Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud today to join Congresswoman Jan Schakow-sky--who continues to do a great job as a Chief Deputy Whip--in recognizing the importance of International Women's Day on March 8. Almost 100 years ago, a group of courageous women proposed creating an International Women's Day to honor the women's rights movement and to continue the fight for universal suffrage. This day has since expanded in scope to serve as an opportunity to celebrate the accomplishments of women, and recommit ourselves to ending discrimination and violence against women across the globe. Since the first commemoration of International Women's Day in 1910, women have made significant advances. Women have been elected to the highest levels of government across the world, and they serve as the leaders of nations such as Chile, Liberia, and Germany. An estimated 10.4 million businesses in the United States are owned by women. Worldwide, women receive eighty percent of all micro-loans to start small businesses. In the United States, women are graduating from high school and college at record rates. However, while these accomplishments are indeed significant, we still have far more work to do. In the United States and across the world, women still face obstacles to political and economic equality. While women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, they earn only one percent of the world's income. Of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty, 70 percent are women and children. Violence against women continues at a horrific rate. These are unacceptable statistics, and we must do everything we can to change them. As we mark this year's International Women's Day, we must renew and reaffirm our commitment to stopping violence against women and putting an end to discriminatory practices so that all women have a real opportunity to participate in society to the fullest. By recognizing International Women's Day and all that it represents, we give hope to women across the world. We honor the women who have fought--and continue to fight--for their rights, and I am proud to stand with them as we continue efforts to achieve equality and justice. Again, I thank Congresswoman Schakow-sky for introducing this important bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement this month, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank Jerry Director, our Deputy Law Revision Counsel, as he concludes a long and distinguished career spent serving the American people in the U.S, House of Representatives. Jerry joined the Office of the Law Revision Counsel in 1976, just two years after it was established, and we've been lucky enough to have him here with us ever since. Throughout his career, Jerry has been an indispensable member of a small but essential group of nonpartisan professionals who prepare and publish the United States Code and draft legislation to improve the codification of federal law. He has played an important role in maintaining the Code from year to year, and Jerry has used his expansive wealth of legislative knowledge to guide and train each and every attorney that is currently charged with updating the laws of our land. In 1997, Jerry rose to his current position of Deputy Law Revision Counsel, and his leadership, expertise and tireless efforts have been invaluable in ensuring the accuracy and quality of the volumes that govern every aspect of American life. Jerry's easygoing demeanor, patient manner and high standards are greatly appreciated by his colleagues and those of us who have had the pleasure of getting to know him over these last 30 years. And when he thinks back on his time in the People's House, I know he will do so with all the pride and satisfaction that accompany an outstanding career of public service, Later this month, Jerry will retire to Richmond, Virginia, where he plans to continue his love of golf and spend more time with his family. But before he goes, I want to congratulate Jerry Director on a wonderful career and wish him all the best as he embarks on the next-- and hopefully, the most fulfilling--chapter of his life.

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 it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I think that is our expectation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, the minority whip, for yielding. On Monday the House will meet, Mr. Speaker, 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 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, Mr. Whip, will be available later this week. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. On Wednesday King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate. We will consider under a rule several important pieces of legislation from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that will help clean our environment and create jobs: H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act; H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act; and H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act. We also will take up the committee funding resolution.

Mr. HOYER. I think my friend is correct on that. And that is why I started my remarks with really the Congress, if it is going to be responsible on either side, Republican or Democrat, has a responsibility to set the debt limit so that the United States of America meets its obligations, whether it is to our own people on Social Security, whether it is meeting a payment on our debt to foreign countries, whether it is simply funding our government and keeping services to our veterans and everybody else that we vote to give services to, we need to do that. I agree with you. And I would hope at some point in time, frankly, both parties can get together and say look, this is something that we need to do. And frankly, whether it is the Gephardt rule or the Hastert rule, essentially that is what both sides were doing so that it could not be, I don't want to say demagogue, but misrepresented as agreeing that we ought to have that debt level. Now, I think almost everybody disagrees with the rate at which we have been going into debt, and the fact that we have borrowed 94 percent of our operating funds that we have borrowed from foreign governments over the last 6 years. I think there is probably nobody that thinks that is a good policy. But the underlying policies that drive that are really what is at issue. But I agree with the premise of the gentleman that both sides of the aisle have tried to hold the other responsible for the debt. On our side, frankly, we disagreed with the fiscal policies that were being pursued, which, as you know, we think took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to now a $3 trillion deficit in the last 6 years. We tried to make that point through that vote. But the gentleman's basic premise I think is absolutely correct. There really isn't an option of when we get to the debt limit, we either ought to stop spending money, reduce very substantially our entitlement obligations, or we have no alternative but to raise the debt.

