[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5360-5362]
[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, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the distinguished majority leader for purposes of inquiring 
about the calendar.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Whip yielding to me, and I 
would note, Mr. Speaker, that the House has completed its business for 
the week.
  While we expected to consider the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act 
today, some problems with the bill have arisen, and we intend to work 
through those problems over the next several days and hope to consider 
the bill in the very near future.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. The House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning hour and 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 early next week. There will 
be no votes in the House before 6:30 on Tuesday.
  On Wednesday, we expect to consider several health-related measures: 
the Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act, the Organ Donation 
Improvement Act, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, the 
Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act. We will 
also consider a bill addressing medical errors. We expect several of 
those measures to be considered under suspension of the rules.
  On Thursday, we expect to consider H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, to improve 
patients' access to health care and reduce health care costs by 
reforming our medical liability system, and that is the schedule for 
next week.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and happy to answer any questions.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information.
  I want to tell the gentleman I am of two minds on the fact that we 
have removed from floor consideration the Armed Forces Tax Fairness 
Act. Of two minds because I think all of us agree that the underlying 
bill was a bill that we should have passed today, indeed yesterday or 
the day before yesterday. It is an Act that tells our service people 
that we are sending into harm's way that we want to make sure that we 
can limit the financial consequences of that service to country, as 
much as we possibly can.
  So I lament the fact that we have had that removed from the schedule. 
However, I say I am of two minds because I am pleased that it was 
removed because we added to that bill extraneous pieces of legislation, 
which in and of themselves individually may have been subject to worthy 
debate. There was some in there that I thought were not, but having 
said that, I would hope that when this bill is reported back that it 
can be presented in a form that all 435 of us can vote for, because 435 
of us, in my opinion, are for it.
  So, as I say, I am of two minds. I am sorry that it is delayed, but I 
am sure that it will come back, hopefully soon, and that we can pass it 
in the form that all of us support it, and I would ask the gentleman, 
in that vein, does the gentleman know if this bill will be coming back 
next week?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, first, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. 
I might also add, the gentleman should never have to apologize for a 
delay, but as the gentleman knows, the Committee on Ways and Means 
worked on this bill and marked it up last week in open process and 
within the rules of their committee and the House and many of the 
provisions that were added to the Military Tax Fairness bill were 
added, in many cases, by voice vote and unanimous votes. Some were 
controversial, but the committee acted in good faith and marked up the 
bill and there was full participation by every Member on that 
committee.
  Unfortunately, as the bill headed towards the floor, as the gentleman 
knows, there were concerns raised by our Members and as well as the 
gentleman's Members, and we felt compelled that we needed to address 
those concerns before we actually bring it to the floor, and that is 
what we are going to try to do in the next several days, and hopefully, 
we will get a bill that everybody can vote for.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
  To press the point, I understand that my colleagues need to work on 
that and try to work out whatever problems existed, but in light of 
that, it is the gentleman's expectation he will be able to work out 
those problems next week so we can pass this bill in a form that will 
allow us to pass it with the overwhelming support that I think it has 
on this floor if it is the base bill? I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I want this bill as much as anybody. It is very, very important, as 
the gentleman has already stated. It is important to give our military 
families the tax relief that they deserve, and we want to do this.
  I remind the gentleman that this bill, the Military Armed Services 
Tax Fairness Act, has passed this House almost unanimously twice, and 
we hope that we can get it up here just as soon as possible. As soon as 
we get everything ironed out and the bill ripens a little bit, we will 
bring it to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and in an effort again to be helpful, 
I think that the majority leader is correct. Everybody wants this bill 
to pass, and the shame of it not passing today is, I am sure the 
gentleman shares, is that we somehow sent a message to our Armed Forces 
personnel arrayed across this globe, and particularly in the Middle 
East, at risk and they look to this capital and know full well that 
this bill is passed with over 400 votes and must be concluding to 
themselves that it was politics and political division that undermined 
the passage this day.
  So I know my colleague is working towards this objective. This is not 
a criticism of the gentleman, and it was an open session in the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and as my colleague recalls, I am sure, 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, a Republican, raised the issue that this was a real 
problem, in open session, in committee.
  So it was obviously on both sides of the aisle that we are concerned 
about the fact that we politicized an otherwise bipartisan, nonpartisan 
objective that we wanted to achieve, and I look forward to that coming 
back hopefully in the posture that it was in when we, 400 of us plus, 
came together to pass that legislation. So I would hope that can 
happen.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was absolutely right. It was an 
open process in the committee, and I may stand corrected, but I believe 
there were Democrat amendments approved by the committee as well as 
Republican amendments approved by the committee in developing what at 
least

