Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman. This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added. Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ``forthwith'' for ``promptly'' so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected. How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed. My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let's reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the serious votes that we cast during this session. This will be a vote on whether or not we are going to allow bigotry to manifest itself in hate and result in violence. My friend, Artur Davis, rose and he said he didn't know anybody of faith who recommended violence. I would suggest that tragically the citizens of the United States know all too well some who claim to be men of faith and who have issued fatwas to kill those not of their faith, and that if they do so, Allah will reward them. We call them terrorists. They kill not because of individual wrongdoing or individual action. They kill because of the membership in a faith or a race or a nationality, because perhaps we are Christian or we are Jews or we are Americans. And we call them terrorists. This is an important vote. Neither the exercise of bigotry nor the rationalization of bigotry ought to be sanctioned in this great House, but we know through the centuries it has been. We know there were those who in times past rose on this floor and rationalized slavery and rationalized why we should not have antilynching laws in America. We know that. We lament it, and we say to ourselves had we lived in those times, had we lived in the 18th century, hopefully we would have been beyond our time, or in the 19th century hopefully beyond our time, or in the 20th century hopefully beyond our time, as Martin Luther King, Jr., urged us to be. We serve now in the 21st century, and we know that there are those in America and throughout the world who preach hate against a class of people not because of their actions, not because of their character, but because of who they are. That is what this vote is about today. Through this legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others. It has been too recent that lynching was rationalized in our country. It is too present in today's society that some across the sea and, yes, some here rationalize violence because of membership in another class different than they. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Let me say something about that to my friends. We have come to accept in America in the 21st century that it is not respectable nor acceptable to be bigoted against those who are black, be bigoted against those who are women, be bigoted against those who are Catholic or Baptist or Jews or Muslims. It is not respectable. It is not acceptable. You don't talk about that in the restaurant anymore. But there is a class in America that is still respectable, rationalized many times by faith. But then segregation was rationalized for faith-based reasons. My friends, this is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences. We may not agree with those differences, but we know if society is to be free that we must accept differences. That is the bedrock of what America means, not just to us, but to all the world. And so today, my friends, I say we have an important statement to make, not a bill to pass, but a statement to make about the values of our country. I had a prepared statement here, I won't read the balance of it. But I hope that every Member has the courage and the perspective, that when they rise from their bed 20 years from now, they will be able to say, unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past who failed the test of tolerance, to say that we had the courage to live out the principles that makes America such a wonderful, great, decent and just Nation. Vote for this bill. Vote for our principles. Vote for your faith that teaches that we reach out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, today, through this legislation--``The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act''--the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federally protected activity, such as voting. This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, religion, or national origin, when the defendant causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury. Furthermore, the bill expands current law to prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct is motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Federal Government has long had a history of combating crimes based on prejudice. This bill simply expands the current law to groups that historically have been affected by violence and thus it responds to the reality in America today. According to the FBI, race ranks first among motivations for hate crimes and sexual orientation ranks second among the reasons that people are targeted. Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary? To them, I answer: because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national orgin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social fabric. Let us be clear: This legislation does not affect free speech, or punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Federal Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would clarify the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated and prosecuted. Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very powerful message that crimes committed against any American--just because of who he or she is--are absolutely unacceptable. Not surprisingly, this legislation is supported by 31 State attorneys general, and more than 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriffs Association. I urge my colleagues: Vote for this legislation, not only because it is important and necessary but also because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I think we agree on that, and that is certainly our objective.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and respond to him that 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, and we expect to appoint conferees on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Again, Monday night, we intend to have a motion to go to conference and appoint conferees, so that Members know it will be in addition to suspension bills. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be distributed by the end of business tomorrow. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We expect to consider the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill; the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Department authorization bill; H.R. 1873, a bill regarding small business contracting; H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Recognition Act; and a bill to reauthorize the COPS program. We are still determining which rules and bills will be considered on which days.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HOYER. As you know, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid in our meeting at the White House indicated that it was their intent and their objective to have to the President's desk before the Memorial Day break another bill to fund our troops, and for such other purposes as the bill may include. In that context, I am hopeful that we will move a bill through this House no later than the 15th or 16th of May. In other words, not next week but the week after. If we can do it next week, we would maybe do it; but it is our intention to move it before the middle of the second week.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1867 pursuant to House Resolution 349, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Constance, who last week retired from the National Archives after 35 years of Federal Service. For 14 years, John served as the National Archives liaison to Capitol Hill, supervising congressional relations, public affairs, communications, and the agency's web program. A native of Baltimore, Maryland, John joined the Archives after graduating from the College of William and Mary in 1972. He served in a number of managerial positions with the agency, including Director of Policy and Program Analysis, and the Chief of Product Acquisition and Marketing for the National Audiovisual Center. In addition, Mr. Constance served in extended details to both the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Education during his career, managing public affairs projects for both agencies. I am personally grateful to John for all the expertise and assistance he provided to me in the early 1990s during a time of extraordinary transformation for the National Archives, particularly when it established a second facility in College Park, Maryland to accommodate the growing volume of historical materials and improve services to researchers. This state-of-the-art facility, which has become known as ``Archives II,'' is a treasure to anyone who believes that a nation cannot progress unless it first understands its past. The historically significant records it maintains literally document the history of our great nation, and will serve as primary sources for countless scholars of history, culture, politics, and science for generations to come. All of us who embark on careers in public service hope that when the day comes to move on to other pursuits, we will be remembered for the good works we have rendered to the American people. John will be remembered for, of all things, his part in advancing our nation's sacred duty to remember its always rich, often glorious, and sometimes controversial history.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me comment on the ranking member's observation about political posturing. First, let me say I wonder what the President was doing standing in front of that sign saying ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier with taxpayers' dollars. Let me suggest to you that he was politically posturing, trying to take credit for a great victory that occurred 4 years ago. No one in America believes that the mission has been accomplished. No one in America thinks we have had a success. Let me say that it was totally appropriate for the Speaker and for the majority leader in the United States Senate to sign a bill and let the public know that this is what the Congress believes. My friend may think political posturing is taking responsibility, which is our constitutional duty, as opposed to simply rubber-stamping what the President wants done. There has not been any question asked for the last 4 years by this Congress. There has not been any interposition of a correct policy as opposed to the President's failed policy. We don't see that as political posturing, I tell my friend--we see it as exercising the constitutional duty that the American public expects us to do as their independent representative. This is only the second veto. Why is it only the second veto? Because you wouldn't pass anything the President didn't want. That is not the role of the Congress of the United States. The role of the Congress of the United States is to make policy. That is what article I says. That is what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the President has chosen not to follow the will of the American people and bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate by vetoing legislation that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, that holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress, and that calls for a responsible redeployment of American forces who are mired in a civil war. It is our duty now as the elected representatives of the people to try to override the President's veto even though we may not succeed, and even as we prepare to meet with the President today to discuss next steps. That is our responsibility. We intend to do it. Mr. Speaker, I believe our President, who was wrong 4 years ago when he stood under a banner announcing ``Mission Accomplished,'' is wrong again. The escalation of American troops in Iraq does not represent a change in this administration's failed policy. In fact, it is the fourth time we have escalated troops. In fact, it has been tried, unsuccessfully. The President's claim last night that ``We've begun to see some important results'' is unfortunately contradicted by the facts. I wish it were true. I want to succeed in this effort, although what success is is ill-defined or not defined by the President. In fact, Iraq is wracked by violence, including massive car bombs, almost daily. The U.S. death toll in April of 104 made last month the deadliest of the year and the sixth most lethal month since the war started, notwithstanding this increase in troop presence. Senator Hagel, who recently returned from