Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I met Andy Jacobs in the Young Democrats, many, many years ago. I drove Andy Jacobs to a speaking engagement at the Young Democrats at a restaurant not too far from the Baltimore Washington International Airport. A few years later I was elected to Congress, and Andy Jacobs was a Member of the Congress of the United States, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, an extraordinary Member of this House. And there came a time shortly thereafter when Andy decided to retire. And there were a number of people who expressed an interest in running for this seat. Andy came to me and he said Julia Carson's going to win this race. You be for Julia Carson. Our beloved colleague, Joe Donnelly has just said, she never lost a race. Now, I didn't know Julia Carson. And there were some pretty active people, men and women, in that race; and we had met a couple of them. They were pretty impressive. I had not met Julia Carson. But Andy Jacobs, her predecessor, a Congressman for some 25 years, at least, said to me, Julia Carson's going to win this race. And sure enough, Julia Carson won the race. And those of us who served in this body had the privilege of getting to know Julia Carson, getting to know her as a friend, getting to know her as a colleague, getting to know her as a leader in her community. I went to Indianapolis. I see my friend, my very, very close and dear friend Baron Hill here. Baron and I have been in Indianapolis a number of times, and I did a number of fund-raisers in Indianapolis for and with Julia. And then in the last campaign I went out to Indianapolis to be with Julia and we were at a senior citizens center, and it was the essence of Julia Carson. Julia Carson, who was sort of one of the most, ``acerbic'' is not the right word, I've been searching for the right word, but Julia could be very direct. And there was no fooling around. You knew where Julia stood and you knew what she was thinking. She didn't have time for just jiving. She knew what she wanted to say, she knew what she wanted to do and she told you. And I went to the senior center, and I spoke on her behalf. But so many people were speaking on her behalf. It was thought to be a tough campaign. She won better than she was expected to win. But you got the essence of Julia Carson as you went around and talked to those seniors who had been active in the community for many, many years, as Julia had been, who worked herself up to be a Member of Congress, but she was not appointed by anybody. The community loved Julia Carson. And when I say the community, the community writ large, not the African American community, the white community, this community or that. The community, writ large, loved Julia Carson because she was honest, she was direct, she cared and she worked hard for her people. Julia Carson was an asset to her district, to Indianapolis, to Indiana, to this institution, the House of Representatives, and to our country. Julia Carson is now back home in Indiana. We'll miss her. But this body was better for her service. And I thank the gentlelady for giving me this brief time to pay honor to a great woman and a great American.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, rarely do I avail myself of this opportunity, but I do so today to recognize the extraordinary contributions of an extraordinary man, extraordinary woman and extraordinary family. The holiday season is traditionally a season of giving. Today I would like to take just a few minutes to recognize the vital contributions of a man and his family who have continually given his time, his energy and his efforts to the residents of St. Mary's County and to southern Maryland, which I am honored to represent in this body, my dear and great friend Dr. Vinod K. Shah, affectionately known as Vinnie or V.K.NOTICE If the 110th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 21, 2007, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 110th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Friday, December 28, 2007, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Thursday, December 27. The final issue will be dated Friday, December 28, 2007, and will be delivered on Wednesday, January 2, 2008. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be formatted according to the instructions at http://webster/secretary/cong_record.pdf, and submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT A. BRADY, Chairman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that is before us will fund our government this calendar year. That was not done last year. Would that it had been done sooner. Would that it had addressed the priorities that we believe the American public supported strongly in November of last year. Would that we were investing the appropriate amounts in education, in health care, in the environment and community health centers and NIH basic biomedical research. Would that we funded them at reasonable levels. The President indicated that he was going to veto, as Mr. Lewis said, a bill that was not at his figures. I have observed that this President believes that his budget was sent down on tablets, not on paper. I think that's unfortunate. The Constitution of the United States, of course, gives to the Congress of the United States sole authority to set policies for the United States. In fact, our Founding Fathers never contemplated the budget autonomy that this administration has sought for itself. However, having said that, as Mr. Obey, our chairman has said, rightfully, the votes are what they are. The necessity to come to compromise in a democracy is inescapable if, in fact, both sides can create stalemate. In