Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, who has been so involved and so eloquent in expressing the grief that his constituents share, as have been all the Members from Colorado on either side of the aisle who have come together to share this grief. Mr. Speaker, when tragedy of this kind strikes, our hearts go out to those whose lives were cut short and to those who lost loved ones. In the aftermath of this shooting, we have seen both an outpouring of love and support for the victims and their families and a quickness to point out what might have been done differently. That is our nature as Americans--always seeking answers, searching for corrective action, for a measure of logic amid the irrational. But the first question we ought to ask and is already being asked is: How can we draw closer as a community? Not just the community of Aurora, but the community of Americans. As President Obama said on Friday: If there's anything to take away from this tragedy, it's the reminder that life is very fragile. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things; ultimately, it's how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another. I would add it is also how we commit to live with one another as neighbors. We may not share the same faith or politics or philosophy, but we do share a fundamental belief that our people should feel safe in our theaters and malls and schools, in their homes and on the streets-- wherever they go. And, today, we share the pain of the people of Aurora. But we also share in the hope that the city whose name is the ``dawn'' will find in our sympathy and prayers the comfort it needs during this dark hour to begin the process of healing and to believe again in a brighter tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As the gentleman knows, he was unable to have the colloquy last week, and so Mr. Roskam and I talked about the schedule. Last week, the chief deputy majority whip mentioned that we would be voting on the tax bill, as you have done, and he also mentioned that we would be given the opportunity to offer a substitute amendment on the floor of our choosing. Is that still the plan of the majority so that we'll be able to offer that legislation? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. My question is: Last week we had a colloquy, and Mr. Roskam indicated that we would be able to offer an amendment, not just an MTR--we discussed that--but an amendment to the bill. Now, we weren't precise whether it was in the form of a substitute or an amendment. But in either event, I'm asking, Mr. Majority Leader, whether that is still the case and whether or not such amendment will be obviously protected under the rule for such waivers as may be necessary for the piece of legislation that Mr. Roskam referred to?

Mr. HOYER. Let me be more precise, then, because I'm not sure whether or not the definition of the President's plan--in his weekly press conference just a few hours ago, or maybe just a few minutes ago, Mr. Boehner was asked if we would be allowed to vote on the Senate tax bill, to which he responded: If our Democrat colleagues want to offer the President's plan in the Senate, then we are more than happy to give them a vote. He said that just a few minutes ago. Our intention will probably be to offer the bill that has now passed the Senate, which will protect middle class taxpayers from any tax increase, as I think your party, Mr. Leader, and my party agree on. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to offer that alternative on the floor with such protections as would be necessary consistent with what Speaker Boehner has said. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would not parse words. Mr. Leader, we have had some discussions on this, and the majority party, when it was the minority party running for office, said that we're going to have open, full debate. Mr. Boehner has said in the Pledge to America that that's what you wanted to do. Now you keep parsing your words. I will tell you the President's plan. The President's plan currently is the bill that passed the Senate just a few hours ago, yesterday. That's the President's plan, I tell my friend. And if, in fact, Mr. Boehner's words are to be interpreted as something other than that, he says: If our Democratic colleagues want to offer the President's plan in the Senate-- Now, obviously, we can't offer our plan in the Senate. We're House Members. So my presumption is, Mr. Leader, that that means, if we want to offer the Senate plan, which is now the President's plan, I tell my friend-- --we're more than happy to give them a vote. I hope that is accurate. I hope that we can have a full and open debate on that issue. But I hope that the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, does not choose the amendment that we are to offer. Let us choose it, I tell my friend. And I would hope that we could clarify that so that we would know, and the American people would know, that we have a plan now passed by the Senate, and we have a plan also that was defeated in the United States Senate. I don't know whether your side intends to offer exactly the plan that was defeated in the United States Senate, but it is a plan that the President of the United States, as the leader knows, has said he won't sign. So what I ask my friend, respectfully, so that we know what to prepare for and we know that it will be made in order, that consistent with what the clear meaning of this statement that Mr. Boehner made just a few hours ago is, that we would be given the opportunity to offer the Senate-passed plan and would have a vote on that plan either in the form of an amendment or a substitute? