Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. It is an important question. And the answer to that question is, absolutely. And I am glad that we have this opportunity to clear up any confusion. I want to assure the gentleman, and all Members of the House, that the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act will not violate PAYGO, period. The House just voted to approve the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007. We have now proceeded to consideration of H.R. 1906, which amends provisions of the Internal Revenue Code regarding estimated taxes to pay for all costs attendant within the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. While those costs are de minimis, essentially about $1.6 million out of $27 trillion if there is no escalation in government revenues, notwithstanding that, we wanted to adhere to the PAYGO rule, as the gentleman from Indiana has stated and for which he has fought so hard and been a leader on. The rule provides that the text of H.R. 1906 will be incorporated into the D.C. Voting Rights Act when H.R. 1906 is passed; in other words, every Member who voted for the rule voted to honor PAYGO. The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee have certified that when the text of H.R. 1906 is incorporated into the bill and the bill is engrossed, the bill will comply with the PAYGO rule. The rule further provides that if either bill fails to pass, both bills will be tabled. In other words, if the bill providing the offset to ensure compliance with PAYGO is not added to the bill, the D.C. bill would be rejected. This process guarantees that two important things will happen, first, that an unmitigated injustice, the denial of voting for the citizens of the District of Columbia, is considered on its merits and remedied; and secondly, that we abide by our commitment to PAYGO. Again I state, the gentleman from Indiana has been an extraordinarily consistent and strong leader on behalf of that premise. The House, in conclusion, will not send a bill that does not comply with the PAYGO rule as a result of the rule. And I commend those who voted for the rule to be consistent with our PAYGO pledge. I thank the gentleman for his question.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate my friend's comment. Aren't you the party that said that taxes were going to be cut up until 2010 and then because of the rules they will go back into effect?

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HOYER. You still get to the promised land. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation, but as you know, I schedule legislation for the floor in my capacity as the majority leader. May I ask my friend, if this came to the floor as a constitutional amendment, would my friend be supportive of that constitutional amendment?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in support of democracy. This legislation is important legislation. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is designed to do one thing, to address and rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of more than 500,000 citizens of our country, whose only distinction between any of us who sit on this floor, other than the distinguished representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is that they live in a few square miles designated by their country, gifted by the State of Maryland, as our Nation's capital. Since 1801, when Washington, D.C., became this Nation's capital, the citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the Congress. Let me speak briefly of that, because although I have not heard all of the debate, I am sure the Constitution has been referenced that Representatives shall represent citizens of the several States. Let there be no mistake, every resident of the District of Columbia is a successor to citizens of the several States in 1800. I don't mean that every one of them is a direct descendant, obviously, but politically they were part of the several States, unlike all four others of the representatives who cannot vote. They are distinguished and discrete in that regard. That, I suggest to you, is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of principle because District citizens pay Federal taxes, sit on juries, serve in our Armed Forces and give their lives for their country, as do other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body. It is wrong politically because District citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress. Very frankly, I don't think the citizens of Maryland intended that or the citizens of any other State of the Union when they acquired the District of Columbia. And it is wrong morally, because the United States of America, which has the freest, truest form of representative government perhaps in human history, deprives only one portion of its citizens, a small portion, 500,000 out of 300 million, deprives a small portion of its citizens of its very own capital a voice in the national legislature. Let me add, the United States of America is the only representative democracy that does not afford the citizens of its capital voting representation. Thus, this is not only a national disgrace, but an international embarrassment, and the American people and Members here on both sides of the aisle recognize this injustice and want to remedy it. That is what this legislation is about. In fact, 82 percent of respondents in a recent national poll indicated that residents of the District of Columbia should have representatives that can vote in the Congress. And I should note that legislation virtually identical to this bill was reported out of the Republican-controlled Government Reform Committee in the last Congress when the committee was chaired by Mr. Davis of Virginia, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Jack Kemp, a former colleague of ours, a leader in this Congress, a vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, has strongly urged the passage of this piece of legislation. The truth is, the absence of representation in Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress to use the authority vested in it by the Constitution