this instance both sides could create stalemate. That is not, however, the objective of our side. We believe that we ought to, and have a responsibility to, fund our government. This bill does that. This bill does that after having passed all 12 of our appropriation bills prior to the August recess. Unfortunately, we find ourselves at this late date, however, not having completed all of our conference reports and having to move forward. This bill is a relatively long bill, not the longest bill we will have considered in this manner, but a relatively long bill. It looks even longer if you only print on one side of the page to make a more dramatic presentation. Having said that, this bill incorporates all of the bills that passed this house. This is not as if these are items of first impression. They are bills that we considered in this House and passed with essentially overwhelming bipartisan votes. I remember when Mr. Lewis' side was in charge of the House and they got five or six Democrats to vote for it, it was a bipartisan bill. We've averaged 60 votes, if you take out the Legislative bill, on which essentially games were being played, and perhaps the Foreign Ops bill. You have over 60 average votes on the Republican side. This is bipartisan legislation. Ninety-five percent of the bill that is presented here has been considered before. I want to congratulate Mr. Obey for the work that he's done. I want to congratulate Mr. Lewis for the work he's done. More specifically, I want to thank the staff. The staff rightfully ought to be exhausted. This staff has spent unbelievable amounts of time in putting this bill together. It is like every bill we pass, not a perfect bill. It is a bill, as Mr. Lewis said, that the President has indicated that he might possibly sign. That is, after all, the reality in a democratic environment, where you have the people, having selected a Democratic House, and as one of my friends observed the other day, they elected a third in the Senate. Two-thirds of the United States Senate was elected in 2002 and 2004. Only a third of the Senate was elected in this last election. So it may not be as reflective of the will of the American people as this House is. This House did its business on time. This House passed responsible bills. Yes, it was $22 billion over. Mr. Lewis may be surprised to know that from 2002 to 2006 he spent more on discretionary spending. I know you are going to want to hear this figure: you spent a higher percentage of GDP on discretionary spending than these bills do. We have invested. We believe the investments included in this bill are the minimal that we ought to make, and we're hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle can vote for this bill in a nonpartisan, bipartisan fashion. There will be some who vote against these bills because essentially they believe we ought not to be investing significant sums in education and in health care and public safety. The President's budget reflected that philosophy. That is not our philosophy. It's not the philosophy, we believe, of the American people. So, my friends in this House, I would urge as we come to the end of this session that we pass this bill. It is not what each and every one of us wanted in this bill. There's more perhaps in this bill than some want and less than some others want, but it is in the exercise of the democratic process the possible. It funds our government, it moves us forward, and it is worthy of our support. I thank the chairman; and, yes, I thank the ranking member for their work, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this omnibus appropriation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. We do find agreement from time to time, apparently. MR. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Energy legislation will be considered on Tuesday.

Mr. HOYER. One week longer than I had hoped. I thank the gentleman. On Monday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business with any votes ordered postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.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, and most of those bills will be announced before the close of business tomorrow. We will also expect further action on the following items: energy legislation, terrorism risk insurance, the fiscal 2008 appropriations package, the alternative minimum tax, the children's health insurance program. And there may be within the children's health program, depending on what the Senate does, dealing with the reimbursement of providers under Medicare, the docs. I might also add to that, Members ought to know it is possible that depending upon the administrative work that can be accomplished over the next 4 or 5 days, it is possible that Monday night we might consider the omnibus appropriation bill. I mention that, but I want you to know that that is possible.

Mr. HOYER. I think we all agree that we want to get our work done. We have had great difficulty doing that. Not so much in this body because this body, whether your side is in charge or my side is in charge, we have a Rules Committee, we can structure debate, and the majority rules. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the majority does not rule. The Senate has decided that they will let the minority rule. They did that when we were in the majority, and it was done when your party was in the majority. We have both discussed the problems that causes a body that can, in fact, allow the majority to rule. Having said that, we are working towards trying to do what the gentleman suggested, getting our work done. To the extent that we can cooperate with one another, that will facilitate that objective.

