Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thursday, the 18th.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I don't know exactly what time. I would hope sometime around the middle of the day, noon or thereabouts we would consider the veto, maybe closer to 1 o'clock, but certainly in the middle of the day. Of course our expectation is that so many of your Members will determine that this policy is absolutely one that ought to be adopted that we will override the veto and that 4 million additional children will be covered. That's certainly our hope. I know that's not your expectation. So in the event that that does not happen, I think the answer to your question is, I would certainly be prepared to discuss the matter with you. No one has any intention of, frankly, seeing children dropped from the Children's Health Insurance Program. As you know, the President's proposal, if we adopted the President's proposal, would result in a net reduction of 840,000 children from the current program. We think that's not appropriate and, therefore, we want to move legislation forward, appropriate funding levels, and we would certainly be available to discuss that. We do anticipate, however, and are very hopeful that the Congress will work its will on this legislation.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are desirous, of course, of passing all 12 appropriation bills out of conference, through both floors, and to the President. We want to do that. We are working towards that end. I will tell my friend I have talked to Chairman Obey. There are discussions going on between the House and Senate. He is correct, there hasn't been a conference yet. There are still some issues that need to be resolved. But we are hopeful, in answer to your question, that appropriation bills will be on the floor and will be passed and will be sent to the President prior to the 16th of November. And as I have told my friend before, we have no intention of getting to a place where the government is shut down. The best way to do that is passing our 12 appropriation bills and having the President sign them. We hope we can reach that objective, but obviously at this point in time, much work remains to be done. But we hope to be doing it. The Senate, as you know, was not in session this week and we are here in an abbreviated session because of the untimely and sad death of our colleague Jo Ann Davis. But we hope to move appropriation bills and we hope to have them on the floor, as the gentleman asked, prior to November 16.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. It is Thursday, 3:15 p.m., and we have finished our business. A lot of people have talked to me about that, and I just thought I would note it. On Monday next, the House will not be in session in observance of the Columbus Day holiday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. next Tuesday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We expect to consider H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act; H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act; and H.R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act. On Friday, there will be no votes in the House. That is a change in the schedule so everybody will want to note that. That means we expect to have no votes on any Friday for the balance of the month.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank my friend for asking that question. The expectation for November is that we will be in until November 16. I don't mean straight through, but we will come in usually Monday nights and we will see about the Fridays because we don't know what the Senate is doing. Obviously we need to do the appropriations process and fund government. The CR runs through the 16th of November. I want to tell all Members and the distinguished whip, my friend, that the Speaker and I would both like to conclude the business of the first session of this Congress by November 16. I don't want to represent that I think that is probable at this point in time, but that would be our desire and that is what over the next 5 weeks we are going to try to work towards. We will not be in session either of the last 2 weeks of November, which would mean that Thanksgiving week, which is the week following the 16th, the week of the 19th, and the week following that, we would not be in session. Obviously, it would be my hope we would have concluded our business and would not, therefore, need to come back in December. I don't want to make that representation, however. The gentleman is well familiar with the fact it is too far out and the appropriations process is still not as sure as I would like it to be at this point in time. But the last 2 weeks of November we will not be here.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. With respect to your latter question, sustaining our troops in the field, under the continuing resolution, we think that the authority to do that exists, and we've been advised that. With respect to if we pass the Defense appropriations bill, it's our advice as we understand it from the Pentagon that they will have sufficient funds through the beginning of next year to fund their needs. Mr. Obey, I'm sure, will be discussing with us and others on the status of the supplemental. I note that he's left now, but the chairman of the Appropriations Committee was on the floor. He has indicated he thinks that they will have sufficient funds if the Defense appropriations bill passes and is signed by the President. That passed, as you know, in an overwhelming vote here as well. We hope to see that bill get to the President. I don't know exactly what's going to happen to it in the Senate, we'll have to see that, but I hope that will pass. With respect to the first question, there's no intention of bringing a surcharge to this floor. What Mr. Obey was saying is that this war was projected to cost $60 billion by the White House when it started. We're going to be at $1 trillion before too long. That bill is going to be paid by somebody. We talked about our children and grandchildren will be paying this bill. And what Mr. Obey's point was is that the people who are being asked to sacrifice are those going into Iraq, those families who send people to Iraq, and that the rest of us really aren't paying much of a price, but our grandchildren and children will pay that price. I think that was his point. But in answer to the gentleman's question, we have no intention of bringing such a bill to the floor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We