Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on June 9, 1987, Nancy Pelosi was sworn in to represent the people of California's 8th District. This week we recognize and commend her for 20 years of distinguished service in the House of Representatives, where she has served both her constituents and this Nation proudly. During her 20 years in the House, Nancy has been a true leader on important issues, including promoting human rights, protecting the environment, and expanding health care. She has remained focused on the needs of her district, including preserving the Presidio of San Francisco as the Nation's largest urban national park, fighting for increased funding for HIV/AIDS research, and improving the lives of children. In the 110th Congress, Nancy has ushered in a new era as the first woman Speaker of the House, setting an agenda that promotes the priorities of the American people and addresses the key challenges present in today's world. Her drive and determination make her a strong leader and legislator, and she has worked tirelessly to represent her constituents and to move our Nation in a new, positive direction. Nancy has been a devoted public servant, both in California and in the House. She is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. It is an honor to serve with her in the House, and I am proud to call her my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, I don't know that the response is necessary. I will say to my friend, I heard him speak a lot in 1991 and 1992 and 1993 about open rules, about openness, and I'm speaking now of Mr. Dreier, and he subsequently became the chair of the Rules Committee. And his response was, when I raised one of his quotes, was, look, we're in authority now and we've found out that we can't get done the work that we need to get done without, in effect, shutting down the rules. It is very difficult now to hear him tell me that he's going to do everything possible to make sure that the rules are open. He had an opportunity as chairman of the Rules Committee, of course, to do that, and from our perspective, as he well knows, he didn't do that. As I have said before, we are going to proceed with these four bills in the regular order, and my friend the distinguished whip and I will discuss, along with Mr. Boehner and I, will discuss trying to get our work done within the time frame allotted to us and that is available to us. He made the observation correctly that 11 of the 12 appropriation bills last year were passed through this House, in the previous year the 12 out of 12. Or 11 out of 11. I guess 10 out of 11 the last year. We've added an appropriations committee. They were passed. However, I would remind and say once again, with the cooperation of Mr. Obey and with time constraints so that they could be done in a timely fashion. I am hopeful that we proceed that way again, and we will look forward to discussing it.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. I am confident that you and I can do that.

Mr. HOYER. As someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for a quarter of a century, I can tell you this has been done on a regular basis in the last Congress, the Congress before that and every Congress in which I've served. In every Congress in which I've served.

Mr. HOYER. It's my understanding, staff has just told me, that we have an agreement, I presume Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis and other leadership have agreed, to coordinate the floor and committee work so as to not have conflicts. So that apparently has been contemplated. I want to agree with you that, generally speaking, you are absolutely correct. The Appropriations Committee does not like to be marking up bills when appropriation bills are on the floor. I agree with that 100 percent. Mr. Obey in particular does not like that because Mr. Obey, either as the ranking member or now the chairman, was very engaged, as we all know, in the floor debates. So he was particularly not happy with that process, and as an appropriator, I can tell you that no appropriator likes to have that happen. Again, we understand that there has been some work on this so that we can try to accommodate both doing the work on the floor and doing the work in the committee.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and appreciate his question. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour business and 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete 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., and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider the following fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills: Homeland Security, Military Construction-Veterans' Affairs, Energy and Water Development, and Interior and Environment. Members should be advised that the official photo of the 110th Congress will be taken on Tuesday. In concluding my comments, the appropriation bills that I read, Homeland Security, Military Construction-Veterans' Affairs, Energy and Water Development, and Interior and Environment, will be completed next week. Let me reiterate that. They will be completed next week. I am hopeful we can complete them by the close of business on Friday, but they will be completed next week.

Mr. HOYER. What the chairman and I have discussed is that we are going to complete these four bills next week. As the gentleman knows, as a result of the supplemental taking up a substantial amount of time of the committee and of the committee's chairman and the committee staff, we are behind in our schedule. It is our intention, as the gentleman knows from my previous statements privately and publicly to him and in the colloquy, that we will complete 11 of the 12 appropriation bills prior to June 29 when we are scheduled to take the July 4 work period break. The Defense bill has been decided to be done mid-July. Other than that, these bills will be done. In order to accomplish that objective, our schedule will be directed not so much at time as work. And we will complete the work. So I say to my friend, Saturday is a possibility. The chairman has said Saturday is a possibility. I am hopeful that will not be necessary. I am hopeful that the subcommittee chairs and the ranking members will be able to work together, as was done last year in terms of schedule and time, so that we can complete our work by Friday at a relatively early hour. I am hopeful we can do that.

