Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Would the gentlelady, the sponsor of the motion to recommit, yield for a question?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be amended by substituting the term ``promptly'' with the term ``forthwith.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Medicare Funding Warning Response Act of 2008 at the request of the President pursuant to section 803(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 which requires me to do so. The Secretary of Health and Human Services submitted this proposed legislation to the House of Representatives on February 15, 2008. The Medicare Modernization Act established a process requiring the President to propose and Congress to consider a legislative response to a Medicare funding warning. A Medicare funding warning is triggered if the Medicare Board of Trustees makes a determination in 2 consecutive years that general revenue Medicare funding is expected to exceed 45 percent of Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year or any of the next 6 fiscal years. The trustees issued a Medicare funding warning in April 2007. Under the statute, the President is required to submit a legislative proposal to Congress that will lower the ratio to the 45 percent level. The statute further requires the Majority and Minority Leader or their designees to introduce the legislation submitted by the President. Thus today, I am fulfilling my statutory obligation by introducing this legislation. Let me stress that introducing a bill ``by request'' should not be interpreted to imply endorsement of the legislation as submitted. As I mentioned, this introduction by me is required, it is not discretionary. Furthermore, let me be clear: While some of the items in the proposal deserve consideration, the proposal includes provisions that I oppose. For example, I have consistently voted against medical malpractice proposals similar to the proposal included in this package. I have strong reservations about the basic approach of the trigger. The trigger establishes an arbitrary limit on general revenues that does not provide a meaningful measure of Medicare's fiscal health and would take some legitimate options for strengthening Medicare financing off the table. The focus on general revenue spending inherently favors some options over others. Ironically, this process was included in the Medicare prescription drug legislation enacted by the then-Republican Majority and signed by President Bush--legislation that increased the liabilities of the Medicare program by $8.5 trillion. In fact, we would not have exceeded the 45 percent threshold but for the prescription drug benefit financed by general revenues. In sharp contrast, the Democratic Majority in this House is committed to ensuring that the Medicare program continues to function effectively for beneficiaries, providers and taxpayers well into the future. Remember, the House enacted reforms to strengthen Medicare as part of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act of 2007. The CHAMP Act would have extended Medicare solvency by 2 years. The savings from reforming spending on Medicare Advantage plans in the CHAMP Act would have met the requirements of the trigger. Let me say that it is imperative that we get serious about our long- term fiscal challenges. Analysts of diverse ideological perspectives and nonpartisan officials at the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have all warned that current fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long term even under the most optimistic projections. Medicare and Medicaid will grow by nearly five times as a share of the economy by 2050 under current projections if the growth of health care costs does not slow. And these programs will absorb as much of our Nation's economy by the late 2040s as the entire Federal budget does today. Turning a blind eye to our long-term challenges would not only be irresponsible, it would be dangerous to our Nation's continued success. Those of us who believe that the American people want their government to invest in national security, health care, education, infrastructure, scientific research and other priorities have a critical stake in addressing the budgetary pressures that will be created by the growth of entitlement spending. Finding a politically viable, equitable and financially sound solution to our fiscal challenges and meeting our responsibility to future generations will require bipartisan discussions in which all options must be on the table. Unfortunately, the Medicare trigger is ill-suited to such a process. Further, I am very skeptical that we can deal with the issue of entitlements in a bipartisan manner in the current environment, especially since the current administration has made it clear that it is not willing to discuss all options. I believe it is critical that we begin to lay the foundation for bipartisan action on this issue in the next Congress. I am encouraged that efforts to establish a bipartisan task force with a broad mandate to address our fiscal challenges have been initiated. I believe this issue will be one of the most important that the next Congress and the administration must address. We must have an open, honest debate about the best way to strengthen our entitlement programs that millions of Americans count upon.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I disagree with Mr. McConnell, Admiral McConnell, whose op-ed I read this morning. And as the gentleman knows, I would reiterate, had we extended by 21 days the Protect America Act, which all of your Members voted against, had we done that, the immunity which was provided in that would have continued. As the gentleman also knows, that the only issue here is whether or not the administration has to go to the trouble to go to the FISA Court, which it has done so over 16,000 times, not this administration but the previous administration, and only had its request rejected five times; 99.9 percent of the time the FISA Court has approved. And once it approves, the telecoms, the telecommunication companies, acting in response to that court order are not liable for their actions. Therefore, we regret that we have not extended that, but, as I said, I am meeting today, we will be meeting through the next days, to try to come to an agreement. Because the Senate delayed its action for 3 months after we passed our bill, it presented us with a bill that you wanted us to take as a fait accompli, without going to conference, without having the opportunity to discuss it. We think that was unreasonable and we didn't agree. So we're going to pursue this process and we are all in agreement that we ought to get this done.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Ninety percent of our party voted for that. All we needed was just a few from your side, and you all, each and every one without exception, voted against extending the present law which you now say if it lapses will put the country at risk. We do not agree with that, but that is your contention, not our contention. And it is somewhat, I think, contradictory for you on the one hand to say we're putting our country at risk and on the other hand voting to a person to not extend the law which you say protects our country.

