Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Yes. Will the gentlemen yield?

Mr. HOYER. I am looking for the exact date, but the farm bill expires tomorrow, and we have to extend the farm bill or go back to the 1949 extension. Again, I would say to my friend I am operating with some concerns about the questions that are raised. But, again, I say, first of all, what happened in the Deficit Reduction Act is that the bill that was sent to the President, the provisions were never passed by the Senate. Every provision that was sent to the President was sent to the President after overwhelming votes from the House, overwhelming votes from the Senate in exactly the same position. Title III was passed by the Senate and the House, and inadvertently left out. In the Deficit Reduction Act, figures were changed in the bill subsequent to passing the Senate and never passed by the House. So I would suggest that the analogy between the two is not apt. In addition, there was no bipartisan discussion on that change. In this case, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte are both on the floor. I didn't participate in those conversations. But I was informed by Mr. Peterson, because I said, have you talked to Mr. Goodlatte about this. He said he had. There had been significant discussions about that. There was concern about getting the farm bill passed because of the expiration of the existing authorization. As a result of those discussions, my personal thought was there was bipartisan agreement that we could proceed this way. We did proceed that way. I don't think I can amplify my response more than that.

Mr. HOYER. The only thing, as I understand it, would be to make tomorrow a suspension day. It's not a suspension day. So we would have to make it a suspension day.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it's my understanding we voice-voted the last vote while we were all talking, and therefore, there are no more votes for the day, and we are finished for the week. Have a good weekend. There will be no votes on Monday, but there is business on Monday. If you have a suspension bill in which you are interested, you need to be here to participate. We have agreed that there would be no votes on Monday, but there will be probably 30 suspension bills considered on Monday. Whatever votes are asked for, we will roll until Tuesday. We will be meeting Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for working tirelessly over the past year and a half to craft this farm bill--legislation that may not be perfect, but which takes our Nation in a new direction in agriculture policy. This farm bill makes important reforms in the commodity title, while continuing to provide a safety net for our small- and mid-sized farmers--farmers like those I represent in southern Maryland. The bill tightens payment limits, eliminates loopholes that have been exploited to get around those limits, and makes payments transparent by requiring direct attribution to a single individual. I am proud that this bill takes important steps to ensure that our children and those in need will have the resources they need to live healthy lives. Its nutrition title includes more than $10 billion to better stock food banks and pantries, provide healthy snacks to schoolchildren, and reform the food stamp program by tying it to inflation. It is important to note that this bill also makes record investments in conservation, renewable energy, and rural development, which will enable our producers to better protect our environment and bolster economic development in our rural communities. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes $438 million in direct assistance over the next 10 years to help our farmers in their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. While we have been able to make some strides in our efforts to restore this magnificent estuary, it is clear that there is much work to be done. Recently, the University of Maryland Center for Environment Science issued a report card which rated the bay's health a C-minus. Ironically, this slight improvement over the previous year was largely due to drought conditions that limited nutrient and sediment runoff into the bay. The funds included in this farm bill will help farmers throughout the watershed control erosion and reduce sediment and nutrient levels. Their efforts will help enhance, restore, and conserve this ecologically significant habitat. The legislation also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give special consideration to producers in specific, targeted river watersheds, including those of the Potomac and the Patuxent. Our concerted effort to restore these significant tributaries will go a long way to bolstering the health of the great body of water into which they all empty--the Chesapeake Bay. Finally, I want to express my support for the Enhanced Use Lease Authority Pilot Program. This program seeks to create a national model at the National Agricultural Library and our Nation's flagship agricultural research facility--the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. This program will enable them to partner on-site with public and private facilities to enhance the mission of USDA-ARS and address much needed facilities upgrades in a timely and efficient fashion. Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill--a farm bill that will be noted for putting America's agricultural policy on the right track and laying the foundation for more far reaching reforms in the future. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly agree with the sentiments he has just expressed, which is why, of course, we want to see this move forward quickly in the supplemental. But the alternatives that the gentleman has expressed are being looked at.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I see the chairman on the floor. The chairman and I have discussed that issue, and that's why I indicate that it is likely. Mr. Peterson has worked extraordinarily hard, along with a lot of others. But because he's on the floor, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for the work that he has put in on this. It's been a very rough conference and a very rough agreement. But he and Mr. LaTourette have worked closely together, and I congratulate them both.

