Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) each be allowed to control 15 minutes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I will tell my friend, the first action we had on appropriation bills was of course when we passed all of our appropriation bills before we left for the August break. We now hope to have action on the remaining appropriation bills. We expect those to be included in an omnibus appropriation bill. Obviously, we have considered all of them. They essentially have been conferenced, notwithstanding the fact that the other body did not pass through the Senate five of their bills, as you know, but they did in fact pass them out of subcommittee. So we had products to conference with. Both the House and the Senate have been working together to get them in a place where they could be considered, and it would be my expectation that we would consider an omnibus appropriation bill Tuesday night after we come back. I would hope to be able to pass such a bill on Tuesday. Again, that is being worked on between the House and the Senate. There have been discussions, as you know, with the administration as well trying to reach agreement so that we can ensure that the Government certainly doesn't shut down. The CR expires on the 14th of next week. We would hope that we can pass an omnibus appropriation before that.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As you know, I had a discussion with my good friend, and I know you know him well, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England. Obviously he is required, the Department of Defense is required under contract agreements that if there is not funding at a certain point in time, for them to send notice, not because they necessarily anticipate that there will be a necessity to have RIFs, but because under the agreement, when they contemplate running out of money, which would be sometime in February, 60 days before that, they have to send out a notice. My expectation is that the Secretary will be sending us a letter. But I think the Secretary's expectation, and I think the letter may say this, his expectation is, pursuant to our conversations, that will not be necessary nor does anybody contemplate that being done. And I certainly want to say to any and all employees who are listening, that is not going to happen.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield again?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am very hopeful and we are working very hard, as I know Mr. Obey is and others, and I know Senator Reid is as well, trying to reach agreement with the President. Let me say respectfully that the discretionary spending that we have provided for is less a percentage of the GDP in terms of the spending of our national income than any of the bills that were passed from 2002 to 2006. We believe the differences are relatively small between the executive and the legislative branches. We are prepared, as you have undoubtedly read and, as a matter of fact, you and I have discussed, to make some accommodations with the President, as is appropriate, to try to negotiate those. What we are not prepared to do is simply have the President say, ``Look, this is what I have determined you can do.'' He can veto, we understand that, but we don't think that the proper place for the Congress of the United States under article I of the Constitution, which gives us the authority and puts in the Congress of the United States, the Senate and the House, the responsibility to make policy and appropriate funds for the priorities that we deem to be appropriate for our national security and general welfare, we don't think that it is appropriate to simply be given a number that we must meet. That is not what the Founding Fathers contemplated. As you well know, the budget is a relatively recent advent in terms of the President's authority over the budget. Having said that, we want to work with the President. We think that the differences are very small. We think that they can be bridged hopefully relatively easily, which is why we hope by next week we can accomplish both of the issues you raise.

Mr. HOYER. And the $196.4 billion that the President wants to spend in Baghdad and Kabul is probably more than the budgets of those States as well.

Mr. HOYER. We agree.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question. We believe very, very strongly, as you know, that the alternative minimum tax was never, ever meant to apply to some of the people it may well be applied to this tax year. We have passed legislation to prevent that. In that legislation, as the gentleman knows, was also tax cuts for millions of people on property taxes, on other taxes, tax relief for teachers who buy things for their classroom, in effect, business expenses for making sure that our kids are learning. The Senate, as you know, tried to bring that bill, not that bill but the chairman of the Finance Committee today made a unanimous consent to place the alternative minimum tax relief bill on the floor of the United States Senate without paying for it and it was objected to, as you know, as you probably know, by a Republican Member of the Senate because there was a refusal, apparently not an allowed amendment on the flat tax. We think that is unfortunate. In answer to your question, we hope the AMT, in fact, is passed by the Senate. We hope that it is paid for. We have committed ourselves to paying for things that we spend money on so our children don't have to pay for them. But we are going to be working very hard next week, I want to assure the gentleman, to make sure that the AMT is, in fact, addressed so that the 23 million people who are at risk of a tax increase and were never intended to be, as both sides agree, do not have that reality come April 15.

