Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we hear these debates and they sound so simple on both sides. The public must be very confused. They want low taxes. And the gentleman from Texas talks about putting taxes down. The problem the gentleman from Texas has is he is a member of a party that has controlled this country's government at the Federal level for almost a decade. The President has a veto pen, and he has not allowed any spending that he didn't like. The problem, of course, is for a decade their premise has been that they can spend money, and they spent money at twice the rate that was spent under the Clinton administration for 8 years. Spending. But they didn't pay for what they bought, because they call that taxes. And they are correct. If you buy things and you pay for them at the Federal level, you pay for them with tax revenues. Now we have a very simple solution, you can stop buying things. But they didn't stop buying things, they doubled the rate of growth of spending from about 3\1/2\ to 7 percent. And they cut revenues. Now you don't have to be much of a mathematician or an accountant to know what happens: Budgets, deficits, spiraled. Now, of course, they didn't worry about that because the Vice President of the United States, the Republican Vice President, said debt doesn't matter. That's what he said. And you could see that they really meant it because they have added $1.6 trillion, and that is with a ``T,'' to the debt, deficit, spending. And by the end of this year, they will have doubled the national debt, and they have been in control of everything and could stop spending in its track with a Bush veto. And they said if we did that, the economy would blossom and of course their candidate for President says the underpinnings of our economy are sound. I will tell you, my neighbors don't think that is the case. They are paying more for groceries and they are paying more for gasoline. They are losing jobs. They are having a tough time. My constituents are better off than most. But this country is having a tough time. And all of the things that they said their tax cuts would produce and their economic program would produce, just like Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, proved to be dead flat wrong. Employment, we were going to spur employment, spur growth. Under Bill Clinton, the average monthly addition of jobs was 216,000 per month. Under this President, under your economic program, I don't know whether any of you know how many jobs you have produced over the last 90 months, but I will tell you, 38,000 per month. What is the problem with that? The problem with that is you need 100,000 jobs per month to stay even. Bill Clinton in the first 8 months of his last year, which is analogous to this year, added 1.4 million jobs in the job market. Under your economic program, President Bush has lost 600,000. That's a net turnaround of 2 million jobs lost in this economy; not producing 1.4 and losing 6. Ladies and gentlemen, we're here on Sunday, at a quarter of 10 at night. Why? For the worst financial disaster that we've seen in this country since the Depression, or the Coolidge and Hoover years. Debt didn't matter then either under Mr. Coolidge or Mr. Hoover. Debt doesn't matter, said the Vice President of the United States. We're here on this rule because we believe debt does matter. And I understand what the gentleman from California said. We have a philosophical disagreement. That philosophical difference of agreement is we want mental health parity, but we know it's got to be paid for. We want energy independence and alternative energy research and wind and solar, but we know somebody's got to pay for it. The average American family knows that. They want solar heating in their home they know somebody's got to pay for it. Now we're here, because right now, as a result of failure of this economic program, they can't get a loan because we've incurred so much debt that people have locked up because they're not sure loaning money is a safe thing for them to do. That's why we're here tonight, because of the failure of an economic program that was fiscally irresponsible and was, from a regulatory perspective, neglectful. No oversight. No fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, because I want to end and don't want to have a full debate on this. I've given the gentleman some time. Let me say this: If the American public who is listening to this debate believes the economy is in good shape, so be it. They ought to act on that premise. In fact, we know the economy is not in good shape. Notwithstanding the fact that when they offered their budgets, after many of the events that the gentleman referred to, which have been, obviously, troubling to the economy, which were challenges to the economy, but they continued to indicate that they were going to balance the budget. The budget deficit, debt, has doubled in 90 months, borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined, and we have a $1.6 trillion, which may go as much as $2 trillion operating deficit in the 8 years of this Bush administration, may go that high, as opposed to, I tell my friend this, you're at $1.6 trillion now and growing in the national deficits that you've run up in 8 years. Under Bill Clinton, $62.9 billion surplus and four surplus years in a row.

Mr. HOYER. I understand. Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman, I'm sure he knows this, April 20, 2007, 4 months, actually 3\1/2\ months after, as a result of the election of 2006, the American public gave us the responsibility of leading, we passed regulatory legislation through this House 4 months into our term, after 6 years. Very frankly, as you recall, Mike Oxley, the chairman of the Banking Committee under the Republican leadership, we passed regulatory legislation then. It was opposed by the administration. And Mike Oxley said, and I won't say what he said, but essentially he said, in a different way, that the administration gave them the back of his hand.