Mr. HOYER. That obviously is an average of a little less than four bills per week the 3 weeks that are available to us. We have four bills scheduled next week. We will not have the Defense bill scheduled. Labor and Health may be the biggest bill thereafter that we will consider prior to June 30.

Mr. HOYER. I do anticipate that, and I would look forward to having discussions with the gentleman at the end of next week, Thursday or Friday. Hopefully that is feasible. We hope it will be feasible. As you know, last year, as I reiterated, there were time agreements between the chairman and the ranking member that allowed us to effect reasonably efficient consideration under the open rules that were then in place. We anticipate that, and I hope that is the case. But I want to reiterate what is self-evident. Our commitment has been to pass 11 bills by the end of this month. That gives us three full weeks to do that. We think that is doable. Again, the defense bill is not in that mix. The defense bill arguably could have taken substantial time, and that will be done in July. I say to my friend that I contemplate proceeding as we have done in the past and look forward to discussing that with him as we proceed.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. It gives me an opportunity to respond to two things. First of all to his specific question, and that is what I contemplate at this point in time. I have not fully discussed it with the chairman, but that is what we contemplate. As far as I know, that is what the rules will provide for next week. When I said it gave me an opportunity to comment on the general, I know there has been some consternation on your side of the aisle, Mr. Whip, with the pre-printing requirement. As you know, one of the things we were concerned about was that matters would come to the floor with little notice. My view is an open rule allows somebody to present whatever amendment they choose to present. But requiring that it be preprinted so it gives notice to Members it seems to me not to be contrary to the concept of an open rule. It simply means within the concept of an open rule Members will have notice as to what amendments people intend to offer. We think that is not undermining of anybody's right to offer any amendment they choose to, while at the same time giving the body notice of what they can contemplate and consider what they might want to do.

Mr. HOYER. I would reiterate, as I told my friend, my contemplation is we will proceed in the regular order next week. We hope that will go in the regular order. I further said to my friend that we will discuss that as we go forward during the latter part of the week. We hope, as occurred last year, there was cooperation between both sides to accomplish the work of the Appropriations Committee. We know we have had a problem. Nine of the appropriations bills, as you know, weren't passed last year. They were passed this year, and they were passed after the fiscal year not only had started but after the Congress in which they were supposed to be passed expired and the new Congress was under way. But I want to assure the gentleman, as I have said, we contemplate the regular order. What I was referring to in the second part of my response was the issue that has been raised not with respect to appropriations bills over the last 3 or 4 months but with respect to bills that we perceive to be open rules but with a pre-printing requirement. We do not think, and we will be glad to discuss that, that giving Members notice of amendments they may have to be prepared for and to contemplate and to have information about and find out what people might think about that undermines the open-rule concept. The open-rule concept, from my perspective, is that any Member who wants to offer an amendment that is germane can do so. And that requiring them to tell people ahead of time what that amendment is is not undermining of that right. However, as I said, I understand the gentleman's position with respect to an appropriation bill where moneys may be cut. There may be opportunities to add back in other places or to shift from one object to another. I think you are correct. It may be a more fluid situation that the Members confront at that point in time, and they may not be able to have the ability to pre-print an amendment which they can themselves not contemplate. I want to explain that I was referring more to the questions that you have raised, not you specifically, but that have been raised with reference to the differences that we have on the fact that we believe we have provided a number of open rules, notwithstanding the pre- printing requirement.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow, and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, June 11, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to say to Mr. Kildee, those of you who have been our pages and have made such an extraordinary contribution to this institution, Mr. Kildee has been on the Page Board for almost, as a matter of fact, maybe as long as I've been a Member of Congress, which is longer than, by almost a factor of two, not quite, all of you have been alive. You come to this institution with a great responsibility, in my opinion. You are extraordinary young people in high school, learning not only about government but learning about all the other skills that you will need to know to be successful and to help your country be successful. This program, I think, is an extraordinarily important program because of what it does. It gives to you at a young age while you are learning the opportunity to see firsthand your democracy in action, to see those who have been selected by your parents, by your brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and your neighbors and friends to represent them in the Congress of the United States. You have been given this unique opportunity that a very, very small segment of your fellow cohorts, your generation, will have had, to come firsthand to see the Members, who are all human beings, who all have ideas, who all have passions and fears and visions and desires like your parents and you have and who come here on behalf of their constituents to try to do good for their country. As president of the Maryland Senate in the 1970s, I had the opportunity to run the Page Program in the State Senate, and I was always hopeful that those young people, who were your age, 16, 17 years of age, they were seniors, for the most part, you're juniors, would leave their service in this institution and in that institution with a positive perspective, with a thought that this democracy, founded so many centuries ago, still is a viable democracy that, as Winston Churchill said, is the best of all other forms of government tried. It is, as you have seen, not perfect, but it has created one of the greatest societies that has ever existed, not the only great society but one of the greatest, and you have helped us make it function. And sometimes you will think to yourself, well, I didn't get on the floor and speak; you're obviously not a Member; and perhaps you didn't write a great treatise on this issue or that issue and will feel from time to time, well, all I did was run this envelope from this office to that office or from the floor of the House to someplace else or, from time to time, get information for a Member who was debating something on the floor. But your service made this institution run better. John Kennedy was a hero of mine, and, frankly, I got into politics because of John Kennedy. He came to the campus of the University of Maryland, talked about the difference that young people could make. He spoke on this floor at least on three occasions where he gave his State of the Union. In his inaugural address, he said to all of us that the energy, the faith, the devotion we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. Pages, I hope you leave from here with a better knowledge of how the people's House works and with a renewed conviction that your democracy works, perhaps, better than you thought or some had told you it did and that you will leave this place with an energy and a faith and a devotion to letting your colleagues know how well their democracy works and with the conviction that if they participate fully in this democracy that it will work even better. Thank you for your service. Thank you for what you do in your communities, in your schools and in your communities, and thank you for transmitting the knowledge you have learned to literally thousands of your friends and colleagues. Godspeed.

