[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4058-4060]
[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 wish to address the House for the purposes 
of inquiring of the acting majority leader the schedule for the coming 
week; and I would be glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who chairs the leadership committee, or I am 
not sure of his exact title, but he is my friend and an able Member of 
this body, and I am glad to yield to him.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for 
yielding to me, and I would be happy to talk about the schedule for 
next week.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning business, 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider 
several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those 
will also be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any 
votes called on those suspensions will be rolled until 6:30 p.m., as 
has been our custom.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene at 10 
a.m. We still hope to consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 
2005, although that is being worked out.
  In addition, as we all know, next week is the anniversary of the 
start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the anniversary of Saddam 
Hussein's chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds. So on Wednesday, 
the House will consider a resolution remembering these historical 
events and commemorating the allied forces, including our troops, for 
the liberation of Iraq.
  Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do not plan to 
have votes next Friday, March 19.
  I thank my friend from Maryland very much for yielding to me, and I 
would be happy to answer any questions, or try to answer any questions, 
he might have.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he 
has provided us.
  This is the first time at least that I have heard of the 
consideration of the Iraqi resolution next week. I understand the 
timing of that and the date on which that effort began. Because I have 
just heard about this and have not had an opportunity to talk to our 
ranking members on either the foreign affairs committee or on the 
defense committee, can the gentleman inform me as to whether or not 
this resolution has been put together in a bipartisan way, with 
participation by the minority? The reason I ask the gentleman that is I 
think all of us want to ensure that we are united on it.
  I have not seen the statement so I do not know what it is, but 
clearly we are, I think, all proud of the actions of our Armed Forces; 
and they carried out their mission in an extraordinarily effective, 
efficient, and courageous manner. We are all proud of our men and women 
in uniform for what they have done. We are all pleased, as well, that 
Saddam Hussein has been captured and is in custody and no longer at 
least poses a personal threat; but I am sure my friend from Ohio agrees 
that hopefully this statement will be one which is reached in a 
bipartisan way and we can have overwhelmingly bipartisan support of.
  I certainly, as one who supported, as my colleague knows, the effort 
in Iraq and supported the funding for that effort, want to be able to 
support it. I have not seen it, but I am hopeful that we do this in a 
bipartisan way.
  I would be glad to yield to my friend to comment on this issue.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I 
have not seen the resolution either. It has not been introduced yet. My 
understanding is that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has 
taken the lead on that and the Committee on International Relations, 
and he will be consulting with the gentleman from California (Ranking 
Member Lantos), and I am sure he would appreciate any input that 
Members have on both sides. It would be good if we could as a House 
support this resolution on a bipartisan basis because it will be, as my 
colleague said, important to be able to show that support for our 
troops who are currently in Iraq performing for us and for the American 
people.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information; 
and I understand he is a little bit in the same position I am, having 
just learned of this in the last few minutes. I am pleased to hear that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will be communicating with and 
working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Again, while 
there are, obviously, as we all know, disagreements on the prosecution 
of that effort, whether we should have undertaken it, there is no, I 
think, dispute on the underlying support of our troops, their effort, 
their safety, and their objectives. Hopefully, that is what we will 
articulate.
  I thank the gentleman for his information, and I will surely be 
talking to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as I know our 
leader will, to try to make sure that we are all together on this 
statement, which I think will be good for our troops and good for the 
world to see as well. I thank the gentleman.
  We had expected to see the budget resolution on the floor next week. 
Then, frankly, we had heard in the last few hours, or few minutes, that 
that was not going to be the case, that the markup had been called off 
or cancelled, rescheduled by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for 
next week. Our presumption was, if that was the case, then the budget 
would be delayed a week.
  Now the information is, and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the leader, is not on the floor, it is my understanding that 
perhaps he is working on trying to effect agreement, but can the 
gentleman tell me whether or not he has confidence that that will be on 
the floor next week, or are we waiting to see what is going to happen 
today to make that final decision?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield further, it is 
still up in the air. As the gentleman knows, we had planned to have the 
budget marked up in committee today and then brought to the floor next 
week. It is important that we keep our time frame because it is 
important that we have our appropriations bills done in a timely 
manner. So we are still hopeful that can happen, but we have had some 
delays in the markup today. We did get started on the markup. We had 
some good opening statements, and we are going back into committee 
later today, but there are currently negotiations over whether we can 
finish that today or not.
  I will say that we are excited about the budget document. It does 
restrain spending, which we believe is the right thing to do. There 
have been some disagreements between the bodies, even between Members, 
on both sides of the aisle, over some of the budget enforcement 
mechanisms. Those are more the issues here that have to do with caps 
and PAYGOs and those sorts of issues; but the budget itself, this 
resolution, we hope to be able to mark up today. If not, we will 
certainly mark it up next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Last week, I asked the leader and would ask the gentleman, as we 
approach next week, assuming that the budget is to be on the floor next 
week, about the commitment of the majority to allowing the minority, as 
has historically happened, to have various alternatives. As the 
gentleman knows,

