Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I am the ranking member.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) makes a good point. All of us want the government managed so that we save taxpayers' dollars and we effect the ends that this Congress wants effected on behalf of the American people. This is not a partisan amendment. This is not a union amendment, let me say. I want to read you two quotes that I hope Members listen to. One is from David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States. By the way, he is not a Democrat, as you probably know. In considering this issue, and the issue is simply whether or not you set numerical, and that is the key, ``numerical,'' that is the word in this amendment, and, yes, I have read the amendment, numerical, because once you set the numerical, then you in effect say either you have to or you in fact have an expectation that you will get to X percentage, irrespective of whether the competition and the analysis shows you save money. Irrespective of that. That is the problem with the policy that the President is pursuing through OMB. Now, what does the Comptroller General, a Republican, the head of GAO, the head of overlooking efficiency and effectiveness in government, say? ``It is inappropriate to have quantitative targets in the area of competitive sourcing.'' The Comptroller General. He disagrees with your proposition, therefore. He disagrees with the President's proposition. Why? Because it is not an effective and efficient way to accomplish the objective that all of us share. Secondly, not a partisan politician, Paul Light, respected overseer of the Brookings Institution view of public employment, says this: ``The Bush administration should show that it means business by imposing a moratorium on its competition initiative which has a,'' listen to this, ``ready-fire-aim quality, and think more systemically about what the Federal Government needs to do its job.'' That is what the Moran amendment says. Support the Moran amendment. Reject arbitrary and capricious management by numbers.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 5 minutes of debate on this amendment, and that that time be equally divided, 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the committee and 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for her contribution to the debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue. She has talked to me and I know she has talked to the chairman. She has been working tirelessly on this issue and has great concern about it. I would be happy to work with her and the Postal Service to address the facilities need of the Jensen Drive Postal Station in Houston. As the gentlewoman knows, the committee is very concerned with the financial system the Postal Service is in. As the Postal Service continues to address their fiscal deficits, they should not lose sight of the local communities that they serve. That is the gentlewoman's point. She is absolutely right on that point. Her concerns for those with disabilities and the elderly in accessing the Postal Service is absolutely essential. To that end, I think the gentlewoman will be successful in her efforts working with us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today on this serious and most sensitive issue, the Republican leadership has turned the people's House into nothing more than a poser's House, posing for holy pictures, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have us say. The world's greatest deliberative body will not engage in democratic debate today. It will engage in a contrived, cynical charade. In 1994 after the GOP majority captured the House, Gerald Solomon, the former Republican chairman of the Committee on Rules stated, ``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness.'' He was referring to the guiding principles of the Committee on Rules. He went on to say, ``The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome.'' ``From now on,'' Mr. Solomon went on, ``the Rules Committee will clear the stage for debate, and let the House work its will.'' I do not know how genuine was Mr. Solomon's conviction when he made those comments, but I presume that they were sincere. But the practice has been the opposite. Today's debate will not be open. It will not be fair. And it will not be a serious attempt to legislate. The rule ensures a rigged procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome, the very process the Republican Party derided when it regained the majority. If the Republican leadership was really committed to fair and open debate, it would permit the Members to vote on the bipartisan Late Term Abortion Restriction Act which I and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), my Republican colleague, introduced last year and a number of years previous to that. But the Committee on Rules has denied us that opportunity four times since 1995. Let Members be clear, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will not prevent a single abortion. Let me repeat that. The bill before us and on this floor reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary will not prevent a single abortion. Not one. And the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who just spoke, testified to that fact when she said this procedure was not necessary and medical experts have said there are other methods to terminate the pregnancy. In other words, the issue here in this bill that is proposed by the Republican majority is not about preventing abortion, it is about a procedure. I have asked those who are for this bill if this procedure were worse than others that are used to terminate a pregnancy. Is there anyone here who doubts the answer to that question is a clear and resounding ``no.'' The bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I introduced and which we asked to have made in order would have precluded all post-viability abortions because I believe the majority of us in this House believe that postviability abortion ought not to be by choice, but we do what the Supreme Court mandates we do and in my opinion is appropriate to do, and that is to provide for an exception so that the life of the mother might be saved if in the medical judgment such a procedure is necessary to accomplish that objective. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court requires, and in my opinion is appropriate, it provides that if the mother's health will be put at risk, the medical procedure can be affected, but only in those instances. Otherwise late-term abortion, postviability abortion, would be precluded. The partial-birth abortion bill is sometimes I think by a sloppy press referred to as a late-term abortion. It has nothing to do with late term because the process can be used at any point in the pregnancy. In fact, this bill would ban a rare medical procedure reserved for the most tragic of circumstances. In contrast, our bill will preclude all late-term abortions. Members may ask why is this not made in order? Why are they afraid to have us debate it? They can oppose it and say they do not agree with the exceptions. They can say the Supreme Court is wrong. But why preclude the opportunity in the people's House to adopt an amendment which reflects the law in 43 States of the United States of America? Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this rule. What a shame that the majority fears open debate on this issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I echo the gentleman's comments. Certainly I will indicate I have no objections, and look forward to working with the chairman, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on these important issues that they have raised.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, but I just want to make sure that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is in there. We have talked about that; No. 12.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying essentially that it is their money, these Americans, and they know what to do with it?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, as I understand, there was a unanimous consent request propounded subsequent to the first unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent was of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) suggesting that there be in effect, an amendment to the first unanimous consent and that that amendment would be that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 3 minutes and controls that, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 3 minutes, that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) have 3 minutes in opposition, and that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) have 3 minutes in opposition. It seems to me that we all here, I think, agree that that would be the distribution of time.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, it is my perception there is not opposition to the unanimous consent request, but I may be wrong.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.