[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2045-2046]
[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 my friend, the majority leader, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the purposes of informing us 
of the schedule.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for 
legislative business. We will consider several measures under 
suspension of the rules. The final list of those bills will be sent to 
Members' offices at the end of the week and any votes called for on 
these will be rolled to 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday and Thursday the House will convene at 10 a.m. We will 
likely consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, 
as well as H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. In 
addition, we are working on the continuity of government legislation. 
It is anticipated to be similar to H.R. 2844, the Continuity in 
Representation Act passed by the House last year. We hope to move 
quickly and bring that legislation to the floor next week.
  Finally, assuming the other body passes S. 5, the Class Action 
Fairness Act of 2005, in a form identical to what the Senate Committee 
on the Judiciary passed last week, we expect to consider that 
legislation next week as well.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. With respect 
to the class action, the gentleman indicated, as I understand it, that 
that bill has passed the Committee on the Judiciary?
  Mr. DeLAY. What I was talking about is, as the gentleman knows, the 
Senate is debating that bill as we speak. If indeed that bill comes out 
as it passed by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary with no 
amendments, then we could very well pick up that bill and just consider 
it here without going through committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, I know in the past the gentleman has been very 
reluctant to simply take the Senate's work product, and I am somewhat 
shocked that the gentleman apparently suggests that process now. I do 
not know whether that is going to be a precedent for the future. But 
may I ask the gentleman, is it his contemplation that it would come 
directly to the floor and not go to committee for consideration?
  Mr. DeLAY. It is a new Congress and a new Senate, and the work that 
they are doing over there, at least the beginning of the work that they 
are doing over there, is pretty impressive, particularly the work they 
have done on this very important bill.
  We have gone through regular order on this side of the House in many 
different steps on this class action issue; and if the Senate does what 
I think it is going to do, yes, we would bring it straight to the floor 
and consider it without committee action.
  Mr. HOYER. As the leader knows, we have been for that process from 
time to time when there seemed to be agreement between the two Houses. 
Obviously, however, Mr. Leader, as the gentleman knows, what that does 
is it precludes Democrats from participating in committee 
consideration, offering amendments in committee to the subject 
legislation.
  My question to the gentleman is, in the event that that is done, 
would the gentleman bring that to the floor with an open rule that 
would allow amendments to be offered as Members see fit so that we 
could have some full consideration of that piece of legislation on the 
floor of the House of Representatives?
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman 
knows, the Committee on Rules will take that up under consideration and 
perhaps the gentleman should contact the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) on that question as it relates to this bill.

[[Page 2046]]

I am not advised as to what the Committee on Rules will do.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the reason, Mr. Leader, I asked that 
question because of the very high respect I have for the gentleman's 
influence with that committee; and I thought, therefore, the gentleman 
might have some inkling as to what might be done. I say that somewhat 
jokingly, but I really do believe that if we are going to take the bill 
that the Senate sends over, bring it directly to the floor without 
committee consideration, that not only in a sense of fairness but in a 
sense of getting the input of the 125 to 130 million people that this 
side of the aisle represents, that we give us the opportunity to offer 
such amendments as we think to be appropriate with respect to that 
legislation.
  Mr. Leader, with respect to the continuity of Congress, this has been 
an issue we tried to deal with in the past. It is a very important 
issue with which we should deal. I know at times I have talked to the 
gentleman and the Speaker and particularly to my friend, the majority 
whip, with reference to having a bipartisan proposal so that both 
parties, on an issue of great magnitude to this institution in terms of 
continuity and how do we form a majority to take action, has this been 
to the gentleman's knowledge, and I do not have that knowledge. I have 
not talked to anybody on the Committee on Rules or any other committee 
out of which this might have come. Does the gentleman know whether or 
not we have bipartisan agreement with respect to the legislation the 
gentleman intends to put on the floor next week?
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are ongoing 
discussions about this bill with the minority and particularly with the 
minority leader's office. We are continuing those discussions.
  I remind the gentleman that this bill got 306 votes last year. I 
think that is pretty bipartisan.

                              {time}  1445

  So as we work through this, we will continue to discuss and work with 
the minority to make it even more bipartisan than it is.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that.
  And reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I understand what you are saying 
in terms of the number of folks who voted for it. There were a very 
substantial number who voted for it.
  This is not a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. This 
is a practical judgment as to how constitutionally and appropriately 
within the framework of our democracy and representation that we frame 
or have legislation framed so that does reflect the interests of our 
democracy as well as the interest of ensuring continuity.
  From that perspective of not just having a number of votes for it, 
but having the leadership on both sides, I do not mean necessarily the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and myself, but the committee 
leadership on both sides, whether it is the Committee on Rules, 
Committee on the Judiciary or any other committee that might consider 
it somewhat in agreement.
  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. I hope the gentleman is not raising a standard that is 
even higher than given to the Constitution, in that when two-thirds of 
this House has voted for a measure, in order for it to be bipartisan, 
we have to go even higher than two-thirds of the House.
  We are continuing to work with the minority leader. We understand her 
concerns and your concerns. But when you have well over two-thirds of 
the House voting for a bill, it gets more and more difficult to write a 
bill that requires unanimity.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, no one is suggesting unanimity. I 
understand that. We are suggesting, though, that we work together on 
this issue. And the mere fact that we have the ability to get a large 
number of votes for a bill is critically important. Your observation is 
correct in terms of numbers necessary to pass the constitutional 
amendment or to pass other legislation by two-thirds. It is obviously 
important.
  But it is equally important, it seems to me, and might facilitate 
passage of this through the entire Congress, not just through the House 
of Representatives, to have input from the leadership of both parties 
to try to come to grips with what I perceive not to be a partisan 
issue, but a difficult issue on which constitutional scholars have 
differed as to how we can do this, on which Members of this House on 
both sides of the aisle have differed.
  But we do not need to pursue it. I understand the gentleman's point. 
But I would hope that we could have significant discussions about this 
and hopefully come to agreement of the minds.
  Mr. Leader, we are not going to have a scheduling colloquy next week 
because it will be the Presidents' Day recess. But can you indicate 
what we may have on the floor the week that we return from the 
Presidents' Day recess?
  Mr. DeLAY. Frankly, I do not know. We will just have to get back to 
you on that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, thank you for that.
  I understand we may receive the President's tsunami supplemental 
appropriations next week. Do you anticipate we may also receive the 
Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental request as well?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The White House has 
indicated to us that they will submit, as the gentleman said, the 
supplemental request on the tsunami next week. But we also expect the 
supplemental requests on the war on terror, and I would expect the 
House to consider some supplemental sometime in the month of March.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that. And you answered my second question. 
The energy bill you had brought up in our previous colloquy, can you 
tell us where that might stand at this point this time?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. The energy bill, we are continuing to work on that bill, 
just working on putting it together in order to introduce it. It is not 
ready, and I do not know, frankly, when it will be ready to even 
introduce, much less think about committee action and when the House 
might consider it.
  Mr. HOYER. It would be fair to assume, then, that certainly it is not 
going to be in the next 2 or 3 weeks?
  Yield to my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is fair to 
assume.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________