[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 28302-28304]
[From the U.S. 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, at this time I am pleased to yield to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for next week and, 
perhaps, the coming weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Wednesday of next week at 2 
p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under 
suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to 
the Members' offices by the end of today. Any votes called on these 
measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
  On Thursday the House will convene at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business. We plan to consider the conference report on H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2003, and the conference report on H.R. 2754, the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
  Now for the following week, the week of November 17, we expect our 
first votes to occur after 6:30 p.m. on Monday. We will confirm this 
schedule early next week as we get a better sense of the workload and 
timing for completion of the various conference reports. But Members 
should know that there is a good chance that we would be in session 
through Saturday, November 22.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be glad 
to answer any questions.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not sure by the 
announcement regarding next week's schedule. Is it the gentleman's 
expectation that we will be in next Friday or not?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate being in next Friday.
  Mr. HOYER. All right. So we will be off Friday. Now, is the gentleman 
pretty definite on the following Monday that we will be in at 6:30 as 
opposed to the normal Tuesday?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as definite as one can be. But as I 
mentioned, we will evaluate the workload for that week. If at all 
possible, we could probably start on Tuesday. But I think Members need 
to plan that we could very well have votes on Monday night.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader. Last week we 
passed a continuing resolution until November 21. The gentleman did not 
indicate in his discussion of the schedule for the next 2 weeks the 
balance of appropriations bills that are pending, nor did he mention an 
omnibus appropriation bill. Can he clarify and give us his best 
thinking at this point in time as to where we are on the CR for 
November 21 and being able to leave on November 21? I know the 
gentleman mentioned the possibility of being here on Saturday, November 
22. And does the gentleman expect any appropriations bills other than 
the energy and water, which he did reference would be on the floor 
either next week or the following week?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we have five 
conference reports completed. We have three more bills in conference 
and one more, agriculture, that we could be able to go to conference on 
next week. It is my understanding that the Senate may attempt to 
complete additional bills next week. But at some point I would 
anticipate that the Senate would ask us to consider several of the 
remaining bills in a larger package.
  When, and if, they do, we will try to do our best to maximize the 
House's position based on the bills that the House has already passed. 
The gentleman knows that the House has passed all 13 of the 
appropriations bills, and I would hope that whatever process is 
necessary to wrap up these appropriations measures we would be able to 
complete them by November 21, thereby not requiring another continuing 
resolution that week. However, if all that falls apart, obviously we 
would be considering a continuing resolution in that week.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that 
information. If that occurs, as the gentleman says may happen, if that 
occurs, can you give us your current thinking with reference to the 
date to which a further continuing resolution would be targeted?
  Mr. DeLAY. I cannot anticipate that right now. Those discussions have 
not gone on. Actually, people are focused on getting the appropriations 
process done by November 21.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, the FSC bill, Foreign 
Sales Corporations Extraterritorial Income legislation, you did not 
mention that. Can you tell me when or if you expect that bill to come 
to the floor? I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We do not intend to 
consider that, the tax proposal, next week, but would still like for 
the House to consider it before the end of this session and before the 
EU has the opportunity to retaliate against American businesses.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we too are concerned about the WTO's 
finding of noncompliance and the EU's assertion that if we do not act 
by the end of the year they are going to act. That is a $4 billion item 
possible cost to this country.
  My understanding is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has a 
bill. As the gentleman knows, there is an alternative available which, 
I think, frankly enjoys bipartisan support, at least the letters that 
are being sent around to colleagues would indicate that. In light of 
the fact that we want to pass legislation, Mr. Leader, can you assure 
us that the Crane-Rangel-Manzullo alternative would be allowed as a 
substitute to that piece of legislation to assure that we could, in 
fact, pass something?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that we would follow 
regular order and the traditions of the House. And a bill that comes 
from the Committee on Ways and Means is always tightly held in a rule. 
I cannot anticipate what the Committee on Rules may write at this 
particular time, but it has been our tradition in this House that at 
least one substitute or a motion to recommit, or both, have been 
allowed on bills that come from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation.
  With respect to the Labor-HHS-Education bill, which is the largest 
appropriation bill, as the gentleman knows, that still is outstanding, 
do you expect that we will have a freestanding conference report on 
that bill, or do you expect it to be rolled into an omnibus?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I hope, and I know, I hope 
that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill for 2004 would be considered 
freestanding and on its own. A lot of work has been put into that bill. 
The conference committee is working as hard as it can to