Mr. HOYER. No, I want to conclude my debate, Mr. Dreier. But thank you very much for participating in this. I want to say we're here tonight saying simply that what we want to do is incredibly important. We want to pass mental health parity. We want to pay for it so our grandchildren don't pay for it. We want to pass energy independence legislation, wind, solar, tax credits. We want to pass tax credits for individuals. We want to pass tax credits for businesses to grow, but not by incurring more debt because, notwithstanding Vice President Cheney, debt does matter, and it matters to our children, it matters to our economy. And that's what's happening with our economy; so much debt that it crunched us down. And finally people said we're not going to loan anymore, and we had that credit crisis. And that's what this is all about. Not only this bill, but this bill, by the way, is very much related to the bill we're going to consider tomorrow, this $700 billion that the administration has asked us to come up with, and I'm going to vote to do it. I'm going to vote to do it because I think the guy on Main Street, the guy on the farm, the guy in the small business, the guy who wants a job, the guy who wants to pay his kid's college expense, help him with it, the guy who wants to buy a new refrigerator because the old one broke down, he needs to have availability of credit, or his life is going to be very much undermined. That's why we're considering this bill tomorrow. That's why I'm going to vote for this bill tomorrow. But I don't delude myself that it's the result of an economy that was advantaged by the economic program that we have seen over the last 8 years. So I say to my friends that this rule, we may ask to withdraw this rule. We were going to call for a vote. We've told people there aren't going to be any votes. We may ask to withdraw this rule at this point in time and bring it back tomorrow, conclude the debate at that point in time for however much longer time that might take. But we have to get to, clearly, the bill to rescue our economy from the fiscal irresponsibility and the regulatory neglect that we have been experiencing for the last 8 years in America. I hope Americans carefully consider the consequences of the economic program that is being pursued, and frankly, that Senator McCain says he wants to continue to pursue. We think that's not prudent policy, it's not good for our people. I thank my friend for yielding the time.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time for just a minute, because what I asked him, and he said yes, what I asked him was is there a statistic that I have stated today, either on the amount of spending, on the amount of debt incurred under your economic policies, the failure to create employment necessary to stay even with the growth in the employment market, and the loss of jobs for 8 months in a row of 600,000-plus, as opposed to Bill Clinton's, in the same comparable time frame, creating 1.4 million jobs. I ask the gentleman again, do you believe that any of those statistics are inaccurate?

Mr. HOYER. I will yield for a brief minute.

Mr. HOYER. What facts are you disputing that I have articulated?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. If I could reclaim my time, are you disputing any of the facts that I have recited?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, you only need to open a newspaper or turn on a TV to see the case for this economic recovery package made far more eloquently than I can make it. The financial crisis we are facing would have repercussions far beyond Wall Street--it could endanger the economic security of millions. Crisis or not, we are facing an economic downturn that is very real, one that speaks poorly of the President's economic stewardship. This year, America has lost jobs every single month--a total of 605,000 this year. More than a million American families have been foreclosed on, and the housing market has taken its worst dive since the Great Depression. Household income is down under President Bush. 5.7 million more Americans are living in poverty since he took office. And today, 46 million of our fellow Americans are without health insurance. All of those facts call out, urgently, for this recovery package. This bill provides immediate assistance to those who are suffering through an economic storm not of their making. And, just as importantly, it gives that assistance in a way that stimulates the economy as a whole. It has five key provisions. First, it supports efforts to renew America's outdated, worn-down infrastructure--the roads, bridges, pipes, and tracks that are the foundation of our economy. Infrastructure projects are surefire job- creators. And we cannot expect to be a prosperous nation when more than 150,000 of our bridges are in as dangerous a shape as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last year, and when some of our cities depend on century-old water systems. Past infrastructure investments--from canals to electrification to interstate highways--have brought significant economic growth in their wake. Second, this bill makes a serious investment in several renewable energy and energy independence programs. I am particularly glad that it includes funding for the advanced battery loan guarantee program authorized by last year's energy bill. The program will provide assistance in the construction of domestic facilities to manufacture advanced lithium-ion battery systems, one of the energy innovations we are counting on to break our dependence on foreign oil and revitalize American industry. I was proud to write that provision with Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Inslee's support has been instrumental in making it a priority. Third, this bill adds resources to the Federal Medical Assistance Program, sending aid to states forced to cut back