Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. You object to the action or the assertion?

Mr. HOYER. That's correct.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think my comments go as spoken. I expect you to continue to follow those actions which you think are necessary, but I did want to put you on notice because I don't want anything to happen that you're not on notice of.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I certainly will.

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I understand that there is substantial angst among the minority. I empathize with that angst. I've been there. Having said that, I do not empathize with the abuse of process. And because I do not empathize with the abuse of process, as I have said before, I am going to ask the Speaker to limit the time in which voting is allowed to that which is provided for in the rules. You did that; we're now going to do it. Somebody said, ``About time.'' I agree with you. Abuse of process is when, and everybody knows this could be done. On our side in the minority we could have kept open for 2 hours with having every 30 seconds somebody come down the aisle. We all know that's possible. I've known that was possible for some period of time. We try to accommodate people who want to change their vote. We try to accommodate people who want to vote. We try to accommodate people who are late. The problem with accommodating people who are late, if we make it in order in effect, not because of the rules but because of the comity of the House, to allow what just happened, we can, you're correct, in effect do a filibuster by vote changing. We don't have filibusters in the House. They have it in the Senate. I don't think the Senate works particularly well. You can have your motions. I haven't said anything. Our Members haven't said anything. You're certainly entitled to that. But what just happened, as I said, in my opinion, is an abuse of the Chair's forbearance. The Chair has the responsibility to determine when the vote is concluded. The vote changing on a motion to adjourn, I know that probably all of you did polls on that and focus groups on whether or not you should vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on that vote and that led to your changing your vote one way or the other, sometimes maybe twice because you were having difficulty deciding. But I just want to let everybody know that while we cannot nor are we going to preclude you from doing your motions to adjourn, what just happened is not appropriate for the House, for either side, to simply use a device of changing votes, of voting late, of lining up in the aisle and coming down every 30 seconds or so with a ``one more vote.'' That, in my opinion, is not appropriate for the House to pursue. Mr. Gingrich sent out a letter, as we have said before, said he was going to call votes 15 minutes and 2 minutes later. You've all heard from Mr. Gingrich lately. He has a lot of advice and counsel. I don't always follow it. But on this, he made the point that I'm making, that we have now had, I don't know, 20, 25 motions to adjourn in which we voted on, reconsiderations to be voted on. Nobody has said anything about that. But I want to tell my friend, the minority leader, that, as I have said before, my inclination at this point in time will be to ask the presiding officer to limit the votes to the 17 minutes, the 15 minutes that is provided and 2 minutes which have been historically accorded. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Let me correct my statement. They were not in the well. They were coming down the aisle. But I think the point is the same. Somebody was seeking to vote. Mr. Linder decided the vote was over. I think Mr. Linder acted within the rules. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to shock anybody on this floor. My belief is that comity requires that, not the rules. I believe comity ought to be followed to that extent. But if your contention is that you can have 200 people stand in that aisle and one every 20 seconds come in and take 20 seconds to change their vote and submit it and the Speaker is hostage to the 199 people waiting to step into the aisle while they're standing there, the answer to your question is yes, I believe the Speaker has the authority under the good order of the House, and I believe the presiding officer has the absolute authority. Mr. Linder, who is sitting here, shut down a vote. I think he was within the rules. There were two people in the well. Now, that was changed----