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And I will interpret that, Mr. Speaker, as indicating that if we choose to offer as an amendment the bill that passed the Senate--which ensures that there will be no tax increase on 98 percent of Americans--that we will be allowed to offer that bill and it will be protected under the rule, and such waivers as are necessary will be extended. That's how I interpret that. If I am wrong, perhaps the majority leader can correct me. But I don't want to parse words or lead to confusion. The gentleman knows what the Senate bill is. I know what the Senate bill is. And it is, at this point in time, our intention to offer that Senate bill as an amendment to the bill that's offered on this floor. So I would hope that our understanding is that, consistent again--and I want to say consistent with the Speaker's comments--that that will be allowed. I want to say to the gentleman as well, I think he is appropriate in referencing the past, and I'm pleased that he is not following such precedents.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I think that clarifies it. He and I both look forward to that robust debate. We will clearly differ, Mr. Speaker, on the impact of that vote. But there will be no dispute that it will ensure that 98 percent of Americans, every working family-- every working family, 100 percent--will not pay any additional taxes on the first $250,000 of their income, which we think gives confidence to people, gives confidence to the economy, and we think is an appropriate step to take. So I appreciate and look forward to that debate, which I think is an important one for the American people. I would also like to ask the gentleman, with respect to the farm bill, he mentions in his comments that there may be some vote on the farm bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill, as the gentleman knows. It saves very substantial monies, will contribute to a reduction of the deficit. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the House- passed farm bill will be brought to the floor or whether some alternative will be brought to the floor? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I do not support the House farm bill, but as the gentleman knows, the ranking Democrat does support that farm bill. So as the gentleman likes to observe on many occasions, it does have bipartisan support. He asked for my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I've given him my personal opinion. But that bill itself will save substantial dollars and bring down the deficit--not as much as the Senate bill, but it will have a positive effect on the deficit itself. In either event, however, we have some real distress in farm country, very substantial drought, in great need of making sure that there's some way to assist those farmers who, through no fault of their own, but through the fault or the result of weather conditions--lack of rain--are in distress. So we believe that something ought to be brought to the floor that will, A, not exacerbate the deficit, and, B, help the farmer. I yield to my friend if he has anything additional.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can agree on how to do that, again, without making the deficit worse and adding to that and hopefully helping farmers at the same time. Let me ask the gentleman, there are two very important bills that were passed, one in the Senate--again, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and here, with not an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote-- in the Violence Against Women Act, a very, very important subject. There was a very significant 62-37 vote in the Senate. Excuse me, that's not the exact figure. That's on the postal bill, which I'll ask you about in a second. It was 68-31--even more bipartisan than the postal reform bill--back on April 26, some months ago, with 15 Senate Republicans joining in favor. I don't see that on the schedule. I don't know whether the gentleman believes there's a possibility that we'll be able to pass that before the election. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Of course, the gentleman knows that that would be a very simple cure to simply drop the Senate bill, which has overwhelming bipartisan support, into an H.R. bill, a House bill, and that would cure that deficiency. I agree with the gentleman, I think that's well known. But that's a technical issue. If we have agreement in both the House and the Senate, put that in a House bill and pass it. So I think that we can act on it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well knows, the House bill excluded a large number of people from protection, a large number of people who are the victims of domestic violence from protection, as contrasted with the Senate bill, which was designed to ensure protection of all people who were subject to domestic abuse and designed to encourage people to make complaints against those who abuse them without fear of adverse consequences to them so that we could get abusers dealt with in a proper way. And again, I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that over two- thirds of the United States Senate, with an overwhelming number of Republicans as well voting for the Senate bill because they believed it was inclusive. And of course every woman Member of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, who probably have greater insight into domestic abuse than perhaps some of us males and male colleagues have. So I would hope that we could focus on trying to reach agreement which we did not have in the House, as the gentleman knows. We had not an overwhelming bipartisan support in this House at all on the bill that was passed. So I would hope that we could compromise, cure the technical difficulty that the bill, the Senate bill passes, because, the gentleman's right, it has a fee in there, it has to initiate in the House. But the gentleman also knows if that's included in the House bill, that that defect would be cured and we could pass it. I would yield to my friend if he wants to make any additional comment on that bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. As I interpret that, Mr. Speaker, pass the House bill or no bill. Pass the House bill that had 23 Republicans voting against it. Pass the House bill, and reject a Senate bill that has 68 United States Senators, a large number.