obviously want to have all 12 of the appropriation bills signed. They all passed with an average of 285 votes in this House. There has not been less than 81 votes for any one of the Senate-passed appropriation bills to date. These bills have enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Very frankly, the MILCON Quality of Life bill is $4 billion over what the President requested. We believe, and obviously the vote reflected, that it is at an appropriate level to ensure that our veterans and our active-duty military have the medical care that was promised to them. So we were pleased that that passed overwhelmingly, notwithstanding the fact that is over what the President has asked for, and he indicated he was going to veto bills if it was over what he asked for. What he really meant, apparently, was if they were over what he wanted. These bills passed very substantially in both Houses. We would hope the President would come to the table. Mr. Obey and Mr. Nussle have had some discussions. I will tell you, those discussions have not indicated any movement at this point in time. They hope that will not be the case. We want to see the MILCON bill signed. Frankly, we want to see the Labor-Health bill signed, which provides for a billion dollars more in basic biomedical health research on cancer, heart, lung, blood, diabetes and other diseases that inflict our citizens, and Pell Grant increases. I appreciate the gentleman's observation regarding the MILCON bill, and I share his view. But I hope he also shares our view. Not all of the bills have passed with as big a margin, but an average of 285, indicating pretty good bipartisan support on all of these bills. And the case has been in the Senate, the ones that they have passed, that the President would discuss with us how we can get this process completed at levels that we can agree on and not be told to do.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Obey and the leadership have met. It is our hope we will be able to go to conference on a number of these bills, and there has even been some discussion on some of the bills that have not yet passed. We passed all 12 of our bills, of course. It is our desire to go to conference on these. I can't say when exactly that will be, but I can tell you that I am in the process of discussing this with the chairman of the committee to see how quickly we can get that accomplished.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the observation and I appreciate the gentleman's assertion that the veto will be sustained in this House. In the other body, as you know, they have more than sufficient votes to override the veto. There are senior leaders in the Senate, very senior leaders in the Senate in the gentleman's party who believe that the President has based his veto on incorrect information and incorrect premises. Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley, both of whom are conservative Republicans, leaders in your party, who believe this bill does, in fact, accomplish what the President said that he wanted to do, at your convention in 2004, that he wanted to add millions of children. We are hopeful that we can convince some of your ranks not to vote as Republicans or Democrats but to vote in a way that does reflect, I think, what all of our priorities are on the health care of our children. So we understand what your representation is and your confidence level is, but in this case, we hope you are in error.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield just for a technical matter?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, earlier today, the President of the United States, in defiance of bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and in defiance of the will of a great majority of Americans, vetoed fiscally responsible legislation that would ensure that 10 million children in our Nation receive health insurance coverage. That's approximately 4 million more children than are covered under the highly successful Children's Health Insurance Program today. I remind the Members of the House that that program was adopted in 1997 by a Republican-controlled Congress with strong Democratic support, a bipartisan program. Let us be clear, this is a defining moment for this Congress and for a President who has labeled himself a compassionate conservative. The President's veto, my colleagues, must not stand. The President wrongly claims that this bipartisan legislation is fiscally irresponsible. But the truth is the Children's Health Insurance Program legislation, forged by Members on both sides of this aisle, is paid for. It does not add to the deficit or to the debt. Moreover, President Bush, whose policies over the last 6 years have instigated record budget deficits and spiraling debt, should not be lecturing anyone on the issue of fiscal discipline. This administration, I suggest to all of us, has pursued and enacted the most fiscally irresponsible policies perhaps in American history. In fact, even as the President vetoed this CHIP legislation, all of it paid for, he has asked Congress to approve another $190 billion to protect Baghdad and its environs. Mr. President, we need to protect the children of Bowie, of New York, of Peoria, of Miami, of California. In fact, even as the President vetoed, as I said, this legislation, he sent to us a $190 billion request for more money for the war in Iraq, the civil war in Iraq, a place where, very frankly, it is far past time where the people of Iraq took the responsibility to defend and secure their country. This legislation that the President has vetoed is about securing the health of America's children. With this veto, the President is playing politics, pure and simple. After running up record deficits in debt, he is now trying to establish his fiscal bona fides with his conservative political base by denying health services to children. Mr. President, it won't work. Mr. President, it shouldn't work. Mr. President, it is not compassionate, nor is it common sense. Senator Hatch, no one's idea of a liberal or of a Democratic spinmeister, said on the Senate floor last week, and I quote, ``It is unfortunate that the President has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of the issue.'' That was Senator Hatch. I hope all of us in this body, Republican and Democrat, decide, when this vote comes up, to determine whether or not the Congress should make policy or whether we will be subservient to the President's veto in protecting children. I