Mr. HOYER. As you know, we passed a bill earlier this year, some months ago, which not only dealt with children's health insurance but it also dealt with reimbursement to doctors, medical providers who will be confronting on January 1 of this year a 10 percent decrease in reimbursement. Many of them will not continue to serve Medicare patients. We think that is a great problem. Unfortunately, the Senate refused to go to conference on that bill. We did have meetings on our SCHIP bill. Our SCHIP bill, our children's health bill, was a part of the larger bill dealing with Medicare during rural health, dealing with ensuring that nobody was disadvantaged by any of the pay-fors in our bill, but the Senate would not go to conference on that. The meetings that resulted essentially resulted in taking the Senate bill on children's health insurance. As you know, the Senate had indicated they were going to address the Medicare reimbursement issue which we had already addressed. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that yesterday they decided they either could not or were not going to do that. I talked to Mr. Rangel just a few minutes ago about that issue. We are going to be talking about that a little later today as to how we might address that. We think, again, that is a critical need for us to address. But I can't tell the gentleman exactly how that is going to be addressed because I don't know what ability we have to work with the Senate on this particular issue, but it needs to be addressed.

Mr. HOYER. Of course my friend could help me solve that problem very easily. I just need 10 or 12 votes; and you are such an excellent whip, I'm sure you could get those votes for me and we could cover those 4 million children. But if you don't give me those 10 votes, or 15, that we need, we have no intention of leaving here without presenting for the floor, which we hope will pass the Senate as well, an extension of the existing law. In addition to the extension of the existing law, I'm sure you've talked to Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. I've talked to Democratic Governors just yesterday. All of them are very concerned. Missouri, as you well know, has a shortfall. A number of other States have a shortfall, including my own, so there will be need to, if we're going to simply extend, to also fund the shortfall, or children will be off the program that are currently on the program. In addition to that, as you well know, a very controversial regulation was issued by the administration capping or requiring a 90 percent coverage of those under 200 percent or you can't participate further in the program, can't expand the program. No State, as I understand it, meets that obligation, so that we're also working on that. But the answer to your question is, we are certainly planning for, if we cannot get, we hope to be able to get, frankly, in the near future, in the next few days, hopefully, we've worked very, very hard in trying to meet some of the concerns that some of your Members have had. As you know, you and I and your leader had an opportunity to meet. Mr. Boehner indicated he thought there was a significant number of Republicans that would like to vote for the bill. But we got, as you know, 45 Republicans who did vote for the bill. We have had extraordinary meetings, and I think it's worth telling the body. Mr. Dingell and myself, as well as Mr. Baucus and Mr. Grassley and Mr. Hatch and Mr. Rockefeller, and from time to time, Mr. Barton and Mr. Deal and others, Mr. Whip, literally spent about 50 hours over the last month in meetings trying to come to a place where we could reach agreement. Obviously, we're not there in terms of sufficient numbers to think that we can, or are ready to, introduce a new bill. That would be our preference, to introduce a bill that, after these long discussions, that would enjoy hopefully 60, 70, 80 Members, which is the number your leader used as possible to vote for such legislation and move that through the Senate and send it to the President. That would be our hope.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question. As the gentleman knows, and I've been involved in this business for a long time, four decades about, and whether it was in the State Senate, which had a constitutional ending date, or in the House of Representatives, it's very difficult to predict the last days of a session. Now, I will tell you that the Speaker and I are working around the clock, almost literally, to ensure that we can adjourn this first session of the Congress of the United States on the 14th. We had hoped the 13th, but we're letting Members know that the 14th, that's only 4 days from now. We've just gone through some pretty heavy lifting in terms of the appropriation bills, in terms of the AMT, in terms of SCHIP, in terms of Iraq and in terms of other matters that we need to address before we leave here. But we think we can do it, and it is our intention to do it. But, obviously, there are things that are pending that we cannot leave without doing, so that if we cannot get that done in that time frame, we will have to see where we go from there. But I want to make it very, very clear to everybody that the Speaker, Senator Reid, and I have talked; and we are all very focused on the 14th being the day that we adjourn. The following week is the week before Christmas. We believe that individuals need to be home. I need to do shopping and decorating because all my family's coming to my house from some parts of the country, so I need to be home. And I'm sure every other Member shares that view. So all I can tell my friend, and he knows this as well as I do, that the unpredictability of the next 4 legislative days is such that I can't make any guarantees, other than we are doing everything we can to get the business that we've just discussed done. We may have some very late nights on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; but we are hopeful that we will get this done and not have to ask Members to come back the week before Christmas.