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 thank the gentlelady, and I congratulate the gentlelady for the extraordinary work she has done, not just this year but throughout the years on this very, very important issue which offers hope for literally millions and millions of people, not just in America but throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, again, today the new majority in this House demonstrates its commitment, its commitment to addressing the priorities of the American people. As we consider this legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, let us be clear: This bill, S. 5, has widespread bipartisan support in Congress and certainly among the American people. It passed the Senate in April by a vote of 63-34. And it's nearly identical to legislation the House passed in January by a bipartisan substantial margin of 253-174. This legislation will pass again today. And thus the real question is will the President heed the will of the American people as expressed by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and sign this bill. Or will the President continue to undermine the will of the American people. In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would increase the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research. Current policy limits the use of Federal funds for research only to those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order of August 9, 2001, an executive order which accommodated the research we are talking about but limited it. This policy severely restricts the potential for lifesaving breakthroughs because only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available for research today; and the vast majority of those 22 lines are aged, contaminated, or have been developed through obsolete methods. It cannot be stressed enough: This legislation only authorizes Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from the embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. Thus, this legislation does not seek nor does it certainly intend to destroy life. It seeks to preserve life. Former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, who was once an opponent of efforts like this one but now supports them, stated: ``I strongly believe . . . that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.'' That was Dr. Frist, the former Republican majority leader of the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, we have, I think, a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives, and this legislation accomplishes that objective. Supporters of this bill understand that there is a difficult issue for many Americans and that it raises many questions that humanity has yet to adequately answer, and that is why this legislation also directs HHS and the National Institutes of Health to issue ethical guidelines that will ensure the highest standards of scientific investigation. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on stem cells not derived from human embryos. The truth is, as demonstrated by Gallup polls taken since 2001, the more Americans learn about the potential for stem cell research, the more they support it. Just last month, 65 percent of Americans reported that they supported expanding Federal funding for stem cell research. This legislation represents the hope of millions of Americans who are waiting for us to take action. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have before. It is an opportunity. It is a chance. It is a hope for better health and life for those whom we represent. I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this bipartisan piece of legislation reaches his desk, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is a short resolution. The gentleman may not think it's well-written, but nor has he well-read it. There is nothing in there that says the Member is compelled to do anything.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will tell the gentleman that this resolution that we are now considering does not seek to trivialize the issue. I suggest that the gentleman is trying to trivialize this issue. This issue does not deal with traffic tickets.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman wants an answer, then he ought to give me the time to answer.

Mr. HOYER. How much time do I have?

Mr. HOYER. I yield the gentleman from California 1 minute.