Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. They found 1,500. Can the gentlewoman cite me one instance of a criminal charge being proven that that is the case? I don't doubt that you can assert that some people said there is fraud. Yes. Can you cite me one conviction of anybody who facilitated one of those 1,500 dead people going in, saying, ``I am Sam Brown,'' who is dead, ``and I want to vote''? Can you cite me one example of one conviction where that was found to be the fact, as opposed to an assertion?

Mr. HOYER. Can I respond that I do agree with the gentlewoman that fraud does occur, and when it occurs, we ought to prosecute it. When fraud occurs, we ought to put those people in jail, because they undermine the rest of us who are voting honestly and fairly. What we ought not do is respond to that by making it more difficult for many Americans to cast the basic right that they have as American citizens, the vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill. The gentleman who has just spoken represents Georgia. Georgia passed a bill. The superior court has now twice held that bill to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it undermines the ability of Americans to vote. It in effect imposes additional tests. In my State, I have been active for 40 years, I will tell my friend, I don't remember a case, not one, where citizenship was raised in our State. I venture if I asked all of you to prove to me you were a U.S. citizen right now, nobody on this floor could do it. Not one of you. You might give me a license. You might say, well, I was born here, there or everywhere. But nobody could prove they were a U.S. citizen. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax. It will disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters and disproportionately affect elderly people with disabilities, rural voters, students, racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income voters. Indeed, that may be its purpose. Hear me. That may be its purpose. All of these folks are less likely to have the current valid photo identification required by this bill. It is highly ironic, Mr. Speaker, that just a few short weeks ago, this Congress reauthorized key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after defeating a number of crippling amendments offered by the other side of the aisle, that landmark law designed to make voting easier and more fair, to address centuries, centuries, of discrimination. People were told they couldn't vote because of the color of their skin. People were told they couldn't vote because of their gender. They were told you can go to war, but you can't vote. We have changed that. Let us not now retreat and say, yes, but we are going to make it more difficult. Today, through this voter ID bill, the Republican majority would make voting more onerous and burdensome for many, many Americans. Show me the cases. Show me the examples of the problem you are trying to solve. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing more than a partisan political stunt. All of us are united in seeking to eliminate voter fraud. I stand against voter fraud. I worked with the Help America Vote Act Coalition to pass the Help America Vote Act. We have staff on here who worked very hard on that bill. We debated this issue, and the Congress rejected it. But now, 7 days left in the session, let us appeal to the fear, and, yes, perhaps the prejudice of people. I ask that this bill be defeated. It is a bad bill for America. It is a bad bill for democracy. It is a bad bill for the House of Representatives to pass.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Of course our small State has given your large State our leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I am pleased to join him and certainly adopt his remarks, which I think are fundamental to this debate that will be going on for the next 6 weeks in our country about how we effect Real Security. That is our objective. That is our commitment as Democrats. We believe that terrorism is a real threat. We believe that we have a responsibility to confront and defeat that threat. That is our responsibility as citizens, and that is our responsibility as elected representatives. I am pleased to join Mr. Schiff, who has been such a leader on national security issues in the Congress; my dear friend from Maryland and colleague Mr. Van Hollen, who has a depth of knowledge and experience in foreign policy issues and national security issues; and my good friend from the State of Georgia, Mr. David Scott. The State of Georgia has historically had leaders in national defense. On our side of the aisle, most recently was Sam Nunn, one of the most extraordinarily able and thoughtful spokespersons for national security. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for taking this time. Our highest duty as Members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to protect our homeland and to strengthen our national security. We Democrats are proud of our party's strong tradition of leadership in world affairs from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman and John Kennedy, indeed to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, it will be recalled, most recently marshaled the NATO Alliance, received the imprimatur of the United Nations, confronted the genocide being led by Slobodan Milosevic, defeated and stopped the genocide, stopped the ethnic cleansing, and put Slobodan Milosevic in the dock in trial at the Hague, all without losing a single American life in combat. These leaders demonstrated that defending America requires our Nation to marshal the full range of its powers, economic and moral, diplomatic and military, to fight for freedom, to foster democracy, and to defeat tyranny and terrorism. I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle are committed to this Nation's security. Any suggestion to the contrary, in my opinion, is either mistaken or quite possibly malicious partisanship. Furthermore, I believe that members of the loyal opposition, in this case us congressional Democrats, have the responsibility to critique the wisdom and effectiveness of the policies pursued by the majority party. That is what our Founding Fathers conceived. That is what our Founding Fathers believed was absolutely essential for the success of our democracy: A Congress and an executive and indeed a judiciary that provided checks and balances, provided thoughtful alternatives to policies being pursued, and provided constructive criticism. The fact is our Nation and our people are not as safe today as they could and should be. I accept the fact that we are safer, but I repeat, that we are not as safe as we could or should be. Osama bin Laden, the architect of the worst terrorist attack on America in our history, remains at large. We still have not fully implemented the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, for which the commission itself has criticized us sharply. In fact, Tom Kean, the co-chair, the former Republican Governor of the State of New Jersey, the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission and the former Republican Governor, as I said, of New Jersey, recently stated: ``We are not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.'' What powerful words and what a call to attention are Governor Kean's words. Meanwhile, the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran have increased dramatically in the last 6 years. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, where roadside bombs have increased 30 percent and suicide bombings have doubled. And anti-Americanism has unfortunately and dangerously risen by substantial proportions. Even former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, who has served this country so honorably in uniform and as a diplomat, remarked last week: ``The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.'' That is an extraordinary dangerous condition. We cannot nor should we fight this war against terrorists alone. We must have allies. We must have allies who respect us, who believe that our word is credible, and believe that our leadership is based upon values, insight, good intelligence, and conviction. Without question, Madam Speaker, our continuing military action in Iraq has fomented much of this anti- American sentiment. Let me add that I supported the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as the dictator in Iraq. Democrats, however, as the loyal opposition, believe that we have a duty to honestly appraise the gross miscalculations and, I suggest, even incompetence that have plagued Operation Iraqi Freedom from its very start and to offer alternatives. The administration ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent far too few troops to accomplish the task at hand. Recall, if you will, that we sent over a half million troops in the fall of 1990 to confront Saddam Hussein and his army in the late winter of 1991. We sent those troops to eject Hussein from Kuwait. We sent a force one- third, however, the size in 2003 not only to confront Saddam Hussein's army but to take control and stabilize an entire nation of 22 million- plus people and to ensure its stability. As Tom Friedman of the New York Times has stated: ``If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did the Bush administration fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld doctrine, just enough troops to lose, and not the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is,'' of course, ``security?'' The administration, with Mr. Bremer as its viceroy in Iraq, fired police and security forces and oil workers, which increased, not decreased, instability. It initiated the war before making alternative plans when the Turks told us that we could not come in through the north so we could shut the back door to Baghdad. And as a result, many of those in the Saddam Hussein armed forces escaped and were a basis for an insurgency. In fact, just this month Brigadier General Mark Scheid revealed that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said he would ``fire the next person'' who talked about the need for a post-war plan. There was no effective plan for post-Saddam Hussein regime nation-building. As a result, chaos occurred. The administration failed to properly equip our own troops, Mr. Schiff has pointed that out, nearly 2,700 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war. All of us in our districts have lost people in this war. The administration grossly underestimated