Mr. HOYER. Well, we've had some success this week. As you know, we think we've passed a historic energy bill. Not only that, as my friend knows, because he's from the State of our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, we were able to go to conference today, which has been somewhat contentious for a few days. We expect that conference to be on the floor early next week. So we are moving ahead. But as we've discussed, there are some issues of difficulty that we haven't resolved that we need to resolve, and so we'll have to see whether or not we will be successful.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Obey is not here, and I think the answer to that question is ``yes,'' but you would know better than I. I am sure you would hear complaints if that were not the case, and perhaps you have heard complaints. Frankly, as you know, and you and I have discussed this experience by the House before under both parties, because of the lateness of the Senate's actions, we are not in a position where we had all of the bills passed. Furthermore, there was not an inclination on some of the bills to go to the conference. Thirdly, we have been facing, as you know, a veto threat from the President on all of the bills except the Veterans MILCON bill and perhaps Homeland Security. Defense was signed, as you know. Notwithstanding the fact that the MILCON bill is very substantially above the President's request, he said he would sign that one, but bills like the Labor-Health bill were vetoed, so we have to consider that one again. Mr. Obey has had a meeting with Mr. Nussle, as you know. It has been reported in the paper. That meeting was to try to figure out whether they could come to agreement. That meeting was not dispositive over that issue. Others have had meetings, including myself. We are hopeful to get to a place where everyone will not get everything that they want, but hopefully we will have agreement. I can't guarantee that. The answer to your question, as I told you at the outset, I don't have specific answers to. My presumption is, however, the staffs have been talking to one another.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield on that issue?

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 3 p.m. in a pro forma session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and at 9 a.m. on Friday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced before the close of business tomorrow. Under a rule, we expect to consider a conference report on the Intelligence authorization bill and on the Department of Defense authorization bill and further action on appropriations and terrorism risk insurance. There may well be other legislation, if it comes from the Senate.

Mr. HOYER. I anticipate at some point in time that will be the case.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the dean of the House, John Dingell of the State of Michigan, for yielding. I also thank him for his extraordinary leadership for over half a century, his father in an extended period before that, a distinguished career of service to this country and focus on the strength and growth of this country, on the health of our people, and of the opportunities for our workers. John Dingell is a giant with whom we serve. John Dingell is a giant of a leader in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will remember one of the most solemn occasions in our Nation's history, the 66th anniversary of a ``date which will live in infamy,'' the day in which our Nation was attacked by an enemy that we now count as an ally. Let us hope, and I believe that many years from now, this day, December 6, 2007, will be remembered by future generations as the date upon which the New Direction 110th Congress took a historic step in moving our Nation toward real energy independence and casting off the bonds of dependence that threaten America's national, economic, and environmental security. The bipartisan compromise legislation before us, the Energy Independence and Security Act, is nothing less, Mr. Speaker, than our generation's declaration of independence from foreign sources of petroleum. In particular, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dingell, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Gordon, and so many other Chairs of committees for the extraordinary work and effort that has made this day possible, which they put forward. I am pleased that this legislation incorporates some of the ideas in the Progress Act, legislation that I have worked on with Chairman Dingell and many of our other committee Chairs. This legislation of course, like all legislation, is not perfect. However, when we pass this bill, we will be voting to strengthen our national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy, and create new jobs and, as well, begin to reduce global warming. Among other things, this legislation takes groundbreaking steps, Mr. Speaker, to increase the efficiency of our vehicles, raising fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for new cars and trucks, the first increase in fuel economy standards since 1975. This important step would not have been possible without the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the leadership of John Dingell. I thank them both for their efforts. This provision alone will save American families an estimated $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per day in 2020. This single step will reduce by one-half what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This legislation also makes a historic commitment to American-grown biofuels, including incentives to boost the production of biofuels and the number of flex fuel and other alternative vehicles, and establishing a tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it requires that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources; strengthens energy efficiency for a wide range of products, appliances, lighting and buildings, to reduce energy costs to consumers; and repeals tax breaks for oil companies and invests that money in clean renewable energy and American technologies. The oil companies of course are making extraordinary profits to give them incentive to continue to provide us with the incentive that we need. But they do not need additional subsidies from this Congress. It is telling that this legislation is supported by a broad coalition of environmental, business, labor, and farm groups, as well as State and local officials. For example, my friend and our former colleague, Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, stated: ``We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security.'' I want to thank Congressman McCurdy for his work on this bill, and I want to thank John Dingell, again, without whom this compromise could not have been reached. Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy said: ``If it becomes law, this deal will mark the most important step toward improving U.S. oil security in a generation.'' Mr. Speaker, our national character was challenged by an unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor 66 years ago. We rose to the occasion then; and through our citizens' will, intelligence and ingenuity, we prevailed, and we were strengthened. Today, Mr. Speaker, we face a daunting but far different challenge, a challenge that compels us to confront and conquer our Nation's addiction to petroleum. This legislation will help to do so. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not for partisan objectives or partisan reasons, but for the independence of our Nation, for the national security of our people, for the economy of our workers, and for the environment of our children, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very historic and important bill. Vote to cast off the chains of dependency that hold us back today which threaten our economic and environmental security. Vote, my colleagues, to put America on a path to achieve energy independence. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, let me once again say that no one in this body with whom I have ever served has focused on an issue so tenaciously, so effectively, so energetically as the Speaker of this House. When we pass this bill, it will be a testimony to her leadership and to her commitment. I urge my colleagues, step with history for tomorrow and our children. Vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary individual, who celebrated, on December 2, 2007, one of society's milestones, his 80th birthday. From a humble beginning as a student on a state scholarship at the University of Maryland, Jim rose to head one of the leading construction companies in the United States. Professionally, his lifetime has been filled with magnificent buildings and public spaces; his less-public achievements have been equally successful. Jim Clark is an individual of great kindness and generosity, exemplified by his philanthropic efforts. He has given generously and without reservation to his alma mater, his community and his country. By brilliant example, Jim Clark's flames of achievement have built a better world, and in so doing, have lighted the way for all of us. Jim also has been blessed with his wife Alice, his 3 children and 10 grandchildren. We wish this truly remarkable man all the love and happiness he deserves on this special occasion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I stand today to recognize the career and contributions of a longtime friend and newspaperman in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, John Rouse, the editor of the Bowie Blade News. For 36 years, the citizens of the City of Bowie, Prince George's County, and the State of Maryland have benefited from John's skill as an editor, insight as a writer, and dedication to the community that he has served for so long. Many in Bowie recognize John by his long association with the Editor's View column he writes for the paper. Through this column and other writings, John has earned distinction for his thoughtful, objective style of journalism that has helped drive the Bowie Blade- News to significant acclaim. After serving in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, John joined the Bowie News as editor in 1971 and became the editor and general manager of the new Bowie-Blade News in 1978 when the Bowie News merged with the Bowie Blade. Madam Speaker, under John's leadership, the Bowie-Blade News has earned numerous recognitions, among them the Newspaper of the Year award in 1999 from the SEQ Chapter of the Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association. The paper has also won the Best in Show award for several investigative pieces over the years as well as awards for newspaper design. John has earned several accolades of his own for his individual achievements in the news industry, including first place awards for his Editor's View column. He has been a longtime member of the Society of Professional Journalists (Sigma Delta Chi). John is also a lifetime member of both the Disabled American Veterans and the American Legion. During John's 36 years in Bowie, he has remained resolute in his commitment to truth and fairness as guiding journalistic principles. John has served as an effective watchdog of the public interest in his community, and for that alone, he should be lauded. Among John's most admirable qualities is his keen sense of humor. Although sometimes the target of that humor, I recognize that John is an equal opportunity satirist who adeptly uses the power of the writer's pen to make sound and insightful observations. And while John and I have sometimes fallen on different sides of a debate, we have grown to be friends over the years, and hold each other in high mutual respect and esteem. After all, Madam Speaker, we have both witnessed the City of Bowie's evolution into the vibrant and diverse community that John is proud to call home, and I am proud to represent in Congress. All the while, John has maintained an innate ability to keep his finger firmly pressed on the pulse of the community, knowing better than most what makes Bowie such a great place to work and live. As a resident of Bowie, John has served with countless community organizations and played a pivotal role in the formation of the Bowie YMCA. For his work in the community, John has been honored by a number of civic groups, including the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Committee of Bowie, the Bowie Civic Affairs Committee, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Madam Speaker, John's career is significant not only in years and accomplishments, but also for the impact he has had in the City of Bowie. For three and a half decades, he has dedicated himself to working for the interests of his fellow Bowie residents and the good of the community. In recognition of his retirement as editor of the Bowie Blade-News and a public life filled with distinction, I ask my colleagues to join with me in offering him our congratulations and wishing him the very best in his retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his leadership as well. I thank Mr. Conyers for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Smith for their participation. This is a serious issue that confronts us. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the RESTORE Act, is nothing less than the fundamental reiteration of the most basic concepts of our Constitution, our constitutional form of government that we, indeed, are a Nation of laws and that our Founders deliberately designed our three branches of government to serve as a check and balance on each other. One of my colleagues, my friend, I believe, from Arizona, stood and said it was not the job of judges to conduct intelligence. He was correct. It is not the job of judges to conduct intelligence. But it is the constitutional duty given by our Founding Fathers, who understood that King George too often abused his sovereign power and who said to all that they would have adopt this Constitution that we will protect you from the abuse of power of government, and we will do it by having it reviewed by independent judges, not by the legislature. We can be told by judges that we are not acting constitutionally, and that is a protection for our people against congressional abuse of power. And the executive department can be told by judges you are abusing your constitutional power. No power, no protection was felt to be more necessary and important by our Founding Fathers than their right to personal privacy and a lack of intrusion by King George just because he wanted to do it. And they said King George had to have probable cause, in this case, the Government of the United States. So that's why they established the courts. And we, in our wisdom, in my view, established the FISA Court to do just that. Every single one of us here recognizes that our highest duty is to protect the American people. Indeed, we must detect, disrupt, and eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killing of innocent people. We saw that tragically on 9/11. We also, each one of us, come to this well or stand at our seats and raise our hand and swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, to protect its laws and to honor the values and principles that are contained therein. That is our oath. That is what we do here this night, including the fourth amendment right that Americans are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's not an assertion on any individual or any government or even the legislature. It was an assertion by our Founding Fathers that they had seen too often abuses by the executive agencies of government. Our basic duties as Members of this Congress, protecting the American people and protecting the values that define us as Americans, are not mutually exclusive. We can protect our country and protect our Constitution. That is our duty. And that is precisely what this historic act, introduced by Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers, has done. This legislation gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to listen in on those who seek to harm us while addressing concerns that the bill passed in August could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans. That is our concern. That is our focus. Among other things, this legislation modernizes the technologically outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by restoring a checks and balances rule for the FISA Court and addressing the intelligence gap asserted by the Director of National Intelligence. We heard Director McConnell. We want to help Director McConnell. Let us be clear. This legislation does not require a warrant for listening in on suspected and known terrorists, period. An assertion to the contrary is not accurate. In fact, it clarifies that no court order is required for surveillance of conversations where both parties are foreign citizens. It does not extend constitutional rights to suspected or known terrorists, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor does it delay the collection of intelligence information. Furthermore, it grants the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence authority, authority to apply to the FISA Court for a block order, not an individual order, not a discrete order, but a block order saying that you can pursue this gathering of information to protect America, but you cannot do it simply because you want to do it. You've got to do it consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. You cannot conduct freelance surveillance without some authority of law. The FISA Court can give a block order to conduct surveillance on large groups of foreign targets for up to a year, and that can be renewed, ensuring that only foreigners are targeted and Americans' rights are preserved. That was the whole reason in a bipartisan way we adopted FISA, to make sure that was the case. Why do you fear a FISA Court reviewing that basic principle that was its intent at its adoption? Finally, the legislation is silent on the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that possibly violated privacy laws in turning over consumer information to the government. We don't make that judgment today. We need to review information to know what was done before we immunize conduct which we do not know. Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to grant a blanket immunity for companies without even knowing whether their conduct was legal, appropriate, reasonable or not. Don't you think the American public, each one of our constituents, expects that of us? In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me quote The Washington Post, which stated in October, the measure produced by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees would alleviate the burden of obtaining individualized warrants for foreign targets while still maintaining a critical oversight for the FISA Court. In other words, we are relieving the administration from the burden of discrete approval. But we are providing for the protections that Americans expect under our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, we must give our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States and the intelligence community the resources, the authority, and flexibility that is necessary to protect our people and defend our Nation. I believe each of us in this Congress support that objective. But we must also honor the values and principles that make us Americans. This legislation allows us to do both. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, facilitate the interception of information and terrorist communication dangerous to our people and our country. And at the same time, redeem that oath of protecting and defending our Constitution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, ladies and gentlemen, if the elevators are slow, you leave with 10 minutes remaining on the vote. You be here. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I made this announcement some 10 days ago or a week ago, and we frankly didn't follow it very well, but I want to take another try. On both sides of the aisle, you have correctly expressed concern about how long our votes are taking. There are times when votes take a longer time, we have Members down at the White House, we are just going to finish a committee markup, they are voting, or something like that. We understand that. Madam Speaker, I would like everybody to hear this, because you are going to be angry with me. You are going to be angry with me today. There were some 140 votes cast by the time the time ran out on this vote. That meant there were some 280 people who had not voted after 15 minutes. This vote took 25 minutes, give or take. Both sides of the aisle and the committee chairmen who are in a markup and it takes so long to get back to the markup, and we have witnesses standing there, both sides had this problem. So I am asking you for your cooperation. Look at the clock, and when the clock hits 5 minutes left, come over here. Don't look at how many Members have not voted and think to yourself because there are so many Members that haven't voted, we're going to call the roll. I want to say to my side, I am not going to, frankly, want to lose votes. You don't want to lose votes. They didn't want to lose votes when they were in charge. I didn't blame them. Either side. But don't take the position that they will wait for as long as they need to wait, because that is inconsiderate to every Member who comes here in a timely fashion and then has to wait because somebody else doesn't. Now, I will tell you this: I am an offender. I am not pointing a finger. If I am pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing four fingers at me. I have in the last week, so I could get up here and pontificate, tried to make sure that I got here on time. But I haven't been getting here on time. I have done the same thing as you. That's why I know you do it. Look at that. So I am asking all of us to try to work together so that when the bell is rung and the roll is called, you are here on time. We will keep these votes in the vicinity of 17 minutes, and some of you are going to miss votes. Let me clarify so you understand. The Speaker's position articulated at the beginning of the session, if you are in the well with a card in your hand, you will be allowed to vote. But if somebody yells in the back of the room ``one more,'' if somebody is walking through the door, I do not guarantee you that you will be able to vote. We are going to call the vote. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this debate must be somewhat confusing for the American public. First of all, almost every one of us stands and says that we want the alternative minimum tax fixed. We want it fixed because of the presumption of the alternative minimum tax, which I support and which I will not vote to repeal unless we pay for it. I want you to know that I speak as the father of three daughters, as the grandfather of three grandchildren, and as the great-grandfather of one great-granddaughter. I have listened to this debate. I am going to speak about this debate, and I am going to refer to history. My friend Mr. Ryan knows what I am going to say because I have said it before, but I believe the American people need to know this. Let me place it in context. I have served in this body for 26 years. During that time, Republican Presidents have served for 18 of those years. A Democratic President, President Clinton, served for 8 of those years. During the Presidencies of President Reagan, President George Bush and the present President Bush, we have accumulated deficits in America of $4.1 trillion of deficit spending. Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks. Just one. Not me, not anybody on this floor. We need 217 other people to do that with us. But one person can stop spending in its tracks. And in the 26 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States, no President has had a veto of a spending bill that spent too much overridden. Not one. This President has vetoed no spending bills under Republican Congresses. Not one. No matter how much they spent. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen of this House, they spent at twice the rate of growth that the Democrats under President Clinton spent. Now, Republicans were in charge of Congress, but they were in charge of everything during the first 6 years of this century. Everything. House, Senate, Presidency. My friend made the observation that neither side had done too well. I would suggest my side has done a lot better. Because under my side in those 8 years of the Clinton administration, we had a $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years, and we didn't have to raise the national debt one time in the last 4 years after we got the deficits created under the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration down, from a $292 billion operating deficit when we took over to surpluses during the last 4 years, and a straight line of reduction every one of the first 4 years of the Clinton administration. Why? Because we Democrats believe in spend and pay. You simply believe in spend and borrow. You believe that it is a politically wise policy to pursue that ``don't tax the voters, tax the children.'' Tax the children. Delay the ramifications of spending until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, when the children will have to pay the bill, because, after all, they are not voting. I have heard a lot of wringing of hands about PAYGO. I know you are all waiting to hear me read a quote, so I will