Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. He says he yields me so much time as I may consume. One of the great benefits of being majority leader, or minority leader, for that matter, although no one seeks the benefit of being minority leader, I understand that, but is that you are unlimited in time. You're yielded 1 minute and you take such time as you want. You become very arrogant in the use of verbiage at that point in time. But I am very, very pleased to be here with all of you. I try to make these events every time you come, because as Speaker Pelosi, and what an historic event you have just participated in. You are the first group of former Members in over 200 years of our Republic that has been greeted by a woman Speaker. The President was so gracious the first time that Nancy and I went down and had lunch with the Speaker. It was just 2 days after the election. President Bush could not have been more gracious and more generous in his comments about the historical aspect and his congratulations for Nancy's accomplishment. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. As you have noticed, she is as strong and focused and competent a Speaker as I have served with. And I know there is a wonderful friend here, who I also want to greet, and that is my friend Tom Foley. When I came to the Congress of the United States, Tom was the whip. I had the great honor of being the whip at one point in time, as you know. I am now in the office that Tom Foley peopled. He was ensconced in the first floor of the Capitol, we had many whip meetings there, and he taught me how to be a Member of Congress. And I could have had no better teacher than Tom Foley, no more principled, decent person than Tom Foley. I will tell you this, and you have heard me say it before. I would not have chosen to be in the minority. And in 1994 with this hostile takeover as I refer to it of the institution of which I was a Member, I became a minority stockholder in, one of the sadnesses, I think, of the 1994 transfer of authority was not so much it was a transfer of authority, that's what happens in democracies, but that an extraordinary American did not become the Speaker of the House, somebody that I love and respect and honor who I think is one of the most decent people with whom I have served in 40 years in a legislative body and that is, of course, the very distinguished, wonderful American first as well as, of course, a distinguished Republican leader, my friend Bob Michel. Bob, thank you for what you have done. When the American people think of what they would like to see in the Congress of the United States and the kind of collegiality and respect for one another and civility that they would like to see, they think of Bob Michel and Tom Foley in my opinion. They may not think of them by name, but they think of who they are and what they represent. I am also pleased to see Arlen Specter who was masquerading as a former Member sitting with the Speaker. As a matter of fact, Ray LaHood traveled with me overseas. We went to Darfur, we were in Sudan, and we were in Egypt. In Egypt, we had a cocktail party, a reception at the Ambassador's residence and I introduced Ray LaHood as the former staffer of the Speaker. Kathy, his wife, came up to me and said, ``Bob Michel was never Speaker.'' I said, ``I know, but in my mind he should have been.'' Jack Kemp is here, also my friend. We had the opportunity to serve on the Appropriations Committee as well. Jack, of course, a distinguished Vice Presidential candidate, now who continues as so many of you do in your own public lives to be so involved in trying to make our country better. Jack, thank you for all you have done. I could mention each and every one of you, but Speaker Rhodes would say you're pressing on that 1 minute a little much. But let me say that those of you who are former Members, some, of course, are former Members by choice. Some, as you reflect upon a democracy that sometimes makes mistakes, are former Members by mistake of your constituencies. But in any event it occurs to me that all of you are financially far better off than us poor people you left behind, and I congratulate you for that. I want to congratulate Mr. Slattery, who's our leader on the Democratic side, and Jay Rhodes. I saw Jay in the hallway just the other day. I had the opportunity of serving briefly with his dad and then with him and both reflect the decency of which I have spoken earlier. Let me also say that I am now the majority leader, and thwarting the will of the majority is something that we criticize very severely and properly so. In a democracy, you do not want to thwart the will of the majority. But as majority leader, I want you to know that I work very hard at thwarting the will of the minority. Sometimes they get upset by it. I don't understand that, Bob, but it happens. Let me thank all of you. Let me thank all of you for holding high the institutional values that the Founding Fathers and Americans want to establish, a body that brings together the various differences within our society, the various interest groups within our society, and tries to synthesize those differences into rational consensus for progress for our country. If we continue to do that, we will continue to merit the respect of our fellow citizens. If we do not, then they will properly have us all become former Members. God bless what you have done, are doing and continue to do on behalf of our country and on behalf of the House of Representatives. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States had a chance to fully fund the troops just a few weeks ago, he chose not to take it, I tell my friend, Mr. Tiahrt, from Kansas. We fully funded the troops. In fact, we gave more money for the fight against terrorism. We want to see success. Mr. Speaker, let every Member here and all those watching this debate at home be perfectly clear, this legislation fully funds our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring that they have the resources they need to conduct their missions. Not only that, this bill includes additional funding, as the last bill did, not requested by the President, to fight the war on terror, to improve America's military readiness and to meet our veterans' unmet health needs. However, while this legislation funds our troops, it insists, as we tried to last time, for the first time in more than 4 years that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government be accountable. The American public expects accountability. Plain and simple, this legislation responds to the will of the people, who are dismayed by the failed implementation of American foreign policy, perhaps more failed than in any in the generation. On Tuesday, a CNN poll found that two-thirds of Americans oppose the war, and 61 percent support benchmarks like the ones in this bill that would measure Iraqi progress. Let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Vice President Cheney was deployed by this administration. What for? To tell the Iraqis they had to perform, that they had to meet benchmarks; that the American public was running thin on its support, and in fact is not supporting this war. But, frankly, the Congress has taken the position that we won't say that, and the President vetoes a bill that said that, a bill that required performance so that the millions that the American public, the billions that the American public, the $500 billion-plus that the American public has dug from their pockets, will be responsibly met by the Iraqi Government. Thus, Mr. Speaker, this legislation holds the President and the Iraqi Government accountable by fencing off 52-plus of the $95.5 billion provided to the Defense Department until released by subsequent legislation. What is there to fear from this Congress as we oversee whether or not there is a turn from an unsuccessful implementation of a policy to a successful policy? Perhaps that fear is that that corner will not be turned, and therefore this vote may be at risk. Before this additional funding is released, however, the President must report to Congress by July 13 regarding the success of the Iraqi Government in meeting security and political benchmarks. General Petraeus has said there is no solution but a political solution, and the only people who can accomplish a political solution are the Iraqis themselves. What do we ask for? Disarming militias who are killing our men and women, enacting legislation to equitably share oil revenues. There will be no resolution without that. Reforming the debaathification process, which says to literally tens of thousands of people, we know you were Baath members, but you really weren't in politics, so you can come back and do the work to build this society. Without that, we will not succeed and our men and women will pay the price, as they are paying the price every day. Lastly, providing for provisional elections. We are fighting for democracy. We are investing in democracy. That is what we are told. But we haven't amended the constitution and we are not providing for the provincial elections that were promised. If that is the case, the Iraqi people are not going to think democracy is on its way. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States himself has stated that our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. That is what this legislation says. If you think it is open-ended, if you think there should be no benchmarks, if you think the American taxpayers' money ought to be spent without seeing results and without the carnage to our troops decreasing, then vote against this. To this we say, no more. No more blank checks. Not after more than 3,370 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq and more than 25,000 have been injured. Ten percent of those lives have been lost in the last 4 months. Not after the American taxpayer spent nearly half a trillion dollars. And not after 4 years of egregious misjudgments by this administration, from ``mission accomplished,'' to ``the insurgency is in its last throes,'' to ``Iraq will fund its own reconstruction.'' Every Member in this body, every Member, hopes and prays that the current troop escalation succeeds, that the Iraqis stabilize and secure their country and that our troops can return home safely. Why should you fear waiting 60 days and making another judgment as to whether that is occurring? That is our responsibility. We swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States which says that we are the policymakers. But there is little reason for optimism when the violence in Iraq continues unabated and progress on the ground is somewhere between illusive and nonexistent. The two-step funding approach in this legislation effected by Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha is not only appropriate, it is imperative. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has stated, ``I think the time to look at where we are is late summer.'' This is a few days before that, and we will continue consideration into that late summer that Senator McConnell talks about. We cannot want to succeed more than the Iraqis. They must take the lead in restoring stability and securing their nation. And the Iraqi Parliament must not go on vacation while American men and women are fighting and dying for them. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this bill. Let us forge a new direction in Iraq and implement a policy and design to succeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. By the way, I'm trying to help the gentleman. You may have missed that, but I'm trying to help your side. But we can do it by unanimous consent that it be done de novo. Parliamentary inquiry. And just so that the gentleman from Louisiana knows, on a voice vote, of course, because there is not a recorded vote, anybody can ask for a motion to reconsider because there is no record as to who voted on the prevailing side or who voted on the opposing side. But, notwithstanding that, I press my motion de novo; that, in other words, the question be placed, once again, de novo.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. This is your amendment we are asking unanimous consent to adopt.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves is that we adopted a motion to recommit forthwith to be reported back with an amendment. That amendment was adopted favorably. When the vote was called, you indicated that amendment was defeated. My parliamentary inquiry: Would at this point in time a motion to reconsider that vote be in order?