Mr. HOYER. As you know, in our bill that we sent to the Senate, which the Senate did not pass, and it is still pending in the Senate, we made provision for the doctors reimbursement, which is going to be cut by 10 percent, as you know, on January 1. As a result of that, we are very concerned that there are some providers that may feel they no longer can afford to give services to those under Medicare. We think that is something that none of us want to have happen, so I wanted to put you on notice, so you knew that that was a possibility if their agreement could be reached on that issue. As you know, the Senate has not passed it. But I am mentioning SCHIP, they may be combined, they may not be, I don't know, because that is a health care issue, and we have been talking about it as a combined. I wanted you to simply know that when I mentioned SCHIP that may well be subsumed in that or a separate item, if, in fact, agreement can be reached.

Mr. HOYER. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey, has made it very clear that he wants to, although this is essentially an amendment, he wants to meet the 24-hour notice so that Members have 24 hours. So that would require Sunday night, we hope we can reach Sunday, for the posting of the bill on the Rules Committee Web site, which is usually how notice is given. And we are hopeful that will be done by Sunday night so that by Monday night it would be hopefully ready for consideration. I want to say that the energy legislation will be considered, assuming we get the bill from the Senate, assuming we are ready to do that, considered done on Tuesday.

Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's position, but you understand for the last 5 or 6 years the Republican budgets have done the same thing.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observation about the 1997. I don't believe that was paid for either. I am not absolutely positive on that, but that is why I believe the veto occurred. But we all agree we ought to eliminate the AMT. But there is no doubt there is a very significant philosophical and policy difference between the President and your side and our side in terms of whether or not, when you eliminate and you make the patch, there is no money to do the patch. So when you take that money away, you have to fill it either with borrowing, as we have done over the last number of years, or you fill it with additional revenues. If you fill it with additional revenues, future generations are not paying the bill. If you fill it with borrowing or just leaving the emergency spending hole, future generations have to pay for it. Now, I know we disagree on that, but it is, I think, a very honest philosophical and policy difference, and the bills reflect that.

Mr. HOYER. The Senate bill is still in the Senate, as I understand it. We have passed, as you know, a House bill with a different pay-for so that the deficit is not increased by our actions. As you know, on this side of the aisle we feel very strongly, I underline ``very,'' strongly that the alternative minimum tax, I think to a Member, agree was not intended to affect some of the people that it will affect if it is not modified. We want to modify it, but we don't want to modify it at the expense of our children and grandchildren having to fill the hole that will be left by the loss in revenues on which the administration has counted in its budgets for not this year but succeeding years for the next 9 years. If that money is not there and expenditures are not cut, or revenues are not raised, then we will increase the budget deficit by a very substantial amount, billions and billions of dollars, at least $100 billion just by this one action. So we have passed a bill. The Senate has passed a bill. The Senate still has its bill. It has not passed over here.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an important bill with an important objective, and the objective is to protect our country and to protect our Constitution. Ironically, the ranking member has just said that by having oversight, by having checks and balance on the intelligence community, somehow we politicize it. Our Founding Fathers, in the best sense of politicalization, wanted the civil sector to be involved. That's the purposes of this committee, I suggest to my friend. The fact of the matter is the intelligence community conducts critically important activities that we want them to conduct. But we give them extraordinary powers, and because of that, we need to make sure that they're not politicized. In fact, the irony is that I think most objective observers would say two things: first of all, that the defense establishment of our country has been probably the most politicized it's been in my 26 years in the Congress of the United States. That is not true, in my opinion, with the present Secretary, by the way, or with the present Deputy Secretary. Secondly, they have abandoned oversight. I have said many times that the previous Congress and the Congress before that and the Congress before that exercised less oversight than any previous Congress in which I've served. In fact, there was much more oversight by the Democratic Congress of the Clinton administration, in terms of oversight hearings, numbers, depth, than there was in the entire framework of the last 6 years under Republicans in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. This is a serious piece of legislation; it requires serious consideration. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my good friend, Congressman Reyes of Texas, and Mr. Hoekstra as well, who I think brings experience and judgment to this issue, although we have significant disagreements. This, as the chairman has said, is the first authorization bill in 3 years to come to this floor. This authorization bill ought to come to the floor every year. Let me say briefly that this conference report enhances oversight. The reason, in my opinion, authorization bills didn't come to the floor in the last Congress is because oversight was not, as I said, as important. I've been disappointed with the oversight that's been exercised not only by this committee, but by others. This conference report comes to the floor to enhance oversight and effective management of the intelligence community and expects and requires accountability. It enhances the management authority and flexibility of the Director of National Intelligence. Why? Because we want to have a more effective intelligence organization. And it authorizes new funding to improve the effectiveness of intelligence programs and activities. I would think all of us support those two efforts. This legislation also includes an important provision, added in conference, that I want to talk about. It requires all American intelligence agencies and those under contract or subcontract with intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogations. Some find fault with that. I want to speak to that. Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men and women and children in an effort to advance their twisted aims. No one on this floor should gainsay that that is not the objective of every Member of this body. We can and we will act to prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction. Yet, under the current administration, we have seen that line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. Who said that? That's not a quote, but who said that essentially? Secretary Colin Powell, former four-star Army general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State in this administration. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as are the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is ``quaint,'' and the Vice President's persistent effort to undermine the ban on torture championed by whom? Senator John McCain of Arizona, Republican candidate for President. Just last week we learned that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed, perhaps illegally, videotapes or interrogations conducted by American agents. These incidents unfortunately sully our great Nation's well-deserved good reputation. They raise questions about our commitment to human rights and the rule of law. And they allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred. This provision requires all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogations. It is an attempt by this Congress to repair the damage that has already been done. Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our international commitments, and very importantly, with the safety of our members of the Armed Forces. At this time I will include a letter in the Record. The letter is signed by, and I will not take the time to read all of the generals, but there are four four-star generals. A four-star general is as high as you can go in the Armed Forces of the United States, except when we're in a world war, in which we accord a fifth-star. December 12, 2007. Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. Hon. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Reyes and Chairman Rockefeller: As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to express our strong support for Section 327 of the Conference Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, H.R. 2082. Section 327 would require intelligence agents of the U.S. government to adhere to the standards of prisoner treatment and interrogation contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Collector Operations (the Army Field Manual). We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of American military personnel in combat. The current situation, in which the military operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we believe that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian-- should be held to a single standard of humane treatment reflected in the Army Field Manual. The Field Manual is the product of decades of practical experience and was updated last year to reflect lessons learned from the current conflict. Interrogation methods authorized by the Field Manual have proven effective in eliciting vital intelligence from dangerous enemy prisoners. Some have argued that the Field Manual rules are too simplistic for civilian interrogators. We reject that argument. Interrogation methods authorized in the Field Manual are sophisticated and flexible. And the principles reflected in the Field Manual are values that no U.S. agency should violate. General David Petraeus underscored this point in an open letter to the troops in May in which he cautioned against the use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the Field Manual: What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . . . is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. . . . Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone ``talk;'' however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees. Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks. These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover, revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage to the reputation and moral authority of the United States essential to our efforts to combat terrorism. This is a defining issue for America. We urge you to support the adoption of Section 327 of the Conference Report and thereby send a clear message--to U.S. personnel and to the world--that the United States will not engage in or condone the abuse of prisoners and will honor its commitments to uphold the Geneva Conventions. Sincerely, General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.). General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.). General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.). General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.). General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.). Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.). Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.). Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.). Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.). Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.). Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.). Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.). Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.). Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.). Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.). Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.). Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.). Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.). Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.). Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.). Major General Antonio ``Tony'' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.). Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.). Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.). There are many lieutenant generals, admirals, vice admirals, brigadier generals, major generals, all of whom are concerned about defeating terrorism. And this is what they say: ``As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, we write to express,'' on December 12, 2007, just a few days ago, ``we write to express our strong support for section 327 of the conference report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.'' And then this paragraph, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to this paragraph from those who have worn the uniform of the United States of America, who have themselves, before they became generals, fought in the battles that America has sent them to, and fought for the freedom of this country, and confronted the terrorists of their day and today. Hear this paragraph from those who have been at war and who want to protect their troops, our troops, American men and women. They say this: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform for the United States not to sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.'' That is the critical point. We are a nation that believes in the premise of doing unto others what we would have them do to us. Our own enemies do not accept that premise. Our enemies do not accept that value. Our enemies are different than we are. We must not become what we confront. The techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual, as I say, are endorsed by all of these generals. General Krulak in particular wrote a very compelling op-ed piece on this issue in the Washington Post. General Krulak is probably known as one of the toughest commandants the Marine Corps has ever had. I served with him on the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy. He is as tough as they come. And he says, Protect our people, adopt this sanction. Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq in May, just a few months ago, General Petraeus, four-star general, heading our effort to confront, supposedly, terrorism and, I believe, terrorism in Iraq. ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal,'' Petraeus's words, General Petraeus's word, ``history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' General Petraeus continued, ``Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone `talk'; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' This is General Petraeus who wants to keep his troops safe and wants to prevent terrorist attacks on his people under his command. Inexplicably, the administration has issued a veto threat on this conference report because it would require all intelligence agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. I believe that the administration's position is indefensible. This is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. Of course, we must. However, we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant, that we stooped to the depths of the dictator. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not for party but for country, not for partisanship but for a reverence for the constitutional oath we took, I urge us all, let's demonstrate our commitment to the values that make us Americans. Let's begin to repair and restore this Nation's reputation. Let's adopt this conference report. I thank the chairman for the time. I thank him for his leadership. I thank Mr. Hoekstra, as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct and that's my point. But in previous years the President has told us in his budget this revenue would be available, and he has relied on that to offset what would otherwise be larger deficits either as a result of tax cuts or of spending. He has relied on this money. So what we are saying on this side of the aisle is let's pay for the revenue that the President anticipated if we're not going to take it, and none of us want to take the revenue that is generated by the alternative minimum tax in this fiscal year. So, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't pay for it, what do we do? Because the President relied upon it in previous budgets, and, frankly, the Congress did as well on both sides of the aisle. If that revenue does not come in and we don't pay for it, there is only one thing to do: borrow. And this administration has borrowed more money from foreigners than any administration in history all together. From Washington to Clinton, all together they didn't borrow as much money as this President has borrowed from foreign governments and put our country at risk. We're saying let's stop that. And in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen of this House, we said let's stop that. Who's ``we''? President Bush, the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate said let's stop that, and we adopted PAYGO. And in 1997 we had another agreement, and a Democratic President and a Republican Congress said let's continue that policy because we believe it's a good policy. And just a few years ago, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim Nussle, who is now the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said PAYGO is a policy that has worked, and we ought to pursue it. But as my friend knows, in 2001, we simply abandoned PAYGO. Why did we abandon PAYGO? Because demonstratively it had worked. For the previous 4 years we had, for the first time in the lifetime of anybody in this House of Representatives, had 4 budget years in a row that produced a surplus. Four. Why? Because we had a PAYGO in place. Why? Because when we wanted to take actions, we had to have the consequences of our actions and tell the American public it was not a free lunch. We would have to pay for it. That's simply what this bill does. It pursues the policy of fiscal responsibility. It abandons the policy of fiscal irresponsibility and the pretense that there is a free lunch that we have been pursuing for the last 7 years and incurred that $1.6 trillion, give or take $100 billion, in the last 7 years. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, no one wants to have a tax increase for these 25 million people. It was never intended. But some of my Republican colleagues say we didn't intend this, so we ought not to pay for it. That's like saying I didn't intend to run the stop sign and have an accident, and therefore, we don't have to pay for the consequences. We have relied on this money, the President has relied on this money. But we're saying we're not going to collect it, but we will responsibly pay for it. In closing, let me say that Charlie Rangel likes to quote Russell Long, who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree.'' Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen of the House, the policies that we pursue are not taxing me and not taxing thee, but taxing the children and the grandchildren behind the tree. It takes courage to pay for things. The largest expansion in entitlement programs in the last 25 years was done with hardly any Democratic votes and all Republican votes, and it wasn't paid for. We were told that it was within the budget. It wasn't. It wasn't paid for. Our children and grandchildren will pay that bill. Have the courage, the wisdom, and the good common sense to adopt this legislation, and urge our colleagues in the other body to share that courage, to share that common sense to morally step up to the plate and have this generation pay for what it buys. Pass this important bill and pay for it. General Leave