Iraq, stated: ``This thing is coming undone quickly, and the Maliki government is weaker by the day.'' And the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction just reported: ``The U.S. project to rebuild Iraq remains far short of its targets, leaving the country plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production and shortages of clean water and health care.'' I suggest to my friend, in that context, the Congress ought to be impacting on the policies that are being pursued that are not succeeding. Finally, let me say, and I call the attention of my friend, the ranking member, to this because he referenced this. The President's claim last night that this legislation ``substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders'' is totally inaccurate. But let me tell you what is not inaccurate is that our military commanders have made none of the decisions on the policies we have been pursuing in Iraq, and that is the tragedy. The decisions have been made not by military men and women, but by the President, by Mr. Cheney, by Mr. Rumsfeld, by Mr. Wolfowitz, and, yes, by Mr. Bremer. We have seen nothing, I tell my friend, but a series of political decisions made on this war over the last 4-plus years; would that it have been otherwise. We do not seek to micromanage our military, which has done everything we have asked of them. Rather, we do continue to question the decisions of top administration officials, including, yes, the President, whose judgments regarding this war have proved repeatedly, almost without exception, wrong. Indeed, it is ironic that the President makes this claim when, in fact, we are mired in Iraq, because politicians who I have just referenced made decisions that prove to be wrong and did not lead to success. Mr. Speaker, this Congress must not continue to simply rubber-stamp this administration's request. Our Founding Fathers did not think that was our role. They thought our role was to make independent judgments on the people's behalf and have the courage to pass legislation reflecting that judgment. This legislation responds to the will of the American people and sets forth a policy to take us in a new direction that requires Iraqi responsibility and the pursuit of the political solution that General Petraeus and the Iraq Study Group say was essential if we were going to succeed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle: Listen to the American people, fully fund our troops, hold the Iraqis accountable, support responsible redeployment of American troops. Vote to override this veto.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the service to the House of Representatives of our reading clerk Paul Hays, who after 19 years in that position and 41 years as an employee of this House has announced that he will retire--effective Monday, April 30--and begin a new phase of his life. The fact is, Madam Speaker, Paul Hays--with his deep, crisp, commanding voice--is perhaps more recognizable to regular viewers of C- SPAN than many of the Members of Congress who are privileged to serve here. Since 1789, the House has employed reading clerks, who are responsible for reading aloud the text of bills, amendments, motions, messages, special rules and other privileged resolutions, and veto messages. Our reading clerks almost always have been appointed from the ranks of existing House employees who have extensive prior floor experience. And, Paul--a graduate of Georgetown University--is no exception. In fact, Paul was appointed reading clerk in 1988 by my very good friend and a great public servant, the former Republican minority leader Robert Michel of Illinois. It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that--given his speaking talents-- Paul intends to do voice-over work in the future. Paul, we thank you for your service and wish you well in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the fifth centenary of the word ``America''--a name that has become synonymous with opportunity, equality, freedom and hope. On April 25, 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemueller and Vautran Ludd, Chaplain to the Duke of Lorraine, created a map that gave the name ``America'' to the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus 15 years earlier. According to historical accounts, the name was a tribute to Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navigator who made 4 voyages to the new world between 1497 and 1504. Waldseemueller and Ludd published 1,000 copies of the map that first coined the term ``America,'' and I am proud to say that the only surviving copy--a priceless relic of our shared heritage--now resides in the Library of Congress, after being purchased in 2003 from the German Prince Waldburg-Wolfegg for $10 million. In the 500 years that have passed since the word ``America'' was first used, the term has become more of an idea than a name--a concept that celebrates what is best about humanity; a principle that defines what liberty, justice and unity are really all about; and a goal for the people of the world to strive towards. We have come a long way over the last half-millennium--from a name on a piece of paper to a moral, political and economic leader among nations. And it gives me great pride to mark this momentous occasion on the House Floor and to join people all over the world in celebrating the fifth centenary of the word ``America''--a notion that now means so much to so many people from all walks of life.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12 noon in pro forma session. No legislative business. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be made available by the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday no votes are expected, assuming we complete our business scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. We'll consider H.R. 1429, the Head Start reauthorization bill; H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill; H.R. 1868, the NIST reauthorization bill; and H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. HOYER. Votes could occur as early as 12 noon. It will be a full day. Even though we are not here Monday, usually you're in 6:30 the next day. But because of the shortness of the week, we will be in, as I indicated, at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and then 12 for business. There could be votes as early as 12 noon.