[[Page 28303]]

get it out before November 21. And as this House has been working so 
hard to have all these bills freestanding conference reports so that 
Members can consider them individually, I would hope that it would be 
freestanding and the House could vote on it. However, if things fall 
apart, it could be a candidate for the larger package.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the majority leader 
knows, there is substantial concern on this side of the aisle in this 
part of the House that some 206 or more districts, perhaps, will be 
left out of this bill in terms of consideration for individual 
education and/or health projects. I want to express our great concern 
about that. There has been a lot of discussion about it in the press, a 
lot of discussion about it on the floor. The gentleman does not 
necessarily need to comment on it, but I want to emphasize to him the 
great concern that we have, as two people who have served on the 
Committee on Appropriations. The majority leader is not on the 
Committee on Appropriations now, but he has served on that committee. I 
am not sure he has been on there 2 decades, but a long time. If that 
occurs, in my memory that would be the first time.
  Now, of course when Mr. Natcher was the Chair, there were no specific 
projects delineated for individual districts listed in that bill. But 
from the time that that started to be done in the mid-90s, this is the 
first time that I can recall on this bill or any other bill, that there 
has been a blanket preclusion of over 200 districts from participation 
in the investments made in those bills in the welfare of the American 
people. So I want to express that. The gentleman does not need to 
respond to that. I will yield to him if he wants to make a comment. He 
does not need to respond, but I want to reiterate that.
  Mr. Leader, on the conference report on energy, I also want to ask 
you about the labor-health because of the magnitude of these bills.