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to be cute about this, but this was the amendment that was offered by you, I don't mean you personally necessarily, but this was the amendment you just offered. It was not approved, not because we didn't favor it but because we had a jurisdictional issue on our side. And in light of the fact that it is your amendment that you offered and it is an amendment which I think will pass the House handily, I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider or perhaps if we could give him maybe 5 minutes for the purposes of reviewing his amendment to determine whether he is still for his amendment.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I believe we did give notice. My staff gave notice to the leader's staff, I believe. This came out of committee, as you know, unanimously. I think we are all for this provision. There was a jurisdictional issue raised. I think we have resolved that jurisdictional issue. I know that all your Members voted for it. I think most of our Members would want to vote for it, and we are certainly hopeful that we can move ahead and have this in the bill at this time. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I would suggest that a motion to reconsider might solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the last voice vote be vacated and that the question be put de novo.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman, and I congratulate him for the great work that he is doing. This is a critical bill that we consider today. And, as he has pointed out, we have had a number of bills dealing with homeland security on the floor. I also want to thank the ranking member for his leadership both in this Congress and in the past Congress on this issue. I think the American people are advantaged by having two people of real substance who care about this issue working together, even though from time to time, as the gentleman has pointed out, there are disagreements. He had the same problems that the chairman is having, and we are trying to work through those problems. And I certainly am going to support the manager's amendment as he tries to work this. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Thompson, for all his hard work on this very, very important authorization bill. The highest duty of our government is to protect the American people, to secure our homeland and to defend our national security. Unfortunately, since the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation on September 11 opened our eyes and exposed our vulnerabilities, we have not done enough to protect our homeland. As Tom Kean, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey and cochair of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission stated last August, ``We are not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.'' Yesterday's arrest of six men who apparently were plotting to attack and kill soldiers in Fort Dix in New Jersey is a stark reminder that we cannot, we must not let down our guard; that we must remain vigilant. This legislation, which I believe will receive strong bipartisan support, is a critical step in the right direction. Among other things, this bill authorizes $39.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2008, which is $2.1 billion in addition for our homeland security that was asked for by the President. It restores the President's 52 percent cut to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which helps first responders to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. It restores the President's 55 percent cut in firefighter assistance grants. It restores the elimination of the local law enforcement terrorism prevention program and restores the elimination of the SAFER, which is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program. I want to thank the chairman for doing that and congratulate him on his leadership because, as the ranking member pointed out, this bill was reported out unanimously. It was a joint effort and a very important one at that. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this legislation contains strong accountability measures aimed at strengthening and streamlining management of the Department of Homeland Security, which has struggled with its management challenges; and it includes provisions to improve information sharing, to enhance bioterrorism preparedness and to eliminate the Department's authority to establish its own personnel management system. Mr. Chairman, ever since the Department of Homeland Security was created, an effort which I opposed because I thought that would create a Department too large and too diverse to manage well, frankly, I think my concerns have been evidenced. It is the challenge of this committee, now that we have created the Department, to ensure that in fact it does act in an efficient manner to protect our homeland. But I have been concerned about the efficacy of consolidating 22 agencies and 170,000 people into one Department. However, since the Congress chose to create this new Department, it is our duty, as I said, to ensure that it has the resources it needs to do its job as effectively as possible and to ensure that the Department is well managed. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, by focusing on oversight and management is a critical response to the issues and problems that have been encountered at the Department since its creation. I want to again congratulate Mr. Thompson, who is doing such an excellent job of leading this committee, and Mr. King, who brings a focus for the country as opposed to a partisan focus to this work with Mr. Thompson. I want to congratulate them both.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I am not sure I am accurate because when you say come before the House again, what we will do is take the Senate bill from the desk, substitute the House language, ask for a conference, move to go to conference, and then you will have in order your motion to instruct conferees. To that extent, the bill will come before us, but only to that extent. In other words, the budget that was passed by the House, we will take the Senate bill from the floor, substitute the House language. The reason we need a rule, frankly, is we asked unanimous consent to do that procedure, a unanimous consent which we had given to you in 2003 and 2005. For whatever reasons, it was not your personal determination, but it was the determination of your side not to give unanimous consent for that purpose. Therefore, in order to effect that objective, we need to pass a rule to allow us to do that which is what we will do Monday night.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HOYER. That is not my understanding. Now the gentleman may have more information than I have, but if that is the fact, I don't have that information. At this point in time, I was not aware of any such problem. The only problem I was aware of, as I informed the gentleman, we can either do this by asking for unanimous consent to effect the process of taking the Senate bill, substituting the House bill, and then requesting the conference and appointing conferees by unanimous consent. Or, failing to get unanimous consent, we have to do that by rule. We did not get unanimous consent. The Rules Committee met today. We will consider that rule and the bill itself on Monday late afternoon, early evening.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. It will not be this coming week. That is being worked on. We want to make sure that it is a bill which accurately reflects reform and is workable. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. HOYER. It is my view it will go through a committee process. The Judiciary Committee is considering it. Mr. Conyers' committee is considering it.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, if we have the full cooperation of all those people who have mothers or had mothers, we can accomplish that objective. Having said that, as you know, I announced we have Friday scheduled as a day for us to do our business. Now if we were extraordinarily fortunate and got our business done by Thursday, or frankly could conclude it late Thursday night, perhaps we would be able to do that. But I do not anticipate that. I know as many Members on my side of the aisle, I want to assure the gentleman, have talked to me, as I am sure Members on your side of the aisle have talked to you about that, and if we can accommodate them, we will. But you heard the schedule. It is a pretty full schedule with a lot of substantive legislation. We have the intelligence authorization and other bills. It is my expectation that we will be in on Friday. But it is also my intent to make every effort to make Friday as short a day as we possibly can. As you know, our objective is no later than 2 p.m.; but if we could do earlier, 12:30, before 1, to accommodate Members and their flights, we certainly would like to do that. I would certainly welcome your help in accomplishing that objective.

Mr. HOYER. Right.

Mr. HOYER. Let me say, I agree with the gentleman. I was not pleased myself that we did not give more notice to Members. As you pointed out, we had votes very late in the day. I take full responsibility because I think we may have been able to get, certainly early Tuesday at the latest, information to Members. We probably should have done that. As you know, the issue was the veto, when it was going to go down there and when it was going to come back. That was not decided until late. But I think the gentleman's criticism is a constructive criticism, and I take responsibility. We should have done that, in my opinion. I was not pleased, frankly, with myself or with the notice our office gave because we do want to give Members as accurate information as we possibly can. And, frankly, we want to give them as timely information as we can so they can accomplish what you have said, make their schedules comport with what we are actually doing. To the extent that did not happen this time, I will try to prevent it from happening a second time.

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 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, May 10, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, May 10, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, May 11.