without paying for it and it was objected to, as
you know, as you probably know, by a Republican Member of the Senate
because there was a refusal, apparently not an allowed amendment on the
flat tax. We think that is unfortunate.
In answer to your question, we hope the AMT, in fact, is passed by
the Senate. We hope that it is paid for. We have committed ourselves to
paying for things that we spend money on so our children don't have to
pay for them.
But we are going to be working very hard next week, I want to assure
the gentleman, to make sure that the AMT is, in fact, addressed so that
the 23 million people who are at risk of a tax increase and were never
intended to be, as both sides agree, do not have that reality come
April 15.
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. My view of that and most of our
Members' view of that is that those 23 million people are not paying
that tax this year, and so the idea that you have to replace that money
to keep them from paying it next year is the fallacy of the PAYGO
argument generally, as are many of the other extenders that you
mentioned, the supplies for teachers and other things that are tax
benefits they currently have, but that is obviously a fundamentally
different view of how we view noncollected taxes this year that would
be collected unless somehow what I consider to be very good tax
policies for teachers and others are extended.
On those tax extenders, the doctor payment issue is another issue
that I am wondering if the gentleman has any information on, and I
would yield on that as well. This is the doctor payment issue under
Medicare and the fact that they would take an automatic cut.
Mr. HOYER. As you know, we passed a bill earlier this year, some
months ago, which not only dealt with children's health insurance but
it also dealt with reimbursement to doctors, medical providers who will
be confronting on January 1 of this year a 10 percent decrease in
reimbursement. Many of them will not continue to serve Medicare
patients. We think that is a great problem.
Unfortunately, the Senate refused to go to conference on that bill.
We did have meetings on our SCHIP bill. Our SCHIP bill, our children's
health bill, was a part of the larger bill dealing with Medicare during
rural health, dealing with ensuring that nobody was disadvantaged by
any of the pay-fors in our bill, but the Senate would not go to
conference on that. The meetings that resulted essentially resulted in
taking the Senate bill on children's health insurance.
As you know, the Senate had indicated they were going to address the
Medicare reimbursement issue which we had already addressed.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that yesterday they decided they
either could not or were not going to do that. I talked to Mr. Rangel
just a few minutes ago about that issue. We are going to be talking
about that a little later today as to how we might address that. We
think, again, that is a critical need for us to address. But I can't
tell the gentleman exactly how that is going to be addressed because I
don't know what ability we have to work with the Senate on this
particular issue, but it needs to be addressed.
Mr. BLUNT. It does. As the gentleman knows, a month from today,
actually starting January 1, those new payment schedules would go into
effect which would go back to a cut in what those providers are being
paid for those same services almost 10 years ago. That is a significant
problem, and I am glad that the gentleman appreciates it and I am sad
that we have gotten right down to this last moment in the year and not
gotten to it yet.
You mentioned SCHIP. I know my good friend has worked hard to try to
get the votes to override a veto and now perhaps to pass another bill
since the President has the bill we had earlier passed. If that does
not happen, would you anticipate an extension of SCHIP? My view is that
the State programs and the Governors in those States should have some
assurance that they can move forward as we continue to work for a
better solution than I believe we have found so far. But assuming that
has not happened in weeks and doesn't happen in the next 2, would you
expect to see an extender, a bill, of the current program while we
continue to look for changes in that legislation? Or would that program
end on December 14 or 15 when this current CR ends?
{time} 1600
Mr. HOYER. Of course my friend could help me solve that problem very
easily. I just need 10 or 12 votes; and you are such an excellent whip,
I'm sure you could get those votes for me and we could cover those 4
million children. But if you don't give me those 10 votes, or 15, that
we need, we have no intention of leaving here without presenting for
the floor, which we hope will pass the Senate as well, an extension of
the existing law.
In addition to the extension of the existing law, I'm sure you've
talked to Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. I've talked to
Democratic Governors just yesterday. All of them are very concerned.
Missouri, as you well know, has a shortfall. A number of other States
have a shortfall, including my own, so there will be need to, if we're
going to simply extend, to also fund the shortfall, or children will be
off the program that are currently on the program.
In addition to that, as you well know, a very controversial
regulation was issued by the administration capping or requiring a 90
percent coverage of those under 200 percent or you can't participate
further in the program, can't expand the program. No State, as I
understand it, meets that obligation, so that we're also working on
that.