the cost of the war at about $60 billion. Today, the war costs stand at five times that amount, in excess of $300 billion. All of that has happened, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, without significant oversight and appropriate hearings being conducted by this Congress, which is our responsibility to our constituents and to our country. The administration hired inexperienced and unqualified political appointees for the Coalition Provisional Authority, as The Washington Post reported on Sunday. And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable. All of this, Madam Speaker, has undermined the effectiveness of an effort that I supported. Some did not. But whether you supported it or you did not, you must lament the fact that the execution of the policy has been so unsuccessful. Madam Speaker, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, has stated: ``What we are living with now is the consequence of successive policy failures.'' That is not a Democrat or a Republican but a three-star general concerned about his troops, concerned about our country, concerned about the success of an effort given to our Armed Forces. The current strategy for our military, our security, and the Iraqi people is neither working nor making us more secure. Our colleague Congressman Skelton of Missouri has pointed out that there is not a single Army nondeployed combat brigade currently prepared to meet its wartime mission. That, Madam Speaker, is an extraordinary assertion and I suggest an accurate one as well. Meanwhile, the news in Iraq is equally dire. The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq has concluded that prospects for securing that country's Anbar Province are dim and there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there. Thirty-four people were killed in suicide attacks on Monday in Tal Afar and Ramadi. Fifty-two bound and tortured corpses were found across Baghdad on Friday. And just today General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly increase current force levels through next spring due to rising sectarian violence and the slow progress of the Iraqi Government. Madam Speaker, I want the Iraqi Government to succeed. I want democracy to flourish. I want a robust economy creating jobs and hope for its people to be in place. However, Madam Speaker, the policies that we have pursued have not accomplished that objective. Clearly, Madam Speaker, we need a new direction. I believe, as former National Security Adviser Brzezinski has said, that American and Iraqi leaders should jointly consult on a plan to transition from active American leadership and policing and securing Iraq to increasing Iraqi responsibility. I do not believe that we should announce an arbitrary timeline, but I do believe that discussions on this transition should be agreed upon and jointly announced. In addition, the Iraqi Government, not the United States, should then call for a regional conference of Muslim states to ask them to help the new government establish and consolidate internal stability. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that is in the interest of every regional state in the Middle East. Additionally, the United States should convene a donors' conference of European states, Japan, China, and others to become more directly involved in financing the restoration of the Iraqi economy. A stable, secure, and free Iraq is in the best interest of the entire international community; and because it is in their interest, they bear a joint responsibility to effect that end. Madam Speaker, this is our last best chance, in my opinion, to salvage success in Iraq. Our commitment there has been unwavering, but it must not be unending. Our strategy, hampered by gross miscalculations by our civilian leadership, is not working; and we believe that we have a duty to advocate for policy changes that will better serve our security interest and this great Nation we love. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I reiterate, Democrats are committed to defending America, making safe Americans, and defeating terrorists who would harm our Nation and undermine our values. Our policies that we are pursuing have not worked. They need to be changed. Again, I thank Mr. Schiff for his leadership on this hour.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, I have an amendment on the minimum wage in that bill.

Mr. HOYER. I am very interested in it, and I would hope we could move it. Notwithstanding the fact that I told your extraordinarily able staffer who sits behind you that it was going to take about 45 minutes for this colloquy, I will yield back the balance of my time at this time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come. I informed his staff of the length of time I thought this would take, I am sure she has informed him, and he is still here.

Mr. HOYER. On H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act, I have not talked to any members of the committee nor the Rules Committee. As you know, I was the sponsor of the HAVA act, along with Bob Ney, and very interested in this entire issue. Can you tell me about whether it will be open to amendments or that amendments need to be into the Rules Committee at a certain time, what you contemplate?