[[Page 4059]]

 the Congressional Black Caucus has always had the opportunity to offer 
an alternative that was a thoughtful, persuasive budget. I did not 
always support it.

                              {time}  1330

  We have other caucuses who may want to offer alternatives as well, 
and clearly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget on our side of the aisle, will 
want to offer a substitute as well.
  Is the gentleman aware of whether or not, as has happened in the 
past, we will be afforded the opportunity to offer various alternatives 
to the budget document that will be reported out of committee?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  It is my understanding that, as in prior years, the Committee on 
Rules will give preference to complete substitutes rather than 
amendments to the budget document. It is my understanding further that 
we will provide adequate time, as we have in the past, for both general 
debate and for these substitutes.
  Historically, this debate has varied between 3 to 5 hours for general 
debate and 40 minutes to 1 hour for amendments or substitutes. It is my 
understanding that it is the intention once again for the Committee on 
Rules to provide those kinds of rules. Of course, they have not seen 
the various resolutions yet, including the one that comes out of the 
Committee on the Budget. But that is certainly the intent of the 
Committee on Rules at this point.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation, 
and I would hope we do follow that practice. Because, clearly, while 
the budget document, in particular for those of us who serve on the 
Committee on Appropriations, is a relatively broad-brush document, it 
does very pointedly speak to the priorities that Members have and that 
we think our country ought to have. Because of that, it becomes even 
more important, I think, in the people's House that the people's 
representatives have an opportunity to offer alternatives so that not 
only Members, but the American public can form a judgment of their own 
as to what alternative is in the best interest of our country.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's observation that full substitutes, 
and usually, as you know, that is what we have been offering, and 
certainly it is the intention of the gentleman from South Carolina, as 
the ranking member, to offer a substitute. Of course we do not know 
what ultimately is going to happen, we will have to see what the 
Committee on the Budget produces, but I am sure that the gentleman from 
South Carolina will want to offer a substitute.
  The gentleman mentioned enforcement mechanisms. The Senate, as you 
know, the other body, has adopted an enforcement mechanism, which we 
think if you are going to have an enforcement mechanism makes sense.
  First of all, does the gentleman know whether the enforcement 
mechanism will be in a separate piece or legislation included in the 
budget offering itself?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Let me say at the outset that we welcome a substitute 
from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), better yet that he 
supports the substitute the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will offer 
in committee. But certainly having an alternative is welcome and the 
debate will be a healthy one.
  With regard to any budget enforcement mechanisms, there has not been 
a decision whether that will be part of the budget resolution. I think 
that is part of the discussion now whether there will be separate 
legislation. There are advantages and disadvantage to both, I suppose, 
but that decision has not been made yet.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's response. In 
addition, of course, to the substitute, or an amendment to the budget 
in the form of a substitute, I am sure that we would be, depending upon 
what comes out of the committee, very much committed to offering an 
enforcement mechanism proposal of our own. We believe that the 
enforcement mechanism that was in place some years ago was effective in 
reaching balance and, in fact, taking us into surplus. That was allowed 
to lapse, and is not in force now, which allowed us to do the tax cuts 
that were passed over the last 3 years.
  Is the gentleman of the view that we will be allowed to have, under 
the rules, a substitute and/or amendments to the proposal for 
enforcement that is reported out of the Committee on the Budget?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I do not know what form it will take. If it is part of the budget 
resolution, I suppose then other budget resolution substitutes, as we 
talked about earlier, might include enforcement mechanisms as well. The 
gentleman mentioned the ranking member may indeed offer one of his own. 
If it is separate legislation, the Committee on Rules would take that 
up.
  I do not know, I would say to my friend from Maryland, I do not know 
when that would be. I do not know if it will be the same time as the 
budget. There are other committees, particularly the Committee on 
Rules, that will have jurisdiction of any enforcement mechanism. 
Ultimately, it is up to the will of the Congress, is it not, as to how 
we enforce our budgets?
  I just do not know what the likely form will take. Again, I think our 
goal would be to have a healthy debate over the enforcement mechanisms. 
We feel strongly that spending ought to be subject to the pay-go rules. 
We feel strongly that the tax relief that was enacted over the last 3 
years has now turned this economy around and we are beginning to see 
growth. So we would hate to subject those to the kinds of pay-go rules 
that would not have permitted, during the time when the economy was in 
bad shape, for us to begin to get some economic stimulus and growth.
  So this may be some of the debates we will have on the floor, and I 
would think we would encourage that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's comment, but as 
he knows, Mr. Greenspan, who has not been necessarily an advocate of 
our side of the argument, as a matter of fact, has been on the 
gentleman's side of the argument on the tax cuts, has made it very 
clear that he believes, for the interest of economic security and 
stability in the country, that the pay-go rules ought to apply on both 
the spending and the tax side. Because, of course, in either event, you 
can plunge yourself, as we believe we have, into deep deficits.
  So I think that will be a good debate. We will obviously point to Mr. 
Greenspan's assertions, which we agree in this instance, that it is 
very difficult to control if you do not have pay-go applying on both 
sides of the ledger.
  Lastly, if I might, as a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman knows that the Foreign Sales Corporation legislation has been 
pending for many, many months now. We are concerned, as you know, that 
the Europeans are now imposing sanctions as a result of the WTO's 
finding that we are not in compliance.
  Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the FSC legislation will be 
on the floor any time soon; and, if so, whether or not the Rangel-
Manzullo alternative will be made in order as an alternative?
  I yield to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for 
yielding to me again.
  The legislation is very much on our minds. As you know, the Committee 
on Ways and Means has worked hard on this legislation already. The 
gentleman mentioned the substitute which the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) may want to offer in committee. The tariff increases are 
beginning to take effect, increasing by 1 percent every month, so it is 
something we are working hard on.
  We do want to work closely with the other body on this to be sure 
that we