of the United States to correct this injustice. The authority I refer to, of course, is article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the so-called seat of government clause, under which, and I quote, ``The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia.'' Now, I asked my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who talked about needing to do this through a constitutional amendment, I said, would you support a constitutional amendment? He said ``no''; his view was, only if the District of Columbia were given back to Maryland and the District of Columbia residents were told, you are no longer residents of the District of Columbia, you are residents of Maryland. I suggest if you ask the residents of Virginia or Delaware or Pennsylvania, which are contiguous States to our beloved State of Maryland, they would say, thank you, but no thanks. We like being Pennsylvanians or Delawarians or Virginians. The District of Columbia residents are proud of their jurisdiction. They are proud of being citizens of the District of Columbia. What they want to have is full democratic representation. Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress extraordinary and plenary power over our Nation's capital city, including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000 residents with a full vote in the House of Representatives. I am not alone in my view of this article. Twenty-five legal scholars from law schools, and I am sure this has already been discussed by our distinguished chairman and the extraordinarily able Representative and outstanding lawyer and law professor who represents the District of Columbia, my good friend Eleanor Holmes Norton, have already pointed this out. Even Kenneth Starr, a distinguished lawyer, I have disagreed with him pretty strongly on some things, but the former conservative jurist and current dean of Pepperdine Law School, has concluded that Congress has the authority under article I, section 8, to do this. Now, do I delude myself that this is not going to be brought before a district court or a circuit court or the Supreme Court? No, I do not. That is appropriate. That is available to residents. They can do that, and the court will ultimately have to rule. However, this is an opportunity for us on this floor to make a stand for democracy, to extend to these 550,000 people the civility and respect we would expect for ourselves. That Congress has for two centuries failed to use its authority to correct an injustice is no reason to persist in that failure today. It is always timely to do the right thing. This institution exists, after all, to eliminate injustice and to make our Nation ``a more perfect Union.'' How much more perfect can we make the Union than to include all of our people as full citizens within that Union? We, the Members of this House, must never, never be seduced into thinking there is no such thing as a settled injustice within our authority but beyond our duty to correct. For an injustice planted two centuries ago is just as harmful to what America aspires to be today as one planted last year or last week. Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Douglass, who spent his final years just a few blocks from where I stand today, said, ``Man's greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.'' We need to make the citizens of this Nation's capital full citizens of the United States of America.

Mr. HOYER. I will certainly seek to enfranchise the citizens on a continuing basis until that is accomplished.

Mr. HOYER. I believe this will be tested, as I said before. Many on your side of the aisle have indicated that. If that is the case, I would hope it would be expedited. I believe this is constitutional, and I certainly think, based upon that conviction, I would hope the court would sustain that view.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is my understanding, I am now told, I have not seen your motion to recommit; I have no intention of supporting your motion to recommit. This bill has a long way to go. I hope it passes this House, I hope it passes the Senate, I hope it passes the conference, and I hope the President signs it. My response to you was a fair response. But the question was to get me on the record on your motion, apparently, and I will tell my friend from Virginia, who disagrees with my other friend from Virginia, Mr. Davis, on this issue, that I have every intention of opposing the motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that by adoption of the rule, we ensured that 1905 will not pass through the door to the Senate without PAYGO being attached to it?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Am I correct that the interpretation of that language means that if the D.C. enfranchisement bill does not have PAYGO added to it, it will not pass this House?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for the clarification.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. Let me first of all say at the outset that I agree with Mr. Murtha. We're not fighting this war. There's nobody in the Congress of the United States that's paying more taxes to pay for this war. There's nobody who's saving on metal to fight this war. There's nobody who's saving on rubber to fight this war. There's nobody whose gasoline is being rationed to fight this war. Our troops are fighting this war, their families are fighting this war, but this Nation is not at war. There is nobody in this Congress, not one of the 435 Members of this Congress, who wants to lose this war. There is nobody in this House who does not want to defeat al Qaeda. Nobody. Everybody wants to protect this country. Nobody wants to lose another American. Everybody understands that the fight against terrorism will require risks. But, Mr. Speaker, this House deserves more than this game playing of offering motions that we are then going to vote against. In effect, this is a motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous bill was adopted. It couldn't be made now, but that is effectively what it is. And those who voted against that bill will vote against this motion. The public needs to understand