[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20114-20117]
[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 would be glad to yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purpose 
of informing us of the schedule for next week.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, next week the House will convene on Monday 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 Members' offices by the end of this week. We may 
also consider one or more motions to go to conference. Any votes called 
on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday and the balance of the week, it is likely that we will 
consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We also 
expect to consider three bills under a rule: S. 878, the Bankruptcy 
Judgeship Act; H.R. 5107, the Justice For All Act; and H.R. 10, the 9/
11 Commission Implementation Act.

[[Page 20115]]

  In addition, there are a number of potential conference reports that 
we are working through, including several appropriations bills, the 
American Jobs Creation Act, and the Department of Defense Authorization 
bill. Members should be aware that these conference reports may be 
brought to the floor at any time next week.
  Finally, I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that we are expecting to 
consider a second supplemental request for disaster relief sometime 
next week. We may have additional requests resulting from Hurricane 
Jeanne, so we are working through these requests and trying to figure 
out how best to address these needs.
  Obviously, we are expecting a very busy week. Members should expect 
to work some late nights and possibly into Friday evening or Saturday 
as we resolve these important pieces of legislation.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be happy to answer any 
questions he may have.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for the 
information. I want to assure the leader, as he says we ought to be, 
that the Members on this side are, in fact, prepared to spend the time 
necessary to address the important issues, as the leader requests. And 
I want to assure the leader of our cooperation in being ready to do our 
work.
  Mr. Leader, initially, may I ask, the motions to instruct, can the 
gentleman give us a time when those might occur, and will they occur 
relatively close to the votes, the suspension votes at the end of the 
day? I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As the 
gentleman knows, we have three appropriations bills that are out there 
that are eligible for motions to instruct. I do not know of any others. 
They are available when those Members want to bring a motion to 
instruct, and we are trying to fit them in as best we can during the 
week.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information.
  Mr. Leader, as all of us know, today is the end of the current fiscal 
year, and 12 of the 13 2005 appropriation bills have not been passed. 
We do not have a budget. The new fiscal year starts tomorrow. The 
highway program is still pending. We extended that for 8 months. The 
FSC bill, which is subjecting businesses in the country doing business 
in Europe to an additional 11 percent tariff is still not passed. The 
energy bill, obviously we have not gotten to at this point in time. We 
have not enacted legislation on the intelligence apparatus, although I 
understand the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act that the gentleman 
speaks to.
  Mr. Leader, on that, might I ask this question: there is a bill in 
the Senate and there is a bill that has been introduced in the House 
that mirrors essentially the 9/11 Commission report. Is that the bill 
to which the gentleman is referring, or the bill that is in the process 
apparently of being marked up and, apparently, at some point in time, 
will be put together to come to the floor? Which of those three 
alternatives does the gentleman refer to? I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
gentleman touched on many issues; I will take the 9/11 Commission 
Implementation Act first.
  I do not agree with the gentleman's characterization of the Senate 
bill, because what I have seen in the Senate and what they are debating 
nowhere mirrors the 9/11 Commission Report or all of its 
recommendations.