                              {time}  1230

  The energy bill, obviously, is a major piece of legislation, an 
important piece of legislation. For the past several weeks you and I 
have been talking about conferences. You indicated this bill is coming 
to the floor. I again bring to your attention, Mr. Leader, that our 
Members appointed by the Speaker to the conference have no knowledge of 
a meaningful conference having been held on this bill. They do not have 
any meaningful knowledge of what might be in the bill.
  That is true as well, I will tell the leader, of the labor-health 
bill. I am a conferee on the labor-health bill. I have received no 
notices of meetings. I have attended no meetings. I have learned of no 
meetings with respect to that bill. The lack of the ability of 
Democrats to participate in these conferences, again, I tell the leader 
from my perspective, is unprecedented. It is certainly not 
unprecedented when Members meet with them. One side of the aisle would 
talk about their strategies, their priorities, their objectives. But, 
historically, when conferences have met, both sides have been invited 
to attend. There has been discussion about issues.
  The energy bill which is contemplated to come to this floor next 
week, I tell the gentleman, our side does not perceive that has 
happened. They have not participated. And I know that there has been a 
pledge that the conferees will at least, even though they are not 
participating, not invited, not able to articulate their view, will at 
least get 48 hours receipt of the conference report for the opportunity 
to review it for 2 days before it comes to the floor.
  I ask the leader in the case of the energy bill, will that be the 
policy on this side of the aisle and, therefore, if the energy bill is 
coming on Wednesday or Thursday, will the conferees receive at least a 
copy of the conference report no later than Monday?
  Mr. DeLAY. After consulting with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), I am confident that the House will be able to take up this 
conference report next week; and if we go forward with that schedule, I 
can assure the gentleman that the language of the conference report 
will be circulated sometime on Monday so that the conferees will have 
the opportunity to review it before the conference committee completes 
its business.
  This schedule should also allow plenty of time for all Members of the 
House to review the conference report before it is scheduled. As the 
gentleman also knows, the conference is a long time coming. There was a 
full conference formal meeting on September 5. All Members were invited 
and I think all Members attended. But I would like to point out to the 
gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that in House committees alone there have been 
80 public hearings, 11 markups and 224 amendments considered on this 
bill. And since 2001 the House has dedicated 5 legislative days to 
debating the energy bill on the floor with 39 amendments considered.
  Since 2002, the energy conferees have held nine public meetings to 
debate the comprehensive national energy bill for a total of 24 hours 
and 47 minutes. And in 2003 alone, Republican and Democratic energy 
conference staff have met no less than 10 times for more than 48 hours 
of discussions. And, ultimately, the decision on whether or not there 
will be additional conference committees does not lie in the House 
because the Senate is chairing the conference. And should there be an 
additional meeting, I can assure the gentleman that all the Members on 
the House side of that conference will be invited to attend.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the key phrase there, Mr. Leader, is 
should a conference be required. You are having meetings. We know that. 
You are having discussions. We know that. I reiterate again, 
notwithstanding all your numbers there, the Democrats are not included.
  I will tell the gentleman further, as he knows, that in the other 
body the bill that passed the Senate was the Senate-passed bill from 
last year. Senator Domenici, who is one of the conferees on the floor, 
said we are going to substantially rewrite this bill in conference. So 
the debate on the floor seemed somewhat irrelevant. It was a device to 
get them to conference.
  So this conference, more than some others where real bills were 
passed in both Houses, is a very important venue for the formulation of 
policy. Democrats are not being given access to those considerations in 
a full manner. But I am pleased, Mr. Leader, that 48 hours prior to the 
conference meeting, that we will be getting, whenever that may occur, 
that we will be getting a copy of the marked up proposal so that we can 
consider that, digest it, and bring our views to the conference.
  I assume, Mr. Leader, that that conference will be unlike the FAA 
conference to which this body recommitted a bill, which never met as 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) pointed out on the floor, it 
never met, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 
lamented and, as a result, you have to waive the rules.
  Mr. Leader, with respect to Medicare, we are in the same position. Do 
you expect the Medicare prescription drug bill to be on the floor any 
time in the next 2 weeks?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is 
a very complicated bill. It is very extensive. It has taken hours, 
hundreds of hours of work on staff and Members' parts. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) is trying to put together a proposal that 
he can submit to the conference committee. Various Members from both 
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol have been offering him 
input on this proposal. And based on my conversations with the 
chairman, his proposal could come very soon, or at least in the next 2 
weeks. But I cannot predict for certain when the conference committee 
will meet to consider this proposal or when the House will vote on the 
Medicare conference report.
  I am aware of the anxieties many of the Members feel about the 
progress of the Medicare legislation, but the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), chairman of the conference, is working with all of the 
Members who want to improve the bill in order to craft a final product 
he can present to all the conferees.

[[Page 28304]]

