Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you did not mention the time at which we will have votes on Monday night, but I presume it is 6:30. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. Okay. And you have just answered my question on Friday. Let me ask you, we are talking about Fridays, after the July 4 work period, the schedule tentatively has on there working Monday through Friday on the 3 weeks in July. We have been pretty efficient in getting the appropriations bills through. We have two left. I will ask you about a couple of those. But is it still your expectation, given that the appropriations bills will probably, hopefully, all be done by that time, that we would still schedule 5-day weeks? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And I know the Members will appreciate a more definite schedule when you are able to give that. Mr. Leader, we had expected that the Voting Rights Act would be on the floor this week. I think you had expected that as well.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Obviously we share the view that this is an important bill. We understand that the act has some time before reauthorization needs to be done, but in light of the fact that it came out of committee with very bipartisan support, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Watt, and others worked very hard on this bill, we are hopeful it can move as soon as possible so the Senate can itself consider it. The next bill that we had thought was going to be on the calendar last week, the Labor-Health bill, is not listed for this coming week. I have noted some of your comments in the papers, but obviously this bill, as you know, includes an increase in the minimum wage, which was voted out of committee on a bipartisan vote, and we believe that if it is brought to the floor, it will be approved on a bipartisan vote. But can the gentleman tell me what the expectations are for the Labor-Health bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Clearly the appropriation bills have been bills which I know the majority wanted to move, and I would hope, notwithstanding the fact that there is a provision that the committee approved, that we would not subject that to a majority vote on the floor.

Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, that was my assumption as well, that there are other issues. But in terms of the gentleman's observation regarding the rules, just as typically it has been our observation that if the majority wanted something on the floor, they simply waived the rules, and they have done so on a very frequent basis. We are just hopeful that you would see your way clear to doing that just one more time.

Mr. HOYER. I thought you would. Mr. Leader, the Health IT bill and other health care-related bills, I know this was supposed to be Health Care Week. I may have missed it, but in any event, if it went by me, it is Health Care Week. Can you tell me whether or not the IT bill might come at some point in time? I yield to my friend

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Lastly, Mr. Leader, there has been a lot of talk on it, and we have voted on it numerous times, the so-called pledge protection bill. Do you know whether that might be on the floor next week? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He and I share the view that the pension bill is a very important bill for employees and for employers. I know the gentleman has been working hard on it. But in light of the fact you did bring it up, last week we talked about the inclusion of both parties in the deliberations. After our conversation, I had the opportunity to check with Mr. Rangel, and I don't think he has been included. I do believe that Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus have been included, and there was a lot of discussion, but I will tell my friend that the information I have, which may be incorrect, is that at least in terms of this House, the ranking member has not been included in the deliberations. I think that would really be helpful when it comes back out so that our Members would be able to have the information from our ranking member as to his insights into what has been done, and I would hope that could occur.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Representatives Inslee, Jones and Van Hollen, which would prohibit the use of funds in this bill to be expended on specific elements of the National Security Personnel System. In February, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the Department of Defense, in establishing a rule to execute the National Security Personnel System, had failed to ensure the rights of the approximately 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Specifically, the judge determined that the rule: Fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively. Does not meet Congress's requirement for ``Independent Third Party Review'' of labor relations decisions. And that the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees with the ``Fair Treatment'' required by the Congress. Yet, despite the decision, the department has proceeded with the implementation of the rule. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply ensures that the Department of Defense will not continue to pursue a policy that is clearly against the law and against the best interests of our national security. I commend the gentlemen for their continued efforts on behalf of our Federal employees and urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much. The hour is late and the time is limited. Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, to briefly urge my colleagues to take action on raising the minimum wage. This is an action of fairness. It is the right thing to do. It is an issue of values. The American people believe it is the right thing to do. Eighty-six percent of them have said we ought to raise the minimum wage. This issue clearly illustrates the different priorities, it seems to me, between the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. We Democrats have been trying to get this issue on the floor for years now. Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. Democrats have been fighting to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years. Today, if the minimum wage were at the rate it was in 1968, we would be paying $9.05. We are not getting there, but we ought to do better than we have done. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican side of the aisle is fighting us tooth and nail while attempting this week to bring up legislation once again that gives the heirs of the wealthiest families in America a break on the estates tax and drive our Nation even deeper into debt. That is right, while the working people struggle to make ends meet, doing what we expect them to do, this Congress is rushing an estate tax bill, what I call the ``Paris Hilton Tax Relief Act,'' to the floor. Of course, as usual, the bill is not paid for and continues the majority's fiscal irresponsibility and will increase our costs of borrowing by $280 billion over the next 10 years. We are borrowing because we have no money to give a tax cut, so we are going to have to borrow it from other nations. Last week, in the Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 labor-health bill. That amendment passed, raising the minimum wage 70 cents on each of the next Januarys, 2007, 2908 and 2009, bringing to $7.25 the minimum wage. Seven Republicans, Mr. Speaker, on the committee voted for that bill, several of whom have tough races. So they were listening very carefully to their people at home; and their people, again by overwhelming majorities, say this is the fair and right thing to do. We thought we were going to consider that labor-health bill this week. It was announced it would be on the floor this week, but it was pulled. I am not sure exactly of all the reasons, but in part surely it was pulled because there was a question about the rule. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, when that bill comes to the floor, the rule vote will be a minimum-wage vote. And if you think that the minimum wage ought to be increased, if you think working Americans ought to be given a wage that gets them out of poverty, if you think that somebody who works in America ought to be able to support at least themselves, then you will vote against the rule, unless it gives a waiver for this amendment. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller and I, and the others who will speak on this floor, believe very strongly that in an America that honors work and in an America, the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, that is an example for the rest of the world, we ought to make sure that those who work, those who get up in the morning and work hard, play by the rules, as Bill Clinton used to say, ought to get a decent, fair wage. Mr. Speaker, I hope that when this bill comes forward that every Member of this House will vote for a rule that ensures an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage in America for all our workers who work at that level. There are 6.6 million people, Mr. Speaker, 6.6 million Americans trying to support themselves and participating in helping to support their children and their families. It is the right thing to do. Over 86 percent of Americans think it is the right thing to do and the House of Representatives ought to do the right thing. And, five of those seven Republicans who voted with Democrats last week flip-flopped. The other two failed to vote. And, the amendment failed. Mr. Speaker, the failure of this Congress to act on the minimum wage is a national embarrassment. It has been 9 years since we last raised the Federal minimum wage-- the second longest period without an increase since a minimum wage was first enacted. Today, the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, when adjusted for inflation. Had the minimum wage been indexed for inflation since 1968, it would be $9.05 an hour today--not $5.15. People who work full-time in the United States of America--the richest nation on earth--should not be poor. But in 2003 there were 3.7 million workers who worked full-time, year-round, and still lived in poverty. And, let's disabuse ourselves of this notion that ``no one'' really makes the minimum wage any more. Not true. In fact, a minimum wage increase would directly benefit 6.6 million low-wage workers--most of whom are adults who work to support themselves and their families. An increase would specifically benefit 760,000 single mothers who toil day in and day out, sometimes at 2 or 3 jobs to provide just the basic necessities for themselves and their children. Let's also dispense with the Republicans' favorite argument--that raising the minimum wage will somehow cost us jobs. Again, not true. We know that this argument is false because 20 States and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal rate. And, a study conducted by the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio shows the following: Employment in small businesses grew more (9.4 percent) in states with higher minimum wages than Federal minimum wage states (6.6 percent). And, inflation-adjusted small business payroll growth was stronger in high minimum wage states (19 percent) than in Federal minimum wage states (13.6 percent). Raising the minimum wage is an issue of fairness and an issue of values. A PEW research poll in December 2005 found that 86 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage. The time to increase the minimum wage is long overdue, and Democrats are going to keep fighting for a fair wage for America's working families.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the comments and would hope that is the case, and we will talk to our leaders on that so that we can both, working together, move this bill forward.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. If I might follow it up, we would very much hope that the amendment that was adopted, and we believe is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, would be protected under the rule. We obviously understand that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and would require a waiver, as many have been given in the past. I would respectfully request that you look at that and, in light of the fact of the bipartisan support in the committee, seriously consider and hopefully give a waiver so that that matter may be considered on the floor with a vote by the membership. If you have any comment, I would be glad to yield.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his information. The leader and I had a brief conversation, as you recall, with reference to the time when we would vote on Monday. I know that you have considered that, but I would again reiterate, as you know, one of the problems is in order for a Member on the west coast to get here, they need at least until 5:30 to be assured of being available for a vote. I know you must have considered this.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. The last question I would ask you, Mr. Leader, you and I have had a discussion. You have been in the leadership of the consideration of the pension reform legislation. Obviously, we all know it is critical to employees, critical to companies. It has been now pending in conference for many, many months. I am wondering whether or not you might give us some thought as to its status and its prospects. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments. As you recall when we discussed this matter, it is still my understanding that the Democratic conferees have yet to be really engaged in the conference proceedings. You and I had a discussion on that, and I would hope that that might happen.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, you indicate that the leadership on both sides of the aisle have been involved.

