Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Lastly, Mr. Whip, the child tax credit, we have just instructed the conference committee to pass the Senate bill out of conference on a bipartisan vote. I do not see the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but is there any feel when that bill might come out of conference?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Appropriations bills, I know we have started to mark up appropriations bills in the committee. When do you expect the first appropriations bills may come to the floor, now that some of the subcommittees are beginning to mark up their bills, and how many bills do you expect to consider before the July 4 district work period?

Mr. HOYER. Medicare prescription drugs, there has been a lot of activity on that, and I know that a lot of work is going on in the Senate and here in the House. Can you tell us about when we can expect to see the Medicare prescription drug legislation considered in the committee of jurisdiction and then on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he provided us. I would like to ask a number of questions about bills that we see on the horizon, to see whether or not they may be scheduled in the near future. The Associated Health Plans, can you tell us what day we might consider that bill, and how the bill will be considered, and whether or not we will be allowed a substitute and/or amendment?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the distinguished majority whip the schedule for tomorrow, and I will be pleased to yield to my friend, the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would it be fair to expect that we would consider that conference committee prior to the July 4 district work period?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon and thank the chairman. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for a provision in this bill which I think is very important. I represent three general aviation airports that are within the 15- mile radius of the White House. As a result, they were shut down. They were not shut down because they were not operating safely and fairly; they were shut down because it was the perception and the belief of those in charge of our national security that they posed a risk. Obviously, they are all owned privately. They are not public airports. As a result, there was a very substantial adverse financial impact to many people, both who own the airports and who had concessions at the airports. There is authorized in this bill $100 million for the purpose of, both at National and other surrounding airports, not only here but throughout the country, those who suffered damage as a result of 9-11 in a very real financial sense, for them to be not made whole, because that would be impossible at this point in time, but to be compensated for the losses they sustained. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their leadership, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in getting this authorization effected. I appreciate it. I know they appreciate it. It is the right thing to do. I talked to Sean O'Keefe, of course, who now heads NASA, but was deputy director of OMB at the time of 9-11. He said he thought we ought to do this. It has taken us some time to get it done. I appreciate the leadership shown by the committee to effect this. I enthusiastically support the bill and this provision. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its effort to make commercial air travel safer and to restore the public's confidence in the security of our Nation's airways and airports. Unfortunately, while those restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the rest of the country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have continued to languish under binding restrictions on their operations. In fact, the only airports in the country that are closed to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National and the three D.C. area general aviation airports. As a result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive, are on the brink of financial ruin. These airports have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively, endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost long-time customers and revenue. In speaking with airport managers at all three of these airports, I have heard their disturbing reports on loss of operations, reductions in fuel sales, and loss of revenue since these flight restrictions were put in place. Lee Schiek, manager of the College Park Airport, reported earlier this year that flights in and out of College Park plummeted from about 1,800 per month before September 11 to 164 per month at the beginning of 2003, and 55 of the airport's 87 based aircraft have left for other airports. There is no doubt that we must stem this tide of economic decline for general aviation. This industry is a proven, integral part of the nation's economy, providing vital services and economic stability to individuals, families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small businesses, and communities. Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry, an industry too large and too important to be hobbled any further in an already weak economy. Today, the House of Representatives passed the FAA reauthorization bill that will provide $100 million to general aviation to help alleviate the cost incurred in meeting security requirements and the revenue lost because of the interruption in operations. The $100 million grant gives the Congress an opportunity to do for general aviation, small airports, and small business, and the independent pilot what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. This shows that we recognize the sacrifice that general aviation has made in the effort to make us more secure. Let's not forget: the Federal Government imposed the restrictions on general aviation, and the Federal Government should do its part to help ease the financial burden those restrictions have caused. This is a fair restitution that will start the process of a return to financial health of general aviation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, without taking this further, than perhaps we need to go in a colloquy of this type on the schedule, Mr. Leader. In a serious vein, the minority on the Committee on Ways and Means would love to participate in the process. I would tell the leader, with all due respect and very sincerely, the minority in the Committee on Ways and Means does not believe it is included in the process; and that is of concern to us. If perhaps you could talk with the chairman, with your persuasive powers, perhaps, in fact, we could participate in the process and perhaps we would be able to offer such an amendment; and, clearly, if that would happen, we would offer such an amendment, I assure the leader. So if he could help us with the chairman of the committee, that would be greatly appreciated. Medicare prescription drugs, Mr. Leader, what can you tell us about when we can expect to see Medicare prescription drug legislation considered in the committees of jurisdiction and then on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, and I am glad to see him on the floor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, obviously, last year the discussion was the failure to pass a budget undermined the appropriations process. Of course, we have passed a budget, I would say somewhat facetiously. That probably undermines the appropriations process as well, but, nevertheless, we are behind, as the gentleman indicates. We are concerned that we get so far behind that we are unable to pass appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, and I am pleased to hear that perhaps we are moving ahead to start giving the allocation for the subcommittees and having mark-ups perhaps as soon as next week. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. He and I may disagree as to the fact that the Senate left it out. It was left out. We agree on that. The Senate, of course, had it in its bill. We did not. Am I correct then that there are no plans next week to have on the floor of the House as far as you know a child tax credit bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Lastly, I would ask the gentleman, I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for many years. We have not marked up yet, as the gentleman knows, any bills in subcommittee nor, obviously, in full committee at this point in time. In fact, we have not been given 302(b) allocation, as the leader knows. Would the leader be able to tell us what schedule he now foresees for appropriations bills and when we might do the 302(b) allocations?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his informing us of the schedule that is contemplated for next week. Mr. Leader, I do not see Child Tax Credit legislation listed on next week's schedule. I did not hear you talk about that. We have a bill, as I think you probably know, the Rangel/DeLauro/ Davis bill, that will make sure working families and our service members left out of the recently enacted tax bill get the child tax credit they should have. We have sought unanimous consent to bring this bill up, but we have been denied and not successful. There is apparently agreement in the Senate, as we understand it, to take this matter up perhaps today. When do you expect that we might be able to consider child tax credit legislation on the floor, Mr. Leader?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. I take it then that if the Senate does not pass something over here, that we would have no thought that that would be on the schedule for next week?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. A question was posed and unanswered. We can wait for an answer, if my colleagues have one. Is there no answer to the question? Apparently, there is no answer, I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, to the question she posed. Let me tell her and my colleagues why. Mr. Speaker, yesterday syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington, no Democrat and no liberal, and very wealthy, said this in the Los Angeles Times, and I quote: ``A magnetic compass always points north; a moral compass should always point out that heaping billions on the rich while ensuring that one out of six American children do not get a penny is dead wrong.'' Dead wrong. Arianna Huffington. Not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), not the Democrats, not those fuzzy-headed liberals my Republican colleagues like to talk about, but Arianna Huffington. She continued: ``But that's exactly what congressional Republicans did in pushing through tax cut legislation last month, and that's what President Bush signed off on.'' Arianna Huffington. Mr. Speaker, America now knows that the GOP's moral compass lies shattered on the conference room floor where the final deals on the Republican tax bill were cut 2 weeks ago. Why did the majority leader leave the floor? The majority leader left the floor because he used an example just above the $28,000, where he would have been wrong. My colleagues, the moral compass is absent. There was a report that showed that the policies in 2001 and 2003 are leading to a $44.4 trillion deficit. Who did that? Two people in the Bush administration asked to do that report and OMB. And guess what? They stonewalled the report. Why? Because they did not want the magnitude of the debt tax that we are imposing on every American family known while at the same time, when they had no lobbyist in that hall, those 12 million children, who did not have somebody highly paid to sit in that hallway and say do not cut us, found themselves cut out of the bill that in the still and dark of the night, with no Democrats present, was brought out to this floor, pages and pages of bill, with minutes to review it. Arianna Huffington is correct. Shame, shame, shame.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HOYER. You believe that that is more humane. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. HOYER. In which case, reclaiming my time, the child would not be live; am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. In late term, this is the only way to terminate a pregnancy?

Mr. HOYER. In late term than this? Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and obviously I do not have more time, I wish I had more time because this is an important debate. My question to you is, A; let me ask you this, yes or no, if you can. Do you believe the only way to terminate an abortion is late-term, the procedure referred to in this bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the AMA opposes this bill. The Organization of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, you heard their statement. We are speaking past one another and we are not speaking to the American public. Your bill is unconstitutional. You know it. You tried in 17 or 18 pages to restore it. You cannot do it, because you do not include what the Supreme Court requires, protecting the health of the mother. Our bill is constitutional, and, except for the premise that you make that doctors are charlatans and will not be held accountable for breaking this law, which has to be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence, you say this law does nothing. In fact, it is the only statute on this floor which will preclude abortions at late-term being performed by any procedure; by any procedure. Now, I tried to get the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to respond. He would not respond. Why would he not respond? Because my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for whom I have unrestrained respect, believes the termination of a pregnancy, the taking of a life of a fetus, is wrong, however you do it. He is shaking his head affirmatively. That is an intellectually honest position. I respect it. Partial-birth as described is an awful procedure. Abortion is an awful procedure. I accept that. And I personally oppose late-term abortions. When I am accused of being for abortion on demand at the 8th month, 29th day, I am not. We ought to protect those lives. But we have to balance it. That is what the Court says, that is what the Constitution of the United States says. Support the Greenwood-Hoyer alternative. It is the only legislation that will be effective in trying to make some sense of this issue that so vexes America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.