[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 71 (Thursday, May 1, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2990-H2992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H2990]]
                          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, to 
give us some information about the schedule for next week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding.
  On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 
p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On 
Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. 
for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will 
meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are 
expected, and I underline ``expected,'' in the House.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
final list of suspension bills will be announced, as is our practice, 
by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider legislation to 
address the housing crisis, including bills reported out of the 
Financial Services Committee regarding the Federal Housing 
Administration and H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 
2008. We also hope to consider the farm bill conference report.
  Mr. BLUNT. On the housing question, you mentioned one bill. Is there 
a chance there will be two bills coming out of Financial Services that 
may be incorporated there in some way?
  Mr. HOYER. That is possible that they would be considered separately. 
I have not conferred with Mr. Frank, the chairman, so I can't 
definitively say that. I'm not absolutely sure, but the answer to your 
question is it's possible.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that.
  The gentleman also mentioned we had a possibility, or at least your 
hope that we would consider the farm bill conference report. I know 
there are some other conference reports out there, the budget, higher 
education, consumer product safety. We've got 11 working days left 
before we take the District Work Period at Memorial Day.
  I wonder if the gentleman has the sense of the likelihood that any 
specific one of those might also be available during that period of 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. If I had my druthers and I could make it happen, all of 
them would be within the context of that 11 days to which you refer. 
The chairman of the Budget Committee is on the floor. I know he's been 
working very, very hard, and I believe that we are close on the budget 
conference. I think that may well be a possibility.
  There may well be other conference reports available as well. I 
cannot tell you now specifically that there are bills that I am 
absolutely assured will be ready for that time frame, but I do believe 
that there will be significant pieces ready.
  The DOD authorization bill will, of course, be considered on the week 
of the 18th, I believe. That's the week of the 18th. The supplemental 
is obviously on our radar screen, and we hope to pass the supplemental 
before we leave as well. I was hoping for next week. That still is a 
possibility, but I'm not assured that they will be in place, ``they'' 
being Mr. Obey in our discussions. I'm not sure what his plans will be, 
whether he can move it ahead that quickly.
  The budget conference, of course the farm bill conference, the 
supplemental, and the DOD authorization are major pieces of legislation 
I want to see passed before we leave.
  Mr. BLUNT. I have a couple of questions about that.
  First of all, on the one you didn't mention, the higher education 
conference, I think the higher education, the current bill, expired 
last evening. Will we extend that? Would that be the gentleman's 
intention that we extend the current bill next week as well as the 
other work that's been listed?
  Mr. HOYER. That is an option as well as in the best of all possible 
worlds, the conference would be completed and we could pass the bill 
itself. If that does not happen, we will contemplate an extension.
  Mr. BLUNT. On the supplemental, you mentioned Mr. Obey. Is there now 
a possibility that the supplemental might be marked up in conference? I 
know during the 5 weeks now that we've talked about this, you had 
announced a hope that we would have the supplemental on the floor 
either in the last week in April or you every time have said, ``No 
later than the first week in May.'' So we're not there yet but we get 
there next week.
  You now would not anticipate that on the floor, is one question. The 
other is, where are we on the question whether the committee will mark 
that supplemental up or it will come to the floor in some other way.
  Mr. HOYER. I think that's, candidly, still up in the air. I know 
that's of concern to you. I understand that concern, but I will tell 
you again, I think it's still up in the air.
  Mr. Obey has been discussing with the Senate how they think we can 
best move forward as expeditiously as possible and so that we can try 
to achieve the end.
  As you know, there is substantial discussion about what is in the 
supplemental. The President, as you know, has indicated that and Mr. 
Nussel has indicated that if anything above the dollars asked 
essentially for Iraq and Afghanistan are included for investment here 
in this country on various different items, perhaps dealing with 
unemployment insurance, perhaps dealing with energy credits so that we 
can ensure the expansion of alternative enterprises for alternative 
fuels, those are all being discussed to see whether they are 
possibilities in terms of passage and, hopefully, signature by the 
President.
  We think that there are a number of items that are critically 
important to pass now that we think this bill is appropriate for but we 
don't have agreement on at this point in time. But Mr. Obey is working 
today and hopefully tomorrow, and we have a number of meetings today to 
see if we can move that forward.
  So I regret I do not have a more definitive answer for you, but that 
is the candid answer.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the candidness of that answer.
  I also remember and remind him that last week on the topic of the 
expanded GI benefits, the supplemental, under the rules we've been 
working with, would be considered, at least the wartime part of that, 
an emergency spending and not under the PAYGO rules. The GI benefits 
that have been talked about both here and on the other side of the 
building, I think last week you suggested that those were related to 
the Iraq-Afghanistan expenditures in a way that you thought that the 
majority might waive PAYGO and include those in the supplemental.
  I'm wondering if any of those other items that you discussed, like 
unemployment insurance, might also meet that criteria where if they 
were in the supplemental, they wouldn't have to comply with the PAYGO 
provisions of the current rules of the House.
  I would yield.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As it relates to the first item, the GI Bill, there is a 
comprehensive GI Bill, as you know, sponsored by Mr. Webb. Also Ms. 
Herseth over here and others have legislation which tries to respond to 
the critical need that our veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq 
now have because they have substantially less generous benefits and, 
therefore, less opportunity to reintegrate themselves into the 
community and stabilize themselves and their families. We believe that 
is a cost of the war.
  I don't believe that under the current suggestion, and I'm not 
suggesting that it's in or out at this point in time, I'm not 
suggesting there is anything in or out in terms of proposal, but it is 
my belief that that would not require a waiver of the PAYGO given the 
context in which it may be considered. What I mean by that, and not to 
be too esoteric, is that we may respond to the need this coming year as 
opposed to a longer term.
  Mr. BLUNT. Again, would that apply if we look at it as an economic 
provision to the bill to the unemployment insurance and other things as 
well?
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I would.
  Mr. HOYER. As you know, we came together and we agreed on the passage 
of a stimulus package. We passed a stimulus package because we thought 
our economy was either about to go in recession or was in recession--
not at the time when we passed it, but that

