Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Speaker has focused on, as I think she has been quoted in the press as saying, we are still looking at TAA and discussing that with the administration. TAA, trade adjustment assistance, we think that is very important. There have been some positive discussions and indications from the administration. In addition, I know the Speaker has been discussing additional items with the leadership in the House and with Mr. Reid, and I think as well with the White House. So I think discussions are ongoing. The Speaker has made it very clear that the action taken from her perception, certainly from my perception, was not the death knell of Colombia. I know that some have interpreted it that way, but I don't think that the Speaker or I interpreted it that way.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I want to thank the gentleman because I believe he is absolutely sincere in that effort. He and I have had an opportunity to have discussions. We are going to continue those over the coming days, and hopefully we can get this done sooner rather than later. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee have both expressed that objective.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I share that hope. Again, I share the conviction, which I have expressed on numerous occasions, that the law that currently exists to my understanding, and when I say currently exists, and the authorizations that were given under the Protect America Act, are in place and in fact are continuing to provide opportunities to intercept those communications that the administration and the intelligence community feel are necessary to focus on. Having said that, we are trying, I'm trying to move ahead as quickly as we can come to agreement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Let me come over here. I tell a story when I greet, as so many of you have, constituents to the floor of the House. I tell them the story that few Members of the House did I come with a more negative perception of than John Rousselot, as you can imagine. John Rousselot had quite a reputation around the country. And I say that to them for the purpose of saying that I ended up thinking John Rousselot was one of the really delightful human beings with whom I served, notwithstanding our deep disagreements. Some of you who served during his term will recall, as we know, John had a problem with his leg, but he used to delight, as you recall, going over to that rostrum and talking to you us. You remember that, Bob, I am sure, very well. He did it, however, not in a confrontational way but with a twinkle in his eye, as if to say, I'm coming over here and I'm going to tell you guys what you really ought to be doing. And I really always enjoyed it. When Jay said, well, I'm not going to speak from that rostrum, I'm going to come over here, it reminded me of that. Unfortunately, as all of you know through the years now, the aisle has become more a wall than an aisle. A division has grown. I lament, I really do, Bob Michel's loss from the House and from the country's service in this body--he still serves our country as all of you do as well--because he was, with Tip O'Neill, two unifying leaders who tried to bring us together, not agreeing necessarily but disagree in a sense of trying to get together to solve problems with our different perspectives being involved. As all of you know, I have a deep affection for Bob Michel for that reason. But I always come here-- before I was majority leader I came here--because I want to thank all of you for the service you have given to our country, the friendship you have given to me and so many others in this body. Some of you I see on a regular basis. The Historical Society obviously making such a continued contribution. I saw Ben Gilman 2 days ago at a breakfast at which I spoke. But I really wanted to reiterate the welcome of Speaker Pelosi to all of you back to the House. I also want to recognize our friends, and I'm not sure which one of you are here, from Great Britain, from Ireland. As a matter of fact, I think there are 19 Irish Parliamentarians here. There are a couple from Greece and New Zealand; Great Britain, as I said; and Canada. So we have five nations represented who with the United States have something in common with one of them, Great Britain. And we have much in common with all of us. We welcome you to the House. You are friends and great allies at a time of challenge for the global community, both in terms of economics, in terms of terrorism, in terms of moving our international community towards a more peaceful resolution of its problems. Senator Mitchell. Did he leave? I'm sorry. I should have said that at the beginning. I was going to invite Senator Mitchell, based upon his experience in Northern Ireland, if he might visit us here and see if he can resolve the differences between the Senate and the House. I thought that might be a very useful contribution to the country. We're having some problems. You may have noticed. The Senate is a strange body, Senator Tydings. We're trying to work with them, but it is very difficult. In any event, I want to welcome all of you back and thank you for what you have done for our country on both sides of the aisle, as Americans, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans, and say how honored I am to have the opportunity to join with you on this day when you return, to remember what you have done here, but to also remember the friendships that we have made here. Good luck to you. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have some extraordinary people who work for us. At times this is a very stressful job. They remain even-tempered. They remain gentle and kind and good humored. We have lost one of those just recently. Maybe you did not know his name, but you saw him, usually through the center door, or sometimes other doors. His name was Lou Costantino. As a member of the House security team for over 28 years, Lou Costantino has been a fixture at the House Chamber's front door and was beloved by Members and staff who were greeted by him every day. I never failed to come through that door that he did not have a kind and gentle world. He was a ``purveyor of pork,'' if you will. He loved sausage, and he allowed some of us to share in that sausage. I am very sad to report to all of you that Lou died of a heart attack last Saturday. He was young, 71 years of age. Many of you will remember Lou for the homemade sausage he made for his friends and colleagues every day. We will miss Lou. He made this institution a better place. Moment of Silence I would ask you therefore to join me in a moment of silence in remembrance of a part of this institution who will be sorely missed, Lou Costantino.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I would agree with the observation on our side. I say that, and it is obviously not humorous except to me. The fact of the matter is I believe that what was said on this side of the aisle and what the Speaker has indicated was that this was sent down we believed contrary to normal practice not with agreement of the leadership and the administration on how this would be considered. The Speaker believed, and obviously the House did as well, that additional time was needed. This was not, the Speaker has indicated that, an attempt to kill this agreement. It still could come up. There still is going to be discussion between the administration and ourselves. We want to resolve some outstanding issues and discuss what we might reach agreement on with the President and the administration. As you know, we began those conversations yesterday. You and I were down there at the White House together. We hope to continue and hope for positive movement. Regarding other agreements that are pending, we have not discussed nor ruled out the possibility that future trade agreements may be considered by this Congress.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me say that last week, and I would reiterate the comment, I don't think I spoke to when the committee would move on it. What I did say was that hopefully the supplemental would be on the floor either the last week in April or the first week in May. I don't think that I referenced the committee consideration of that. I still believe that is the case. With respect to your second question as to what might be on the supplemental, obviously it has not been marked up in committee. There are discussions, as have been reported in the public press, with respect to either language that might be appended to that by the committee or by the House itself. I would not want to preclude that effort. I want to say that it is my understanding that the President has made a comment today again that what I sent you and the dollar I sent you, not a penny more will I sign. I will tell my friend, I don't think that is particularly useful. It continues to say from the President of the United States to the Congress of the United States, which is, after all, the policymaking body of this country under the Constitution, ``What I propose you take, or we'll leave it. We'll not do anything other.'' I would hope to have discussions on this. As you know, the economy is in crisis. It is very nice to give money to Iraq. As you know, I support funding our troops. Having said that, we have people in crisis in housing, we have people in crisis in jobs, we have people in crisis without health care, and we have people in crisis with their educational expenses. We have a lot of people in this country who are in trouble. We think that they need to know that the Congress of the United States is responding to their issues as well as to the issues that the President brings up with respect to Iraq. So I don't want to commit us to simply doing exactly what the President asks, or apparently thinks he can tell us to do. We don't think that is the process.

Mr. HOYER. I don't think this was intended necessarily to be precedent-setting. The precedent, of course, has been that administrations, Republican and Democratic, have discussed with Republican and Democratic Congresses the timing and conditions under which these would be sent forward. We did not believe that had been accomplished this time. The administration's perspective was that there had not been response to their attempts to do so. Whatever the reasons, the answer to your question is we do not believe at this point in time that this is precedent for the two pending agreements. But I don't want to by that response represent, if we were confronted with the same set of conditions, that is, that we did not reach agreement on how those agreements were moving forward, that this might not be again something that might be considered. But it is not precedent.

Mr. HOYER. I am not sure when it was introduced, very frankly. It was marked up this week and reported out of committee. Whether it was introduced this week or not, I do not know. As you know, Secretary Spelling has indicated this is a very severe challenge confronting student loans. Obviously we want to get ready for September in particular so families have some confidence they will be able to secure loans for their children, or for young people going to college, securing the loans themselves.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the Republican whip. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Thursday, the House will meet at 8:30 a.m. and recess immediately to allow for the Former Members Association annual meeting, and will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. for legislative business after the meeting is concluded. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list will be announced by close of business tomorrow. On Friday, no votes are expected. We will consider H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007; H.R. 5719, Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008; and H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008. In addition, we intend to consider at some point next week the bill we started today, H.R. 2537, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring. We will consider that to its conclusion.