vital services in this time of shortfall. Surely, even in these hard times, we can set aside money to care for the poor and the sick. Fourth, this bill includes a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. Food stamps can barely buy a month's food for families in normal times. With the recent spike in food prices, we need an increase in assistance to match. Moreover, economists find that food stamps are one of the best kinds of economic stimulus, injecting money right back into local communities. Fifth and finally, the recovery package will extend unemployment benefits for seven weeks, or 13 weeks in the hardest-hit states. Like food stamps, unemployment benefits assist families while directly stimulating local economies. And if we do not act, nearly 800,000 workers who had their unemployment benefits extended in July will find themselves out of luck in a week and a half--dumped into the midst of a brewing economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, the state of our economy demands a comprehensive response. It should include a 21st-century energy policy, sound regulations to protect investors and taxpayers, and the financial rescue we hope to bring to the floor soon. But right now, for the people of our districts, this bill is the single most meaningful thing we can do. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There was a mistake made in the notice that was given to the minority. That was not anybody's intention; it was a mistake. We want to give another opportunity to consider the rule with the minority having the proper information in front of them when we do so. I have discussed this with the minority, and I think this is the appropriate procedure for us to fairly follow. And I've discussed it with your leadership.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both the vote on the adoption of the rule and the vote on the previous question be vacated.

Mr. HOYER. I told the gentleman from Washington that's exactly what I'm trying to do, which is why I thought it best to obviate the vote so we can do exactly what you've suggested. I've discussed it with your leadership and they've agreed. I hope we can do that, and I hope there's not an objection.

Mr. HOYER. I ask unanimous consent that the vote that we just took be vacated.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask unanimous consent that that vote be vacated?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Frankly, I have not seen it, and I don't know. What I do know is that Mr. Arcuri informed me, and obviously has asked us--Mr. Arcuri feels very badly that a different version than was at the desk was given to the minority inadvertently; and as a result, the minority did not have the document in front of it. It was at the desk, but nobody's gone up to the desk to compare the items. And as a result, we think, in fairness, we ought to have that document in front of you.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule and strong support of this bill. I want to say to my friend, I am mindful of the issue he raises. I think that ought to be addressed and I certainly will look forward to working with him and others in addressing this as we move along; and before, hopefully, we leave here because he makes a good point. I support this bill for two reasons. First, because it provides essential tax relief to American families and businesses. And secondly, just as importantly, because it is paid for. The tax credits extended by this bill, some of the most necessary, are those that support renewable energy and energy efficiency. Business and political leaders agree. This summer, 51 State governors sent us a letter which read in part: ``Extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation will slow the growth of future energy needs, minimize ratepayers' costs, and lessen potential environmental impacts.'' New energy technologies may not end the pain of $4 a gallon gas in the short term, but those technologies which this bill helps to support are the only long-term solutions to our energy crunch. In the meantime, alternative energy tax credits will create tens of thousands of American jobs. We must pass this legislation. Now, I was proud of the fact that the House passed a bill expanding domestic production of oil just this month. But a country that controls less than 3 percent of the world's oil supply, while using more than a quarter, cannot drill its way out of the fundamental problem. Boone Pickens has made that very clear to all of us. That is why I am glad to see the House consider farsighted legislation like this. But I don't just support the goals of this bill, I support it because its tax credits are not financed by even more debt. We are going to incur a lot of debt, we are going to incur a lot of debt in this week. We did so yesterday. Almost all of the Members of this House voted to so-called fix the alternative minimum tax. I voted against that. I voted against it because it wasn't paid for. The means used to pay for this legislation are not controversial. They include a provision to close a loophole that allows hedge fund managers and other high-income corporate executives to defer taxes through offshore tax havens. What does that mean, the rest of us pay more. A large majority of the business community agrees that we should close that loophole. So do majorities in the House and Senate. Only a Republican minority in the Senate, frankly, is putting high-income tax loopholes above fiscal sanity. They are insisting, instead, that we pay for this bill with borrowed money. I understand that bind, the bind that presents for principled Senate Democrats. But fiscal responsibility is not something we can compromise on, especially now. We have a crisis. This economy is in the worse shape it has been in half a century, notwithstanding the protestations that were made