Mr. HOYER. Right.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an important issue which is therefore why I think it's worthy of making sure that everybody understands. The gentleman from California makes the point that he believes that we are at risk. I again reiterate, all of your Members voted against the extension. The gentleman from Georgia says we had a lot of time. Very frankly Senator Reid has given the opinion, it is my opinion, respected as a parliamentarian apparently or knowledge of parliamentary procedure, that the reason it was delayed in coming to this body was because, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, you made the comment, which I think is absolutely accurate, all of you on your side of the aisle thought that we would take whatever the Senate gave us because we would be fearful; we would be fearful of not pursuing substantive legislative process to discuss this very important issue. I agree with you. Every one of your Members thought, in your words, we would blink. The question is not blinking. The question is substantively getting to a result that furthers the protection of our country and the protection of our Constitution. That is our perception. That is our belief. And I will tell my friend from California that it's not my opinion alone but it's the opinion of a number of people, including the former adviser to this administration on terrorism as well as the previous administration on terrorism, Richard Clarke, that the opinion I have expressed is an accurate opinion. The gentleman also knows in terms, and I want to say, also, I don't think it's the appropriate place nor do I intend to get into my perception of Admiral McConnell's position. That's not the purpose of this debate. I have some views, but I'm not going to get into those. What I am going to get into and simply respond to these observations is that we believe the country is protected. We believe that in terms of all of those al Qaeda objects that you make reference to, I hope and presume, I do not know, I have no secret information that I'm disclosing, but I would be shocked and dismayed and deeply disappointed if at this point in time the administration did not have in place orders that covered at least from now until August of this year, which is when we last authorized this bill, the Protect America Act, and under which the administration could have gotten authority which would have lasted for a full year. So those orders are still in place, they will not lapse, and it will be no impediment to further interception of those communications.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, a lot of them didn't believe that the act ought to be in place, you understand, at all. Mr. PRICE or Georgia. I appreciate that, because I was about to make that point. The objection to the extension comes from both the left and the right. It's not that we thought you would blink. We could not believe that the majority would not live up to its primary responsibility, which we perceive as making certain that this Nation is protected. That's what we believed. This House, Mr. Speaker, has adopted billions and trillions of dollars worth of spending in less time than it would have taken this week to come to conference and reach an agreement. We're here on Friday. We're ready to go. We are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I believe the gentleman is speaking about when you were in charge, passing those trillions of dollars in very short periods of time. We took a longer time, as you may recall. I think you were responsible, as a matter of fact, for some of that time that we spent.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield so I might respond to the gentleman from California's response?

