Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise and I certainly adopt the remarks of Mr. Obey from Wisconsin. We are talking about a credit bill. We are talking about making it in order. In order to have credit, you have to have resources. In order to have resources in our country, we think you need to work. And when you work, we ought to pay you. We ought to pay you a decent, fair wage for working hard and playing by the rules. Now, some would say, well, we ought not to put this on this credit bill. If we defeat the previous question, we are going to offer an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 over three increments starting with January 1, the Miller-Owens bill. We are going to offer that because we think it is the right thing to do. We are going to offer it because we think the overwhelming majority of Americans think it is the right thing to do. In fact, in polling data, they show that 86 percent of Americans think it is fair and right and timely to increase the minimum wage. If, in 1968, we applied simply the same cost-of-living adjustment we provided for Social Security recipients, minimum-wage workers would be earning $9.05 today. Now, what would that do? That would take them above the poverty line. Right now, if you work hard and play by the rules and you are one of 6.6 million Americans, 75 percent of whom are adults, and you take them and pay them fully the minimum wage, they are living in poverty. That is not right in America. In Florida, they put this issue on the ballot, and 72 percent of Floridians went to the polls and not only increased the minimum wage, but included in it a cost escalator for inflation, 72 percent of Floridians. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do, it is the timely thing to do. And, very frankly, those on the minimum wage, mired in poverty and hopelessness, we talk about an opportunist society. There is no opportunity living in poverty. If you believe in an opportunist society, you believe in paying people a decent wage so in the richest Nation on the face of the Earth they have an opportunity to survive. This President talks about an ownership society. Which one of you thinks that on $5.15 an hour you can own anything, your car, your home, your hope? What defeating the previous question will do is it will give hope to 6.6 million people, and indeed many more, because those 6.6 million people live in families that are struggling as well, and they are participating in trying to make it with those families. Ladies and gentlemen, defeat the previous question. Let us pass the minimum wage. It is far past the time when we should have done that, but it is time today that we do do that. Let's be fair. Raise the minimum wage.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to my good friend, the late Philip Merrill, who passed away earlier this month. And I rise as well to celebrate the life of a colorful and accomplished man and to say to his grieving family, his wife Eleanor, known to all of us as Ellie, his son Doug, his daughters Cathy and Nancy, his sister Suzanne and his four grandchildren, and to his other loved ones as well as his countless friends, that he will never be forgotten by Marylanders and by all those whose lives he touched. He was a man of immense and innumerable talents. Phil worked literally all over the world. He served as counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense as a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Defense Department from 1983 to 1990, as Assistant Secretary General to NATO from 1990 to 1992, and most recently, as president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States from 2002 until last year. In all, Phil served in six administrations. That impressive resume alone would be enough for most people to hang their hat on. Yet for Phil Merrill it is only half of his story. It was in his beloved home State of Maryland, particularly in southern Maryland, where he left his greatest mark and improved and enriched the lives of all of us who live in the region. Indeed, he was a presence in the Washington metropolitan area and in Washington itself. Mr. Speaker, I trust that you are familiar with the Washingtonian magazine, a publication owned by the Merrills. The Washingtonian was only a part of his vast publication business. Yet, I think that in this magazine we can truly see an imprint of Phil's spirit and the way that he approached life. Washington is a diverse city, a place where many, maybe even most, of those who live here come from other parts of the country. And because of that, the Washington area is extraordinarily diverse in background and experience and taste and opinion and in world views. Yet, those of us who spend so much time in this city, Mr. Speaker, usually end up too often becoming too consumed by the work that we are doing and the issues that we care about to fully appreciate and to truly enjoy the unique culture that exists here. That is where the Washingtonian magazine steps in. It was designed to encourage people to step back for just a moment and to take in the immense natural beauty and cultural offerings of this historic city. That is just what Phil Merrill did for the people around him. He inspired others to see that there actually is time in a busy life to do things like enjoy the outdoors. In his case, it was sailing and skiing and spending time with his beloved family that he so dearly loved for so long. The other facet of Phil's publishing business was Capitol Gazette Communications, comprised of five local papers and the Capitol, Annapolis' hometown paper. As the New York Times recently reported, Mr. Merrill bought the paper as a moribund afternoon daily in 1968 and built its circulation from 13,000 to 47,000. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Capitol and the other newspapers in the Capitol Gazette Communications chain are a vital part of the daily lives of many of us and of my own constituents. They help unite our community. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that Phil Merrill, publisher, successful businessman, diplomat, also will long be remembered as one of the most generous philanthropists of the Washington metropolitan area. During his life, Phil contributed tens of millions of dollars to his favorite causes, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, designed to restore and keep clean his beloved Chesapeake Bay, and the University of Maryland, for whom we shared a great love and commitment. He committed many dollars to the College of Journalism, one of the best now in the Nation. In addition, he contributed generously to the Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Mr. Speaker, Phil Merrill was a giant. I attended his memorial service, and there were clearly well over 1,000 people in attendance. He was a man who thrived on living each hour of each day to the fullest. His pioneering spirit, his dedication to this country, and, above all, his unwavering love of family and loyalty to friends serve as a model for all of us to live by. Phil Merrill will be missed, but he will not be forgotten.