Mr. HOYER. I said Mr. LaTourette. I'm sure he's worked hard, too, but Mr. Goodlatte is the ranking member.

Mr. HOYER. We certainly, as you know, passed a number of pieces of legislation which have attempted to look at a number of different issues. One, of course, was the manipulation by the OPEC nations to artificially inflate prices. The other thing we have looked at is price gouging at the pump. We passed that. The other item we looked at, of course, was the energy bill itself. And the other was we asked the FTC to look at manipulation. We wrote to the FTC about 3 weeks ago. The FTC gave attention to our letter and is now exercising, as I understand, its jurisdiction under the legislation that we passed to look at prices. In addition, we have numerous hearings scheduled. We've had some this week, next week, and the week after looking at various different aspects of this. Clearly, our consuming public, whether they be commercial, which are probably having the most critical problem because that's their livelihood, as well as those of us who are not driving for commercial sake but for important sake, to get to school, to get to work, to get to hospitals, to do all those things, we are very cognizant, as I know all of us are, of the strain that is being put on the consumers of our country. Not only are they seeing an economic downturn, but at the same time that they are having reduced capacity to purchase things critical to them, gasoline and home heating oil are going up almost every week 5 to 10 cents. And so we are addressing that. We met with all the chairmen who reported out the energy bill last year and asked them to address this issue short term, medium term and long term.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say that both the Speaker and I believe that the administration, in reaching an agreement that you refer to, made a positive step in terms of incorporating within trade agreements a consideration of workers' rights and environmental concerns so that our manufacturers and our job producers in the United States had a fair, more level playing field in which to compete and that our workers were competing with workers who had the right to organize and were getting decent wages. The Colombia agreement, as you know, was not sent down here after agreement between the administration and the House leadership. The response was to simply not take it off the agenda but take the time limit during which we might consider that. That was an interim step which did not, as the Speaker has pointed out, take Colombia off the agenda. It simply didn't put it on the agenda for immediate consideration. But that is still on the agenda. It is still available, a force, and it is still under discussion.

Mr. HOYER. One of the things I know I am personally for, and I think the Speaker is for that, as well, and we have urged the administration to take action, is not purchase additional oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time. I would be opposed to taking oil out of the reserve. But if we stop purchasing oil for a period of time, reduce our demand as we fill the SPR, not only will we reduce demand, economists tell us that would have an effect on price, perhaps about the same as the gasoline tax holiday that you refer to. There are a number of pieces of legislation. Mr. Welch has a bill. Mr. Lampson has a bill. And many, many other Members have a bill. The administration, we believe, can do this on its own. We think that would be good policy while we have this crisis to stop filling up, not reducing, but to stop filling up our own reserve and reduce demand. Economists tell us that would have a positive effect on bringing prices down as well.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. On Monday the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday no votes are expected at this time. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A final list of suspension bills will be announced, as is the custom, by the close of business tomorrow. We expect to consider the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. In addition, we also hope to consider the farm bill conference report. And it is possible, if the budget conference were completed, that we might consider that as well.

Mr. HOYER. It's likely that that will happen. I can't assert that, but I think it's likely. As you know, the farm bill has been up to agreement and then back. I understand it is now agreed to and that Mr. Peterson would like to bring it to the floor, assuming that the agreement holds, on Wednesday. So I think it's likely.