that a serious motion could have been made here to change the policy, but that is not what was done. This is an attempt to try to politically get people in a vote that is going to be characterized as surrender. Let me call my colleagues' attention to June 24, 1997. Our troops were deployed in Bosnia stopping genocide, seeing a dictator arrested and sent to The Hague and tried for genocide. He died before the trial was over. But let me call your attention to that vote, because that vote was about setting timelines. It was offered by Mr. Buyer, who is now the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Mr. Buyer offered that motion and we debated it. I was opposed to it. We hadn't lost a single troop in Bosnia, not one. We had spent a pittance compared to what we have spent here. We have lost 10 percent of the troops we have lost in the last 120 days. Bob Gates said this policy was failing. He's our Secretary of Defense. Or let me put it this way: he didn't say that; he said we were not winning. That's a different way of saying it more accurately. I'm sorry. But on June 24, 1997, that came to a vote about setting timelines on an effort that was extraordinarily successful, brought peace to the Balkans, or at least a lack of genocide, a lack of ethnic cleansing. But Mr. Buyer said we need to come home. We weren't losing troops, it wasn't costing us that much money, and we certainly were not losing. On that timeline, Mr. Boehner voted ``yes,'' after 18 months in Bosnia. Not 4 years, 4 years and 1 month. After 18 months, you wanted to set a timeline. Mr. Boehner, your leader, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Blunt, your whip, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hastert, your former Speaker, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, setting timelines, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hyde, who was then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hoekstra, who spoke earlier tonight, voted ``yes'' on setting timelines. And yes, let me remind Mr. Lewis, you voted ``yes.'' You voted ``yes'' on a timeline where we had lost no troops, where we had stopped genocide in its tracks, where we were not threatened with loss of life. All we were threatened with was coming home and not keeping the peace, keeping the stability, trying to make sure that we were successful. I urge every one of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Republican motion. They don't mean it, but to reiterate to the American public that we were serious, that we want to make sure, as Bob Gates has said and been quoted by Mr. Obey and others, this was a useful effort for us to make. Why? Because what we want to do is make sure the Iraqis at least are fighting this war, making sure that the Iraqis meet the criteria and benchmarks set by whom? By President Bush, not by us. President George Bush, the Commander in Chief, said they need to meet these benchmarks. But if the message we send them is, we're there forever, why meet the benchmarks? Why put their people at risk? If we're all prepared to simply have our men and women at risk in lieu of Iraqi soldiers and police at risk? Why indeed? We need to expect accountability and participation by those whose country it is. We deposed their dictator and declared some few months later that our mission was accomplished. Unfortunately, because of the flawed policies that were pursued, we have not yet succeeded. I voted to give the President authority and I disagreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania when he said in November of 2005, let's get out, not immediately, but consistent with the safety of our troops. But I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Obey and the overwhelming majority of the American public, some 70 percent, who say it is time to let the Iraqis know that it is their fight, that we have supported them, we will train them, we will protect our troops on the ground, we will protect our diplomatic missions, and we will give them assistance in arms, but this is their fight now. We are there to help them, but it is their fight. That's what this says, and it says 15 months from now, not tomorrow. To characterize this as any kind of a surrender is not honest debate, I suggest to you. Because if it is, then your June 24, 1997, which almost all of you voted for, was a cry for surrender. I didn't believe it then, don't believe it now. You had a difference of view as to what would best resolve the situation in Bosnia. Now the issue is Iraq. My colleagues on my side of the aisle, we took a position with which the overwhelming majority of the American public agree. They are ahead of us on this. Let us once again sustain that position. Nobody on this side of the aisle was not being serious. Nobody on this side of the aisle did not give this very serious, thoughtful, prayerful consideration. And when you voted, you voted for America. When you voted, you voted for our troops. When you voted, you voted for success in our foreign policy and in our fight against terrorism. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a motion which they are not for. They could have offered, I suggest, some serious alternatives. They did not. I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes,'' reaffirm the policy statement that we need a new direction in Iraq. Staying the course has not worked. Let's make a change. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. As she has said, this is the law. This is another attempt, another opportunity not to substantively legislate because this is already the law. This is an effort to kill this bill indirectly and without telling the public that that is what you are doing. I am asking all of our Members to vote ``no'' on this. This is simply a procedural motion to kill this bill. If they wanted to add a substantive amendment, they could have done it. This was a modified open rule. All they had to do was file and notice it. So I ask all of my colleagues, we are not going to go down this road and play this political game. We want to substantively legislate. We are going to vote ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I join all 434 of my colleagues in rising to express our sorrow, our regret, our sympathy, yes, and in some respects our outrage that this calamity has been visited on so many of our promising and wonderful young people. Mr. Speaker, as a grieving Nation tries to comprehend the senseless, horrific violence on the campus of Virginia Tech University on Monday, the full scope of this tragedy is only now beginning to come to light. Thirty-two innocent people, 32 young people of promise, some people not so young who were at great risk and survived, 32 people were stolen from their families and friends at the hand of a deeply disturbed young man who ended the carnage by taking his own life. More than two dozen others were injured during this random, murderous rampage. Today, a profoundly saddened Nation recognizes that these were not mere strangers, although we may not have known the victims personally. They were members of our national family and in so many ways they were a reflection of us. They were hope for the future. They were brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who were so full of life, hope and promise for a better future, for themselves, their families, their country and indeed the world. Those slain included a 20-year-old political science major from Dumont, New Jersey, who attended Virginia Tech on an Air Force scholarship; an 18-year-old freshman from Centreville, Virginia who distinguished herself in drama and on Virginia Tech's dance team; a 22- year-old senior from Martinez, Georgia who was majoring in psychology, biology and English and who served as a role model for many; a 76-year- old engineering professor and Holocaust survivor who survived one of the worst terrorists and despots the world has ever seen, Adolf Hitler, to come home and to teach young people, to make them better able to meet the future and to have that ability robbed from him by a senseless act. And so many others, Mr. Speaker. We may never know the answer to the question ``Why?'' Why have so many loving, promising people been taken through such senseless violence? However, let us mourn their loss and extend our heartfelt condolences and sympathy to their families and to their friends and to their fellow students. Today, our thoughts and prayers are also with those who have been injured as well as Virginia Tech's students, faculty and staff, alumni and the entire campus community as they endeavor to cope with this monumental tragedy. Let us remind them they are not alone. Not only are they in our hearts but they will be in our prayers. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving me this time to join him and the Virginia delegation in recognizing the tragedy and reflecting our remembrance of those who have been hurt, those who have lost their lives, and those whom they left behind.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friend that there are more ways to skin a cat than one. I tell the Chair that I have heard the argument of these earnest young men who have all stood on this floor. David Stockman at the age of 34 telling the country as director of OMB how we were going to balance the budget, how Ronald Reagan said we are going to balance the budget. Ronald Reagan ran over $1 trillion in deficits over his 8 years. Over $1 trillion in deficits. There is one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks, only one, and that is the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan ran $1 trillion in deficits, actually $1.4 trillion. George Bush I in just 4 years ran $1 trillion in deficits. And this President in the 6 years he has been President has run over $1.6 trillion in deficits. $4.1 trillion of deficits during the Reagan administration, the Bush I administration and the Bush II administration. Now, I tell the Chairman that my friend does not seem to be paying attention to these dramatic figures. But ladies and gentlemen of this House, I hope you are, and I hope all of our constituents are listening as well, because the rhetoric on this floor is cheap, but the performance is not. During those 18 years of Republican leadership of this country, we ran $4.2 trillion in deficits. During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. The only President in the lifetime, I tell the Chairman, of my young friend from Wisconsin that that has been accomplished, notwithstanding Mr. Stockman or Mr. Kasich or Mr. Nussle, who all said they wanted to balance the budget, and none, none, none of them did it. None of them did it. Now, we adopted a program in 1993, and I heard the same rhetoric, I tell my friends on this side of the aisle, that I am hearing today, the same rhetoric. Dick Armey not only was the majority leader of the Republican House, it wasn't a Republican House then, but he was also an economist, and an economist still. And Mr. Armey told the President of the United States, if we adopt this program, we are going to have deep debt, high unemployment and annual deficits. That was the representation I tell my friends on this floor. Those representations were all wrong. That's why when we listen to debate on this floor today we see a balanced budget, a responsible budget that invests in our future. Mr. Chairman, if I were speaking directly to him, I would tell my young friend, I have heard about these cuts that you talk about, for a quarter of a century I have heard about these cuts. Why is it that you spent more money as a party with the President with control of the Senate, control of the House by a factor of two, twice as much spending rise under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton Administration. Why is that? Why do you come here and crow about cutting spending when you doubled the rate of growth when you controlled everything? That's what the American public needs to judge. Now, I had some prepared comments here, and I apologize to my good friend who spent so much time doing this. But, ladies and gentlemen, Lewis Carroll is not writing this budget. Alice is not going to have to live under this budget. My children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren and, more importantly, my country, are going to have to live under