Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, if it is included in the House Administration funding resolution, and I am not saying that it will be, it may be in some other vehicle. But, if it did, that usually comes middle of March, late March, so that the committees can have a sense of what their funding capabilities are.

Mr. HOYER. I don't think I said a time on Thursday. As you know as well, perhaps better than I do over the last years, particularly as you were the leader, you cannot always predict the time frame. But I would hope on Thursday we would get out at a reasonable hour to facilitate Members returning home.

Mr. HOYER. Of course, any committee, select committee or otherwise, unless there was a separate bill appropriating money towards that committee, we would expect that to be in the funding resolution for committees out of House Administration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The answer to that question is we are working closely with the Senate. The CR expires, as you know, on February 15. The Senate has a very difficult challenge. I know that Mr. Reid is trying to work with Mr. McConnell to figure out how they can do it. What we are really trying to do is trying to see if we can have a Senate and House agreement so that we can meet that February 15 deadline with this CR, which would not necessitate going back to a subsequent CR; in other words, making this a CR through September 30 of this year and take care of the 2007 funding cycle. As Mr. Obey has indicated, the reason for that is we are now proceeding on the 2008 cycle, and until we put the 2007 cycle behind us, it is difficult to focus on that. So I frankly don't have the answer to that question at this point in time because those discussions are going on between the House and the Senate. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey are involved in what we are doing here, and we are, after all, talking about nine bills, numerous departments and agencies and objects, and frankly, if that bill is open to amendment, CRs, as you know, generally come with closed rules, and they are clean CRs usually, but even some nonclean CRs, and that is for the public's sake, things that have additional items other than simply funding levels at a given level, have been closed rules. Obviously to try to get through nine different bills on the House floor between now and February 25, much less February 15, if the bill is open to amendment, as appropriation bills generally are, as you know, would be something probably we would not be able to do. So that is being discussed, trying to figure it out. I don't have a definitive answer for you here on Wednesday, but I want to tell you candidly that I believe there will not be a full opportunity in the sense that there has been, and I am not sure that I can represent to the gentleman that there will be an open rule.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am glad that I am still his good friend. We are going to remain so. On Monday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of the suspension bills for the week will be announced later this week. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 o'clock. We will consider a long-term continuing resolution. I want Members to hear that because on Wednesday we will consider the long-term continuing resolution. We have a continuing resolution which expires on February 15. The long-term will cover approximately nine appropriation bills that failed to pass in the last Congress and will fund most of government, other than the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department. The House will not meet on Thursday and Friday next week in order to accommodate the Democratic Members issues conference. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I believe that that is essentially the case. The only reason that I do not answer that absolutely is there are some earmarks I think that are being looked at that have general application to the operations of certain departments; but beyond that, the answer is yes.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are some problems that are raised because bills failed to pass, military construction being one, the veterans being another, which have put us in a position where if there is not additional language and funding in the bill, and they are, of course, both as a result of the earmarks not being funded and as a result of the caps not being met that was in the Republican budget that passed but did not pass the Congress, and the level of funding in the 2007 bills that did not pass, there need to be some things in there that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey are both aware of. As I understand, they are working together in a bipartisan fashion. The staffs are working together. So I will tell my friend, although I cannot tell you specifically because they are still working on it, as you know from your past experience that these are works in progress, that my expectation is there will be additional funding for programs that will be very adversely affected if they were required to go forward at 2006 levels or the lower of the House- or Senate-passed bills.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield before he asks another question, as my friend knows well, having not passed appropriations bills, and, frankly, leaving in December without passing appropriations bills was, of course, the other body's judgment, we passed the bills through here except for the Labor-Health bill, we are placed in an extraordinarily difficult position. We labored long and hard, and I was then a member of the Appropriations Committee, on our bills. We considered them here on the floor. There was debate. There were amendments offered. They passed. Frankly, the ideal, as you well know, would have been to have them pass, go to conference and pass them through both Houses. But we are now confronted with a lot of work product over a year on all of these bills out of the Appropriations Committee now sitting, frankly, in limbo with a deadline of February 15 to have a short-term CR, which we are not for. We want to complete this business. So we have a challenge that I think is relatively unique, given all of this work product, of just not having a simple CR which says we do '06 levels, because all that work product would be, A, down the drain, and B, was responding to needs that the administration wants, that our military wants, that our veterans want, that others need. So that is the challenge confronting Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis. I know you appreciate that. The failure was not on this side of the Capitol, but the fact of the matter is, wherever the failure was, we are now confronted with trying to solve the problem. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly reassure you we are moving in that direction, and I would hope that would be the case. I hope the gentleman will take this as a very friendly observation that in this case, the gentleman wouldn't take apparently yes for an answer. We were going to give him an amendment. As you know, the day before we had been bitterly criticized for not giving amendments. I was not there and I did not participate in this decision, but the committee was confronted with wanting to be in a position to give an amendment. Then when they were told the gentleman didn't want the amendment, they in effect took yes for an answer. The gentleman did not. I understand that. We want to accommodate that. You are absolutely right. If a Member doesn't want to offer the amendment, he didn't have to offer the amendment, he did not offer the amendment. Nobody has been forced to offer an amendment. He was given the opportunity to do so. But we do understand that Members make decisions that maybe that is not what I want to do, and I would like to withdraw it. Certainly I hope we will accommodate Members in the future.