[[Page 5361]]

the committee thought was a bipartisan bill. So, unfortunately, these 
things happen in the legislative process, and fortunately, we can 
correct those problems hopefully.
  Mr. HOYER. I suppose whether it was a bipartisan bill or not is in 
the eye of the definer, I suppose, and notwithstanding that, I would 
hope, again, it would come back in a form that all of us could vote for 
it and it would not be extraneous matters.
  Those extraneous matters may well have merit, but why argue them on 
their merit or demerit, and we ought not to hold hostage our men and 
women in the Armed Forces, in harm's way, families disrupted by being 
called to service. We ought not to say to them anything but that we are 
prepared to act together, we are prepared to act quickly and we are 
prepared to make sure that, to the extent we can, we will diminish the 
financial burden that their service to our country requires.
  On the medical malpractice bill that the gentleman indicates will be 
on the floor next week, on today's major piece of legislation which we 
have been discussing, the Committee on Rules denied two of our ranking 
members' ability to offer key amendments, and we are very concerned 
about that. Can the leader inform me if he knows what kind of rule 
there will be for the medical malpractice bill, what he anticipates 
will be in order?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there has been any 
discussion as to what kind of rule we would bring to the floor in order 
to bring the medical justice bill to the floor.
  In the past, we have always, on this kind of legislation, allowed the 
minority to have a substitute. The chairman of the Committee on Rules 
obviously, along with the Committee on Rules, will consider amendments 
that other Members may offer, and as the gentleman well knows, the rule 
will be written sometime next week, so that we can bring the bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his comments. I am 
aware of the fact that the Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily 
advantaged by the addition of a new chief staffer on that committee who 
will, I think, add greatly to the consideration of that committee of 
alternatives.
  Mr. Pitts is a man that I have found to be fair and knowledgeable 
with respect to this House. He is as well an individual who was 
involved when the Republicans were in the minority of lamenting the 
fact that we did not give fair and full opportunity of loyal opposition 
to offer alternative proposals, and I would hope that we would reverse, 
frankly, the practice that has gone from 1995 to date where 
increasingly we have reduced the opportunity of the minority party to 
offer alternatives, either in the nature of substitutes or in 
amendments to the base bill.
  I say that very seriously because I think that my colleagues were 
frankly correct when they were in the minority, making the proposition 
that that would improve legislation, and we ought to vote it up or 
down. If it was good when the gentleman was in the minority, presumably 
that same principle is good when they are in the majority.
  We are tested somewhat when the shoe shifts from foot to foot to see 
where we want to put that foot I suppose, but I would hope that on this 
bill, which is a controversial bill, a bill, that is, we believe has 
great consequence for patients, for doctors, for hospitals, we want to 
make sure that our people have the best medical service available to 
them and that our doctors and that our hospitals and that our patients 
have the ability to work with one another to effect that. We have some 
ideas on that. We have some ideas how that can be effected, and we are 
hopeful, respectfully, and we would urge that the Committee on Rules 
give us a full and fair opportunity to present our alternative ideas if 
we have them. If we do not have them when we support your proposals, 
then fine, but if we have alternative ideas, we would urge on 
legislation of such great consequence to the American public that we 
fully debate options and ways and means of solving the problems that we 
are addressing.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, and 
the gentleman said earlier it is all in the eyes of the beholder. In 
the eyes of this beholder, we think we have been more than generous 
with the minority, and in showing that, to entice Mr. Pitts to come 
work for the Committee on Rules shows our generosity to the minority 
because he is a very fair man, a very creative man in dealing with 
rules and really understands how this House works, and we hoped that by 
Mr. Pitts coming to work for the Committee on Rules it was a signal to 
everyone in the House that everyone in the House would be treated 
fairly.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments. I do not want to prolong this too much.
  I want to say with all sincerity, I share the gentleman's view of Mr. 
Pitts. I have worked with him over a long period of time. I have 
extraordinary respect and affection and regard for Bob Michel, for whom 
he worked effectively and for a long time.