But the answer to your question is, we are certainly planning for, if
we cannot get, we hope to be able to get, frankly, in the near future,
in the next few days, hopefully, we've worked very, very hard in trying
to meet some of the concerns that some of your Members have had.
As you know, you and I and your leader had an opportunity to meet.
Mr. Boehner indicated he thought there was a significant number of
Republicans that would like to vote for the bill. But we got, as you
know, 45 Republicans who did vote for the bill.
We have had extraordinary meetings, and I think it's worth telling
the body. Mr. Dingell and myself, as well as Mr. Baucus and Mr.
Grassley and Mr. Hatch and Mr. Rockefeller, and from time to time, Mr.
Barton and Mr. Deal and others, Mr. Whip, literally spent about 50
hours over the last
[[Page H14448]]
month in meetings trying to come to a place where we could reach
agreement. Obviously, we're not there in terms of sufficient numbers to
think that we can, or are ready to, introduce a new bill. That would be
our preference, to introduce a bill that, after these long discussions,
that would enjoy hopefully 60, 70, 80 Members, which is the number your
leader used as possible to vote for such legislation and move that
through the Senate and send it to the President. That would be our
hope.
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman's work on this. I do know that
in terms of a bill that would continue this program, that a significant
majority of our Members would vote for that; and the bill that would
even expand the program, a number of our Members might vote for that.
But it has to be the right bill, structured in the right way.
I know you've spent a lot of time on that. I hope you can negotiate
even further from where you've been. But I also know that my staff and
your staff hopefully are even working together on this to determine
that exact right number that would continue the existing program to be
sure that shortfalls are met, and that the existing program and the
impact of that potential guideline on the existing program, and I think
I can assure my friend that there will be enough votes in the House,
including votes on our side, to easily extend the existing program and
cover those shortfalls while we work for a better program.
The last question I have is the gentleman's certainty about Friday. I
know a few weeks ago we had scheduled that these 2 weeks would be 3-day
weeks and the Members would be able to schedule things in their
districts on Mondays and Fridays. I think your sense is today that we
might very well be here on Friday, and I would appreciate some
clarification on that.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question. As the gentleman
knows, and I've been involved in this business for a long time, four
decades about, and whether it was in the State Senate, which had a
constitutional ending date, or in the House of Representatives, it's
very difficult to predict the last days of a session.
Now, I will tell you that the Speaker and I are working around the
clock, almost literally, to ensure that we can adjourn this first
session of the Congress of the United States on the 14th. We had hoped
the 13th, but we're letting Members know that the 14th, that's only 4
days from now. We've just gone through some pretty heavy lifting in
terms of the appropriation bills, in terms of the AMT, in terms of
SCHIP, in terms of Iraq and in terms of other matters that we need to
address before we leave here. But we think we can do it, and it is our
intention to do it.
But, obviously, there are things that are pending that we cannot
leave without doing, so that if we cannot get that done in that time
frame, we will have to see where we go from there.
But I want to make it very, very clear to everybody that the Speaker,
Senator Reid, and I have talked; and we are all very focused on the
14th being the day that we adjourn. The following week is the week
before Christmas. We believe that individuals need to be home. I need
to do shopping and decorating because all my family's coming to my
house from some parts of the country, so I need to be home. And I'm
sure every other Member shares that view.
So all I can tell my friend, and he knows this as well as I do, that
the unpredictability of the next 4 legislative days is such that I
can't make any guarantees, other than we are doing everything we can to
get the business that we've just discussed done. We may have some very
late nights on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; but we are hopeful
that we will get this done and not have to ask Members to come back the
week before Christmas.
Mr. BLUNT. Well, I'm hopeful that my friend has mentioned that date
again. Even after the experience of this week, we're still looking at
that date. It may be the triumph of hope over experience, but we may
all be motivated enough to get that done.
Mr. HOYER. Well, we've had some success this week. As you know, we
think we've passed a historic energy bill. Not only that, as my friend
knows, because he's from the State of our distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, we were able to go to conference today, which
has been somewhat contentious for a few days. We expect that conference
to be on the floor early next week. So we are moving ahead.
But as we've discussed, there are some issues of difficulty that we
haven't resolved that we need to resolve, and so we'll have to see
whether or not we will be successful.
Mr. BLUNT. Hopefully next Friday we won't even have to have a
discussion about the week's work coming up because we will be done. And
I appreciate the information of the gentleman.
I yield back.
____________________