Mr. HOYER. It will be continuing. I thank you. We understood next week was supposed to be health care week. Yet no health care legislation is listed. For example, the Health IT or the bill authored by Mr. Shadegg are not on your announcement. When do you anticipate we may see either of these pieces of legislation on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with him on this to accommodate those Members on the west coast in particular. There is a change in the announced schedule with regard to first votes, as we have discussed, and I appreciate your responding to that. With respect to the Labor-Health bill, it was our expectation that the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, which was reported out of committee this week, would be on the floor this coming week. As you know, that included within it a bipartisan-approved increase in the minimum wage, by $2.10, to $7.25 over the next 30 months. I notice that that bill is not on the schedule for next week. Can you tell me the status of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the calendar. I yield to my friend Mr. Boehner, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I mean the leadership of the committees is what I was talking about.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House wants our Nation and our coalition partners to succeed in helping the Iraqis establish a democratic government that respects human rights and abides by the rule of law and to succeed in standing up Iraqi security forces that can maintain order and protect their citizens. We pray, of course, for the safe return of our brave servicemen and - women who are fighting for freedom half a world away, and we applaud their success last week in eliminating the terrorist murderer Zarqawi. The professionalism, bravery, and sacrifice of our Armed Forces are indeed awe-inspiring. This year, Mr. Speaker, 2006, should be a year of transition in Iraq; and it is my expectation that the United States will be able to reduce the American troop deployment over the ensuing months and transfer the risks and responsibilities to the duly elected government of Iraq. That is what has been proposed. Today, it is regrettable that this Republican majority seeks to exploit this critical issue of national security for political advantage. The resolution before us, like the Hunter resolution that was debated last December, was drafted, in my view, for political reasons. As Majority Leader Boehner explained, its purpose is an opportunity to create ``a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.'' For our country's sake, for our troops' sake, the majority should have offered a resolution that sought unity, rather than division. There are provisions in this resolution, of course, with which all of us agree. I, for one, strongly share the resolve to prevail in the war on terror. However, this resolution misstates, in my opinion, the facts about why the Bush administration instigated our military action against the Hussein regime in 2003. It paints a picture of Iraq today that does not comport with the reality on the ground, and it ignores the fundamental responsibility of this Congress to conduct meaningful oversight of the administration's conduct of this war. The political motivations underlying this resolution have been laid bare; and, thus, I will be forced to vote ``no.'' The American people will not be deceived by this exercise today which our Republican colleague of North Carolina (Mr. Jones) labeled a charade. The American people know, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said, ``What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.'' The administration manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent too few troops to accomplish the task; and, consequently, we failed to stabilize Iraq after Hussein was rightfully removed from power. It fired police and security forces and oil workers, which fueled the instability and initiated war before making alternative plans to shut off escape routes to the north when the Turks would not let us come in. It had no effective plan to quickly get infrastructure repaired and rebuilt. It failed to properly equip our own troops, as Mr. Murtha has observed, 2,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war. It grossly underestimated the costs of the war at about $60 billion, which now stands six times larger and more. And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable. Sadly, and dangerously, according to the Pew Research Center, the global credibility of the United States has sharply declined. The record of the Republican Congress is, in my opinion, no less disturbing. This proud body, the people's House, has abdicated its oversight role and failed to root out waste, fraud and corruption so prevalent in Iraq today. Nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds are unaccounted for. No-bid contracts have been awarded to private contractors such as Halliburton. Detainees in American custody have been abused and, in some instances, killed, and still, still, there is no effective oversight on these matters in the Congress of the United States. In the face of one of the most important issues before our country, we have been presented with politics as usual. It is an effort to divide, when an effort to unite was in our country's and our Armed Forces' best interest. I regret that I have to vote ``no.'' I believe success in our efforts in Iraq is important to achieve, but partisanship only impedes the attainment of that objective; an objective, hopefully, that we all share.