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think Perry Mason would be very proud of Mr. Davis on this effort. I understand, you and I have talked about it, it is an important effort. I sympathize and am going to vote with Mr. Markey, but I nevertheless think that your effort is certainly some small attempt to reduce, by some little bit, the $600 billion. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 900 be included in the Record at this point in time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 900. Let me read H. Res. 900's opening resolution: ``Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate congressional consultation.'' Everybody in this body supports tracking terrorists. Everybody. The gentleman who chairs the Intelligence Committee just talked about process. Neither the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times nor the Wall Street Journal raise their hands and swear to defend the Constitution and protect the laws of the United States of America. We do that, and we have processes to determine how best to do that. We are at war, and we ought to be united, and I will lament the fact that the Republican leadership continually presents resolutions designed to divide rather than to bring us together. There was not one second of hearing on the resolution before this body, not one. There was no process. There was no oversight. There was no fact-finding. There was no way to determine what, in fact, the facts are. We are not the newspapers. We have sworn an oath before God and to our constituents to do our work in a way that protects and defends the Constitution and the statutes of this land. You have not done that. You have not brought us together. You have not said let us come together on a resolution. Not only that, but we have an alternative. I have read you its preamble, which accomplishes the same objective you want but without adopting premises that none of us, not one of the 435 of us, know that those premises are accurate. I tell my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), he has not had one minute of hearings in his committee on this resolution, not one. Is that responsible? Is that the way the people of the United States want us to carry out important functions of government when we are at war? I think not. I think they expect more of us. We do not honor this institution or its processes or our Constitution by the actions we take today on this floor. I will oppose this resolution, but I will support H.R. 900, which says very clearly and emphatically that we want to determine what terrorists are doing. We want to intercept the information from financial institutions that further a conspiracy to create terror and injury and damage to our country and to our people. But we should have done it, I tell the chairman, in a collegial way, in a cooperative way, in a partnership against terrorism, not in a partisan effort to divide and to make political points.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. You have no expectations, then?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. This is obviously, from our perspective, I think from your perspective, a very important bill and we thought we had bipartisan agreement on the bill. It came out of committee, as you know, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Do you have an expectation of when we might see that bill on the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have appealed the previous ruling of the Chair. An appeal to the ruling of the Chair is pending.

Mr. HOYER. The House is in the process of a vote. motion to table offered by mr. thomas

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I make a point of order that that motion is not in order. The Speaker called for a vote. The aye votes were taken. The next question is the no votes. We are in the process of a vote. And until such time as that vote is concluded, a motion is not in order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, you can run over us. We understand that. We do not have the votes. But you called the vote, Mr. Speaker, and we were in the process of a vote, and he had not been recognized at that point. Now, the fact that he was seeking recognition or not is irrelevant.

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. This has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5\1/2\ years, this Republican majority has repeatedly pushed tax legislation that is blatantly unfair, grossly irresponsible, and fiscally ruinous. Today, however, they outdo even themselves. Our Nation is at war, our brave troops are under fire, our Nation is facing record budget deficits. That is the legacy of this Republican leadership. And the national debt, which now stands at $8.4 trillion, is exploding under this Republican Congress and administration. Despite all the challenges facing the people of our Nation, today this Republican majority insists that we give a huge tax break to the heirs of the wealthiest people in America. I am for modification that is in process, not this bill. If there ever was a bill that demonstrated the Republican Party's misguided priorities and the deep differences between our parties, this is the one. Democrats are continuing to fight to raise the Federal minimum wage which has not been increased since 1997 and which is at its lowest level in half a century; 6.6 million workers would be affected, 7,500 people in this bill. As the majority leader told the press on Tuesday: ``I am opposed to it,'' meaning the increase in the minimum wage, ``and I think the vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.'' But this bill comes to us, not been to committee, never marked up in committee, comes directly to the floor with no consideration. Let us be clear about the facts. Less than 1 percent of all estates in America will pay estate taxes in 2006 under this year's exemption before this bill. And when the exemption increases in 2009 to $3.5 million, which I have supported, $7 million for couples, only 7,500 estates in America will be subject to the estate tax. But that is not enough. Warren Buffet said they talk about class warfare and his class is winning. Amen, Mr. Buffet. Today, House Republicans are falling all over themselves to give the heirs of approximately 7,500 estates a tax cut. This bill is not only morally reprehensible but fiscally irresponsible. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this Republican bill will cost $762 billion over its first 10 years. You don't have $762 billion. We are all correct, you are going to borrow it for the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Germans, from the Japanese, and others. And who is going to pay the bill? Our children are going to have to pay the bill, our grandchildren are going to have to pay that bill, because you don't have the money. The Wall Street Journal, which was quoted by Mr. Thomas, said the other day they didn't agree with PAYGO. Why don't they agree with PAYGO? Because it would undercut tax cuts. Why would it undercut tax cuts? Because you neither have the courage nor the ability to pay for your tax cuts. Vote against this bad bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. That the gentleman's motion is not in order because we were in the process of voting on the issue that was propounded by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, a vote is in progress.