[[Page H2991]]

seems to be the case now--and the stimulus package was designed to 
either keep us out or to bring us out of a recession and to try to help 
our people who are at risk. As you know, we did that on an emergency 
basis. The reason we did that on an emergency basis, we felt, in terms 
of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at 
the same time. So the answer to your question, for instance, on 
unemployment insurance, that may well fall in the same category from 
our perspective.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that.
  I would suggest if that was the criteria, that on the expired 
research and development credits or the expired deductibility of sales 
tax from income tax in those States that had that deductibility for a 
few years ending on December 31, or even on the alternative minimum tax 
protection for people who don't pay that tax now, it seems to me they 
would meet that same criteria of having negative economic impact as we 
let those research and development credits expire or as we no longer 
allow people in Florida and Texas and other States to deduct their 
sales tax before they pay their income tax or if we let the AMT patch 
extend to a number of people. I don't know if there is a way to handle 
those issues under that same umbrella of economic impact or not, but I 
would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observations. I think he and 
I have a difference on the perception of some of the items that he 
mentioned as being analogous to some of the other items that we have 
discussed.
  On the AMT, for instance, there is a disagreement on that alternative 
minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was not intended, I don't 
think by any of us, to impact the people that it is now impacting. I 
believe strongly that we ought to fix the AMT, not just for this coming 
year, but permanently, and we ought to pay for that. And the reason I 
think that we ought to do that is, A, it clearly falls within the ambit 
of PAYGO, and secondly, because I think that our generation incurred 
this liability and we ought to pay for that liability.
  But some of the things that we have already mentioned I think are 
more analogous, not to tax extenders, giving additional tax relief or 
fixing the AMT, but are, as the UI is, unemployment insurance, directed 
to an emergency that confronts us as a result of a substantial downturn 
in the economy, which is analogous, I think, to the stimulus package, 
which is why we didn't consider that to be a PAYGO issue and were 
prepared not to address it in a PAYGO way.
  Mr. BLUNT. I hear that answer and I respect it, but I also believe 
that when we've let these tax policies expire, they have some of the 
same economic consequences. I suppose that can be debated when we get 
to that point in the debate. But sort of selective waiving of PAYGO, I 
hope we have developed some principles here that can maybe apply to 
some other things as well. I think we've discussed that and I 
appreciate the fact that we've had a difference on this for some time.
  I mentioned a couple of States that are particularly impacted by the 
credit situation that we face right now on the sales tax deductibility. 
That's just another burden on taxpayers that may be dealing with 
another problem that's part of the overall economic challenge we face 
right now. And just like the stimulus package waived PAYGO to try to 
help solve this problem, I'd suggest that there may be items beyond 
unemployment insurance that equally are related and may be even more 
contributory to the problem than unemployment insurance.
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You mentioned the States. One of the things that we're very concerned 
about is the very substantial fiscal adverse impact to the States that 
will be caused by the change in the Medicaid regulations proposed by 
the administration. That is one of the items under consideration 
because that change, as I understand it from Mr. Waxman--as a matter of 
fact, we just talked about it--will have a very great adverse financial 
impact on the States. I'm sure you received a letter similar to the one 
that I received from both Democratic and Republican Governors asking us 
to address that.
  So there clearly are some items which have impact on the States. Very 
frankly the discussion is, how many of those do we try to address, if 
any, in the supplemental? How many do we address in the stimulus 
package? Or how many do we address in separate legislation?
  One of the positive aspects of the stimulus package, as you will 
recall because you and I were in the room, was that Secretary Paulson, 
on behalf of the administration, the Speaker, you and I and Mr. Boehner 
sat down together and talked about how we can get from where we were to 
where we wanted to get, and we came to agreement. We have been unable 
to do that, as you know, on some of these things that we think are of 
serious concern, and the Medicaid regulations are an example of that.