  We know how important this legislation is to the credibility of this 
body and to the well-being of American seniors for years to come. So I 
am sure that you would understand the need not to hurry in this 
process. And so, that said, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is very close to completing years of work that have been put into this 
bill and has assured the leadership that he will have a proposal to 
present to all conferees in the very near future.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation; but, Mr. 
Leader, let me say something. Really what you just said is the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is meeting with all those who 
seek to improve the legislation. Improvement, of course, is in the eye 
of the beholder. There are 435 Members elected to this House, Mr. 
Leader, as we all know. Their perspective on what improves or harms 
legislation differs, sometimes very substantially. But our Founding 
Fathers, Mr. Leader, formed a House representing a diverse American 
public, from many regions of this country, many areas of every State. 
Every State has differences within that State. My State does. Your 
State does.
  To say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is only going 
to talk to those that he perceives as interested in improving that 
legislation is to say that a bill that passed this House by one vote 
after the roll was kept open for some 45 minutes is to say that at 
least half of this House will be excluded.
  Mr. Leader, that is not in my opinion and in the opinion of this side 
of the aisle, and I believe in the opinion of the American people, the 
way they expect this House to run. It is not the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Thomas) view of what improves or does not improve 
this bill that counts. It is each of us who are elected to represent 
our constituents and put on the table the alternatives we believe 
improve that bill. They ought to be considered. We do not believe that 
is being done, Mr. Leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I just have to say to the 
gentleman, I know the gentleman is trying to change the process of the 
House. We are not operating any differently than this House has always 
operated.
  Every Member that wants to have input on this bill can find ways to 
have input. It has been expressed time and time again by the leadership 
on your side of the aisle and others that they do not want this bill. 
They want a different kind of bill and a different approach.
  You have had that opportunity in presenting that approach and in 
presenting an alternative and a substitute for the will of the House, 
and the gentleman made a grand attempt to do that. He failed. He did 
not have the votes to do it.
  In that process we went to conference committee. Those Members that 
are willing to work with, instead of obstruct, the process of getting a 
Medicare bill to this floor have been consulted on both sides of the 
aisle by many different people, not just the chairman of the conference 
committee. So the process is open and available to those who are 
willing to work with us and be constructive and productive in getting a 
bill so that the House can vote on it. That is the way this place 
works. It is the way it has always worked.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, you and I may have a 
different perspective obviously. You recall, as I have discussed in the 
past, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Everybody was for the Patients' 
Bill of Rights. In fact, in the 106th Congress, as the leader will well 
recognize, when he was the whip and responsible for counting votes, the 
Patients' Bill of Rights passed this House with over 250 votes of 
people who saw it in a way that ought to pass, ought to be the law of 
the land.
  As you will recall, the Speaker appointed eight out of the nine 
Republican conferees who had opposed the bill. Now, maybe that is the 
way the House in your recollection has always worked where 250 people 
vote for something. It never came out of conference, not surprisingly, 
when you had eight out of nine of the Republican conferees in the 
majority that opposed the bill that were in the conference. So 
apparently if it is on your side of the aisle and you oppose something, 
locking it up in conference is okay. If you are on our side of the 
aisle and you want to see a Patients' Bill of Rights or you want to see 
a Medicare prescription bill and you want to see a prescription drug 
bill that does not eliminate Medicare, that provides for affordable and 
accessible health care at a price that can be afforded by all of our 
seniors, then somehow you are perceived as not wanting to improve the 
bill and, therefore, is not worth being included.
  As you know, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), one of the 
senior Members of this House, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) tried to have arrested not too long ago and thrown out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means by the Capitol Police.
  You will recall that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has now 
gone to where the conferees, theoretically, were meeting and was asked 
to leave. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, one of the seniors.
  Now, I will remind the chairman that Mr. Rostenkowski chaired this 
committee and invariably made sure that Republicans were, in fact, 
included, and invariably when bills came to the floor, he had 
Republicans supporting those bills and they worked with him. And you 
will recall that he worked with the President of the United States when 
we were in the majority to pass the 1986 tax bill. So that may be your 
recollection, Mr. Leader, of how the House runs.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, my recollection is completely 
different than yours.
  I can remember serving in the minority, too, and having the same 
frustrations that you have had. It is part of the frustrations of being 
in the minority.
  As the gentleman understands, we are not operating in this regard any 
differently than the gentleman operated when you were in the majority. 
You work with people that want to get a bill. You do not waste a lot of 
time with people that do not want a bill. And then you give everybody 
the opportunity through the Rules of the House to participate either in 
the full committee, formal conference committee meetings or here on the 
floor of the House, and certainly ultimately expressing themselves with 
their vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the leader. We disagree. 
Our recollections are not the same. Our experiences are not the same.
  Now, I have been here a little longer than the leader, but we have 
both been here a long time, and when we were in charge you complained 
as well. Therefore, you can empathize, as you say, with the pain that 
we feel in the minority.

                              {time}  1245

  But it is not the pain that we feel is so important, we want a bill. 
We may want a slightly different kind of bill than we think that the 
majority will report out on prescription drugs, but we want a bill. And 
the people who supported us want a bill, and they may want a bill that 
is slightly different; and democracy works when all sit down together 
and discuss their perspectives and try to forge a bill which 
accomplishes their objective. I do not think we are doing that. I 
lament that, and I do not think it is in the best interests of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not in the quality of legislation that both the 
gentleman from Texas and I want to pass, even if we see that quality 
somewhat differently. I thank the gentleman for the information he has 
given us.

                          ____________________