Mr. HOYER. Unfortunately, I don't have the record of the last 12 years right in front of me.

Mr. HOYER. I really don't. But I want to make two observations. First of all, we are 100 percent of the number of open rules that we had in the last Congress where we had one. We have now had two. With respect to open rules, I know that, in talking to Mr. Frank, he intends to bring some bills to the floor under an open rule. And we have been urging Members to have, if not open rules, structured rules. As you know, we have had some structured rules contemplated as well, offering amendments, allowing, obviously, amendments from your side as well as from our side. And we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to consider views from both sides of the aisle. So we hope to do that. I cannot represent to you how many open rules there are going to be. And I understand what the gentleman is saying about the fact that these bills were supported by large numbers, and in the latter case by all Members, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily perfect. And amendments were offered, as the gentleman knows, and we took 7 hours, I believe, on the one that was of very little controversy 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks ago.

Mr. HOYER. I was thinking that was probably the case. Having said that, it is Mr. Spratt's hope, and he is working towards meeting those deadlines. Now, as you know from experience, the plans, as difficult a process as putting together a budget is, sometimes do not meet expectations. However, I will tell you that it is my intention and Mr. Spratt's intention to try to meet those deadlines. And at this point in time we are scheduled to meet those deadlines.

Mr. HOYER. That is correct.

Mr. HOYER. We, of course, on this side, call it the Hastert rule, because after you criticized it roundly for a long period of time, you adopted it. Let me say seriously; there is no alternative to increasing the debt limit. Both sides pretend that there is. There is not. The administration, if the debt limit is to be extended, is going to request a level to which they would like it increased. Frankly, your side of the aisle, you were not here at the time, I tell my friend, but regularly voted against increasing the debt limit, almost unanimously, in large numbers. It was obviously an effort to try to make it appear that our Members alone were responsible for raising the debt. That was not an honest representation, in my opinion, because we passed bills with Republican votes which resulted in that, whether they were appropriation bills, tax bills, whatever economic bills they were. So in answer to your question let me say this: We obviously adopted your rules, as you recall, at the beginning of this session. So rule XXVII was a rule that you had in place at the time that you were in the majority. We adopted your rules, and we are pursuing that under those rules.

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to make a representation because I don't know the answer to that and don't want to misrepresent it.

Mr. HOYER. I don't know. It is being worked on, and I don't know when that will be available.