Mr. HOYER. Certainly.

Mr. HOYER. Let me then, reclaiming my time--I'm pleased to withdraw that assertion. But in the comments, I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not share the majority leader's opinion that the House bill covers all people. As a matter of fact, I think that's inaccurate and incorrect. We disagree on our facts there, our analysis of the bill. What we don't disagree on, however, because the facts are clear that we have a bill that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate. I'm fully prepared to work with a conference, as the majority leader is, and work with him in a conference to get a bill out of the conference. I'm hopeful, Mr. Leader, that in light of the fact that in this House the bill passed 222-205, with 23 Republicans voting ``no'' on the bill, that we not only have bipartisan opposition, but we have bipartisan support of the Senate bill. Let me go on to another bill that I think is very important because the postal department is facing real stress. It's somewhat ironic that we are, in a Congress that has too often lamented the fact that the Senate couldn't act on things, when they do act, and when they do act in a bipartisan fashion, it seems we can't act. The postal bill has now been passed by a vote of 62 votes in favor, another bipartisan vote of the postal bill, and I'm wondering whether or not the gentleman has any idea whether we might either go to conference or bring a bill out on the House floor that I know has been passed out of committee, so that this bill can get to conference in a timely fashion so that the Post Office, which is facing, obviously, default on some of its obligations, would be made whole. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Lastly, on a note on which we have great agreement between the majority leader and I, which is not always the case, as people observe, I'm sure: Iran sanctions. Both the majority leader and I, Mr. Speaker, want to see that bill pass before the August break. And I would inquire of the majority leader his view of the status of that issue at this point in time.

Mr. HOYER. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with the majority leader toward that end over the next 7, 8 days. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when the sponsors of this bill talk about ``auditing'' the Federal Reserve, they don't mean a traditional audit. An outside, independent accounting firm already audits the Federal Reserve's annual financial statements, and GAO is already empowered to review the Fed's financial statements and a broad range of its functions. In fact, the Wall Street reform legislation Democrats passed last Congress expanded the types of audits GAO can conduct, as has been mentioned by Mr. Issa. So there is transparency and accountability when it comes to the Federal Reserve's finances and operations. However, this bill would, instead, jeopardize the Fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to a GAO audit. The Fed, like every other major central bank in the world, is independent, and Congress has rightly insulated the Fed from short-term political pressures. I agree with Chairman Bernanke that congressional review of the Fed's monetary policy decisions would be a ``nightmare scenario,'' especially judging by the track record of this Congress when it comes to governing effectively and intervening in the courts and other areas. We don't have to look any further than the Congress unnecessarily taking the country to the brink of default last summer in a display of politics. All of us, Mr. Speaker, want transparency. All of us here want to make sure that the Federal Reserve is working to carry out the economic goals of the American people, which are maximum employment and price stability. But that's not what this bill is about. This bill increases the likelihood that the Fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and preserve the independence of the Fed so it can keep our currency stable and cultivate the best conditions for our economy to grow and create jobs. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we, in Congress, have shown too frequently our inability in a political environment to make tough choices. That failure has led us, in part, to where we are today. I urge my colleagues to defeat this unwarranted, unjustified, and dangerous legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing today's Special Order, but as my colleague Mr. Engel and as my colleague on the Republican side and as Dr. Christensen have pointed out, our hearts and thoughts go out to and with those people who by happenstance of going to a movie have lost their lives, have been injured badly, have lost family members, have had the confidence of going out and about in this country put at risk. How we lament that loss of life, that loss of confidence, that loss of a sense of safety in their community. We need to address that issue--to instill confidence, to restore safety, to ensure that America continues to be a land in which people feel safe. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to talk about an issue that is central to America, and that is the right to vote. This is an issue that affects millions of Americans from every walk of life, but it will certainly have a disproportional effect on African Americans, Hispanic Americans, seniors, and youth. In 2008, we saw a record turnout from minority communities and younger voters as more Americans were energized to take part in our democracy. That democracy is our greatest strength, and the principle of ``one person, one vote'' has always been a vehicle for Americans to hold their government accountable and ensure it is responsive to the challenges we face as a Nation. We ought to be building on that progress we made in 2008 by encouraging more Americans to register to vote and cast their ballots. Indeed, in my view, the Nation--States, counties, communities, municipalities--need to be reaching out to people to make sure they know how to vote and to facilitate their votes, not to put stumbling blocks in the way. It continues to be deeply disturbing to witness a campaign of raising barriers to voting and voter registration by Republican-controlled legislatures in States across this country. My dear friend and colleague, a hero in American history, John Lewis, is a veteran of the fight for voting rights in the fifties and sixties. He carries the scars, both physical and in his memory, of the great effort to secure not just the right to vote but the freedom to exercise that right. That's why he is helping to lead this effort in 2012 to prevent voter suppression and to make certain our elections are open to all who are eligible to participate. He can attest that today's effort is a continuation of the work he began as a young man. Since the beginning of last year, 22 laws and two executive actions in 17 States have restricted our citizens' right to vote. Civil rights heroes like John Lewis refused to accept barriers to voting in the middle of the 20th century, and all of us--each and every one of us--is here today because we refuse to accept these new restrictions in the 21st century. That's why many of us introduced the Voter Empowerment Act in May. Our bill strengthens America's democracy by improving our voting system in three key areas: access, integrity, and accountability. It will reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, create a national voter hotline for reporting problems, allow same-day and online registration, remove obstacles to voting for military personnel, and prohibit deceptive practices that discourage Americans from casting their votes. Each one of us in this House is opposed to voter fraud. Each one of us is opposed to any voter voting who is not eligible to vote. But very frankly, the good news in America is that is a very, very, very small problem. In fact, when proponents of restrictions are asked to cite examples, they are hard put to do so. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are making the issue of voter access a major priority this year, because we believe that all Americans deserve to participate in this year's election and to have their votes counted accurately. We will continue to monitor our voting system and call attention to those who seek to undermine it. Again, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for its work on this critical issue, as well as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, who has been such a hero on voting rights throughout his congressional career; the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Brady; and the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. Clyburn. I'm proud that the fight for voter access has attracted a broad coalition of civil rights organizations, as well as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and that senior citizen organizations and, yes, representatives of young people are very concerned about the fact that eligible voters are being discouraged and, in some cases, suppressed from exercising their precious American right to vote. Let us never forget that generations have held it to be a moral duty to preserve the most powerful guarantor of our liberty: the right of every American to vote. We continue to stand up for it today, and hopefully each day as we proceed. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a couple of times about what Democrats are doing. Let me refer now to an article that appeared in The Washington Post today, written by Charlie Crist, the former Republican Governor of Florida. He says: As a result of insidious political maneuvers and a lack of respect for voters, we in Florida have been entangled in litigation. The courts and the Justice Department have been required to step in this summer to protect the integrity of the voting process against a sweeping voter purge that the Florida Department of State undertook under the guise of removing non-U.S. citizens from voter rolls. He goes on to observe: Among those caught up in this shameless purging and notified that he was not a U.S. citizen eligible to vote: a 91-year-old World War II veteran, Bill Internicola, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and has proudly exercised his right to vote for many years. Governor Crist, the former Republican Governor of Florida, concludes: The right to choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be an American. Our history books are full of examples to the contrary. When we send independent observers to monitor for voter fraud in banana republics, we derive authority from our self-regard as the ideal. When we hear of corrupt voting practices in foreign countries, where the ideal of democracy is nothing more than lip service, we feel good about ourselves. He then went on to say, Mr. Speaker: It's time to look right under our noses. It's happening here at home. And it's our responsibility to honestly assess the root of the problem, which requires doing so with as little partisan bias as we believe belongs in the administration of our elections. He concluded with this statement: We can't be surprised every time it turns out that politics are involved in politics, but neither can we be silent when our democracy is threatened in its name. There are lines that should not be crossed; meddling with voting rights is one of them. It is un-American, and it is beneath us. I thank my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership on this issue to make sure that the most precious right that every American has as a birthright is the right to vote. Let us not allow any steps to be taken by the Federal Government, by the State government, by county governments, or, yes, by municipal and local governments from impeding the rights of citizens to speak out in the most powerful way they can: voting. [From the