Mr. HOYER. Is that a compliment or not?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). I want to say at the outset that I am pleased that Mr. McCrery is on the floor. There will be other times to say this, but Mr. McCrery is one of the respected Members of this House. I think he serves us well as ranking member of the Ways and Means. I know he'd rather be chairman of the Ways and Means, but we like him as ranking member. He has indicated he is not going to be with us in the next Congress. That's regrettable because he is one of the good Members of this Congress, and I want to say that to my friend. Now, let me talk about the question at hand. Mr. Speaker, we debate here in the House, and many Americans have the opportunity to see this debate. This debate is a relatively simple debate. It's not just about the alternative minimum tax or the consequences of not putting a so-called patch, and nobody in America knows what that means but simply it means saying that the alternative minimum tax won't affect 25 or so million people in America. None of us on either side of the aisle want that to happen. The issue is not whether or not any of us feel that ought to happen. It is do you pay for it? Do you provide for the revenue fix that will be necessary if we cut that revenue? Let me say to my friend from Louisiana, he has said a number of times on this floor that the President didn't count the revenue for this year from the AMT. He didn't provide the money to pay for it. He simply didn't anticipate the revenue. What he did not say, however, is that the President did anticipate the revenue for the next 9 years. Furthermore, the President anticipated in 2006 that we would have the revenue generated by the AMT in the year we're going to so-called fix, so that the administration sent us a budget counting on this revenue that we are about to say we won't receive. So I tell my friend from Louisiana, it is somewhat misleading, I think, not intentionally, I understand, to say that the President didn't rely on the revenue for this budget. That's true. He relied on it last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and in 2001. And he relied on it, I tell my friend, to offset your tax cuts because, as you recall, in your 2003 tax cut, part of the revenue that was anticipated was this revenue that the gentleman says he does not want to collect and that the President is not relying on for 2007. He's accurate but in a very narrow sense, because the President has relied upon it every other year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that the gentleman refer to Mrs. Biggert to see whether or not she thought they were good-faith or extensive negotiations and discussions. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I am not going to get into further debate on this, I refer the gentleman to Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley and ask them whether they thought good-faith negotiations were pursued and whether or not they thought that we had gone as far as we possibly could in order to accommodate the adding of 4 million children.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was not going to participate in this debate, but the gentleman from New Jersey doesn't fully understand what we've been about for the last 2 months. He talked about the rank and file. Mr. Dingell, the senior Member of this House, myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Members of the rank and file on your side of the aisle who had not voted for this bill and didn't vote to override the veto. Mr. Barton was in some of those meetings. Mr. Deal was in some of those meetings. We met for almost 100 hours with rank-and-file Members on your side because we felt so strongly we wanted to address some of the issues of concern. We haven't gotten there yet, but I want to tell the gentleman, first of all, he says this bill is not for indigent children. Medicaid is for indigent children. This is for children of hardworking Americans who are not making enough because either their employer doesn't provide insurance or they can't afford the insurance to cover their children. We tried very, very hard. I defy you, and you haven't been here that long, I understand that, but I defy you to find another instance where that many hours has been put in by such senior Members, including two of the most senior Republicans in the United States Senate who voted for this bill, as did 18 of their colleagues in the United States Senate, and 44 of your colleagues here voted for this bill, and 45 for the previous bill. This is a very significant bipartisan bill. And this bill responded to some of the concerns raised by the President. You continue to talk about adults. There are parents on here at the States' choice, as you know. Your State's choice, my State's choice. However, we precluded, as you know, in this bill nonparents, and rather than a 2-year phaseout, we did a 1-year phaseout. We responded to the President's concern about $83,000. We capped it at 300 percent. We responded to the question of trying to identify and to make sure that we add people who are authorized to be in this country. So I think the gentleman's comments about the Democratic Party, or Democrat, as he likes to refer to us, is totally inaccurate, I will tell my friend. We've worked very hard. Why have we worked very hard? Because we think that 4 million children who the President of the United States in 2004 got on the Republican National Convention floor seeking the votes of all of his fellow citizens to be re-elected as President of the United States, said, I want to add millions of children currently eligible to this program who are not yet served. I tell my friend that's what this bill does. That's why we are so surprised and disappointed that the President rejected this bill and vetoed it and said, as the Speaker said, I forbid this bill going into effect and adding those 4 million children.

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think perhaps we may not need to have a vote on this, I would agree, but there are some number of speakers on our side who would like to speak. I don't know whether we will have 10, maybe 15 speakers cumulatively. If the gentleman might prevail on his side, maybe we wouldn't ask people to come back for a vote, but we do have Members on our side who want to speak. Madam Speaker, I object.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.