[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 379-380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, 
to inquire about next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished Republican whip for yielding.
  On Monday, the House will not be in session, in observance of Martin 
Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, which was on January 15, but will be 
celebrated and honored on Monday.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative 
business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. 
A list of those bills, as is the normal course, will be announced by 
the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday, we will also take up the 
President's veto of the children's health insurance legislation.
  The House will not be in session on Thursday or Friday. The minority 
party is having its conference at that point in time, as we will have 
the following week.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. And we are 
having a short week next week because of the Republican planning 
retreat and a short week the next week because of the majority's 
planning retreat.
  With those two short weeks, I know that the FISA legislation that had 
a bipartisan extension in the very first days of August expires 
February 1. That is just 2 weeks from now; it is about 4 or 5 working 
days. Given that deadline, I wonder if we could expect the House to 
consider some extension during that 2-week period of time, and if the 
gentleman has any sense yet as to what extension the majority might 
propose.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. As he and I have 
discussed and as he knows, I am disappointed that we are not in 
conference on the FISA bill. The Senate has not yet passed its version 
of the FISA bill. As you know, we passed the FISA bill in December. I 
think it was early December, as a matter of fact. And we understand 
that the legislation we passed last August has an expiration date of 
February 1 and that, therefore, we will either be acting under the old 
law, an extended law, or a revision that we might pass.
  The leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has talked about perhaps a 30-
day extension. I have not talked to him about that personally, but I 
know that they are considering that. I also know that it is the 
Senate's intention to address this issue upon their return next week. 
As you know, they will be in most of the week next week, I think, so we 
will have to see probably the end of next week where the other body is 
so that we might better judge where we need to be.
  Mr. BLUNT. I look forward to talking to my friend during the week 
next week and at the end of next week at this same opportunity about 
that if we don't yet quite know where we are. But I appreciate that, 
and I know we are both going to keep a close eye on that. This is an 
important law, and my belief is that everyone involved would rather 
have a long-term solution as another short-term solution, but it does 
appear at least possible if not likely that a short-term solution might 
have to be part of what happens here before we get to a conference.
  On the DOD authorization bill that we passed by working together this 
week to solve a problem, does the majority leader have any sense as to 
whether that bill that we sent over originally will be back on the 
floor at any time, or if there will be any provisions? I have heard 
some discussion that there might be those among our Members who would 
like to vote on just the passage that created a problem, and I am 
wondering if you have any thoughts on how to deal with that bill. The 
authorization bill we replaced is still out there, but it would be my 
impression that it is not coming back in any form, and I am wanting 
some verification on that.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, I share the gentleman's view, and my 
expectation is that the authorization bill we passed yesterday will be 
passed by the Senate as was passed here. Because, as you know, the only 
thing we did was modify, consistent with an agreement with the 
administration and the Senate, the provision that the administration 
vetoed the bill on. So my expectation is it will pass whole.
  Now, as the gentleman observes, there is an interest I think perhaps 
on both sides of the aisle in considering the provision that was 
modified and essentially a part of it taken out of the bill. There is 
interest in considering that bill. That has been discussed with Mr. 
Skelton, and Mr. Skelton and the committee are looking at that.
  I believe, and I don't have confirmation of that, that there were 
Members who have talked to me who are in fact introducing a bill to 
speak to that particular point. I say ``I believe'' because, again, I 
don't have confirmation that that bill has been introduced, but I know 
that there were Members very focused on that, very concerned. As you 
know, this provision dealt with the ability of some of our former 
soldiers, in particular marines, injured by, tortured by the Saddam 
Hussein regime and being compensated for that to which they had been 
subjected. I know there is a lot of concern about making sure that 
litigants who have gotten judgments have an opportunity to execute on 
those judgments. The President was concerned about that.
  So I think the short answer to your question is it either has been 
introduced, or going to be introduced maybe next week. Mr. Skelton has 
indicated that he will look at that.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that information. I also appreciate the way 
we are able to work through that problem, get the DOD authorization 
bill on the way back to the President's desk, get that remaining half a 
percent of pay increase for military personnel taken care of. I don't 
know on this side of the aisle of any interest in addressing that. 
Certainly it is a debate that we could have, but it does seem to me 
that we have already reached a bipartisan consensus on that, and we may 
or may not want to pursue that. But I had heard those same things and 
wanted to ask in that regard.
  Mr. HOYER. If my friend will yield.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would.
  Mr. HOYER. When you indicate we reached bipartisan agreement, what we 
reached bipartisan agreement on was, obviously, that the bill, as you 
point out, had many important provisions, not only the pay that you 
refer to, the wounded warriors, treatment of veterans medically, as 
well as meeting our defense needs, all of which we did have an 
agreement on and we passed that bill. There was bipartisan agreement 
that if we were going to pass that bill with all those important 
provisions in it, that it was necessary to consider the matter that the 
President was opposed to separately and apart, and take it out, which 
was done.

                              {time}  1445

  But certainly all of the Members on my side did not believe that the 
President's veto was appropriate. So I don't want to mislead anybody 
that there was a bipartisan agreement that his veto was appropriate in 
that sense and that there was a consensus on that. There was 
disagreement on that.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. I believe I understand the 
point that you just made that the procedure there certainly was a 
procedure that, frankly, we could have spent a lot of time debating. By 
doing that, we could have slowed down this pay increase, and I think we 
wisely did not do that.
  I suppose that if the greater issue of individuals that were harmed 
by the Saddam Hussein regime comes to the floor, we can debate that at 
the time. And I just would suggest right now, if there was some way to 
reach the personal or family assets of Saddam Hussein, that is one 
thing. I think we hamper the efforts of this new government

[[Page 380]]

if we continue to hold the new government responsible for whatever bad 
things a government did that was virtually universally held in the 
lowest possible regard by the Congress. And I think we are universally 
glad that government is gone, no matter how we feel about the other 
issues in Iraq. I think that is really the point at the end of this one 
part of that debate. The government is gone. I suppose we can debate 
that. I think the arrangement we made in the bill handles other 
countries appropriately and also gives the President the proper waiver 
authority for dealing with this new situation in Iraq. But I suppose 
today is also not the day to debate that, unless my friend wants to 
comment on that.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's point, but as the gentleman 
well knows, there are opposing views to that point. But certainly now, 
as the gentleman observed, is not the time to debate it. I think the 
answer to your question is that it may well be before us again.

                          ____________________