Washington Post, July 20, 2012] The Voter ID Mess Subverts an American Birthright (By Charlie Crist) For better or worse, the central principle behind the unlimited contributions to super PACs that will dominate this election cycle is simple: Money is speech, and we cannot limit speech. Yet many who hold this freedom as an article of faith are all too willing to limit an equally precious form of speech: voting. If we don't speak out against these abuses, we may soon learn the hard way the danger of that double standard. And a dozen years after the 2000 recount that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, my state of Florida threatens to be ground zero one more time. As Florida's attorney general from 2003 to 2007, I strongly enforced the laws against illegal voting. When swift action was necessary, I took it without hesitation. I did so out of respect for our democracy--voting is a precious right reserved only for U.S. citizens--but I'm concerned that zealots overreacting to contrived threats of voter fraud by significantly narrowing the voting pool are doing so with brazen disrespect and disregard for our greatest traditions. As a result of insidious political maneuvers and a lack of respect for voters, we in Florida have been entangled in litigation. The courts and the Justice Department have been required to step in this summer to protect the integrity of the voting process against a sweeping voter purge that the Florida Department of State undertook under the guise of removing non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Among those caught up in this shameless purging and notified that he was not a U.S. citizen eligible to vote: a 91-year-old World War II veteran, Bill Internicola, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and has proudly exercised his right to vote for many years. This is just the most recent example of a mean-spirited and all-too-partisan attempt to restrict access to the rolls and to the polls. A federal court also recently struck down provisions of a law Florida's legislature passed in 2011, which put heavy burdens on organizations seeking to help voters: burdens that the court described as ``harsh and impractical,'' serving no purpose other than to make it harder for Americans to participate in the electoral process. These machinations make a mockery of the democracy we put on display every Election Day. The right to vote is the key to that democracy, giving value to the freedom of speech and making the freedom of religion and the right to assemble possible. When one takes away another's right to vote, he is taking dead aim at democracy and undermining the very virtue that makes us the envy of the world. Including as many Americans as possible in our electoral process is the spirit of our country. It is why we have expanded rights to women and minorities but never legislated them away, and why we have lowered the voting age but never raised it. Cynical efforts at voter suppression are driven by an un-American desire to exclude as many people and silence as many voices as possible. Our country has never solved anything with less democracy, and we're far better off when more citizens can access the polls--no matter which party mobilizes the most voters to them. As governor of Florida, I extended voting hours and increased the number of days people could vote. I also restored registration rights for felons, years after starting that effort in the state Senate with a member of the opposite party. I was a Republican at the time of those decisions, which didn't make me many friends on my side. But when you do the right thing for the people, a political party's concerns roll off your back quite easily. The right to choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be an American. Our history books are full of examples to the contrary. When we send independent observers to monitor for voter fraud in banana republics, we derive authority from our self-regard as the ideal. When we hear of corrupt voting practices in foreign countries, where the ideal of democracy is nothing more than lip service, we feel good about ourselves. It's time to look right under our noses. It's happening here at home. And it's our responsibility to honestly assess the root of the problem--which requires doing so with as little partisan bias as we believe belongs in the administration of our elections. We can't be surprised every time it turns out that politics are involved in our politics. But neither can we be silent when our democracy is threatened in its name. There are lines that should not be crossed; meddling with voting rights is one of them. It is un-American and it is beneath us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the chief deputy whip.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I appreciate it. I know the majority leader could not be here this afternoon, but he said last week that we should expect legislation on the floor the week of July 30 dealing with the tax questions; in particular, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The gentleman may remember my discussions at that point in time. I don't think decisions had been made. We are hopeful on this side of the aisle that there will be hearings next week, obviously, because it's going to be the week of the 30th it'll be on the floor, and also there will be a markup of that bill before it comes to the floor. Can you tell us whether or not in fact there will be a hearing on that legislation and also whether, pursuant to those hearings, there will be a markup on that bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As the gentleman understands, although they may be well known, the situation that exists today is radically different than existed in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush, who recommended both of those tax cuts, projected a $5.6 trillion surplus, as the gentleman may recall. Unfortunately, that