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for that notice to Members. I think that is very helpful. He and I talked about it last week and he said he would work on it. I very much appreciate that and I know the Members do as well. I thank you for that. Mr. Leader, this may have been an oversight. You did not mention that first votes will be 6:30 on Tuesday of next week. Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that on this bill it could be open to amendment in some form, because clearly this is a critically important issue. As you know, we have just had our primary in Maryland. We had a number of glitches. I don't think there was any wrongdoing, but there was certainly some negligence which led to disruption. I don't think there was anything that perhaps deals particularly with this bill, but I am hopeful that we can consider it in a way that will allow Members to offer their own suggestions. I thank the gentleman for consideration of that issue. With respect to the border security related legislation, there is a mention of other security legislation possibly coming to the floor. Can you be a little more specific as to what you contemplate might be on the floor next week?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. On the military commissions/domestic surveillance, you list a bill regarding military commissions for next week. Is there any possibility that we might also have on the floor legislation dealing with the issue of domestic wiretapping surveillance? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his information. Again, briefly, I was not going to ask it, but I am constrained to ask it. Is there any chance, Mr. Leader, that we will be able to consider the Labor-Health bill on the floor? It is the only appropriation bill, as you well know, that we have not passed through the House. We have done the other 10. Do you have any expectation that that bill might be on the floor either next week or the week thereafter? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 10 was denominated National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week by legislation introduced by our colleague and my friend, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and passed this past July, and I am honored to join my colleagues today in celebrating it. The contributions made by HBCUs to the African American community, to our country and to our culture cannot be overstated. As President Clinton once noted, ``Generations of African American educators, physicians, lawyers, scientists, and other professionals found at HBCUs the knowledge, experience and encouragement they needed to reach their full potential.'' The alumni rolls of HBCUs read like a Hall of Fame list, Mr. Speaker: Martin Luther King, Jr., a graduate of Morehouse College; Booker T. Washington, Hampton University, who also helped found the Tuskegee Institute in 1881, what is now known as Tuskegee University; W.E.B. DuBois, Fisk University; and Wilma Rudolph from Tennessee State University. The list, of course, could go on and on, and indeed I could mention Members of the Congressional Black Caucus itself. In fact, it probably will surprise no one that nearly half of our friends and colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus received their degrees Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Public service continues to be a hallmark of the graduate of black colleges and universities. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are 103 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in our Nation, serving more than 260,000 undergraduate students, with 27 percent offering either a first professional degree or a doctorate. HBCUs confer nearly a quarter of all bachelor's degrees awarded each year to African Americans, and they confer the majority of bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees awarded to black students in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, engineering and education. The real story, Mr. Speaker, that underlies these figures, is the story of hope and opportunity. Before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, African Americans were routinely and unjustly excluded from institutions of higher learning. It didn't matter how smart you were, it didn't matter how much talent or potential you had; the only thing that mattered was the color of your skin. What a failed, immoral policy. But out of that rank injustice, that indefensible racism, was born a fortitude and a determination to rise above, to overcome through education. Thus, the first black college, what is now known as Cheyney University in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837. To appreciate the magnitude of this, remember that Cheyney was created a full 28 years before the ratification of the 13th Amendment, to train free blacks to become school teachers. Today, Cheyney continues to serve with great pride as an avenue for African Americans to attend college. Four of the 103 HBCUs are located in the State of Maryland, including Bowie State University in my own district, a college with which I have been working since 1967 when I was elected to the Maryland State Senate. Bowie was founded in 1865, and is the oldest Historically Black University in Maryland. The others are a great institution in Baltimore City, Morgan State, and its sister, Coppin State, both in that great city, and the last is the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, located in Princess Anne. Let me say as a former member of the Maryland Board of Regents and as someone acutely interested in education and the needs of our youth, I see the manifest vision and the determination of HBCUs in practice every day. I see it in the faces of the children in my district, who know that they will have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents, whether they choose Bowie State, the University of Maryland at College Park or any other school. I see it in the faces of the young professionals who have attended an HBCU who are now working hard to build their careers and contribute to our society. And, yes, I see it in the faces of those here tonight who appreciate the unique role and history of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and who understand the importance of their continued vibrancy. We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that our strength as a Nation lies not just in the quality