this budget. We didn't adopt a budget last year. We didn't adopt appropriation bills last year. We didn't do any of the fiscal business that we should have done last year. Why? Because your party could not agree with one another. So you had no fiscal program. Your fiscal program was spending more money. I hope that this House, for the first time in 6 years, adopts a responsible budget that will move us towards balance. It won't get there overnight. And when I say that, it is not empty rhetoric, because when we, in 1993, passed that program, we took this country for 4 straight years out of deficit. Now, I know you will say, ``Well, we Republicans took over in 1995.'' And my response to that, of course, is, you didn't have the presidency. When you had it all, why couldn't you do it? When you had the presidency, when you had the Senate, when you had the House, tell me why you couldn't do it. I will tell you why. Because it was the President of the United States who said this is the way we are going to do it or I am going to veto it. This President can veto it, and we won't be able to override his veto. I understand that. He is in charge. That's why we have these deficits, because he has not vetoed one spending bill. He vetoed one bill, embryonic stem cell research. Not one spending bill. Every nickel that has been spent in this country has been spent under the signature of George Bush, the President of the United States, every nickel. So I ask my friends, vote for a responsible budget. Move us, as we did during the 1990s, 4 years out of debt, 4 years into surplus, the first time that had happened, and left you folks that took over with a $5.6 trillion surplus that you have squandered into a $3 trillion deficit. And, yes, 9/11 had an impact on that. And your tax cut, we had a very shallow recovery. You know that. Every economist says that. And a relatively shallow downturn in the economy. This budget offered by Mr. Spratt is a responsible budget that provides for tax cuts for the middle class, provides for investment in education and competitiveness of our country, provides for investment in our veterans, provides for investment in defense, using the same number that the President gave us so that we can keep America strong. Mr. Spratt, I thank you. I thank the members of your committee for having the courage and the wisdom and the fiscal soundness to come forth with this budget. It is worthy of support of every Member of this Congress. I urge this House to adopt this budget this day. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our republican colleagues, let me say that to hear them talk about fiscal responsibility is nothing less than surreal. In this debate on the fiscal 2008 budget, many numbers have been used. But only two are really relevant on the issue of fiscal responsibility, and the Republican Party's lack thereof--$5.6 trillion and more than $3 trillion. When President Bush took office, he and the then-Republican majorities in Congress inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. The President proclaimed: ``we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.'' He promised that he would pay down the national debt, and some in the administration even worried publicly about paying down the debt too fast. Well, as we have learned, the President's projections were unequivocally wrong and worries about paying down the debt were completely misplaced. Over the last 6 years, the President and Republicans in Congress-- after enacting the most reckless fiscal policies in American history-- have turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into record budget deficits and additional debt of more than $3 trillion. In fact, the amount of foreign-held debt has more than doubled under the Bush administration--from about $1 trillion in 2001 to $2.1 trillion today. And, interest payments on the national debt have increased from $206 billion in 2001 to a projected $256 billion under the President's budget for fiscal 2008--consuming more than 20 percent of all individual income taxes. Let me say, too, that until the American people spoke last November and elected Democratic majorities in Congress, the President never--not once--budgeted the costs of the on-going war in Iraq, which today stand at more than $400 billion, with another $100 billion being considered. Thus today, Mr. Chairman, with this budget written and offered by Chairman Spratt, House Democrats will take our Nation in a new direction and begin to clean up the fiscal train wreck left by Republicans. Our budget is a statement of our values and priorities, demonstrating our unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, grow our economy, protect our children and strengthen families, preserve our plant, and ensure that the Federal Government is accountable and efficient. First, this fiscally responsible Democratic budget will bring the Federal budget back to balance by 2012. Over the next 5 years, the cumulative deficit in our budget is $234 billion lower than the President's budget. Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new majority, and which Republicans allowed to expire in 2002. The Concord Coalition even says this budget is ``a successful first test of how seriously they [House Democrats] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule.'' Furthermore, this Democratic budget invests in our priorities without increasing the deficit. It provides for a robust defense, boosting Homeland Security funding and providing $3.5 billion more for veterans' services than the President's request for 2008. It also makes critical investments in education, children's health care, transportation infrastructure, and alternative energy research and development--while rejecting the President's request to cut Head Start, LIHEAP, COPS and First-Responder programs, and community development block grants. And, our budget accommodates immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle-income households which would otherwise be subject to the alternative minimum tax--while calling for the extension of middle-class tax cuts that are not due to expire until December 31, 2010. This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible policies of the last six years. I urge all of my colleagues: vote for fiscal responsibility and a bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our values and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this Democratic budget.