[[Page 4060]]

 can actually enact legislation, as well as with the President and with 
his team, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office and the Treasury 
Department in particular. So we are working closely with them.
  I do not know when legislation may come to the floor, but I 
understand that the Committee on Ways and Means is planning another 
meeting next week to discuss certain aspects of this, to be sure that 
as we repeal the FSC/ETI provisions, we are also providing adequate 
benefits for U.S. companies who are involved in global competition.
  So this is a very high priority on our side of the aisle and we 
continue to work toward that goal.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and 
while I accept his premise that it is a high priority, very frankly, I 
will tell my friend from Ohio, there is no doubt we could have passed a 
bipartisan supported bill here with a very substantial number of votes 
many, many months ago. That was not the determination, apparently, of 
the committee to report out such a bill. We think that is unfortunate.
  We believe that if the Rangel-Crane or the Rangel-Manzullo bill, or 
the Manzullo-Rangel bill were reported out, I think we would see well 
over 225 to 230 votes for that, maybe more. But in any event, I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a moment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I respect the gentleman's vote-counting ability, as he 
knows, but being on the committee, I can say that I am not certain such 
a bill could have even been reported out the committee because there 
are many complexities with responding to this tough issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if I can just briefly, I 
share the gentleman's view. I do not think such a bill could be 
reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means either. Our perception 
is, as the gentleman well knows, it is tough to pass bipartisan bills 
out of the Committee on Ways and Means because I do not think there is 
any interest in doing that. I think that is unfortunate because this is 
a critical problem confronting us.
  I think we could have, as we have in the past, and the drug 
reimportation being a perfect example of a bill that passed very 
handily in a bipartisan fashion through this House. Unfortunately, it 
did not make it out of the conference committee. Notwithstanding the 
fact that both Houses were for it, there were people who were not for 
it.
  But this is a critical problem, and my only suggestion to my good 
friend, with whom I have worked in a very bipartisan fashion on very 
successful legislation, and I know the gentleman's inclination is to do 
that, to legislate, not just to throw bombs at one another. I thank the 
gentleman for his observation and hope, in fact, that he is correct and 
we move on this quickly. And if it is not a bipartisan bill as it comes 
to the floor, I hope that we do provide for the minority an opportunity 
to offer an alternative which we think will be in the best interest of 
this country. We will debate that and the majority will prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and thank him for 
the information.

                          ____________________