Mr. HOYER. Well, of course, as you know, we have passed legislation that's still pending in the Senate. In addition to that, as you know, gas prices in January 2001 were $1.46, on average, in this country. They're now, on average, $3.30, so they've more than doubled during the last 87 months of this administration. We're concerned about that, as I know you are as well. The public would like to have $1.46 gas, I'm sure, back. And we are concerned about that. We're concerned about energy independence. We all know that it's going to be very tough in the short term on both sides, it's recognized in the short term, to do something on gas prices, given where we are today from that $1.46 where we were in January of 2001. Having said that, this bill that was on the floor today was an important bill. It was an important bill to a Member on your side of the aisle, and you and I had the opportunity to talk to him about it. It was a bipartisan bill. It's a bill that we thought had merit. And, as a matter of fact, my expectation is that overwhelming numbers of the House are going to vote for it when it comes up for final passage. But, clearly, gasoline prices, gasoline, energy independence, which is a critical component of why we are in the position of having to pay such high prices, because we don't have great alternatives, getting more efficient automobiles, using alternative energy sources, providing for renewable fuels, as you know, I think you and I, I know you and I were both down when we presented the President with a bill that was signed by him at the Energy Department. We in a bipartisan way moved towards that last year on bills that we passed in a bipartisan way.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, April 17, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, it adjourn to meet at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 17.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of this legislation, and I thank the gentlelady from New York for her leadership on this issue. I thank Mr. Deal for his leadership, as well, on this very, very important issue. Madam Speaker, today this House is considering seven very important but largely noncontroversial public health bills. This week, of course, is National Public Health Week, a time to reflect on the importance of the quality of public health programs and a time to reiterate our commitment to addressing the critical problems that afflict America's health care system, such as exploding costs and the rising number of uninsured. Today, however, I want to address one of the seven health bills that we are considering. The one under consideration right now is H.R. 2063, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act, introduced by my good friend, Nita Lowey, of New York, the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, with whom I had the great privilege of serving for many years. She is a longtime member of the Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. On that committee, she has focused on health care for Americans, but health care particularly for children, as she has focused on education for our children. In short, Madam Speaker, this legislation will provide schools across the country with uniform guidance on how to create appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies. It will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a voluntary policy for schools to implement measures to prevent exposure to food allergens and to ensure a prompt response if a child suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. Madam Speaker, deadly food allergies are not some arcane, rare occurrence. Frankly, even if they were, they would require our attention. But the reality is that as many as 2 million school-age children suffer from food allergies. One of those children is my granddaughter, Alexa. No cure currently exists. Avoiding any and all products with allergy- causing ingredients is the only way to prevent potentially life- threatening reactions, reactions including severe anaphylaxis, which often occur at school and which can kill within minutes, unless epinephrine is administered. Alexa, Madam Speaker, is 5 years of age. When she is at my house, as she was this past weekend, when she is in a restaurant, she is acutely aware, extraordinarily aware, for a 5-year-old, of what she can and cannot eat. And her mother, my daughter, asked the restaurant, what do you cook your french fries in? What do you use on your foods? It is an extraordinarily anxious time when my granddaughter eats. Just last week, for example, members of my family, including Alexa, visited my office, and we had sandwiches put out for a number of the family members. We had to make sure that all peanut butter and jelly sandwiches were removed from our conference room before Alexa entered to protect her. To tell you how extraordinarily sensitive she is, she was in Disney World in Florida. She was walking with her mother and father down the pathway there from one exhibit to the other, and all of a sudden she started to wheeze heavily. Anne, who had seen this happen before, could not understand it because she didn't have anything to eat. They retraced their steps, and about 100 feet before this started, 100 feet, they saw some popcorn being popped in peanut oil. And it was simply the wind wafting that peanut odor. And whatever it was in the air she then breathed in, and that immediately started to give her a problem. The importance of managing life-threatening food allergies in the school setting has been recognized by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Nurses and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. One of the extraordinary nurses of America is our colleague, Lois Capps. And I want to thank Congresswoman Capps for her leadership on this issue, as well. As a health professional, she knows firsthand of the consequences of allowing this to go unchecked and unprepared for. Unfortunately, no consistent, standardized guidelines currently exist to help schools safely manage students with potentially deadly food allergies. As a matter of fact, my daughter, and parents similarly situated, meet with their child's teacher, Alexa is in kindergarten, and teaches them how to use the EpiPen, and it is ever present. My daughter goes nowhere without her EpiPen for use on Alexa should she have an attack. That is why it is critical that we pass H.R. 2063 to ensure the safety of not only Alexa, but the millions of other school-age children afflicted with food allergies across the country. I recently went to an event in New York. And after the event, I went to dinner, and there were eight of us at the table. Three of us were grandfathers. Eight people, in New York, not anything dealing with this issue, all three grandfathers were telling one another about the fact that they have grandchildren with food allergies. That is why it is critical that we pass this bill to ensure the safety not only of Alexa, but as I said, of the millions of other school-age children. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this important, life-saving legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's our expectation that, following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the committees will be meeting to not only discuss substantive policy, but also to discuss the supplemental appropriation bill. It would be my expectation that that bill would be on the floor either the end of April or the first week in May. We are cognizant, as the gentleman indicated, of the June period, and so we want to move this significantly before that debate so that there will not be any lag.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the question. We all agree this is an important agreement, but as you know, there are still major long-standing issues to be resolved, violence being one of them, labor rights being another, trade adjustment assistance, which the gentleman referred to, as another. If the White House does choose to send up the agreement, we will discuss the full range of options available to us under the TPA and the House rules.

Mr. HOYER. I won't debate that now, but I would be interested in discussing it at some point in time because, as you know, in those years revenues fell short of the administration's projections in the previous years. So that, although revenues did increase, you're absolutely correct, as revenues have every year over the last 50 except for 2, they increased less than the administration had projected.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much for yielding. I will say that over the last 7 years, the President has told us things are pretty good. There was never a right time for revenues to be increased. Even in the times when the President was telling us the economy was robust, we were growing, we still weren't paying our bills. We feel very strongly on this side of the aisle, and Mr. Bernanke, in a telephone conversation with me, said one of the things we didn't want to do, when you and I and Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi were talking about the stimulus package, one thing we did not want to do is exacerbate the long-term debt that confronts us. Mr. Bernanke is very concerned about that. But certainly in the context of wanting to move quickly in an emergency way where we have an economy now that Mr. Bernanke, although he didn't say it was a recession, he certainly gave the implication that we were on the brink of that, we're very concerned about the economic policies, very frankly, that we think have led to that. But I will say that we have two concerns: Number one, paying for what we buy, not exacerbating the deficit. But clearly we're concerned about getting relief to people that need it in the short term. But my discussions with Mr. Bernanke were, yes, tax increases in the short term he thought were not helpful, but he wanted to make it very clear that he thought making the debt worse over the long term, whether it's for international expenses or domestic expenses, was not helpful to the economy in the long term. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished whip for yielding. On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour and 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. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including several important public health bills, H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act, and H.R. 1237, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act. The final list of bills under suspension of the rules will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and H.R. 2537, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Well, there are obviously needs in addition to Iraq that are being discussed, and I would tell my friend that those discussions are ongoing. A decision on what may or may not be added in addition to the supplemental that may be necessary for Iraq, there may be other things, that decision has not been made at this point in time. But I do want to let the gentleman know that that is under discussion. As the gentleman will recall, last year, when we passed the supplemental, there were domestic priorities that were also addressed, in particular, Katrina, as the gentleman will recall, and some other matters as well. So, that's under discussion.

Mr. HOYER. As you know, we are strong proponents of the PAYGO rule and have adhered to that in all but one instance last year. We did not adhere to it, as you know, with the stimulus package. There was concern, and obviously we didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same point in time, so that was under discussion. But I will tell you on the housing bill itself, Mr. Frank has been working on that with his committee, Maxine Waters and others, and with Mr. Bachus and others on the committee. And we would certainly hope to move a housing bill in the near term, certainly no later than the latter part of this month or the very first days of the next month, so that we can pass a bill that would give relief to those who have either been foreclosed upon or are on the brink of foreclosure. We believe that it is essential for us to try to address what is a national problem and a very serious one. And so, that will also go into the consideration, I think, of how much money is needed, how that will be paid for.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, April 4, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.