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield under his reservation?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 21, pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, February 25.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In fact, I am from this very Chamber about 25 feet from here going to have a meeting with Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Conyers on proceeding to accomplish the objective the gentleman wants to seek and we want to seek. As you also know, 2 days ago, we had a vote on ensuring the extension of the existing statute, not because we believed that was necessary but for an abundance of caution, and as the gentleman knows, every one of your Members voted against that extension on the demand that we do what you wanted us to do now. But in the protection that was available to you to extend for 21 days the protections you say are now going to be absent, every one of you voted ``no.'' I'm sorry that that happened.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 293, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We are dealing, in these days, with serious issues. And serious people have been considering these issues in committee, and we will now consider them on the floor. This matter has been pending now for over half a year. Madam Speaker, in 1885, a young scholar wrote an influential book about the United States Congress entitled ``Congressional Government.'' And in that book he offered the following observations about legislative branch oversight, and he said this, ``Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration. Not any particular administration, but of the other coequal branch of government.'' He continued, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. The informing function of Congress, not just informing ourselves, but informing the American public as well, the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.'' An interesting observation. Many years later, in 1913, that young scholar, Woodrow Wilson, became President of the United States. Congressional oversight of any administration is absolutely imperative to the proper functioning of our government, to our system of checks and balances, and to the fulfillment of our constitutional duty. A President who is forced to answer for his administration's actions, decisions, and conduct is a President who is less likely to amass power beyond that which the Constitution proscribes for his office or to imperil the welfare of our republic form of government. And that is the constitutional interest that today's resolution addresses. I support the rule before us because I believe in a system of checks and balances in which no branch holds itself above the constitutional objectives of the sharing of authority, which the Founders wisely believed was essential to protect against the abuse of that authority by any one of those branches. The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system, which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy controversy. As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks and balances.'' What profit it a Nation if we include checks and balances within our constitutional framework to protect our country's freedom, and more importantly, our people's freedom, if, in fact, we honor it only in the breach? And as Bruce Fein, the constitutional scholar and former Department of Justice official during the Reagan administration, has stated, ``If Congress shies from voting for contempt in this case, secret government will become the rule.'' This is perhaps the most secretive administration in our history. This is a danger to our democracy. He went on to say ``that Congress would be reduced to an ink blot on the constitutional map.'' That is why every one of us, every one of the 435 of us who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and uphold its laws, ought to vote for this resolution, because it does not matter whether there is a Republican President or a Democratic President, for them to refuse to respond to a subpoena of the Congress of the United States, and to even come here and claim a privilege, which they have not, our democracy will be lessened. I urge my colleagues to carry out the intent and the vision of the Founders and the writers of our Constitution. Support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. The debates we have been having over the past few days are consequential and about the most important thing that this body does, and that is uphold the law. Not just pass the law, uphold the law. As I said a little earlier in this debate, part of that was overseeing the executive branch to ensure that they execute our laws appropriately and legally. And the Congress has been given under the Constitution the authority to seek information. The Judiciary Committee has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming. The Congress, as Mr. Boehner said, cannot do its job if the Congress simply fails to assert its constitutional role. Now there is a situation that we confront that a large number say they want to adjourn. They have been making motion after motion after motion to adjourn and they haven't been voting for it, but they have been making it. And now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we are not working. They assert that we are not passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They assert that, but they all voted to a person not to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in resolving the differences between the Senate and the House in a conference committee. Now, I will tell my friends on the Republican side of the House, they know as well as I do that the reason the Senate did not pass us a bill 3 months after we passed our bill to them was because of Republican delay in the United States Senate. That's the reason this bill is so late getting to us. That is the reason we don't have the time to work it out. That is the reason we are not passing legislation. Now, the President asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security Council Adviser on Terrorism says that is not true. Former Assistant Attorney General Wainstein says that is not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, have asserted that is not true. Why is it not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, a FISA Court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear, unfounded fear; 435 Members of this House, and every one of us, every one of us, wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us wants to subject America or Americans to danger. The President's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically: the President's assertion is wrong. Now the President says he will delay his trip to stay here and work with us. I know Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers will be contacting Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Leahy to discuss with them how we might move forward. They in turn will talk with their Republican counterparts, as well, to see how we can move forward. But the time that we asked for, less than 24 hours after the Senate passed us a bill, the time we asked for to elect this process, which is the normal legislative process to