                              {time}  1745

  The bill being marked up by the House all of this week does mirror 
every recommendation by the 9/11 Commission in one way or another, and 
that is why it has taken us longer to get it through all our 12 
committees. It is going to take us a little longer to get it to the 
floor. I expect that, looking at all the work that needs to be done in 
order to bring that bill to the floor, we would have to pass that bill 
sometime next week, probably at the end of the week. I believe there is 
a good chance that the Senate could pass their version even this week.
  Assuming that both bodies pass next week, I would expect that we 
could appoint conferees next week and work towards completing a 
conference report as soon as possible. In planning their schedules, 
Members should know that a conference report could be completed later 
in October, and that if it was completed, the House would certainly 
come back and vote on it.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, on that last point, I have heard a 
rumor or discussion about the possibility of coming back on November 1, 
the day before the election to vote on the conference report. Can the 
majority leader tell me whether there is any merit to that speculation? 
I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman informing me of 
rumors, but that is a rumor that I have not yet heard nor has anyone 
discussed such a thing. I would hope that the conference committee 
could go to work immediately and complete this as soon as possible. It 
is important.
  The conference report, as it comes out, I am sure will have many 
reforms that need to be implemented to keep the American people and 
American families safer, and we want to get it out as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's assertion of 
wanting to keep America safe, and I think that he speaks for 435 of us 
in that regard. He certainly speaks for me, but I think he speaks for 
all of us.
  In that vein, as I indicated to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) two weeks ago, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, while 
we apparently have a difference of opinion on the Senate bill, which is 
introduced here in a bipartisan fashion on this side of the Capitol, I 
believe that we have overwhelming support on this side for that 
proposition. In light of the fact that we are interested, as the 
gentleman says, in protecting America and implementing this legislation 
in as timely a fashion as possible, might it not be in pursuit of that 
objective advisable to allow that bill to be on the floor either in 
lieu of the bill that, frankly, has been marked up by my colleague's 
party exclusively?
  I have talked to all of our ranking members on the committees that 
the gentleman talked to. All of them believe they have been informed of 
what was going on, but they were not participants in the drafting of 
the legislation. As a result, there may be greater contention than 
would be hopefully called for if, in fact, we want to pass the 
legislation as quickly as possible.
  In addition, it is my understanding that there are substantial 
differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, which may 
require a very long conference, rather than short conference, if we do 
not pass something that is relatively compatible in the first instance.
  I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brings up many issues.
  First and foremost, I do not know if the gentleman has been advised, 
but I would refer the gentleman to the votes of the committees that 
have been marking up this bill. If I do recall exactly what the vote 
was, it was a very bipartisan effort. I think and I hope that the bill 
that is coming to the House floor is very strongly supported by both 
sides.
  In the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for instance, I 
think there was a 17-to-2 vote in passing that bill out. Now, 17 to two 
tells me that most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans voted 
for that bill. So I am very encouraged by the markups that we are 
having and the kind of support that the Democrats and Republicans are 
showing for the product that is being put together.
  Having said that, the gentleman may support the bill that came out of 
the Senate committee. I looked at it. I think it is woefully lacking in 
sufficient reforms, particularly in immigration policy, border 
security, law enforcement. It basically is a bill that creates a 
national intelligence director and a counterterrorism center. There is 
more to protecting the American people than creating a new bureaucracy 
and keeping our borders safe, giving our law enforcement officials more 
tools to go after terrorists. There are many things that we need to be 
doing.

[[Page 20116]]