in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 about how good this economy was, and the fact that the tax and economic policies being pursued by this administration were making our economy grow and expand and create jobs. The fact of the matter is, we have lost jobs this year; 500,000 jobs. Bill Clinton in the same period of time in his administration created 1.4 million new jobs. That is a net turnaround of 2 million jobs. But fiscal responsibility is not something that we can compromise on, especially now. In crisis, we need to act. But in time of financial crisis brought on, in part, by massive fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we value this extenders bill, it is simply wrong to pay for it by once more whipping out the national credit card. We don't need to do that. We have not done it, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill. They support the policies. All we are asking is to pay for it, and the pay-fors in this bill are not controversial. That is the kind of thinking that swung the Clinton surplus deep into record debt under President Bush and led to more foreign borrowing by this administration than by the first 42 administrations combined. In other words, we have had to borrow more money from foreign governments during the last 90 months than we borrowed in the previous 219 years. We helped to create a crisis of confidence in our financial system which we are being asked to pay for, dearly. Charging our children and grandchildren for our priorities is deeply unwise, and I would suggest immoral. This year, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, was one of the few Republicans to bravely break with his party and insist that this bill be paid for. He said, and I call my Republican colleagues' attention to what Bob Corker had to say: ``It is the first time in a long time I thought we had something that was intellectually honest,'' and that is paying for this bill. ``And I have to tell you, my big fear is our tremendous lack of fiscal discipline.'' So said Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, when calling upon his body to pay for this bill. That fear of more debt is entirely reasonable. I am glad more and more Members of Congress are coming to share it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they love our country, they want to see our fiscal ship of state righted, realizing we are in a crisis time, and they have an opportunity to act in a fiscally responsible way today. Take that opportunity. Show America that we have the courage to pay for what we buy while at the same time giving tax relief to people who need it, to businesses who will expand and create jobs, and to an energy independence that is so critical for our Nation.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now, frankly, I don't want to get into moving rapidly. The administration, of course, came here Thursday and wanted us to pass $700 billion, and they want us to pass this very soon. So ``rapidly'' sometimes is in the eye of the beholder. The point is, you're correct; there was a discrepancy. We think that was not fair. It was not intentional. But Mr. Arcuri, who gave the information to the minority and the information that was on the Web site, was not correct. We think, under those circumstances, in fairness to all, that we ought to redo this, and that's what we intend to do. And we discussed it with your leadership and we all agreed that that was the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I think it was discussed. There was a figure that was incorrectly given in the bill that you had in your possession that was different from the bill that was on the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Ike Skelton and the Armed Services Committee have worked tirelessly to put this bill together, and I want to begin by recognizing that hard work. Chairman Skelton is among this House's most dedicated advocates for our men and women in uniform. And he and his committee have put together a good authorization bill that deserves our support. The bill authorizes a total of $601.4 billion, including $531.4B in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's national security programs. It also includes significant commitments to new shipbuilding, advanced aircraft, and efforts to protect our troops in the field from improvised explosive devices. This bill goes a long way to rebuild our military, which is still battered from years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It provides for an increase of 7,000 active-duty Army personnel, 5,000 more Marine Corps personnel, and 1,023 more Navy sailors. It dedicates significant amounts for the reset of worn-down armed forces equipment: $8.6 billion for Army and $1.8 billion for Marine Corps. $800 million is also authorized for the Reserve and National Guard, which have borne a heavy share of the fighting. But just as importantly, this bill looks out for the needs of our troops at a time when our country has asked so much from them. They deserve all the support we have to give. That's why this bill gives them a much-needed raise of 3.9%, more than the President's request, blocks increases in their healthcare payments, and authorizes $3.2 billion to expand quality family housing. In sum, this is a bill that strikes a sound balance between the needs of our national defense and the needs of our troops and their families. The road back to full military readiness will be long and hard--but this bill is a big step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation--vital for our troops and vital for our Nation's security.