Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to welcome to our midst Father Joseph Kleinstuber, a constituent of mine and an extraordinarily loved leader in our area. Father Kleinstuber is pastor of St. Mary's Church located in my district in Bryantown. Father Kleinstuber was born in Washington, D.C. He attended Gonzaga High School, as well as Georgetown and George Washington Universities before going on active duty as an officer in the Air Force. He spent 3 years in the Air Force as chief of the Aviation Physiology Department at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. Following his military service, he studied at St. Vincent Seminary and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1964. Prior to coming to St. Mary's, Father Kleinstuber served as an assistant pastor of St. Anthony Church in the District and St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Silver Spring, Maryland. He also worked for 25 years at St. John's College High School here in Washington as chaplain, director of counseling, a member of the science department, and, of interest to our Speaker, wrestling moderator. Since 2001, Father Kleinstuber has been at St. Mary's serving as the pastor of this more than 200-year-old parish where he is affectionately known by the students at St. Mary's Bryantown Catholic School as Father K. I want to thank Father Kleinstuber for his dedicated service to the citizens of Bryantown and St. Charles County, and I wish to extend my gratitude and that of my colleagues to him for leading us in this morning's prayer. Father, we wish you well and thank you for your leadership in so many different areas that have made our country a better place.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of and in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Obey, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Green, and I associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Obey and Mr. Lantos. I believe the alliance between ourselves and Egypt is an important one. I believe that Egypt has played an important role, not as expansive a role as I would have wanted, but an important role in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, in his inaugural address President Bush stated, ``It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with this unambiguous statement in support of democracy and freedom, and I believe Members on both sides of the aisle agree with it as well. In fact, it is the reiteration of the policy that has guided our Nation from Wilson to Roosevelt, to Truman to Kennedy, to the present day. Yet today, Mr. Chairman, one of our Nation's key allies in the Middle East, our friend Egypt, has taken demonstrable steps that raise troubling questions about its commitment to democracy. Mr. Chairman, I will give examples. Multiparty presidential elections in 2005, as has been stated, were marred by allegations of fraud, voter suppression and intimidation. The leading opposition candidate, Ayman Nour, was arrested and sentenced to 5 years in prison, prompting the State Department to comment, ``The Egyptian government's handling of this case represents both a miscarriage of justice by international standards and a setback for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people.'' In Egypt, judges who protested the election have been disciplined. More than 600 pro-democracy activists have been arrested, and members of the foreign and Egyptian press have been harassed and intimidated. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, it troubles me that last year, Egypt voted with the United States of America on contested votes of importance only 8.9 percent of the time. Let me reiterate that. A country to whom we have given $67 billion since Camp David, voted with us in important votes 8.9 percent of the time. Thus, today, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment gives us a clear choice: We can continue to turn a blind eye to the undemocratic behavior of the Egyptian government, which will receive $1.8 billion in military and economic assistance through this foreign operations bill; or, alternatively, through the adoption of this amendment, we can send a message to our friend that the United States of America does not approve of its undemocratic activities, and, indeed, believes those are inimical to Egypt itself. We expect Egypt to abide by its commitments on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Secretary of State's letter has been referred to by the chairman of the subcommittee. I have read that letter, Mr. Chairman. It sets forth many things that Egypt has done which have had a positive effect on stability in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, those actions were in Egypt's best interests. They did not do that for the United States. They did it to create stability in the region in which they live. I congratulate them for that. But they did not do it because we gave them aid, assistance. The bipartisan amendment that has been offered, quite simply, would cut $100 million, as has been said, in economic assistance for Egypt. Like Mr. Lantos, that would not be my choice, but that is the choice of this amendment. Instead, it increases funding for disaster assistance for refugees in Darfur, one of the crisis regions of the world today. In addition, it increases the President's Global HIV/AIDS Initiative by an additional $50 million At a time when this Nation has committed itself to promoting democracy throughout the Middle East, we have, it seems to me, a responsibility to expect that the most populous country in the region meets its democratic commitments. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressmen Martin Sabo and Curt Weldon for their leadership not only on this amendment, but also on so many issues of importance to our nation's fire service. I also want to express my sincere appreciation to chairman Rogers for his support of our first responders and his assistance in bringing this important amendment to the floor. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contributions that Bill Pascrell has made to our nation's firefighters, notably his authoring of the original legislation to establish the assistance to the firefighters grant program. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much-needed increases to both the fire grant and safer programs, and it moves us closer to fulfilling our obligation to ensure that our nation's firefighters have the resources necessary to guarantee their own safety--and to allow them to better serve each of our communities. This amendment brings the funding in the bill to $651 million--$541 million for fire grants and $110 million for safer. This is $357.6 million above the level requested by the president, and is a reflection of congress's commitment to ensuring that our fire departments are properly staffed, trained and equipped. However, these amounts are still well below the authorized levels, and far from meeting the needs of the fire service. Thus, we must continue to work to increase the funding levels for each of these programs--this year and in the future. The fire grant program was established by congress in 2000 to meet the basic equipment, training and firefighter safety requirements of America's fire service, and to bring all fire departments to a baseline of readiness to respond to all hazards. The fire grant program has been a tremendous success, and congress has provided more than $3.5 billion for infrared cameras, HAZMAT detection devices, modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and physical fitness programs, new turnout gear, fire trucks, and interoperable communications equipment, to name but a few items. The simple fact is that the equipment and training provided by these grants have saved the lives of firefighters and average citizens in communities across America, and I am proud to have played a role in establishing and funding this program. The safer program--authorized three years ago and funded for--is a vital complement to the fire grant program because insufficient staffing, defined by the national fire protection association as fewer than four firefighters per apparatus, is a very real problem for far too many of the nation's career and volunteer fire departments. Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's ``2-in/2-Out'' standard for safe fire ground operation, and adds unnecessary risk to the already dangerous job of fire suppression. NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 firefighters are required across the country, and the additional funding we provide today will help move us closer to that goal. Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to provide our firefighters with the necessary resources to perform their jobs as safely and effectively as possible. With the adoption of this amendment, and our continued support of the fire grant and safer programs, we fulfill this obligation made by firefighters across our nation. Again, I thank Chairman Rogers for accepting this amendment, and for his leadership and continued support of the nation's firefighters.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for bringing this legislation to the floor. The premise of this bill is eminently reasonable, in my opinion, and one with which the American people, I think, strongly agree. In short, the United States of America should not, indeed it must not, provide assistance to a government run by terrorists whose very policy and purpose is the destruction of another nation. All of us are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, who have suffered tragically for decades under the leadership of Arafat and now Hamas. I share those concerns. I have been to Gaza. I have been to the West Bank. I have met with President Abbas and other Palestinian officials, and I have seen the deprivation, the frustration, and the lack of opportunity in the Palestinian territories. I think there is not one of us on this floor who is not concerned about their plight, as we should be. However, our legitimate concerns for the Palestinian people must not obscure the fact that the Palestinian Authority is now controlled by Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist entity by the United States and by the European Union. No one here, I understand, stands to defend Hamas; but it is a movement that is committed to the destruction of another nation, in this case our ally Israel. Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced legislation is warranted. Among other provisions, it prohibits direct financial transfers to the Palestinian Authority. That is our policy: until the President certifies that Hamas recognizes Israel's rights to exist, renounces terrorism, agrees to abide by previous PLO and PA agreements with Israel and the United States, and does not have a member of a foreign terrorist organization in a senior policy-making position. And despite the prohibition of direct assistance, the bill includes exceptions, as it should. For example, the President still may provide assistance for nonsecurity expenses directly related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Furthermore, the bill restricts indirect assistance through nongovernmental organizations unless the certification described above is made by the President. However, let me add, this provision contains an unqualified exception for basic human health needs, such as food, water, medicine and sanitation services. I tell some of my friends, if that were not in here, I would have reservations, but those basic services are fully excepted in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, I think, measured and balanced and demonstrates the refusal of the United States to reward terrorists for terrorism. It should not be, and I think it is not, punitive as it relates to the Palestinian people. It provides, as I said, for health needs, food, water, medicine and sanitation services. They are in need of those services, and we ought to provide them. But what we ought not to do and what we ought never to do is to give aid and comfort to terrorists or to terrorist organizations or to terrorist governments. Because if we do so, that will encourage others to commit heinous acts of terrorism, as were done here, as are done in Israel, and have been done around the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was going to ask him about the days for the appropriation bills, but I believe the gentleman has already indicated which days you anticipate that: Tuesday, the Ag bill; Wednesday, the Energy and Water, or Wednesday and Thursday; and then Homeland Security on Thursday. Would you anticipate that one of those bills might go over till Friday, or is there other legislation that might be on the calendar for Friday?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Lastly, I want to ask about two conference committees, the supplemental appropriation conference and the pension conference, which we have discussed on a couple of occasions. Can you tell us what your expectations are with reference to those two situations?