Mr. HOYER. The answer is I have not talked to Rules Committee Chairman Slaughter about the specific nature of those rules. But, as you know, the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on the Head Start bill and two science bills on Tuesday, and they will do the rules then. We'll do the hate crimes bill rule later in the week, probably Wednesday, for consideration on Thursday. But I understand the gentleman's observation that there was significant debate on both these bills. There are issues that a number of people want to raise on the floor, and I would think that the committee would want to try to make in order some amendments to accomplish that objective.

Mr. HOYER. Obviously, to some degree, that is dependent upon how quickly the President acts. Obviously, he has a number of days to act. But our presumption is he will act soon. And one of the reasons that we have put the time of 12 noon, I mean, it depends upon how early in the day he vetoes that bill. We may have it back here very soon. I talked to the majority leader in the Senate just an hour ago. It's his expectation that that vote will occur today. It's our expectation that we will send the bill down either late Monday, obviously the funeral is occurring and people won't be here, or very, very early Tuesday so that the President will have it Tuesday. And then it will depend upon how soon the President acts. But it would be our expectation that we would act quickly on any action the President took if he vetoes the bill. We, of course, as you know, are hopeful that he will sign the bill. We think it gives all the money for the troops that the President has asked for, and then some additional monies, and it does not either micromanage the troops or set any precipitous withdrawal dates. But obviously the President has expressed a contrary opinion. So I think you're right; I think the expectation, based upon the President's representation, is that he is going to veto that bill if it comes to him, and we will have to consider that veto.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course, as you know, that bill was scheduled for consideration last week. We did not get to that bill. We took it off the calendar.

Mr. HOYER. Let me find out.

Mr. HOYER. I am not sure of the exact sequencing. But let me say this in answer to your question, because your question was really not necessarily about this specific bill, but about general process.

Mr. HOYER. Clearly, we are trying to pursue a process which gives notice to Members about what they are going to consider. As you noted, I hope, we waited the full 24 hours on the supplemental conference report so that Members will have the full 24 hours. And as a matter of fact, we were almost to the hour at 5:50 p.m. yesterday. And although there were some Members whom it had caused a problem to because of their schedules, we had said we were going to give 24 hours' notice, and we did give 24 hours' notice, and we want to continue to do that. On the amending process, obviously, we are going to many times require that amendments be filed timely so that Members have an opportunity to see what amendments are going to be asked of the Rules Committee. But we will pursue what we believe to be, and hope in consultation with you, is a reasonable time frame to expect people to notice their amendments. Clearly, they have to be out of committee. Clearly, they have to have time to see the bill and prepare amendments. But we want to have amendments in many instances noted so that the membership can know what they are considering.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HOYER. Certainly we want to make a process where all Members on either side of the aisle have the opportunity to note their amendments in a fashion that does not put them in a place where it makes it very difficult for them. On the other hand, obviously, it is not just the floor that considers it. It is the Rules Committee that has to; so you have to consider when the Rules Committee is going to meet as well. And although I appreciate the gentleman's observation about Fridays, I have heard a lot about what we can or cannot do on Fridays, I will tell my friend, or what we should be doing on Fridays. But having said that, assuming a Member is working with his staff and/or the committee's staff or CRS in preparing his or her amendment, obviously if they get it ready and the Rules Committee is going to meet Monday or Tuesday, an expectation that it would be filed by close of business on Friday I don't think is unreasonable, even if we are not here on Fridays, because presumably their staff has been working with them on their amendment and can make sure that amendment gets filed even if the Member is not physically present here.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?