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding. I rise obviously in very strong support of this continuing resolution and the three full bills that are attached to it and the other nine of course that will be funded at last year's level with certain exceptions that are necessary to act responsibly. Obviously, passing a CR is never an ideal step. I want to say that as someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, actually 25 years, I guess, I hold that committee in very high regard. And I am pleased that I am following the Representative from Kentucky, the ranking member of this committee, as he spoke not only about the substance of the bill that he has been most intimately involved in, but as well of the respect that he and the chairman have for one another and the ability they have to work together. I think it has been one of the hallmarks of the Appropriations Committee that has been possible. Regrettably, however, very frankly from my perspective, forces outside of the context of the Appropriations Committee, for whatever reasons, whether they are from the administration or from each of our caucuses, has undermined that ability of the committee to work the way it has worked and wants to work. No one in this body is more attuned to the needs of this body, loves this institution more, is more a student of this institution, and very frankly is a better legislator than the chairman of this committee, my friend, David Obey. I want to congratulate him for the extraordinary patience, and he is not known as a patient man, which makes his patience even more extraordinary, that he has been working on a bill that has been so frustrating for him, as well as the committee and the Congress. The CR does contain a number of important funding provisions: an increase in the Home Energy Assistance Program which the chairman has been involved in all of his congressional career, which spans some 3\1/2\, almost 4 decades. It helps families heat their houses during a winter of high fuel costs. It includes funding for Pell Grants to ensure that college aid is not cut in the middle of the school year so that our students will have access to college; and nutrition funding for women and children struggling with the economic downturn and food prices that confront them. Nevertheless, we are debating, frankly, a CR today because we did not complete the appropriations process. I think that is regrettable. I hope we do not repeat that next year. I see Mr. Wamp shaking his head as a ranking member. I think everybody on the Appropriations Committee wants to make sure that we can complete our process next year. And I think we can. Very frankly, we were confronted, the chairman was confronted with an administration who wanted to limit funding, frankly, far below what was possible in order to meet the responsibilities that we have to this Nation and to our people. Today's outcome was a direct result, in my opinion, of the White House's unwillingness to come to the table to discuss funding levels for priorities, to determine what those priorities are, whether they be the National Institutes of Health, whether they be vocational education programs, whether they be protecting our environment; or, very frankly, whether they be overseeing in a regulatory way the financial community, the failure of which has led us to a very critical time in our country's history. There were 20 programs eliminated. Congress did not agree with all of those. The administration would have slashed funds for crumbling infrastructure, law enforcement, for energy research. Those are items which could have been debated and should have been debated and brought to this floor, but because there was no flexibility, that did not occur. Simply saying, We'll adopt your priorities, Mr. President, is inconsistent with article I of the Constitution which gives to the 435 of us that have been elected by the people of this country to come and to set priorities for our country. We do so in a representative way. The President, very frankly, is elected to make a determination on our product, not to tell us what our product is, but to make a judgment once our product is passed whether or not he will agree. If he does not agree, he vetoes that bill and then we have a determination to make by two-thirds vote that we disagree with his judgment. That is the way that the process should work, not be told that your product is going to be unacceptable unless it is as I tell you. With his veto threat hovering over the entire appropriations process, stifling debate and compromises, that process simply could not continue. I want to again congratulate Mr. Obey. If we do not pass this CR, of course, the government runs out of funding authority on the 30th of this month. October 1 is the beginning of our fiscal year. We really don't have an alternative. The only responsible vote, in my opinion, is to pass this bill. I want to congratulate Mr. Murtha and Mr. Lewis and Mr. Young. I want to thank Mr. Young for the extraordinary leadership he brings to this House. Mr. Young is not of my party, but he is, I think, one of those who has the highest character and care for the people of America. His willingness to work together has been, I think, in large part responsible for us getting a defense product with Mr. Murtha that this House will overwhelmingly support, in my opinion. I want to thank Mr. Lewis as well for helping to bring this bill to the floor. I want to congratulate those with the Homeland Security and the Military Construction and VA parts of this bill. They are bills which have been considered, and I think are going to be overwhelmingly supported. I would urge all of my colleagues, meet our responsibilities, fund our government, come back here in an atmosphere in which open debate as to the priorities of our country is welcomed by all sides, and have a full appropriation process next year. In closing, let me again congratulate and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership, without which we would not have been able to get this bill as far as it has gotten to its passage and to fund our government in the coming months.