hope all of us, Republican and Democrat, liberal, moderate and conservative, will join together to respond to the children of this country and their families who agonize about not having the health insurance they need so that their children can be kept healthy. Senator Roberts of Kansas remarked, another leader in the Republican Party, ``I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concern with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto, but bluntly put,'' said Senator Roberts from Kansas, who served in this body, ``the assertions of the President,'' he said, ``are wrong.'' Technically, he said that the premises were inaccurate. Madam Speaker, this legislation is not only supported by majorities in the House and Senate, it is supported by doctors, nurses, private insurers, children's advocates, 43 Governors. The list goes on and on and on. But most importantly, most importantly, it's supported by the parents of children who are working, working hard every day, playing by the rules. Perhaps both are working, if they're fortunate to have two parents in the home, or a single parent, mom or dad, working hard, but making too little to afford insurance and working for an employer who can't give them insurance. Most of all, that is the constituency, that is the voice we ought to hear, that is why we ought to override this veto. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released just this week, 72 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, support this legislation, 69 percent of independents. What is perhaps most stunning of all is that, with this veto, the President has violated his own pledge at the Republican National Convention in 2004. You've heard me say this before, but let me say it again: ``In a new term we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government programs.'' ``We will not allow,'' said the President, ``a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' Mr. President, that is what you have done by this veto, stood between those children and the insurance they need. I urge my colleagues, override this veto, support this motion, and on October 18 let us vote for the children. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I appreciate what my very close and dear friend and one of the best Members of this Congress, in my opinion, Maurice Hinchey, has just said. Like many Americans, he thinks and many Americans think this doesn't go far enough. From the perspectives of perhaps everybody in the Chamber, it doesn't go far enough towards the position they would like to take. It is not a perfect resolution, but then again none are. What it does do, however, is try to say that if we are going to make decisions in the House of Representatives on an issue so critically important to our country and to the welfare of our troops that are in harm's way that we have the advice or at least the opinion of the administration as to how actions ought to be taken. Therefore, if there are those of us who believe, as I know my friend from New York does and some others, that we ought to redeploy, change course, redirect our efforts, the best advice and counsel that we could get on how to do that ought to be from our military leaders. And what this resolution simply says is, and I agree with my friend from Connecticut that we can say, hopefully, with a somewhat unified voice, perhaps not unanimous but somewhat unified voice, if we were to take the position that the gentleman and I shared when we voted for redeployment within a timeframe, tell us how that would be done. Tell us how it would be done consistent with the safety of our troops. Tell us how it would be done consistent with trying to leave behind as stable a government or community as possible in Iraq. Tell us how it could be done to enhance the possibility of political reconciliation in Iraq. The surge has not accomplished that. If the surge was intended to bring political reconciliation, General Petraeus said it had not. Ambassador Crocker said it had not. So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and others who have joined in this effort to try to come to a step that will be a positive step. I think this is one of those steps. And I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever your particular position is, that we ought to have in front of us a considered, considerate plan of how we would accomplish an objective if this House, hopefully, could summon the votes to seek that objective and mandate that objective. So I thank Mr. Skelton for bringing this to the floor. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I would urge all of my colleagues, understanding full well the concerns that have been expressed so ably by the gentleman from New York, my friend (Mr. Hinchey), that this legislation will send a strong message to many, including the administration, that we want to have the information that we need to make the best decisions that we can make. We may differ on what those decisions ought to be. But, hopefully, what we will not differ on is that if we can have the best information and advice as to how to obtain an objective, then the legislation we pass will be better, will provide for the safety of our troops and provide, hopefully, for the success of a redeployment within a timeframe that many of us believe is absolutely essential.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important, bipartisan legislation--the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007--which has more than 300 cosponsors. This bill would greatly strengthen the existing sanctions regime and propose new diplomatic strategies with respect to Iran, which continues to pursue its nuclear agenda in defiance of U.N. sanctions and international pressure. Let us be clear: The Government of Iran--which is recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism by our State Department and which supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah--believes it can exploit international irresolution. We must not allow it to do so. It goes without saying that a nuclear-armed Iran constitutes a threat to the national security interests of the United States, as well as the peace and security of the international community. And, we cannot overlook the serious questions raised about Iran's efforts to exploit the civil war in Iraq to its advantage or intelligence information related to its arming of Iraqi insurgents. Our concerns are only heightened by the inflammatory and irresponsible statements of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stated