Mr. HOYER. I want to say, Mr. Leader, we also wanted to give you a substitute, but you didn't want that either, and we didn't give you that substitute, then, I guess. In any event, your point is well taken, and I don't want to be jocular about the fact. We really do want to make sure that you can come to this floor and think you are being treated fairly and openly and have an opportunity to make your legislative case. That is the way this body ought to work. I know the first 2\1/2\ weeks now we have been moving on an agenda, rules changes and others, that we wanted to get done. As you know, some of these have involved rules changes, as this particular bill did. As you know, although Mr. Dreier talked about having hearings on this, rarely does either side have hearings on the rules it presents. The rules package is put together by the majority party and there aren't hearings on it. It is offered on the floor and it is voted up or down. In this case we offered your rules, as you know, as they were in being in the 109th Congress. There were some additions we wanted to make. But your point is well taken. I share your view that we want to make sure, whether we disagree, that you feel you got the opportunity on your side of the aisle to make your case.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman who just spoke understands the pain that he inflicts, understands the lack of respect that he shows, understands the denial of democracy that he reflects. I tell the gentleman that my friend who sits behind you, four aisles back, represents seven times as many people as you and I represent, seven times as many people, who, if they move from the island of Puerto Rico to the State of Maryland, the State of Pennsylvania, have full voting rights. But he inflicts on the gentleman from American Samoa and those Samoans who have fought for this country and died and are serving today who have no vote. And for you on your side to represent that this is a power grab, in my opinion, is absolutely unconscionable, in your words, because it is so inaccurate. Why did the court of appeals rule this to be constitutional? Because it does not diminish any one of the 435 Members in this body. Why? Because this is symbolism. This is symbolic. The Delegates know it. The Delegates know that this is not full voting rights for them or for the people they represent. But it is an opportunity for them to participate and to reference on the board in the Committee of the Whole their vote, their opinion.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, what we are doing here is we are saying to five people, and I want to say you saw the pain of the representative of the District of Columbia who absolutely ought to have a full vote in this House. I hope that we will address that shortly.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and we are running out of time, I want to say that when I yielded, I was talking about symbolism. All of us believe that symbolism is very important. Our flag is a great symbol. Samoans have died for that flag. Residents of the District of Columbia have died for that flag. Residents of the Virgin Islands have died for that flag. Residents of Guam have died for that flag. And many, many residents of Puerto Rico have died for that flag. Yes, this is symbolic, which is why the courts said it was appropriate, because it does not constitutionally diminish the vote of any one of the 435 Members of this body one iota. Why? Because if their votes make a difference, we automatically have a vote of the 435 of us. That is why the courts said this is absolutely constitutional. It is not enough, what we do today. But it would be tragic if we do not do at least this basic step to recognize the inclusion of those who serve with us, who can speak with us, who can vote in committee across the street or in this building, but who have had their vote in the Committee of the Whole taken away from them when the Republicans took power in 1995. Let us restore that vote today. Vote for this rule, which is a fair rule. And I say to my friend who quoted my comments, you were accorded a right to a substitute. You chose not to take it. You were accorded the right to an amendment. You now want to withdraw that. I will tell you that, on our side, if you want to withdraw that amendment by unanimous consent, we will not object. But my understanding is you don't want to make that request.