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; and further, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 8, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 9.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to congratulate George Miller, to start out with, as the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. George Miller has been, throughout my career, all 26 years that I have been here, he and I have served together. He has been one of the most courageous, emphatic and faithful speakers on behalf of working Americans that we have in this House. I want to thank my friend, Rob Andrews, who has been an indefatigable advocate of making sure that working Americans had opportunities in our country. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, is simply about establishing fairness in the workplace and providing America's workers with a free choice to bargain for better wages, benefits and work conditions. I think that is absolutely essential if we are going to stop this growing disparity between the very wealthy and the haves and the increasingly have-nots. America is a great and strong country because of its middle class. That is shrinking. That is a challenge to our country. This is an effort to address that. The fact of the matter is the current system for forming labor unions is badly broken and undemocratic. Far too often, employers intimidate, harass, coerce or even fire workers who support a union. To address this blatant unfairness, this legislation simply allows workers to form a union if a majority signs cards saying they want a union. Under current law, workers may use the majority sign-up process only if their employer agrees. In contrast, the Employee Free Choice Act would leave this choice, whether to use the National Labor Relations Board election process or majority sign-up, with the employees, not the employer. It is simply a red herring to claim that the legislation abolishes the NLRB election process. Although I will say as an aside that the delays, the underfunding, the rule complication essentially abolishes in some respects the NLRB's intent. In any event, it does not abolish the NLRB. The NLRB process is still available if workers choose it. We all know what is really going on here today. It is no secret. The administration and many in the Republican Party have a long-standing, deep-seated animosity toward the organized labor movement, despite the fact that working men and women are the backbone of our economy and have built this country into what it is today. Now, I am a strong proponent of the free market system. I am a strong proponent of business and those who grow businesses and create jobs. I say all over this country, the Democratic Party is the party of workers. If we are going to be the party of workers, we have to be the party of employers, but we need to make sure there is a balance. We are not the representatives of either. What we are representatives of is the American people. We need to make sure that it is a fair opportunity. Over the last 6 years, the administration, among other things, has dropped an ergonomic safety standard, tried to eliminate Davis-Bacon protections, denied collective bargaining rights to Federal employees. 800,000 Federal employees, we have denied bargaining rights, 800,000 Federal employees. Now, there are about 1.8, 1.9 million civilian Federal employees, and we just reached in and said, oh, no, if you are a DOD, Defense Department employee or a Homeland Security employee, you cannot have collective bargaining rights. I asked the Office of Personnel Management to cite me one instance in the last half a century where collective bargaining rights have put at risk any national security issue. They could not name one in the last half century, not one. I have the gentleman there pointing at himself; I can name you one. Well, this administration's Office of Personnel Management could not. It is no surprise today that they would oppose this legislation, which seeks to give workers a meaningful choice in selecting their representation and stiffen penalties for discrimination against workers who support a union. Madam Chairman, hardworking families today are increasingly squeezed by stagnant incomes and the rising costs of education, health care, transportation, food and housing, and there is not an employee who is on even footing as an individual. I say that. Perhaps that is not correct. I was with Alonzo Mourning just the other day. He is almost 7 feet tall. He may be on equal footing because his employer needs him very, very, very badly, and there may be some few like that, but if you are 6 foot 2 you may not be in that position. American workers deserve to be fairly compensated for the dedication, loyalty and skill they bring to their jobs, and this legislation will help restore fairness to the workplace. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to be pro-labor or pro-business but to be pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-growing America. Vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, today, the new Democratic Majority in the House has brought legislation to the Floor--the National Security FIRST Act--which will strengthen our national security by addressing a glaring deficiency that became public last year. Many Members of Congress--and millions of Americans--were shocked when it was reported in 2006 that the Bush Administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World--a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates--to manage terminal operations at six major ports in the United States. Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with foreign investment in our nation. In fact, we have reason to encourage it. But what was shocking about the Dubai Ports World deal was that it was approved by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States with only minimal review, and without the 45-day national security investigation that clearly should have occurred. In fact, the deal was approved despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security had raised security concerns. And, approval occurred without the input of senior Administration officials, such as the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, and even the President himself. Thus, today, I want to congratulate Chairman Frank of the Financial Services Committee for his strong leadership on this bipartisan legislation. In short, this bill addresses key failings in the current CFIUS review process. First, it will require that in cases involving a company controlled by a foreign government that either the CFIUS Chairman (the Treasury Secretary) or the Vice-Chairman (the Homeland Security Secretary) certify that the transaction poses no national security threat, or that a 45-day security investigation occur after the initial 30-day review period. In cases where the second stage 45-day review applies, the bill requires the President to approve such transactions. In addition, the bill improves CFIUS accountability to Congress. Recall that last year, Congress was not notified of the Dubai Ports World deal. Now, CFIUS must report to the committees of jurisdiction within five days after the final action on a CFIUS investigation. Finally, this legislation requires that every transaction be subjected to an investigation by the Director of National Intelligence. Again, this is important legislation that will strengthen our national security. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this year marks the thirtieth annivesry of the Charter 77 movement. Along with other colleagues from the Helsinki Commission, which I had the privilege of Chairing and Co-Chairing from 1985 to 1994, I rise today to commemorate Charter 77's extraordinary accomplishments, and to praise Vaclav Havel, a founding member of the Charter 77 movement and Czechoslovakia's first President after the fall of communism. Twenty years ago this month, I led a Congressional delegation to Czechoslovakia--my first trip to that country. At that time, I was assured by Czechoslovak Government officials that Charter 77 was only a small group, and there was no need to have a dialogue with its members. In an apparent effort to underscore their point, the regime detained several Chartists to keep them from meeting with our delegation: Vaclav Havel, Petr Uhl and Jiri Dienstbier were all arrested in Prague; Miklos Duray was prevented from traveling to Prague from Slovakia; and although Petr Puspoki-Nagy made it to Prague, he was also immediately detained on his arrival. Although I was deprived of the chance to meet these individuals in person, I was already well aware of their work. In fact, the Helsinki Commission's second hearing, held in February 1977, published the full text of the Charter 77 manifesto at the request of one of our witnesses, Mrs. Anna Faltus. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the late Mrs. Faltus, who worked tirelessly for decades as an advocate for a free Czechoslovakia. To this end, she made sure that the documents of Charter 77 and the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted were quickly translated and widely disseminated to policy makers and human rights advocates. Her effort made it possible for the Helsinki Commission to publish (in 1982 and in 1987) selected and representatives texts of the Charter 77 movement. Looking back, the breadth of those documents is truly remarkably, touching on everything from the legacy of World War II to the country's economic situation; from contemporary music to nuclear energy. But the common thread that bound these diverse statements together was a commitment to promote and protect ``the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights.'' This right was freely adopted by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic when Gustav Husak fixed his signature to the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. It was, of course, with great interest that I discussed Charter 77, first with Czechoslovak officials during my February 1987 trip to Prague, then with Czechoslovak parliamentarians visiting Washington in June 1988 (a delegation which included Prague Communist Party boss Miroslav Stepan), and then with the Czechoslovak delegation to the 1989 Paris Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension. In these meetings, as well as in correspondence with the Czechoslovak Ambassador to the United, I was told that Charter 77 didn't represent public opinion. I was warned that siding with Charter 77 would not help bilateral relations, and I was assured that democracy was coming soon to Czechoslovakia--``socialist democracy.'' Needless to say, I was not convinced by my interlocutors: I was not convinced that Augustin Navratil was actually being treated for a mental health condition, rather than being persecuted for his religious activism. I was frankly disgusted when the Czechoslovak delegation to the Paris meeting baldly lied about Jiri Wolf, telling us he had been released early from his prison sentence as a ``humanitarian'' gesture, and then shrugging with indifference when they were caught in their lie. Most of all, I did not believe that Vaclav Havel was a criminal and Charter 77 merely an ``insignificant'' group. In fact, in 1989 Senator Dennis DeConcini and I nominated Vaclav Havel for the Nobel Peace Prize. As Senator DeConcini said, ``[i]n spite of relentless harassment by the authorities, including imprisonment, repeated detentions, house searches, and confiscation of property, Havel has remained active in the struggle for human rights. . . Havel is now in prison, but he is not alone in his cause. In a dramatic move. . . over 700 of his colleagues--playwrights, producers, artists, and actors--signed a petition calling for his release and the release of others [similarly imprisoned]. For these people, like many others in his country, Vaclav Havel has become a symbol of an enduring and selfless commitment to human rights.'' Madam Speaker, on this 30th anniversary of the founding of the Charter 77 movement, I rise to commend and remember the courageous men and women, signatories and supporters, who paved the way for the peaceful transition from communism in Czechoslovakia and restoration of Europe, whole and free. On this anniversary, I give special tribute to Vaclav Havel, playwright and president, and his singular role in leading his country to freedom.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of time on each side be enlarged by 36 minutes. I think I have the authority to do that under the rule; it has been done in consultation with the minority leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 165) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 166) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, I demand an additional hour of debate on the concurrent resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, continuing on my unanimous consent, I would tell the Members that we do not intend to have any 1-minutes tomorrow, so that we will begin debate at 8 a.m. on this resolution. Debate, of course, will conclude tonight at 1 a.m. so that the staff can get at least some sleep; not much, but some. And we will have continuing communications with the minority with reference to the balance of the schedule for Friday.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 44, ``Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 98th anniversary.'' Coretta Scott King once said that ``struggle is a never-ending process and freedom is never really won--you earn it and win it in every generation.'' And since 1909, generations of Americans who have fought for racial equality and the expansion of liberty have had a friend and advocate in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. While its name entails that the NAACP seeks to advance the fortunes of African Americans, I believe that its true mission is to advance the goals of all Americans--for when we move closer to becoming a beacon of hope and opportunity for all people, regardless of race or ethnicity, we all reap the benefits. When the light of social justice is shined in the dark corners where prejudice and bigotry still exist, our nation becomes stronger. When people who had been mistreated and oppressed become empowered to take steps towards the American Dream, our nation becomes stronger. And when we take actions that elevate the things that unite us above those that drive us apart, our nation becomes stronger. And that is what the NAACP is all about--strengthening our nation by reminding us that while we have come a long way in our struggle for freedom and equality, we are not yet perfect, and must always remain vigilant in pursuit of a world where all men and women are treated with the respect and dignity that all human beings possess. I'm proud to be a member of the NAACP. I'm proud to be from the state that the NAACP has called home for so many years. And I'm grateful that the NAACP has provided such strong and talented partners in working for social justice both in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District and throughout our nation as a whole. I'd like to congratulate the NAACP on 98 years of promoting what is best about America--and I look forward to continuing to work together with NAACP members toward our shared goals of equality and prosperity for all. I urge all Members to support this important bill.