read it to you. ``With the other body unable to pass even a budget this year,'' that was referring to a Republican Senate, by the way, ``we were obviously unable to reach an agreement on legislation to extend PAYGO and other budget rules. It is my hope that this can be done next year as part of a normal budget process. I would close by reminding our colleagues and Members that the PAYGO rule contributed to taming of deficits over the past seven years, and it is my hope that a successor to PAYGO can be developed and coupled with caps on discretionary appropriations.'' That quote, of course, comes from Jim Nussle. As a matter of fact, President Bush's administration also said that they were for PAYGO, until they found out that PAYGO applied to cutting revenues. And because they didn't want to stop buying, I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and you knew that you would be constrained in buying if PAYGO applied to your tax cuts, which I supported for the middle-class but not for the skewing of taxes that I saw in your proposals, that you would have to stop spending, because you couldn't pay for it. So you jettisoned PAYGO, a premise that was overwhelmingly adopted by Republicans and I voted for in the 1997 Budget Act, because I believe in balancing our budget. I have served in legislative bodies for almost 40 years, and I have found people who like to vote for spending but don't like to vote for paying. It takes no courage whatsoever, I tell my friends, to take my credit card out of my pocket and put it in there, sign the little slip and think I will never have to pay for it, because, by the way, I will be dead and gone by then and my children will have to pay the debt. That has been referred to by Mr. Portman as an immoral policy, Rob Portman, the former Director of the OMB, a former member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support in favor of this tax cut for millions of Americans. Will there be an offset? There will be. And, as I said, I will not vote to fix the AMT unless we pay for it. Because if we fix the AMT without paying for it, what we will say to people like Steny Hoyer and every Member of this House, maybe we have a conflict of interest, because every Member of this House is going to be affected by this if we don't repeal the AMT, for those of us at this income level. So maybe we have a conflict of interest. Maybe we want to save ourselves a little money, but we don't want to pay for it, because raising revenues takes political courage. There is no courage whatsoever in plunging our country into debt, spending and not paying. It is, as Rob Portman said, an immoral policy, lacking in courage and lacking in fiscal responsibility. My friends, we need to pass this bill and give millions of Americans a tax cut and ensure that millions of Americans will not get a tax increase. PAYGO is a policy that demands responsibility. Many of you voted for the bankruptcy bill, as I did. I was criticized by some because we thought that individuals ought to exercise fiscal responsibility in the managing of their finances. I think corporately as a government we ought to do the same. Mr. Speaker, let no one be mistaken. This is precisely what this legislation offered by Chairman Rangel was designed to do, give a tax cut to millions of Americans and preclude millions of Americans from paying more, and asking other Americans to pay their fair share so those at the bottom of the rung don't have to pay more to defend our country, to educate our children, to keep our families healthy. Mr. Speaker, this tax cut will provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. It will help 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit. It will help 4.5 million families better afford college with tuition deductions. It will save 3.4 million teachers money with deductions for classroom expenses. My wife was a teacher. She died 10\1/2\ years ago. She was one of the best people that I have ever met in my life, if not the best. Every year, we would spend a couple of hundred dollars, and we could afford it, maybe even a little more than that, to make sure that her kids in her classroom had things that they needed but were not provided. We are going to give teachers a tax cut to do that. Our children will be served and our teachers will be served. In short, this bill will extend tax credits and deductions that will benefit a wide array of Americans and the American economy. And, yes, this legislation helps to restore tax fairness and once again demonstrates that this Democratic majority is committed to fiscal responsibility. Let me restate that figure: 18 years of Republican Presidents, $4.1 trillion of deficit spending. Under Bill Clinton, 8 years, $62.9 billion net surplus. No indebtedness. No indebtedness in the last 4 years. We are now over $9 trillion in debt. This administration has gone from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion. Republicans were in control of everything, and spending escalated at twice the rate it did when Bill Clinton was President. My friends, this bill is a fair bill. This bill is responsible. This bill gives tax cuts to millions of Americans and asks some few Americans to pay their fair share. Vote for this bill. It is good for America, it is good for our people, it is the right, and as Rob Portman said, the moral thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished whip for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will not be in session so that we can observe Veterans Day in honor of those who have sacrificed for our country, served our country so ably and well, and to remember those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms that we enjoy today. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and 9 a.m. on Friday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills, of course, will be announced by the close of business today. Under rules, we expect to consider H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, and the conference report on H.R. 1429, Improving Head Start Act. In addition, we hope to be able to consider additional conference reports as they become available. And in light of the fact it's our last week before the Thanksgiving break, if there are other items that come to our attention, we will try to move those forward as well. But we don't have notice of those at this point in time. I thank the gentleman for yielding.