Mr. HOYER. First, let me say that I don't believe that the PAYGO, under the proposal that has been made, applies to the GI Bill, to the Webb bill, or to whatever bill there might be. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has a bill as well. Mr. Mitchell has worked very hard on his bill. But however that might be considered, we believe that technically it does not need a waiver of PAYGO. But, clearly, the unemployment insurance, which would be considered as an emergency, as was the stimulus for stimulating the economy, would be dealt with as an emergency.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. We were trying to get it done quickly this week. There were some delays, as I recall, in the process. That was not the only reason, as the gentleman has observed. But we hope to get it done quickly.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I will say that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has worked very hard on that. I'm sure Mr. Boozman has as well. The committee has addressed that bill. It's a good bill. It's not as extensive, as you know, as the Webb bill, which has also been worked on pretty hard by former Secretary of the Navy Webb, Jim Webb, the Senator from Virginia. Both bills obviously seek to make sure that our warriors who come back, those who have defended freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, that when they come back, we invest in their education so they, in turn, can grow our economy and our country and do what the veterans of World War II did. But we're looking at those and they're under discussion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is not about petting dogs. This is about people who are hurting. This is trying to reach out to people who have been savaged in many ways by this economy and the policies that have led to an economy where average working incomes are down $1,000 and where gasoline prices have exploded over 200 percent from $1.46 to $3.56. I would remind you that under the Clinton administration they went from $1.06 to $1.46, 5 cents a year during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. They are going up 5 cents a week during this administration. People are stretched. I didn't hear people come to this floor and say $30 billion for Bear Stearns. It was outrageous, putting the taxpayers' money--Mr. Flake says he did. Thirty billion dollars. We just talked about $2.5 billion for literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps as many as 1 million people. There is a crisis, and they have asked us to respond. I want to congratulate the chairman of our committee. I want to thank the ranking member of the committee. I want to thank all the members of the committee for giving this their attention and trying to come up with a solution that works. Was this a partisan, divisive solution? Absolutely not. The Secretary of the Treasury has said that this is a product that merits serious consideration. For a time, I thought he was for it. I am not sure now. There seems to be some internal division within the administration. Mr. Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said that this is a good thing to do. So, Mr. Speaker, today through this comprehensive landmark legislation, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, this House is going to act not to pet dogs but to help people. This House will take decisive action to keep hundreds of thousands of families at risk of foreclosure in their homes and will help stabilize the housing markets across the Nation that have been wracked by an unprecedented drop in home values over the last 2 years. Make no mistake: The slumping housing market has had negative, rippling effects throughout our economy. It is not just people in houses that are having problems, but the subprime crisis has affected our entire country and the availability of credit. And thus it is imperative that we take responsible, reasonable steps such as this to strengthen our weak economy and ultimately benefit not just those who are at risk of losing their homes, but every American. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed out in a speech on Monday, Monday, just a few days ago, at Columbia University, ``High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy.'' And the answer is, don't pet your dog. It was bad behavior. Leave him alone. Or punish him. What we want to do is help people do the right thing. He continued: ``Therefore, doing what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interests of lenders and borrowers, it's in everybody's interest.'' Those are Bernanke's words. Not Chairman Frank's. Not mine. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this legislation, the product of hard work by Chairman Barney Frank and so many others, is designed to do: Avoid preventable foreclosures. There is little question that after an historic housing boom in the first half of this decade we now are faced with a housing crisis. Foreclosures soared to an all-time high in the last quarter of 2007. According to Mortgage Bankers Association, more than 1.2 million properties received foreclosure notices in 2007, up 75 percent from 2006. And 1 in 33 homeowners is projected to be in foreclosure over the next 2 years. So much for a great economy. This legislation, in short, will expand the FHA program so that borrowers in danger of losing their homes can refinance into lower- cost, government-insured mortgages that they can afford to repay. I've heard so much talk about a family-friendly Congress. Family values. Caring about children. What can be more family friendly than keeping families in their homes? I think not too many things. But to be clear, this bill will minimize taxpayer exposure. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of putting homeowners into affordable loans under the bill would be not $30 billion, not $20 billion, not $10 billion, but a total of $2.7 billion. A few days in Iraq. A few days in Iraq. Not a month. A few days in Iraq. Contrary to the rhetoric coming from some, this bill is not a bailout for irresponsible lenders or borrowers. Only primary residences are eligible. Investors and lenders must take significant losses, as they should. The owner of the old mortgage can only receive 85 percent of the current value of the home. And in return for an FHA guarantee on the mortgage, borrowers must share with the government any profit from the resale of a refinanced home. The government will only have liability if the borrower defaults and the amount recovered in foreclosure is below the outstanding debt still owed. Furthermore, this legislation includes tax provisions to expand refinancing opportunities and to spur home buying. It increases the VA home loan limit for high-cost housing areas, which we passed before, enabling veterans to have more homeownership opportunities. We are having people come home from Iraq. We are going to be talking about that. They may have lost their home because they went to Iraq and they couldn't keep their home. This helps them get back in a home. And it includes FHA modernization provisions that have already passed this House, as well as GSE reforms such as strengthening the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and raising their loan limits to increase liquidity in the mortgage market. Chairman Frank has talked to Secretary Paulson about that. I have talked to Secretary Paulson about that. I am sure many of you on your side of the aisle have talked to Secretary Paulson about that. He thinks this is absolutely essential. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's mitigate the effects of the bursting of the housing bubble. Let's prevent hundreds of thousands, and perhaps up to 1 million people, from foreclosure and allow American families to stay in their homes through this responsible legislation. Let's stabilize our housing market and help millions and millions of homeowners who are not at risk of foreclosure, but whose neighbors are at risk for foreclosure, and if they are foreclosed upon, will see their home values deteriorate. So the assistance is not just to those at risk of foreclosure, but to all those who are in communities where homes are at risk. Let's pass this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation today and work to get it to the President's desk without delay. I am hopeful that the President will see fit to sign it. Vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' on the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Vote ``yes'' for the families of America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. As I indicated at the outset, I understand your feelings. I said angst, but I understand your feelings. My point is that I understand while you have been making motions to adjourn and making your points, you've made it every time you've stood up, I have made the point that I remember voting on omnibus appropriation bills numerous times, 4 months, 5 months after the appropriations process should have been concluded, long after the year began, which were omnibus bills which we could not change. So we understood that that was, we didn't think, fair. We understood that we sat here for an hour and 45 minutes while we were winning a vote, and no vote ever changed during an hour and 45 minutes, and the vote was not closed down until, in fact, you changed votes on your side and we lost. We understood that. We didn't like that. We thought that was unfair. I didn't think it was against the rules. I've said that. But I thought it was unfair. All I am saying to my friend, the minority leader, and to my friends on the minority side, that what just occurred is not an acceptable, in our opinion--my opinion, forget about our opinion, I haven't talked to anybody else--in my opinion, way for us to operate the House. The motions, yes, but simply changing votes for the purpose of delay could take an hour, could take 2 hours depending upon how many times people wanted to change. Mr. Gingrich, we don't hold to it, we understand that, but he said 15 minutes plus 2. I have said that before and some people cheered. Fifteen minutes plus 2, or 5 minutes plus 2 if it's a 5-minute vote, is what we have set as the norm and the comity and the fairness to individuals to exercise their deliberative judgment.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, it was not my purpose to stand here and exchange recriminations or look at history. I think both sides could do that. It was my purpose to stand and say what we have just done we cannot allow because we would stop the business of the House. We're slowing down the business of the House, and that's allowable, but we're not going to allow the business of the House to be stopped by, we believe, conduct inconsistent with the rules. Dilatory tactics are not allowed under the rules. Dilatory tactics are specifically provided for as being conduct which need not be countenanced by the House.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.