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, after consultation with the minority leadership, we will not be having any more votes tonight, it is my understanding. That's a happier announcement, I know, so I thought I would make it, trying to even things out here. We will have a suspension vote at the end of the consideration of the Waters bill. The votes will be rolled until tomorrow, and so that there will be no more votes tonight. There will be a suspension vote, but the minority has indicated that there will not be a vote on that suspension bill. We will then, tomorrow, finish the votes on the Waters bill, and then go to the Franks housing bill and complete that tomorrow. My expectation is we are probably talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 o'clock tomorrow, assuming that things are nice and pleasant and peaceful. Have a good night's sleep. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. That is an option as well as in the best of all possible worlds, the conference would be completed and we could pass the bill itself. If that does not happen, we will contemplate an extension.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Without going into the polemics of the politics that we exchange on this of what legislation we have passed through here, which was, we think, directed at trying to address the short-term problems, dealing with OPEC, dealing with manipulation of prices, dealing with price gouging, which many, if not all of you, on your side voted against. Suffice it to say I think all of us are concerned about the high prices of gasoline. Suffice it to say that all of us, if we're honest, know that in the short term it's going to be very difficult to impact on that. Thirdly, that the solution longer term is obviously moving towards alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy. We passed a major piece of legislation last year. Happily we passed it in somewhat of a bipartisan fashion, not totally, I don't mean everybody unanimously voted for it. But the President did sign it. The President said it was a step forward. For the first time in a very long period of time it said our automobiles need to be more efficient. For the first time in a very long time it required the use of alternative fuels. So that we addressed initially, and there's much more that needs to be done, longer term solutions. Short-term solutions are tough. There is discussion about the SPR. There are discussions about taxes, gasoline taxes, as you know. There are other discussions. If you have ideas, we would be glad to have them in terms of what can be done in the short term.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. As you know, we came together and we agreed on the passage of a stimulus package. We passed a stimulus package because we thought our economy was either about to go in recession or was in recession-- not at the time when we passed it, but that seems to be the case now--and the stimulus package was designed to either keep us out or to bring us out of a recession and to try to help our people who are at risk. As you know, we did that on an emergency basis. The reason we did that on an emergency basis, we felt, in terms of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same time. So the answer to your question, for instance, on unemployment insurance, that may well fall in the same category from our perspective.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As it relates to the first item, the GI Bill, there is a comprehensive GI Bill, as you know, sponsored by Mr. Webb. Also Ms. Herseth over here and others have legislation which tries to respond to the critical need that our veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq now have because they have substantially less generous benefits and, therefore, less opportunity to reintegrate themselves into the community and stabilize themselves and their families. We believe that is a cost of the war. I don't believe that under the current suggestion, and I'm not suggesting that it's in or out at this point in time, I'm not suggesting there is anything in or out in terms of proposal, but it is my belief that that would not require a waiver of the PAYGO given the context in which it may be considered. What I mean by that, and not to be too esoteric, is that we may respond to the need this coming year as opposed to a longer term.

Mr. HOYER. I think that's, candidly, still up in the air. I know that's of concern to you. I understand that concern, but I will tell you again, I think it's still up in the air. Mr. Obey has been discussing with the Senate how they think we can best move forward as expeditiously as possible and so that we can try to achieve the end. As you know, there is substantial discussion about what is in the supplemental. The President, as you know, has indicated that and Mr. Nussel has indicated that if anything above the dollars asked essentially for Iraq and Afghanistan are included for investment here in this country on various different items, perhaps dealing with unemployment insurance, perhaps dealing with energy credits so that we can ensure the expansion of alternative enterprises for alternative fuels, those are all being discussed to see whether they are possibilities in terms of passage and, hopefully, signature by the President. We think that there are a number of items that are critically important to pass now that we think this bill is appropriate for but we don't have agreement on at this point in time. But Mr. Obey is working today and hopefully tomorrow, and we have a number of meetings today to see if we can move that forward. So I regret I do not have a more definitive answer for you, but that is the candid answer.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observations. I think he and I have a difference on the perception of some of the items that he mentioned as being analogous to some of the other items that we have discussed. On the AMT, for instance, there is a disagreement on that alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was not intended, I don't think by any of us, to impact the people that it is now impacting. I believe strongly that we ought to fix the AMT, not just for this coming year, but permanently, and we ought to pay for that. And the reason I think that we ought to do that is, A, it clearly falls within the ambit of PAYGO, and secondly, because I think that our generation incurred this liability and we ought to pay for that liability. But some of the things that we have already mentioned I think are more analogous, not to tax extenders, giving additional tax relief or fixing the AMT, but are, as the UI is, unemployment insurance, directed to an emergency that confronts us as a result of a substantial downturn in the economy, which is analogous, I think, to the stimulus package, which is why we didn't consider that to be a PAYGO issue and were prepared not to address it in a PAYGO way.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You mentioned the States. One of the things that we're very concerned about is the very substantial fiscal adverse impact to the States that will be caused by the change in the Medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. That is one of the items under consideration because that change, as I understand it from Mr. Waxman--as a matter of fact, we just talked about it--will have a very great adverse financial impact on the States. I'm sure you received a letter similar to the one that I received from both Democratic and Republican Governors asking us to address that. So there clearly are some items which have impact on the States. Very frankly the discussion is, how many of those do we try to address, if any, in the supplemental? How many do we address in the stimulus package? Or how many do we address in separate legislation? One of the positive aspects of the stimulus package, as you will recall because you and I were in the room, was that Secretary Paulson, on behalf of the administration, the Speaker, you and I and Mr. Boehner sat down together and talked about how we can get from where we were to where we wanted to get, and we came to agreement. We have been unable to do that, as you know, on some of these things that we think are of serious concern, and the Medicaid regulations are an example of that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. He has made it before. I will say that other Members, for whom I have a great deal of respect, on your side of the aisle have discussed this with me. I think your point is well taken, and that is under discussion.