  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. And I do recall those discussions.
  Also, the tax policies that encourage purchases that create jobs are 
in place. And as all of us on the floor here know, the initial checks 
that go out as part of the stimulus package are going out in the next 
few days over the next couple of months. And that, hopefully, will be 
helpful.
  On the supplemental, anything that we can do, that I can do, that our 
side can do to encourage going through the committee in the regular 
process, we would like to do that. In the last 20 years, under both 
Democrats and Republicans, there have been 36 supplementals. All but 
seven of them went through the committee. And those seven did not go 
through the committee based on a bipartisan decision that Katrina or 9/
11 or some other event had occurred where Members on both sides of the 
aisle essentially said we know what needs to be done here, we're in 
agreement with it, let's take a bill to the floor. In the other 29 
instances where there was not bipartisan agreement, every supplemental 
went through the committee.
  In the 12 years that we were in the majority, there were 20 
supplementals. None of them had a closed rule, all of them except the 
ones I mentioned by bipartisan agreement went through the committee, 
and 10 of them had an absolutely open rule where we brought the 
supplemental to the floor and the rule essentially said bring on every 
amendment that you want to and we'll debate it until the amendments are 
exhausted. That's a time-honored process not just under the Democrat 
majority, but under the Republican majority. I'd like to again 
encourage that we do whatever we can do to further that discussion that 
you suggested may be going on now that would have the committee option 
as one of the options.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. He has made it 
before. I will say that other Members, for whom I have a great deal of 
respect, on your side of the aisle have discussed this with me. I think 
your point is well taken, and that is under discussion.
  Mr. BLUNT. I have one other question that wasn't on a list and not on 
an immediate schedule, but one of our Members from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 
had asked me if I would bring up with you the topic of H.R. 3058. It's 
a bill sponsored by Mr. DeFazio from Oregon on public lands, 
communities transition. It was introduced last July, voted out of 
Resources in December. The Agriculture Committee has now discharged the 
bill. This involves schools in western lands, very important to our 
western Members on both sides.
  Mr. Walden has asked me to ask you, first of all, is there any 
information about when that might be scheduled? And secondly, to make 
the request that that bill be scheduled.
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I don't have information now about the status of that bill, where it 
is. Obviously it's a bipartisan bill, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Walden and 
others. It is a bill that, very frankly, has been brought up in the 
context of whether it might be included in some other pieces of 
legislation, so that it obviously has bipartisan support. I will look 
at it and discuss it with Mr. DeFazio and let you know where we are on 
it.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I do know the gentleman mentioned this week that in the 11 days left 
before this next work period at home, we

[[Page H2992]]

might have a flurry of activity. And I would suggest, you've seen lots 
of interest on our side, that hopefully part of that flurry of activity 
could be an energy bill. I think now we're in the 18th or 19th straight 
day of highest gasoline prices ever. Tomorrow may be the 19th or 20th 
straight day of that. That would be one of the things that we would 
certainly like to see Members of the House address before we leave here 
for the Memorial Day break.
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Without going into the polemics of the politics that we exchange on 
this of what legislation we have passed through here, which was, we 
think, directed at trying to address the short-term problems, dealing 
with OPEC, dealing with manipulation of prices, dealing with price 
gouging, which many, if not all of you, on your side voted against. 
Suffice it to say I think all of us are concerned about the high prices 
of gasoline. Suffice it to say that all of us, if we're honest, know 
that in the short term it's going to be very difficult to impact on 
that. Thirdly, that the solution longer term is obviously moving 
towards alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy.
  We passed a major piece of legislation last year. Happily we passed 
it in somewhat of a bipartisan fashion, not totally, I don't mean 
everybody unanimously voted for it. But the President did sign it. The 
President said it was a step forward. For the first time in a very long 
period of time it said our automobiles need to be more efficient. For 
the first time in a very long time it required the use of alternative 
fuels. So that we addressed initially, and there's much more that needs 
to be done, longer term solutions.
  Short-term solutions are tough. There is discussion about the SPR. 
There are discussions about taxes, gasoline taxes, as you know. There 
are other discussions. If you have ideas, we would be glad to have them 
in terms of what can be done in the short term.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.
  I think we've brought some ideas in the last couple of weeks to the 
floor on bills that didn't necessarily relate to this and we will 
probably have more that we will be talking about.
  I yield back.

                          ____________________