his hope for a ``world without America'' and his desire ``to wipe Israel off the map.'' Let me say, Ahmadinejad's comments yesterday at Columbia University in New York only confirm the view that he is a dangerous menace, who spins loathsome propaganda while denying that the Holocaust occurred, threatening Israel, and repressing his own people. I believe the international community must stand as one against Iran, an international lawbreaker whose record of deceit and belligerence leaves no doubt as to its motivations. Thus, I believe this legislation is an important step forward in demonstrating our bipartisan resolve to address the serious security concerns posed by Iran. Nothing in this act authorizes the use of force against Iran. However, it would support diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, and calls for enhanced U.N. Security Council efforts to respond to Iran's defiance. Furthermore, the bill amends the Iran Sanctions Act to remove the President's waiver on sanctions, and expands the types of investments subject to sanctions. It reforms our commercial relationship with this rogue regime by limiting the export of U.S. items to Iran and by prohibiting all imports. Among other things, the bill also prevents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign oil companies that invest in Iran's oil sector from receiving U.S. tax benefits for oil and gas exploration, and prevents nuclear cooperation between the United States and any country that provides nuclear assistance in Iran. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bipartisan bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the staff of the Joint Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal, EOD, Program, which today marks the delivery of the 1000th EOD Man Transportable Robot System, MTRS, to our military. This significant milestone is a testament to the highly skilled, top notch workforce marking this accomplishment today at the Naval EOD Technology Division. The MTRS is a two-man portable robotic system used in both peacetime and wartime operations by EOD technicians to perform remote reconnaissance of unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive device, IED, incident sites. These EOD Robots are keeping EOD technicians alive and are mitigating the effects of emplaced IEDs and unexploded ordnance encountered in a wide variety of operational environments around the world. By using replaceable robots, EOD operators can effectively conduct and complete highly hazardous missions while remaining in a protected position, minimizing human exposure and time-on-target. While no machine can replace a trained EOD technician, EOD personnel have embraced the ability of these robots to assist them in carrying out their important mission. Indeed, because of these robots, many of our EOD technicians have significantly reduced or avoided serious risk to themselves and their colleagues in military service. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the brave men and women willing to risk their own lives for this Nation by serving in our active military forces. While we can never fully repay that debt, we can demonstrate our gratitude by providing our military forces with advanced technology to ensure their safe return to their loved ones. Those responsible for delivering MTRS have been working to do just this. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members join me in congratulating this outstanding Navy team as they celebrate the successful delivery of the 1000th Man Transportable Robot System to our deployed military forces.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have served in this body for some period of time, all of us know that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been as focused on health care for all Americans as anybody who's served in this body, with the sole exception, perhaps, of his father. For over half a century, the Dingells have focused on making sure that Americans in the richest land on the face of the Earth had access to health care. I want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Dingell, and I want to congratulate his partner, Charlie Rangel, one of the senior Members of this House, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has worked collaboratively with Jim McCrery, and I want to congratulate Jim McCrery; I'll congratulate him again while he's listening; who has worked, I think, positively with the chairman, and I thank him for that. I rise in support of this legislation. Today the Members of this body must answer this fundamental question: Will you stand with millions of American children who, through no fault of their own, but they live in families of limited means, have no health insurance? Or will you stand with the few, including at least now President Bush, although I hope he changes his mind, who are ideologically opposed to this legislation, and thus being willing to leave millions of American children stranded without the health insurance coverage they need and that they deserve? Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: we must not sacrifice the health of our children on the altar of a conservative ideology. We must pass this bill. The fact is, President Bush himself stated on the campaign trail in 2004, in fact, it was at the Republican Convention, and I would hope all my Republican colleagues would listen to the President's quote, if you haven't already seen it and read it. He said this as he addressed the American people asking them for their vote for a second term, which they gave him. He said this: ``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.'' President Bush said that as he appealed to the American public for their support for a second term, that he would aggressively pursue a program of adding millions of children, eligible but not included, in the health insurance program. ``We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' That is what President Bush said to the American public from the convention floor in 2004. We, tonight, are going to give him the opportunity to fulfill that promise to the American public. Unfortunately, the President is threatening to renege on his campaign promise and to veto this legislation. Let's be clear: this fiscally responsible legislation will ensure that some 10 million children will receive health insurance coverage. That's approximately 4 million more than are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program today. And so what we