Mr. HOYER. If I had my druthers and I could make it happen, all of them would be within the context of that 11 days to which you refer. The chairman of the Budget Committee is on the floor. I know he's been working very, very hard, and I believe that we are close on the budget conference. I think that may well be a possibility. There may well be other conference reports available as well. I cannot tell you now specifically that there are bills that I am absolutely assured will be ready for that time frame, but I do believe that there will be significant pieces ready. The DOD authorization bill will, of course, be considered on the week of the 18th, I believe. That's the week of the 18th. The supplemental is obviously on our radar screen, and we hope to pass the supplemental before we leave as well. I was hoping for next week. That still is a possibility, but I'm not assured that they will be in place, ``they'' being Mr. Obey in our discussions. I'm not sure what his plans will be, whether he can move it ahead that quickly. The budget conference, of course the farm bill conference, the supplemental, and the DOD authorization are major pieces of legislation I want to see passed before we leave.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I don't have information now about the status of that bill, where it is. Obviously it's a bipartisan bill, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Walden and others. It is a bill that, very frankly, has been brought up in the context of whether it might be included in some other pieces of legislation, so that it obviously has bipartisan support. I will look at it and discuss it with Mr. DeFazio and let you know where we are on it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected, and I underline ``expected,'' in the House. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list of suspension bills will be announced, as is our practice, by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider legislation to address the housing crisis, including bills reported out of the Financial Services Committee regarding the Federal Housing Administration and H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008. We also hope to consider the farm bill conference report.

Mr. HOYER. That is possible that they would be considered separately. I have not conferred with Mr. Frank, the chairman, so I can't definitively say that. I'm not absolutely sure, but the answer to your question is it's possible.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, many of you have heard me, and Mr. Dreier as well, over the years speak to how extraordinarily advantaged we are in the House of Representatives, and the American people are, by the quality and commitment of the staff that serves this institution. It doesn't serve Republicans or Democrats, but it serves the purposes of assuring that this institution runs in a way that gets the business of the American people done in a way that's productive and positive for them and for our country. Regretfully, I am going to observe the retirement of one of those people. Happily, I can extol his virtues. I've known him for a very long period of time. I've seen his work, conscientious, able, and a very positive impact on this institution. Mark O'Sullivan, who is sitting just to my left on the second-level rostrum, has been with us 31 years in the House, and he commutes from Baltimore every day. I don't know whose district he is in, maybe Mr. Cummings' or Mr. Ruppersberger's. I'm not sure whose district he is in, but I'm sure they are happy that he is living there, although he's totally bipartisan, I'm sure. He has done an outstanding job. I have always found him to be in even humor, even in the toughest of times. Even in the times when the body sometimes gets more loud and uproarious than at other times, he maintains an even demeanor. And, as I say, the competency and the talent and the commitment and the character he has brought to his job has advantaged our country and the House of Representatives. Mark, we thank you. Congratulations to you. We wish you the very best, and we look forward to seeing you back here in the near future and repeating it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. As you have read, we are discussing how to process the supplemental. As I indicated to you, it is my intention that we will pass the supplemental prior to Memorial Day. By that, I mean in sufficient time so the Senate can do so as well so we can pass it finally. That is my hope and my intention. We are still working on the components of the supplemental, and very frankly, it has not yet been finally decided as to how that might be processed. Obviously, at times in the past it has been added to other legislation. In other times, it has been passed as a free-standing bill. Committee consideration, obviously, is part of the regular order, if we go that way, but there are other ways to go. We want to facilitate the passage of it as quickly as possible.