  Having said that, the bill the gentleman refers to may not be the 
bill that comes out of the Senate because I have been informed that 
there are over 100 amendments, 100 amendments, filed for the debate in 
the other body. So who knows what that bill is going to look like when 
it comes out of the other body, and I think it would be highly 
irresponsible for this House to pick up something that came out of the 
Senate committee and bring it down here on the floor, unseen by most 
Members and not worked on by our committees, and just vote on it, up 
and down. I do not think that keeps the American people safer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will simply observe 
that although the votes may have been bipartisan, and I will tell my 
colleague very honestly, there is no confusion over here on the timing 
of this bill. The gentleman expects Democrats to either vote for it or 
to be attacked about being against protecting the American people if 
they vote against it. We went through the creation of a bureaucracy, 
the Homeland Security Department. I voted against it. I think it was 
not what was needed. What was needed was the coordination of 
information. I said that at the time.
  The commission in a bipartisan way has said that is what is needed. 
We still know that there is not the kind of coordination of information 
gathering, analysis and recommendation for implementation of action 
based upon the information gathered that we would like to have. The 9/
11 Commission found that.
  Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission, as I understand it, has indicated 
support of the Senate bill as it came out of committee.
  Now, there are obviously a lot of other things that need to be dealt 
with, including items that are either in the PATRIOT Act or could have 
been in the PATRIOT Act. Those items in some respects are very 
controversial. One of the problems, very frankly, that we have found in 
getting legislation passed, as the gentleman knows, in a relatively 
short period of time has been the addition of very controversial items, 
not necessarily related directly to what the 9/11 Commission had 
recommended, and because of the controversial nature of those 
additions, as it has occurred in other legislation, will slow that 
legislation down.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman 
obviously did not read the 9/11 Commission recommendations because many 
of those recommendations were very general in nature, very unspecific. 
Yet, we took their recommendations in those areas and did actual 
detailed pieces of legislation, much beyond what the 9/11 Commission 
even envisioned because they did not have the expertise to recommend 
specific items.
  It is unfortunate the gentleman questions my motive, but I must tell 
the gentleman that ever since the 9/11 Commission has come out we have 
reached out to any Democrat who is willing to work on this issue. Those 
Democrats that have been willing to work on those issues, we have been 
working with them, and I have not been privy to every discussion or 
every meeting on this issue, particularly within the committees, but I 
think if my colleague will go back and check with his ranking members, 
those who wanted to work on the legislation were more than just 
informed. They have a very big part to play, particularly in the 
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations. 
So we worked with the willing Democrats that wanted to work on this 
issue rather than to have a political issue, and they had a very big 
part to play in it. I think that is reflected in the kinds of votes we 
are getting coming out of committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his response, and let me assure the gentleman I did not think I 
questioned the gentleman's motives. I may question the results of 
actions we take, but I do not intend to question the majority leader's 
motives in any event. I do not think that would be appropriate nor do I 
do it, and if the gentleman took it to be that, I apologize because I 
do not question. I may have different motives of my own and I may not 
agree with him, but I do not question his motives. I may question his 
judgment. I may question that which is for or against but not his 
motives.
  I am not going to prolong the discussion on this because we are going 
to have discussion about this next week, but I would like to make one 
example of something that we feel strongly about that the 9/11 
Commission felt strongly about, which the bill at least that we have 
seen does not deal with.
  One of the concerns which the Commission had was that we are not 
moving quickly enough or effectively enough to identify and to secure 
materials which could be used for the production of or creation of 
nuclear weapons, even dirty bombs. The Commission spoke to that 
directly. The Senate bill speaks to that, and the bill introduced in 
the House speaks to that, at least at the point yesterday, and I am not 
sure whether markups have occurred in committees. I guess, some 
committees, the answer to that is yes; some no, but that was not 
addressed. So, at least in that one instance, and I have got about 15 
others but I am not going to prolong and go through those, that was not 
addressed in the gentleman's bill, while some other things that the 
commission did not deal with are addressed, and I understand my 
colleague's observation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, first of all, I 
do not think this is a proper forum to debate the bill, and I am not 
prepared to debate the bill.
  I have not personally been able to go over the volumes of work that 
has been done by 12 committees. So the provision that the gentleman may 
be speaking to, all I can tell him is that I remember in the list of 
things that were presented to me a day or so ago, it did address that 
very issue. I can go back and look at it, but the gentleman will have 
plenty of opportunity during the debate of this bill to debate the bill 
up or down, to amend it, to substitute for it, and the gentleman knows 
he can go before the Committee on Rules and ask for that kind of 
action.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's advice that I have 
the opportunity to go before the Committee on Rules. I always enjoy the 
opportunity to go and testify before the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) and his committee.
  Let me move on to some other legislation. I mentioned a number of 
pieces that we have not done, Defense Department authorization, I 
mentioned, and the Higher Education Act. My question, does the 
gentleman anticipate that we will leave next Friday or Saturday having 
accomplished some or all of those pieces of legislation?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield and repeat all 
the legislation he is talking about?
  Mr. HOYER. Sure. We have 12 of the 13 appropriation bills we have not 
passed. We have not passed a budget. Highway program has not passed. 
The FSC bill has not passed, resulting in 11 percent additional tariffs 
to people. The energy bill has not passed. The Intelligence bill, we 
have been talking about, Defense authorization and the Higher Education 
Act. None of those have been done to this point.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. I think I addressed in my opening remarks the Defense 
authorization conference. We are hoping to get that out.
  The highway bill I think has been debated or talked about a lot on 
this floor in the last couple of days. The House is ready to go. The 
House is ready to negotiate with the Senate, and the House has cleaned 
out a lot of the brush, but it seems that the Senate is going to have a 
very hard time getting their members in the conference committee to 
support a highway bill. So that is why we did the extension today on 8 
months to give them more time to work.
  The FSC/jobs bill, the conferees met on that bill last night. It was 
a very good conference. Democrats were certainly included, and we have 
scheduled another meeting for next Tuesday. I believe there is a good 
chance that a

[[Page 20117]]

conference report could be ready for the House to vote on later at the 
end of next week.