consider today is not young Master Snyder, who was on this floor, or Gemma Frost, with whom we met earlier today. Gemma Frost will be covered. Luckily, Master Snyder's father is covered, as all of us are, under a Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan to which our employer contributes. Gemma Frost was not so lucky. The truth is, those 4 million additional children are eligible under existing guidelines, not new guidelines that we've created. They are the children that were eligible that President Bush talked about in 2004 that he wanted to vigorously assume inclusion in the program. Millions, he referred to. This legislation does not change eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIP's financing, increases coverage for low-income children, and improves the quality of care they will receive. In contrast, under the President's proposal, and I hope my friends would put this fact in juxtaposition to the President's representation in 2004 on the floor of the national convention that you held as your party, his proposal would decrease, by 800,000 children, the numbers that would be covered under CHIP in the future. Now, that's included in the 4 million, so actually it's a net 4 million difference between the proposals. Ladies and gentlemen, we ought not to retreat from our children's health. We ought not to retreat from working families concerned about the inclusion of their children. And I suggest to my friends concerned about cost, we ought not to give the answer, they can go to the emergency room. Why not? Because all of us know that is the most expensive intervention in the health care system in America. And so not only do we put our children at risk, but we compound our costs. It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has received strong support from Members of both sides of the aisle, as well as a wide range of health care providers, including private insurers, doctors and hospitals. For example, Senator Hatch has already been quoted, but it bears repeating. He said: ``We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage. I think the President had some pretty bad advice on this.'' Don't take that bad advice. Let us join hands; let us be together on this issue. You voted on a prescription drug program far more expensive than this one, and unpaid for. Senator Grassley stated: ``The President's understanding of our bill is wrong.'' That's the former chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican, senior Member of the United States Senate. He says, ``The President's wrong.'' He urges him, he says, ``I urge him to reconsider his veto message.'' Every one of us, as we vote tonight, can send a strong message that will perhaps help him to reconsider that position. Now, let me say, those who complain that this bill will induce people with private insurance to drop their coverage and enroll in the CHIP program are simply grasping at straws. Why do I say that? The fact is, even America's health insurance lobbying group supports this bill. Finally, let me mention two other points. First, I am very pleased that this legislation includes a comprehensive dental benefit that will give low-income children the dental care they need and will provide States with flexibility in how they provide such care. Why do I bring that up? Dental care is important. A 12-year-old child who lived approximately 8 miles from this Chamber, Deamonte Driver was his name, he was 12 years of age. He had three siblings. He got a toothache. His mother did not have coverage and tried to get coverage, tried to get dental care, and she could not get dental care, and that toothache became an infection in the brain, and Deamonte Driver died just months ago, just 9 or 10 miles from where we stand. That is one of the reasons, one of the four million reasons that I stand here to say that we need to pass this legislation. Secondly, I'm very disappointed that the Senate Republicans insisted that we remove the House-passed provision on Medicare, as well as our provision that would have allowed legal immigrants who pay taxes to be eligible. Why is that of concern? Because my granddaughter, 5 years of age, who just started kindergarten, she may sit next to one of those children in her kindergarten class, and that child who is legally in the United States may get sick. But if that child cannot access health care and sits next to my granddaughter, my granddaughter is at risk. We want everybody in this country to be healthy so that the rest of us can be assured that we operate in a healthy environment. That is why we want that provision. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, Speaker Pelosi was right: I don't believe there's a person in this House that doesn't care about their own children, about their neighbor's children, and about the children of our country. All of us care. We need to come together, however, and see how that care can be transformed into meaningful, tangible help. Mr. Speaker, we have a rare and wonderful opportunity tonight to do the right thing, to put aside partisanship, to elevate the practical, responsible, and moral solution above the ideological. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's seize this opportunity. Let's do the right thing. Let's stand with America's children. Let us pass this historic legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour business, 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 that night. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour business, and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business; and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We expect to consider a fiscal year 2008 Continuing Resolution, legislation dealing with the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, and the flood insurance bill.

Mr. HOYER. My expectation is we will have a continuing resolution on the floor next week. We don't intend to shut down government. I know that a number of Members on your side have indicated it's not their intention to shut down government. We, therefore, need to provide for an alternative which will provide for government to continue because, again, we are experiencing the same frustration you had, as you know, that while we have passed all 12 appropriation bills, that has not been the case in the Senate. The Senate has passed four of their appropriations bills. We haven't conferenced them yet, so that we are going to need a CR to continue government in operations, and I expect to have that on the floor next week.