of the University of Maryland at College Park, but in the excellence of Bowie State. We must realize while we celebrate the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we also must take joy in the accomplishments of North Carolina A&T. HBCUs have strengthened our country and enriched our culture beyond measure, and while they can take great pride in their glorious past, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that they enjoy an even brighter future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this House understands that we must secure our Nation's borders. Our Nation is at war, and those who seek to harm our homeland and our people will attempt to exploit our national security vulnerabilities. There is no question, to protect our country, we must know who is in our country. But rather than work with Democrats to achieve this consensus national security objective, the House Republican majority today is engaging in a cynical charade, I suggest. This is not a feel-good measure. I agree with most of what my friend from Arizona had to say. This is not a feel-good measure; this is a political measure. This is a political measure, because Americans are rightfully concerned about their borders being secure. They were concerned about that in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes every day up until today. But they know our borders are not secure. Now, we haven't been in charge of the administration, the Congress or the Senate. Prior to that, if you look at the record, we were more secure at the borders. If you look at the record, honestly, you will see in terms of the numbers of people coming in, the numbers of people being stopped, the numbers of fines being levied on employers, there was more, not less, in the Clinton administration than there is in the Bush administration. This is, I suggest to you, to score political points that are going to be, not could be, are going to be demagogued in 30-second ads. I guarantee you they will be used in ads. The legislation before us solely contains the border fence provisions that were added to the Sensenbrenner immigration reform bill that passed this House last December with overwhelming Republican support. This is what I call to some degree the ``regurgitation process'' that we are in so much. We pass a bill, it doesn't go anywhere in the Senate; we pass it again, it doesn't go anywhere in the Senate; we pass it again. Why do we do so? To appeal to the fears and the passions of our people. Let me just say, building a fence along 700 miles of our southern border is no panacea to our very real national concerns that must be addressed. In my view, it is a political grandstand play that wastes precious time. Here, in fact, is what the President of the United States, President Bush, said, in May regarding the issue of immigration reform and border security, exactly what the gentleman from Arizona, the Republican chairman of one of our subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. President Bush said, ``An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all.'' We passed a bill. The Senate passed a bill. But we haven't gone to conference. The Republican leadership of the Senate and the House have been stuck in the mud while America knew it had a problem that needed to be solved. Today, the House Republicans come forward with this rifle-shot bill, this regurgitation of one aspect of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Republican bill, if it does pass, is going nowhere. It will not be passed. We are wasting our time and the American people's time. For months now, Republican infighting has prevented this Congress from enacting true immigration reform and protection, and that infighting and unwillingness to compromise on the part of House Republicans is what instigated this narrow bill. Now, what compels us on this bill? We only have 2\1/2\ weeks, 3 weeks to go, the elections are coming, and, very frankly, the Republicans aren't doing too well, and the fear factor is one of their major political ploys. Our Republican friends are desperate for a legislative victory and desperate for political talking points. They recognize that, as Senator Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, ``Republicans control both Houses and the White House. If we don't move forward and solve the immigration reform problem and border security, we are not doing our job.'' Today, we are pretending to do our job. We are not doing our job. There is a bill in conference, but we are not working on it. Today, I urge you to support the comprehensive alternative that will be offered by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, which deals in a comprehensive way, which is what President Bush suggested we ought to do. We should be coming together, on a bipartisan basis, on comprehensive legislation that would make us safer by beefing up security along our borders. That is precisely what the Reyes-Thompson substitute would do-- providing the technology, personnel, equipment and infrastructure to monitor and secure every mile of the border every hour of every day. Instead, House Republicans are engaging in this charade.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, our commemoration of September 11 is a solemn occasion. It is a day of remembrance and a day of resolve. We remember those, Mr. Speaker, who perished or were injured 5 years ago in New York, Virginia at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania due to the evil acts of men consumed by a murderous ideology filled with hate. We mourn the loss of the innocent, and we pray for their loved ones. We also recall with pride, yes, with sorrow as well, though, the heroism of our first responder, and in many cases civilians turned rescuers, who put their own lives in harm's way as they sought to help others. Their selflessness on a day of fire, destruction and death reminds us of the courageous American spirit, and it renews our faith in humankind. The commemoration of 9/11 also is a time for this Congress to express our collective national resolve. We resolved to protect the American people and our beloved homeland and to combat and defeat the perpetrators of terrorism and tyranny, and to fight for freedom, for democracy, for respect for human rights, and for the rule of law. Now, the resolution before us today in many respects is not objectionable. Indeed, I will vote for this resolution. I