bring the Senate and the House together to fashion a bill that both Houses feel comfortable with, feel is good for America, was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote by the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective. The President said he was going to veto it, which is why I presume all of you voted against it, because, of course, in the first 6 years, we never passed anything to the President that he wasn't supportive of. We were a very cooperative Congress with this President. This President is not used to the Congress saying, We may have a different view, Mr. President. We, too, have a responsibility and we may see it slightly differently than you. But, yes, as the leader on the other side said, we have come together. We worked together. We passed a stimulus package together. We can do that on this bill. But we can't do it overnight. This matter is much too serious to do it overnight. My friend from the Rules Committee indicates that this does not give us full time for debate on this rule. He opposes this rule. The interesting thing is he says contrary, we ought to be considering something overnight, overnight, without any time to consider it in conference. The minority has now effected a strategy that they tried to use on the agriculture bill: let's work, but by the way, we are leaving. And why are we leaving? We are leaving so we can preclude a majority responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond, we will have to go out of session. So it is somewhat ironic that on the one hand they say we ought to be doing something, and on the other hand they walk out to preclude us from doing our business.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. There is no urgency. That claim is a claim made to stampede this House and the American people, I tell my friend from California. And the reason that there is no urgency is because in 1978 this Congress passed legislation to ensure the fact that we could intercept communications while at the same time protecting our Constitution. That is why there is no urgency. Is there an important reason to act? There is. Do we have every intention of acting? We do. But we will not be presented with a bill on Tuesday night and be asked to pass it on Wednesday afternoon without full and fair consideration. That is our duty, that is our responsibility, and that is what we will do.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I rise, as I have a couple of times in the past, to simply say that I think on our side, obviously, we believed that we needed to move forward on the work. All of us, however, share what has been said about Tom Lantos, for whom we had the greatest respect, and we all share a sadness at his loss. I regret that the actions that precipitated this hour that you are taking have occurred. They have occurred. We can't change them. Having said that, I want to say that I understand the point the gentleman is making, and I understand the point my friend Mr. Blunt has made. I think it will suffice to say that. But I can appreciate the position the gentleman found himself in and that Mr. Blunt and his leadership found themselves in.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Con. Res. 289, the resolution introduced by Congressman Al Green to commend the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, on their 99th anniversary. Few organizations have had such a wide-ranging and long-lasting impact on the United States as the NAACP. Since their founding on February 12, 1909, the NAACP has been a strong, consistent voice for minority Americans. In the face of hatred and opposition, the members of the NAACP have consistently stuck to their guiding principle of nonviolence, and worked instead through elections, the press, and the legal system. As a result of their leadership and tireless efforts, we are significantly closer to achieving political, educational, social, and economic equality for all. As the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States, I congratulate the NAACP on their 99th anniversary. Their work over the past 99 years has made us a better and more tolerant Nation. I wish them the best as they continue their efforts to eliminate discrimination from all corners of our society.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 293) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, over the years, we have been greatly advantaged by some extraordinary people who work with us and for us. I have been particularly advantaged as the minority whip with an extraordinary man who has worked for me now for 5 years. Prior to that, he worked for Dick Gephardt for many years and has been on this floor working on behalf of not only the majority side or the minority side, depending on what the Democrats were, but also in trying to make sure that this institution talked to one another and worked together as well as it possibly could. He is going to be retiring now after 25 years of service to this institution. He's been a congressional staffer since 1983. He has served as floor director for the majority leader since January of 2007, myself. In that capacity, he has been responsible for scheduling bills and managing the daily legislative program. He's provided tremendous legislative advice to so many of you on the floor who have gone to him and asked him for his counsel. He's provided policy advice to our side of the aisle and policy discussion with your side of the aisle, and he has also been a communications counsel. There is nobody who knows this young man who does not like him. He is a decent, good, very smart, wonderful human being. He served as floor director in my office, as I said, for 4 years. Prior to that, Rob was the chief appropriations staffer for former Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, and he also worked for Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Peter Visclosky. In those positions, his primary areas of focus included appropriations, global health, and foreign assistance. During his career, Rob also worked for former Senator Brock Adams and former Representatives Jimmy Hayes, Cathy Long, and Gillis Long. Rob is a graduate of the University of California Berkeley with a bachelor's degree in physiology and earned a master's in public policy at the University of Washington, and before that, was floor director for the Democratic whip's office. All of us have deep affection for those people who spend extraordinary amounts of time at pay, which is not comparable to what they would be earning in the private sector. And I want to say, Rob Cogorno, to you, how very much I appreciate all that you have done for this institution, all that you have done for me as an individual, and I know I speak for all of the Members that we will greatly miss your advice and your counsel, your good humor and your good judgment. And we say to you, we wish you the very best of luck in everything you do. I might also say that the young man who just gave me another piece of paper with some business is Rob's successor, and I urge Members of both sides of the aisle when he can be helpful to you, give you advice in terms of scheduling or the calendar in terms of when we are doing business, Alejandro Perez, my new floor director.