Mr. HOYER. Next week?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am shuffling papers back and forth here, but, again, ANWR, can you anticipate what you might expect with respect to an ANWR bill?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader, and I want to comment that the leader has been very inclined to try to work together to make his schedule as accommodating for Members as possible. And I want you to know I personally appreciate it, and I believe we appreciate that on this side of the aisle. Mr. Leader, on energy bills, you mentioned briefly, but do you anticipate, in addition to the ANWR bill that you mentioned as a possibility, any legislation on the refinery siting that might also be here?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, if the supplemental has not been completed by the conference committee, would you still anticipate that we would be in on Friday? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information, and I, again, would simply emphasize that the majority leader said, as he did last week and accurately so, our Members need to make sure that they are available for a Friday session; am I correct on that?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that Democrats have not spent any money over the last 6 years. None of our budgets have passed. The appropriations bills would not have passed but for Republican votes, and the Republican President signed the budgets. That is what this crowd has offered. They have done it all. What has that meant? Three trillion dollars of additional deficit spending. That is what it has meant. This budget continues that practice. Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans now believe that our great Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not difficult to understand why they think that. The Republican Party's incompetence over the past 5\1/2\ years is undeniable, from the miscalculations in Iraq to the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, to failure to secure our ports and borders, to the historic turnaround in our fiscal health from the $5.6 trillion surplus that they inherited, which they have turned into a $4 trillion deficit, a $9.6 trillion turnaround in 64 months; 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty, 6 million more are uninsured. Real median household income has dropped nearly $1,700. Thus, today it is stunning that our Republican colleagues have brought a budget resolution to this floor that so badly betrays our values and fails to meet our Nation's priorities. This shamefully short-sighted budget resolution cuts crucial investment in our Nation and our people. The difference, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, is we want to pay for what we buy. You are buying a lot. You are buying more than we bought when we were in charge. You are not paying. You are borrowing from the Japanese, the Chinese, the Saudis. You borrowed more money from foreigners over the last 5 years than were borrowed in the 210 years before that. Over the next 5 years, it slashes education by $45 billion; veterans health care, to which the gentleman referred, by $6 billion; public health by $18 billion; and environmental protection by $25 billion. Even worse, this budget resolution is a continuation of the most reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, policies that have squandered, as I said, a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Who said that? George Bush, March 2001, said that is what we had. They added more than $3 trillion to the national debt and weakened our ability, weakened our ability to respond to national and international crises. Listen, my friends, to the warning of the nonpartisan Comptroller General David Walker, not a Democrat, appointed by your side, who stated in February, ``Continuing on the unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.'' Mr. Chairman, that is what Mr. Walker says their budgets are doing to America; yet that is precisely what this Republican budget continues to do. It not only fails to rein in the record Republican deficits of the last 5 years, it makes them worse. Hear me. This budget makes the deficits worse. It not only fails to arrest our exploding national debt, it calls for a debt limit increase of 653 billion additional dollars. Last year during our debate on the budget resolution, the chairman of the Budget Committee confidently proclaimed, and I quote, ``We will be able to give, I believe, our kids and grandkids the opportunities of a debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year.'' That is the chairman who brings to this floor a $653 billion additional increase in our national debt. The chairman's assertion then has been eviscerated by the facts now. Vote for this responsible Spratt alternative and reject this fiscally reckless proposal on top of the last five fiscally reckless proposals. The reality is, this budget resolution--and the Republican party's policies--have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will immorally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. In sharp contrast, the Democratic alternative is reasonable and responsible. It would balance the budget by 2012; reinstate the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were instrumental in creating four consecutive budget surpluses in the 1990s; and invest in our Nation and our people. Our Democratic alternative provides matching resources for defense, and more resources for education, veterans' health care and other health priorities, and the environment. I urge my colleagues: vote for fiscal sanity. Vote for the budget that puts America back on the right track. Vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rose to express my appreciation on behalf of the people of Maryland for allowing us to invest in some very important projects. I will continue to take credit for those. But your budgets are the only ones that have passed, and the appropriations bills are the ones you have offered on the floor. But let me say to the gentleman, I have been here long enough so that in 1993 I heard all the arguments from all your leadership that adopting our budget proposal would send the country to rack and ruin, would explode the deficit, explode unemployment, and create a deep recession. Dick Armey, your leader, said that, the Speaker said that, the chairman, Mr. Kasich, of your Budget Committee said that. You are 180 degrees wrong, dead flat wrong. Exactly the opposite happened. Under a proposal that we made that you said was a massive tax increase, you never talk about of course the $250-plus billion spending cut, but we had the best economy in the history of America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in time in the debate. But somebody, sometime ought to talk about facts. The gentleman mentions the Contract with America. The first plank of the Contract with America was fiscal responsibility. Now, you weren't in charge when the Contract With America came into your purview as the majority in 1995. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. I have served here, my 26th year; 18 of those have been with Republican Presidents. Eight have been with a Democratic President. Every one of those 18 years we had a deficit of over $100 billion. Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending, the President of the United States. Reagan didn't stop spending. Bush didn't stop spending, and this President has spent, and you have spent, twice as much as we spent under Bill Clinton. The Heritage Foundation will tell you that, not we Democrats. We will tell you that too, but the Heritage Foundation will tell you that, I tell my friend from Texas. You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. In the last 64 months, your budgets and your policies have resulted in an additional $3 trillion of deficit spending. Three trillion. You are in charge of the House, you are in charge of the Senate, and you have the Presidency. Now you say, oh, we had 9/11 and then we had the war. You didn't have that during the Reagan years, and you had a deficit every year. You didn't have that in Bush I. You had the Gulf War I, but guess what, that President Bush had the rest of the world substantially pay for that effort. $3 trillion in additional debt. And in this budget, you are going to add an additional 650 billion-plus to the national debt. Those deficits, by the way, so you understand, and these are facts, you are welcome to look at your little books, get out your staff and say, oh, no, Hoyer is lying. The public maybe is watching. During Republican Presidents those 18 years, $4.3 trillion of deficit spending net. You know what you had under Bill Clinton? $62.5 billion of surplus. The only President in your lifetime, I say to all of you, who had a net surplus during the course of his terms. So I hear the gentleman from Texas get up and talk about the Contract With America. It was blarney. You said you were going to be fiscally responsible. The finances of this Nation over the last 6 years have been the worst since my service here, and perhaps in the history, I think in the history of America. You talk a good game, but you are not playing a good game. You are not playing for real, and you are trying to fool the American public. The problem you have is they are not being fooled.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. We had a very thoughtful discussion about what you have raised as alternative sources of energy in our own country, or alternative sources for petroleum products in our own country. A full discussion. I think that is a worthy discussion. I do not think the amendment that I offered in any way negates that discussion or negates the importance of having that debate. I agree with the gentleman. With respect to the source of funding, the staff discussed it. We believe in the $9.1 million in 2007 this sum cannot be spent because of practical reasons, as the gentleman probably knows, and I think his staff agrees because we worked with his staff and with Mr. Skelton and Mr. Spratt to ensure that we were not undermining because as you know, I have been supportive of the defense system. We believe this is such a critical issue. And as I said, the President raised the addiction. We have to transfer not only the price that the consumer is paying, which is affected by the lack of alternatives to petroleum products, and therefore, those producers of petroleum products throughout the world have us as a captive consumer and we do not have price flexibility, but also in terms of the price at the pump for our consumers. So both from a national security standpoint and an economic standpoint, I think this was the way to go.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I think we certainly agree on that.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I accept the gentleman's explanation. It was my thought that we were talking about both conferences that were then pending. I raised both conferences, but I take the gentleman at his word, he has always been truthful with me, that he was referring to the pension conference. I understand that. I also understand that he is not in control of everything any more than we are on this side. But I will again reiterate, Mr. Leader, your experience and your performance in terms of dealing in a bipartisan way has been different than some, and we appreciate your view on this. Whether it is the pension conference or any other conference, particularly bills of significance, we would hope that you would use your good offices to encourage and frankly request that the Chairs of the conferences make sure that the minority is included. After all, as I have said, we represent about 125 million people in this country, maybe more than that, and they should not be excluded. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. That is such a pragmatic approach, and I thank the gentleman for that information. Mr. Leader, I don't want to end the week on an unhappy note, but you and I had discussions in these colloquies the last 2 weeks in a row. After the tax reconciliation bill was reported out, I asked Mr. Rangel had he been included in the conferences in any meaningful way. It was his view that he had not. You had made assurances that would happen; I don't mean that you could guarantee that it would happen. I will tell my friend that the ranking member of the committee does not believe there was meaningful participation by the minority in the consideration of that bill which obviously was a bill of some significant import. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. If the budget does come to the floor next week, would you bring it in the early part of the week or the latter part of the week; do you know? I know you have had some hard work on this. I understand that.

Mr. HOYER. All right. Thank you very much for that. The Voting Rights Act reauthorization, quite clearly that got overwhelming bipartisan support. I know the chairman has worked very hard on that. Mel Watt and other members of the Judiciary Committee have worked very hard on that. Can you tell me when you expect that to come to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, would it be your expectation then, once the Parliamentarians make their judgment, that the bill will then be referred to the Judiciary Committee, if that was their judgment, so that it might be some time before that bill came to the floor? I yield to my friend.