Mr. HOYER. We have given you that amendment. My time is up. The last time you asked me to yield, you gave a speech. And that is fine, but you are going to do it on your time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be joined by House Democratic Whip Clyburn, House Democratic Caucus Chair Emanuel, Vice Chair Larson, and of course the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee in sponsoring House Resolution 78. This measure will restore voting rights in the Committee of the Whole for the four House Delegates and Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico. In fact, this measure is identical in substance to the rule that operated successfully--and constitutionally--from 1993 to 1995. The purpose of this resolution is simple: To honor democracy in every corner of the United States of America; To provide that all people who are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States have a voice in their national legislature; and To give to the elected representatives of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and Puerto Rico-- constituent parts of this country--the ability to register their views and take a stance on issues that are considered in the most important and representative committee of the house: the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. During the 103rd Congress, House Delegates, as well as the Resident Commissioner, were granted the privilege to cast a vote in the Committee of the Whole, a body comprised of all House Members whose function is to expedite consideration of bills and amendments on the House floor while ensuring that debate is fair to both sides of the aisle. This right is a logical extension of the Delegates' right to serve on and vote in the House committees--a right, I must stress, that was granted in the 1970s and to which no Member of this body whom I know has ever objected. The measure that we will vote on today is identical to the rule that existed in the 103rd Congress, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in 1994 was constitutional. To ensure that the provision complies with article I of the United States Constitution, in the event that a matter before the Committee of the Whole is decided by the margin of the Delegates' votes, the measure provides for an automatic re-vote in the full House, where Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not participate. Now, I want to address some of the misinformation that has been directed at this measure by opponents whose desire to defeat this resolution is more intense than their fealty to the facts. I have heard opponents contend that this measure confers ``representation without taxation.'' That is false. The residents who will benefit from this measure do indeed pay taxes in the form of Medicare and Social Security. At a time when the President's own economic advisors predict that these two programs will go bust if changes are not made in the next few years, I for one believe residents of the five territories should have a voice in shaping a bipartisan consensus that shores up the financial health of these vital programs. I have heard opponents contend that the average congressional district is 630,000 and that American Samoa, with a population of roughly 70,000 is too small to deserve even a symbolic vote. However, opponents making this argument omit the inconvenient case of Puerto Rico, whose population of almost 4 million would entitle it to as many as six seats if it had full representation. They also omit Wyoming, whose population of only 515,000 puts it well below the average congressional district. I have heard opponents contend that the five votes will slow down the legislative process and distort outcomes. According to a 1994 article in the Congressional Quarterly Almanac, ``Of the 404 times that delegates were eligible to vote during the 103rd Congress, only three times--all in 1994--did their vote prove decisive, triggering an automatic revote.'' Twice the outcome was reversed, proving that the rule worked. My friends, I would submit to each and every one of you that something magical happens when 435 Representatives from the 50 States come to this floor to vote on behalf of their constituents. Simply put, the genius of deliberative democracy achieves its fullest expression. We hear each other out on issues of the day. We get to know one another as something more than Members. We come to understand the needs and aspirations of one another's districts, whatever our political leanings. And through this process of personal interaction, we enact laws that, when we are at our best, make our country better. By granting a limited but important vote to five of our colleagues, we will be honoring the deliberative democratic process. In doing so, we will improve the legislative process and the degree to which the House of Representatives accurately reflects the views of the 300 million Americans who are subject to laws it passes. In that sense, every American, as well as our democratic system of government as a whole, stands to benefit from House Resolution 78. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. It is tough to be in the minority, isn't it? I feel your pain. I want you to know that. Of course, that perfect bill of which all of you speak could have been passed in 1995 or 1996 or even 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000, or even 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes, 2006 when you were in charge, and we had no say as to what you passed or what you didn't pass. But you didn't pass this bill. You passed this bill through the House; it is not law. It is not law. And you had the President, you had the Senate, and you had the House. There is now a claim that we have heard now for 2 weeks: The energy bill could have been better. Yes, but many of you voted for it. You indicated, many of you, that the minimum wage bill could have been perhaps better by adding some things on, but 82 of you voted for it. This bill could be better, but it is timely. It is timely to do the right thing. Mr. Kirk has a number of suggestions. I think they are pretty good suggestions. I don't mind them. He asked about income tax. Now, we all pay income taxes. All Americans pay income taxes, or some have preference items they avoid, assuming they are doing it legally. But that is not part of our duties as a Member of Congress; it is part of our duties as a citizen. What this bill seeks to say is when you raise your right hand and swear that you will serve your constituents faithfully and honestly, that you do that; that you don't do it for some outside lobbyist or interest group. And that if you do, we are not going to pay your pension. That is all this bill says. It is late in coming, but it is never too late to do the right thing, and I would hope that every Member of this House when the roll is called on this bill will say to their constituents that I am going to take pensions away from those who abuse their power and responsibility given to them by the American people as Members of this House and undermine the faith and trust that the American people have in Members and in this House. I agree with Mr. Terry, it could be better. We could add things to it. Perhaps we will. As a matter of fact, we just added something, as you have pointed out, because we thought that not only is lying bad, but asking people to lie is bad. It is called a fancy word, subornation of perjury. But what it is, is asking your staffer to say, don't tell the grand jury I did that. That is essentially what that says. So you can't tell your staff to go to the grand jury, when the grand jury says, does Member A, B or C take money or lie or do something or take money to vote on something, if you ask them to do that, and, after all, they work for you, you have control of their salary, you are also going to be subject to loss of pension. So I agree with those that say this bill is not perfect. They are right, but a lot of the bills that we have passed, as a matter of fact probably no bill that we have passed has been perfect, but this is a good bill. As my friend, the former Congressman from Kentucky would say, ``And I tell you that frankly.'' My expectation is we are going to have almost every Member, I would hope 100 percent of the House say to the American people we will not allow Members who misuse and fail your trust to get your taxpayers' dollars paid to them in pensions. Vote for this bill. It is a good bill. I want to congratulate Nancy Boyda for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, vote to say to the American people, we won't take your pensions if we do wrong by you, and we won't let others do as well.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I believe the points of order being made are debate and comment, not points of order. And I am going to object to the continuation of a process that theoretically raises points of order which is debate and not a point of order.