                              {time}  1315

  I want to tell the gentleman, as sincerely as I can say on this 
floor, caring about this institution, frankly, if Billy Pitts is making 
the determination of what he thinks is fair or not fair, from his 
perspective from a long time in the minority, as to what the minority's 
rights ought to be in terms of offering alternatives on this floor, of 
having time to debate on this floor, of having individual amendments 
considered, I will tell the gentleman that I am confident that it will 
be done fairly.
  But I will also tell the gentleman with equal sincerity that I have 
had my staff do an analysis from 1995 to date; and there has been, from 
1995 to 2002, an almost straight-line reduction in the alternatives in 
bills allowed to the minority as we consider major pieces of 
legislation. I do not think that is good for our country, I do not 
think it is good for this institution, and it is not good for the 
comity between our two parties.
  The gentleman from Texas and I have had an opportunity to work 
closely together on many items of great concern to this institution. We 
have worked well together. The gentleman and I have very serious 
disagreements on issues, but we do not have disagreements on the fact 
that this institution ought to operate as effectively as possible on 
behalf of our country. We share that in common, and I know we will 
continue to share that in common. But I really sincerely urge the 
gentleman, as the leader of his party on this floor and working with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and Mr. Pitts, to say to the 
American public and to this institution that we are prepared to debate 
these matters, we are prepared to debate these matters fully and fairly 
and give options to the minority party.
  I will say to my friend there was some discussion in our party. We 
had one motion, as the gentleman knows, to adjourn, and there was some 
discussion that we ought to make many more motions and have disruption. 
We did not do that. But I will tell my friend that there is great 
concern on this side of the aisle that if we do not have a fair and 
open system to consider legislation that we will not be as cooperative 
as we otherwise would like to be, and so that the American public can 
be best served.
  On the budget, Mr. Leader, if I can, when do we expect the budget to 
be on the floor?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. The distinguished whip understands that the Committee on 
the Budget is working as we speak, and continues to work to develop a 
product that they can mark up in the very near future. We fully expect 
to move a budget resolution through the House under a time frame that 
gives us ample opportunity to have a conference with

[[Page 5362]]

 the Senate and complete the budget resolution by April 15, as required 
by law.
  It is a very ambitious schedule, I know; and it is putting a lot of 
pressure on a lot of Members to make a lot of decisions in a very short 
period of time. But we feel very strongly that we need to get this 
budget done as quickly as possible.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. One additional question, which this 
is sort of a follow-up on what I have just discussed. In the past, as 
the gentleman knows, we have had a number of substitutes which have 
been offered. Our Congressional Black Caucus has offered substitutes, 
our Blue Dog Caucus has offered substitutes, and I know the gentleman 
will be happy to hear that it is fully my expectation that the minority 
on the Committee on the Budget will have a Democratic alternative. I 
noted that the gentleman urges us to do that; and he and I share that 
view, and we are going to do that. But will we be allowed, Mr. Leader, 
to offer those substitutes as we have in the past as well as offer 
amendments that are requested?
  I realize the gentleman cannot answer to all the amendments, because 
I do not know what amendments will be asked for; but will there be 
consideration of valid amendments that have broad-based support?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We want to follow 
precedent as to how we want to approach the debate on the budget, and 
certainly I do not want to make decisions for the Committee on Rules. 
They are more than capable of making their own decisions about how to 
bring the budget to the floor and what kind of debate we will have. But 
as the gentleman has already noted, we have always been open to 
alternatives to the majority's budget as laid out by the Committee on 
the Budget.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has always had a substitute and others 
have had substitutes. I think this is because it is such an important 
issue, the budget of this Nation and its government; and we are hoping 
to have as open a debate as possible.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman very much for those comments.

                          ____________________