prediction was radically wrong. And when I say radically wrong, in fact, we increased the debt by over $4 trillion rather than have a surplus--a $10 trillion turnaround in the projections. As a result, I would suggest to the gentleman and his party that the situation confronting us, as I said, is very, very different than it was in 2001 and 2003 when the Bush administration projected those surpluses, which it inherited, of course, from the Clinton administration. In addition to that, the Republican majority has said that we'll govern based on their pledge to America. Openness in the House is a key part of that pledge that you made. I want to read you a quote: ``We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will, nothing to fear from the battle of ideas.'' The Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, went on to say: ``That starts with the committees. The result will be more scrutiny and better legislation.'' He said that in October 2010. Of course, it was in the throes of a campaign. But I would hope and I tell my friend very sincerely that that premise prevails today. In light of the change of circumstances, but much more than that, in light of the significant differences between the two parties in the Ways and Means Committee, the transparency and openness to which Speaker Boehner referred, referencing that that would apply in committees as well, would almost dictate that you would have a markup in the committee and give members of the committee the opportunity to vote on that legislation, offer amendments, offer alternatives, and offer their opinions for the consideration of other members on the committee as to the ramifications of the actions proposed in the committee by the majority party. I would ask my friend if he has a view on whether or not, notwithstanding the fact that the position of the majority is that the subject matter is well known--it is also well known there are differences of opinion on this. And what the Speaker said in his quote was, let that difference be spread across the Record, let Members have the opportunity to express their differences through their vote; and that premise applied to the committees. I would hope that the gentleman could assure us that, in fact, there would be a markup in the committee. I have talked to Mr. Camp, who is a good friend of mine and for whom I have a great deal of respect, and asked him to have a markup. I would hope the leadership would support that effort and urge that markup to occur consistent with what Speaker Boehner said in October of 2010. And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments. That is new information for us. I will tell you, please, I would still like to have a markup in the committee, which I think is consistent. No matter how much this has been discussed, there has been no markup of this bill. So while it may have been discussed for a long period of time and while there have been hearings on tax reform, there has been no markup of this bill in the committee, as the gentleman well knows. But I'm pleased to hear that the minority will be allowed an amendment to be made in order of our choosing to offer on this floor. I think that's a positive sign. I appreciate the gentleman's notice of that, and I will certainly notice our Members of that ability. We're pleased at that. I will say, however, to the gentleman that I did note the Ernst & Young story. I noticed it was paid for by people who may, absent its conclusions, receive a tax increase to help us bring down the deficit. But notwithstanding that, I was sure we were going to hear about that on the floor. I'm not surprised, and you're not going to be surprised that there will be other studies referenced on the floor as well. So I thank the gentleman for his information, and I'm pleased with that. As I said, I will note that, in fact, there will be an amendment, and hopefully that amendment will be allowed some significant period of time for debate. That is much superior to the only other alternative that we would have had, which was an MTR 5 minutes on each side. So I thank the gentleman, and I thank the leadership for that information. Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman expect the farm bill to come to the floor before the August break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. For the gentleman's information, which may help you in determining whether or not you have the votes for the farm bill, I think it fair to say that we would have a majority of our party for the Senate-passed bill which passed, as the gentleman knows, with 62 votes, 12 Members of the Republican Party voting for that bill, 50 members of the Democratic Party. Obviously, it is a significant bipartisan bill. If the gentleman perhaps is talking to Mr. McCarthy, you can convey to him information that if that bill were to come to the floor, we would try to work with you to pass that piece of legislation. Obviously, there are a lot of farmers in our country who are struggling right now. We have an extraordinary drought in America. They are suffering, they're at risk, and the gentleman talked about certainty. I agree with him on certainty. By the way, because I didn't ask him when he brought it up, does that certainty mean that you would be suggesting that the tax cuts that were in effect in '01, '03 be made permanent? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Going back to the crisis that the agriculture community is confronted with by the drought, if the farm bill--and we would urge that the bipartisan farm bill be brought to the floor for consideration to give certainty to farmers, to give some sense to farmers as to what they might rely on in the coming year or coming years; but absent that, the gentleman did not mention, do we have any expectation that we will deal with drought emergency legislation vis-a-vis the farm community prior to our August break? I yield to my friend.