do not quarrel, for example, with the propriety or the sentiments expressed in any of the resolved clauses in this measure. This resolution commemorating the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, a wound that has not yet healed, ought to be a unifying document that virtually every single Member of this House can support without reservation. I regret, therefore, that in my discussions with the majority leader, and in Ms. Pelosi's discussion with the Speaker, that the Republicans did not see fit to make this a fully bipartisan resolution. While I will support it, I lament the continuing partisanship which seeks to divide this House in sentiments that ought to see a unified House. I lament the fact that in the face of a Nation at war that we are not working to bring us together. But that effort was not made; and it is a failure of leadership, in my opinion. Despite the fact that the Senate passed a 9/11 resolution this year by unanimous consent, and despite the fact that this body passed a 9/11 resolution last year by a vote of 402-6, the Republican leadership still attempts to gain political advantage through this measure. I think that is unfortunate. I am going to support this measure, but there are conclusions in the ``whereas'' clauses with which I do not agree and which were not necessary for expressing our remembrance and our resolve. The majority presents a resolution that includes extraneous and inappropriate, divisive, self-serving and, in my opinion, politically motivated language. How sad that you would do that in a resolution that seeks to express the unanimous opinion of the representatives of the American people. I ask my Republican friends what is the point of including a reference in this resolution to controversial legislation that has not even become law. Specifically, I refer to the mention in the House Republicans' immigration reform bill. That bill was controversial in this House. That bill has not passed the Senate. That bill has been rejected, essentially, by the Senate. They have come together with a compromise with which the House has not agreed. Yet we reference in this resolution that which seeks to express our united opinion. How sad. The reference to this bill, which is opposed by even many Republicans, has no place in a resolution commemorating this solemn occasion, not withstanding the importance of that particular issue. It is deeply regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that on this, the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our history, that the Republican leadership has made political expedience a priority. I lament that, but I will vote for this because I do not want any confusion among those whom we confront. I want no confusion on those we confront. I want no confusion by terrorists who wish us ill. I want no confusion that we are not united, not just as a Congress but as a American people, and a resolve to defeat and deter terrorists and protect our people and our great country. Like the Senate, we should be voting on a resolution designed to inspire and demonstrate unity, not division

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observations, and perhaps I will take him up on that offer. That might be instructive for both of us and perhaps for the American people as well. I understand the gentleman's perspective. We differ. That is not surprising, I am sure, to the viewers. But I will say this, Mr. Leader, if I can, that this is about discussing the schedule. We have a very short time frame. We have 14 days left that are scheduled in this session before the election, and we are coming back for a lame duck session. I understand that. But I was simply inquiring of you whether or not those matters which we believe are important might be on the schedule. I am not debating their merits or demerits at this point in time. I can do that and, as a matter of fact, look forward to discussing that in a Special Order with you. But we do believe it was in the realm of a discussion about what might be scheduled. And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observations, while I think we disagree on the substance of the reports and the merits of the recommendations that have not yet been passed. I know on our side, Mr. Thompson, who is our ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, and others are very hopeful that we can move forward on those. But I understand what the gentleman has said. I will not ask the gentleman further questions. But, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation I would say that we on this side of the aisle are very hopeful that we can consider legislation before we break on the 29th of September which would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors. We would hope that we would see legislation which would restore the deep cuts in college tuition assistance that were included in the deficit reduction bill that we passed some months ago and that we would reconsider the tax cuts that we gave, deep tax cuts, that we gave to oil companies apparently to spur further investment in exploration for new sources of oil. A worthy objective. But I think, happily or unhappily, depending upon your perspective, whether you are an oil company or whether you are a driver of automobiles and have to pay the gasoline prices, the companies are making great profits and could have great incentive because of those great profits to develop further sources of energy. I would conclude by saying that we would hope the majority would seriously consider bringing to the floor all of those issues prior to the 29th.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. I understand what the rules are, and both sides have relatively regularly waived those rules when it wanted to do something. And if we want to raise the minimum wage for our workers, we can do it. That is our perspective. But I certainly appreciate the gentleman's further education on what the rules require. Let me ask you this. It is not on the schedule for next week. Do you anticipate any additional legislation prior to the 29th of September which would further implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? As you know, there are some 19 recommendations which Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton have observed we have not acted on. Can you tell us whether there is any anticipation of scheduling action on those issues? I yield to my friend.