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I speak on every one of these budgets; and because I have been here a long time, I know the history of these budgets going back a quarter of a century. I sometimes believe the talking points on the other side of the aisle are written by Lewis Carroll, the author, of course, of that famous book which had as its theme saying one thing and meaning another: ``black was white,'' ``up was down,'' et cetera, et cetera. I have listened since 1981 to the economic observations of such people like Phil Gramm, such people like Dick Armey, an economist, the majority leader of your party, and I think to myself how confused the American public must be when the assertions are made, an article by Dave Stockman in today's paper, you may have seen. David Broder wrote an article about that. Mr. Stockman is in a little bit of trouble with assertions that things that he said were true were in fact not true. In fact, David Stockman admitted that in 1983 what he said was true was not true; what he said they thought, they did not think. The American public needs to place it in that context. I have heard a lot, I say to my friend from Missouri, over the last few hours about debates about we are going to make these tax cuts permanent, and we are not. Now, I am sure the American public knows that the President for the last 6 years has been a Republican. I am sure they know that the leadership in the House for the past 6 years has been Republican, and I am sure they know that the leadership in the Senate has been Republican. And guess what? Never did you make those tax cuts permanent. Why not? Because you wanted to play fiscal games. That is why not. You wanted to count your out-years as looking better than they did. Why are you having a $274 billion tax increase in this bill? How do I say that? Because you are not fixing the AMT. Why aren't you fixing it? Because it is STI, your ``stealth tax increase.'' You liked SDI. This is STI, a stealth tax increase, where you say one year we are going to fix it, but, guess what, for the next 4 years we will get that additional tax revenue. A stealth tax increase. There are no tax increases in this bill. In fact, it provides for tax cuts for the middle class. But they have to be paid for. George Bush I and Dick Gephardt, the leader of this House, came together and said, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have fiscal responsibility, and we are going to do it. And the way we are going to do it is we are going to have PAYGO. We are going to pay for what we buy. George Bush signed that. And guess what? The Republican side of the aisle excoriated the President of the United States, George Bush, for entering into an agreement that ultimately would bring us surpluses. I have also listened to these debates and have seen some very earnest, very intelligent, very articulate young men. Mr. Ryan is the third in a series of those earnest, intelligent, energetic, articulate young men, who talk about their vision for America, talk about where they want to take America. Mr. Ryan puts up the children. Now, unlike Mr. Ryan, who I think has children, I have children, I have got grandchildren, and, as some people know, I have a great-granddaughter. And I am very concerned about all of those children whose taxes you have raised almost every year you have been in charge that I have been here, starting in 1981. And you raised their taxes by not paying for what you buy. You talk about cutting spending, I tell my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the previous speaker's sorrow. I'm sorry that the policies pursued by this administration have not done what he wanted to do, support our troops. We sent too few, we equipped them too little, and we have left them too long and trained them for too short a time. Yes, I'm sorry. The American public expects us, the Congress of the United States, to do something, not simply to say yes to failed policies, but to, on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction. Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body on either side of the aisle who does not pray for our success in Iraq and who does not pray for the safe return of our brave service men and women. However, after the loss of more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 24,000 injured and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion on a war now entering its fifth year that Secretary Rumsfeld told us would take just a few months. With open arms and cheering in the streets, this war would be over and the mission would have been accomplished almost 4 years ago, said the President of the United States, who now asks us to rubber-stamp, no strings attached. Do it, as Mr. Putnam said, before supper. That is not what the American public expects of us. They expect better. They expect a new direction. They expect us to think, not simply say, amen, Mr. President. The Defense Department says: ``Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly described as a civil war.'' None of us who voted for the original authorization voted to put our troops in the middle of a civil war, not one of us. The Iraq Government has failed to meet political goals. It is our responsibility to ask them to do so because we want to support our troops. And if the Iraqis do not meet their responsibilities, our troops will not be supported. A National Intelligence Estimate concludes that this war is increasing, this is the National Intelligence Estimate, increasing the global war on terror. The Army Chief of Staff has issued strong warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall military readiness. Mr. Murtha has talked about that for at least the last 2 years. My friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, with whom I served for a quarter of a century on that committee, he must share the concern about military readiness that all of us share and know that we are eroding our military readiness every day. Thus, the question before the Members today is this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the course with a failing policy? Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is clear. It is long past time that this Congress assert itself and assist on accountability and a new direction in Iraq. More blank checks from this Congress would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and our duty. Four years of abdication is enough. It is time, my fellow Members, for Congress to assert its support of our troops by adopting policies that will keep them safe and enhance their success. This legislation, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, will protect our troops, requiring deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards, not our standards, Defense Department standards, standards for training, equipment and armor, while allowing the President to waive these standards, which are his own, the administration's standards, if he believes it necessary. That is the right thing for us to do. The bill also holds the Iraqi Government accountable, measuring its performance by the standards President Bush outlined in his January 10 speech, not our standards for Iraq, but the benchmarks that the President of the United States has set. But if they are only rhetorical benchmarks with nothing behind them to require that action, then we are wasting our time in supporting our troops because that will not do it. The bill provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and refocusing our efforts on fighting al Qaeda. That is who attacked us, not the Sunni or Shia, but al Qaeda. Some claim that this legislation will micromanage the war. That assertion is absolutely false and without ground. Our Commander in Chief, General Petraeus and our military commanders on the ground will retain all the flexibility they need to succeed. This legislation in no way undercuts their discretion on the ground. The only strings attached concerning troop readiness and the Iraq Government's progress have been endorsed by President Bush. Others assert that inclusion of a timeline for responsible redeployment is tantamount to capitulation. Mr. Hobson spoke on this floor just a few minutes ago. He voted to set a time line in Bosnia. Mr. Lewis sits as the ranking member of this committee; he voted on June 24, 1997, to set a timeline. Mr. Hastert, Speaker of the House, set a timeline. Mr. Delay voted for a timeline. Mr. Blunt voted for a timeline. Mr. Boehner voted for a timeline. Every one of them voted for a timeline, and what were the circumstances? We hadn't lost a single troop, not one. We had spent $7 billion, not $379 billion. We had brought genocide to a stop, ethnic cleansing to a stop, and we were not losing people and we had a stable environment, yet they voted for a timeline. Here, Secretary Gates says in testimony at his confirmation hearing: ``We are not winning.'' If that is the case, it is time for us to have a new strategy, a new direction, a new paradigm, if you will. That is what this bill does. Mr. Boehner said just a few weeks ago, in terms of timelines, he said, ``I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan, the current escalation, is going to work.'' ``We need to know,'' Mr. Boehner said, ``as we are moving through these benchmarks that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do.'' Nothing in this bill will undermine that 60- or 90-day expectation that the minority leader, the Republican leader, has articulated. Under this legislation, if the Iraqis meet their benchmarks for progress, the redeployment of American forces will not begin until a year from now. This is not any precipitous withdrawal. And, indeed, if there is total success, it will be more than a year from now. Finally, let me point out, as I have said earlier, that timelines were supported in July of 1997, 220-2. Only two Republicans voted against setting a timeline. I voted against that timeline. And I said ``at this time.'' Why did I say that? Because we were succeeding. We were not losing troops. We had stopped genocide. We had stopped ethnic cleansing. We had a stable government in Serbia. We were winning and our strategy was succeeding. And under those circumstances, I thought timelines were not appropriate. But there is not a military general I have talked to who has said that we are succeeding. Today, this very day, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq lies deeply wounded, life at risk. If a Member of Congress goes to Baghdad, they will not drive you from the airport to the Green Zone. Why? Because they do not believe it is safe, almost 50 months after we started this operation. My friends, it is time for a new direction. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the troops, represent America, represent your people who want to win but do not want to leave our troops in the middle of a civil war. Support this well-thought-out crafted piece of legislation, which in no way undermines the ability of our troops to manage this war, but says to them, we will expect the Iraqis to perform and we will give you a time frame in which the world will know that they must themselves take responsibility. Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague from California (Mr. Royce) for 2 minutes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 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. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m. on that Monday. On Tuesday next, 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 these bills will be available by the end of the week. We also expect to consider H.R. 1401, the Rail Security Act, out of the Homeland Security Committee. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, no votes are expected. We will consider H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act, and the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Mr. HOYER. On Thursday. I do not expect that we will be meeting on Friday, unless debate occurs longer than I expect. But otherwise we will not be meeting on Friday.