                              {time}  1800

  The appropriations process, the gentleman being on the Committee on 
Appropriations, knows very well, as he stated, that we passed 12 of the 
13 bills. The thirteenth bill has problems. We know there is going to 
be an omnibus bill, and we will solve those problems in an omnibus 
bill, but the problem is in the other body. They are passing as many 
bills as they can get done, and we will go to conference on every one 
of those bills to try to get them done before the end of next week. 
That would include Homeland Security appropriation, MilCon, Foreign 
Ops, the Legislative Branch, and D.C., which are the only ones I know 
of that the Senate has passed so far.
  The rest, as the gentleman knows, we did a continuing resolution 
until November 20. We have instructed our committees, and the Senate 
leadership has instructed their committees to work on those as best 
they can so that, when we get back in November, the Members can vote on 
those bills up or down.
  The higher education bill, right now, I am not advised where it is, 
so I cannot answer the gentleman on that one.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, 
A, the majority leader's taking the time to go through those and 
letting us know where he thinks they may be and whether we will address 
them next week.
  Additionally, when we leave next Friday or Saturday, can the leader 
tell us, for scheduling purposes, and I know we are going to have the 
leader's organizational meeting, I think we will schedule our 
organizational meeting the same week, but is it your view that we will 
have a lame duck session on November 15 or November 16 and days 
thereafter?
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is still hard to say. I can answer that 
question better at the end of next week. I am still hoping, against all 
odds, that the appropriations process could be done. Willing people 
coming together can get a lot of things done in a very short period of 
time around here. It is just a matter of finding the willing people to 
get it done, and we are still working on it. It could happen. Lightning 
could strike. And if it does, then we would not have to come back in a 
lame duck.
  Obviously, the appropriations process is the most important. And if 
we cannot get all the appropriations done, then I would anticipate 
having a lame duck sometime in that week that both parties are 
organizing.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think the leader is 
right. I think for that to happen lightning is going to have to strike.
  Lastly, Mr. Leader, we talked about the intelligence bill being on 
the floor next week. Can the minority be assured that we will have a 
substitute for that bill? The gentleman indicated there are 100 
amendments pending on the Senate floor. This is a very important piece 
of legislation, obviously. The bipartisan commission has spoken to 
this.
  I have read the report, by the way. I think it is an excellent 
report. We are very hopeful that we not only will have the opportunity 
to amend any and all sections of the bill, but that we will have the 
opportunity to offer a substitute, not just simply a motion to 
recommit, but a substitute at the appropriate time. I would hope that 
the leader, given the importance of this legislation, would assure the 
minority that we would have that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the 
gentleman knows, the chairman of the Committee on Rules is sitting 
here. I think he is going to make an announcement about amendments and 
substitutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
appreciate his request. The announcement I am going to be making in 
just a few minutes, as soon as the colloquy between the distinguished 
minority whip and the distinguished majority leader is completed, is 
one which will call for the establishment of new Federal judgeships.
  At this juncture, probably on Monday, we will likely be making an 
announcement as we anticipate the work product that will be emerging on 
the 
9/11 report.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
those comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the majority leader and to the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, this legislation was introduced less than a 
week ago. It has been marked up this week. It will be on the floor next 
week. That is a very rapid progression.
  I think, Mr. Leader, respectfully, that that calls for even greater 
opportunity for Members to work their will on the floor, with the 
ability to offer such amendments as they deem to be appropriate and 
would include the opportunity to offer an entire package in the form of 
a substitute. I would hope that that would happen.

                          ____________________