Mr. HOYER. I do. I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. I would propound this parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate during the course of a vote, and after one side of the vote has been made and pending the request for the nays in this case, is it appropriate to stop that vote and then recognize someone at that point in time?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. The Speaker's recollection is different than mine. The Speaker propounds and the Parliamentarian advises that apparently you began. Frankly, we were in the process. You had called for the ayes, the ayes had been made, and you were then about to call for the nays. So I would suggest it was not a question that you had begun and then saw that the gentleman from California had risen and then sought to recognize him. What you did was, after asking for the ayes, which were enunciated, you then stopped the vote and then recognized the gentleman from California. My question to you, therefore, you did not respond to. Once the vote is in progress, and I suggest to the Speaker and those who might advise him that the Record will reflect that the vote had been called, it is in that context that I again ask you, Mr. Speaker, not if you had started, but, in fact, we were in the progress of a vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, for 5\1/2\ years now the Republican Congress and the administration have pursued what I have said repeatedly is the most reckless fiscal policy in the history of our Nation. I believe that. When George Bush took office, he inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. There is no dispute on that. George Bush said that on the floor of this House. In March of 2001, he promised the American people, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.'' Let's compare Republican rhetoric with reality. That projected deficit surplus has been turned into a projected budget deficit of some $4 trillion, a historical fiscal turnaround of more than $9 trillion. Republicans have created the four largest budget deficits in American history. We Democrats have no power in this House or in the Senate or in the Presidency. It has been Republicans alone that have created these deficits. They have raised the debt limit four times, and House Republicans have voted to increase it by an additional $653 billion, to a total of $9.6 trillion. Let me repeat: we had a $5.6 trillion surplus in January of 2001, according to President Bush; we now have an authorized debt of $9.6 trillion. They have spent every single nickel of Social Security money. It is no wonder that former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas told the Wall Street Journal in 2004, ``I'm sitting here, and I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm upset about spending. There's no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' Given their record, I think it takes some audacity, chutzpah perhaps would be a better word, for our Republican friends to come to this floor today with this so-called Legislative Line Item Veto Act and bemoan the growth in Federal spending and the dire fiscal condition, created by whom? Created by them. Republicans, after all, own the town, as I said Dick Armey noted. Yet the President has failed to veto one bill. We are talking about a line item veto? This President has not vetoed a bill. This President has gone a longer period of time than any President in over 195 years in this Nation and he hasn't vetoed anything. All of the spending has been marked ``approved'' by George W. Bush, the President of the United States. He doesn't exercise vetoes. This Republican majority refuses to embrace the one real method of restraining spending and restoring fiscal discipline, the pay-as-you-go budget rules that applied to both spending and taxes and were adopted, I tell my Republican friends, in bipartisan votes in 1990 and again in 1997. But you jettisoned them. Why did you jettison them? You jettisoned those rules because you knew you couldn't fit your tax cuts into them. You didn't have the courage to cut spending to meet your tax cuts. That is a fair policy. If you don't want to spend, fine. If you want to cut taxes, fine. Cut spending. That is a fair policy. You haven't done that. You cut revenues, and you increased very substantially revenues, period. And don't talk to me about the war. You included spending very radically on entitlement programs, the biggest increase in entitlement spending since 1965 on your watch, with very little help from Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against those increases. As the New York Times stated on Monday: ``The line item veto bill is an attempt to look tough while avoiding the tried-and-true, and truly tough, deficit fix: reinstating the original pay-as-you-go rules.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is very different from versions introduced in the 1990s. It not only fails to include PAYGO rules, but also applies to mandatory programs, including Medicare and Social Security. It gives the President 45 days to send a rescission message and fails to give Congress the power to amend the rescission package. We are the policymakers. Article I. This Congress is the most complacent, complicit Congress perhaps in history in terms of being a lap dog for the President of the United States. We are a coequal branch. We are not a branch to ask leave of the President to take action. The majority, unfortunately, refused to allow us to consider the substitute John Spratt wanted to offer. Don't you have the courage to argue the merits of your case and let us argue the merits of our case and have a vote? Are you so afraid of the alternatives that you won't even allow the vote? We ought to vote this down. It is a ruse, it is a fraud, it is a sham.