Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. So no doubt in your mind about that?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He has now said both initially and again about the budget. You have indicated there will be votes on Friday, obviously.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. The telecom bill which was reported out of committee, I know it is not on this calendar for the coming week. Could you tell us your expectations of when that might be scheduled?

Mr. HOYER. I thank you for that. On the energy bills, do you expect any energy-related legislation on the floor next week, refinery siting, for example?

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to express my deep disappointment that the Rules Committee declined to make my amendment concerning one of the most vital national security issues facing our Nation, our continued dependence on foreign sources of oil, in order. As Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, stated, ``The future of our economic and national security is more than ever coupled to our energy policy.'' That is why I believe this amendment would have been so appropriate on this bill. Let me stress, the amendment that I offered, along with Congressman Bart Gordon as well as Mark Udall, who is on the floor with us right now, was decidedly nonpartisan. It was not offered in an attempt to gain short-term political advantage. It was offered in an attempt to encourage this body to focus on the national security implications of our continued addiction to oil, of which the President spoke in his State of the Union, and to suggest practical methods to address that addiction. Let me add, when I testified before the Rules Committee on Tuesday, I was pleased with the serious discussion of this amendment, as well as the virtually unanimous support of the concept of this amendment. There was no opposition stated by any member of the committee on either side of the aisle. In short, this amendment called for three things. First, it would have authorized $250 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy, or ARPA-E, within the Department of Energy. ARPA-E would encourage and support our best and brightest researchers and scientists to develop cutting-edge technology necessary to make America energy independent. Second, the amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of National Intelligence, to study and report to Congress on the national security implications of our increasing demand for foreign oil. Finally, the amendment would have increased the funds available for the Defense Energy Support Center which buys and manages oil and other energy supplies for the military service, the largest user of petroleum in our country. It also would have increased the funds available for the Advanced Power Technology Office which promotes the increased use of fuel cells, electric hybrids and hydrogen for military and homeland defense vehicles and equipment. These proposals would have been paid for by shifting more than $300 million in excess funds from the $9.1 billion proposed for ballistic missile defense programs. I refer to them as ``excess'' because the staff says they cannot be spent in fiscal year 2007. Let me conclude by saying that it is imperative that the Members address this vital issue. I am pleased that Mr. Skelton, Mr. Spratt and other members were supportive. Energy independence must be addressed in a serious, thoughtful manner. When we put our minds to something, in my opinion, Americans can solve any of the problems that confront them. Now, more than ever, we must focus on addressing our addiction to foreign sources of oil. I want to say in closing that I deeply regret that this important issue was not allowed to come to the floor. I understand that portions of this, only a portion, was considered in the committee, but surely the issue of addiction to petroleum products, which our President has talked about, is worthy of bringing to this floor, and I urge that it be done. I oppose this rule because I believe it has been restrictive to the detriment of our national security and democracy in this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the first plank of the Contract With America was fiscal responsibility. No political promise has ever been so broken as that one. Mr. Speaker, this blatantly unfair and grossly irresponsible legislation represents the last gasp of the Republican Party's failed economic policies which have only caused greater disparity in America and driven our Nation into the fiscal ditch over the last 5\1/2\ years. Today, our Republican friends are desperate to pass this conference report because they realize after November the party is over. Make no mistake, Mr. and Mrs. America, about what this legislation means to you. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, if you are among the 0.02 of households making $1 million a year, you get a tax cut of $42,000. If you are struggling to make ends meet, earning between $10,000-$20,000, you get $2 a year. If you are firmly in the middle with household incomes between $75,000-$100,000, you get about $400 a year, or $4.75 per week, enough to purchase about 3 gallons of gasoline. Yesterday Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine stated, ``The preponderance of these revenues will go to upper income people, people who make a million dollars or more. It is a question of priorities.'' Priorities, indeed. Four months ago congressional Republicans slashed $39 billion from student loans, Medicaid and Medicare and child support enforcement. And today, 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty than when President Bush took office, and 6 million more are without health insurance. Real median household incomes are down $1,670, and still, Republicans want to give millionaires a new Lexus. This conference report is a continuation of 5\1/2\ years of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Stand up for our country, stand up for our children, stand up for our grandchildren. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. Our Republican friends have talked a lot about jobs. Under the Clinton administration, we created 216,000 jobs per month. Under the Bush plan we have created 21,000, on average, per month.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, America lost one of its finest scientists this week. And I lost both a constituent and a dear friend. Kenneth Tenore, a coastal ecologist from Hollywood, Maryland, died of acute pancreatitis Sunday at University of Maryland Medical Center. He was 63. I had the privilege of working with Ken in his role as director of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory on Solomons Island. Ken's work made an invaluable contribution to the health and vibrancy of the Chesapeake Bay, and his leadership brought together marine scientists from around the world to bolster the health of coastal waterways. While at Solomons, he led collaborative research programs involving marine scientists from the United States, the Galicia region of Spain and Portugal. His frequent visits to both countries have helped build strong scientific relationships that endure today. At the time of his death, he was leading the Navigator Project, an international effort supported by the National Science Foundation and the Luso-American Foundation, to characterize and compare the ecology of coastal seas around the world. Ken's efforts while serving the University of Maryland, my alma mater, reflect a man deeply committed to preserving the Earth for future generations. While Ken was passionate about advancing technology to make new discoveries in his discipline, he was also a man that followed a higher moral code--even teaching a science and ethics course at the University of Notre Dame. Father Ernan McMullin, a retired Notre Dame professor said of Ken: ``He was an inspirational teacher who had a strong feeling for the philosophical and ethical issues in science.'' Among his tremendous accomplishments, Ken founded and directed the Alliance for Coastal Technologies, a partnership of research institutions, environmental managers, and industry representatives which foster sensor technologies for use in monitoring coastal environments. Ken leaves behind a sister, Dr. Elizabeth J. Tenore, a brother, Louis James Tenore, and a nephew, Louis James Tenore Jr. Ken's life touched so many around the world: family, friends, and colleagues. I was privileged to know him. On behalf of the Fifth Congressional District, I want to extend my sympathies to his family and join the scores of others in honoring his life's work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am glad. I did not know that the principals had met. I know you and I had had a discussion previously about the conference meeting with all of the conferees present, or at least both sides present, both the Democratic side and the Republican side, the majority side present as well. We hope that occurs. The leader said that would occur. We appreciate that. Clearly you and I in particular, and I know you in particular, are very concerned about the pension conference. You have spent a lot of time working on that piece of legislation, know it well. Clearly many, many people in America, many businesses, many individuals are very focused on that, are very concerned about the status of their pensions. So we are hopeful that particular bill can move in a positive way in the near term.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Let me ask you further, Mr. Leader, do you expect the telecom bill to be ready for floor consideration next week?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. I yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for that information for our Members. Mr. Leader, do you expect any energy bills on the floor next week dealing with any facet of the crisis that confronts our citizens?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for not singing today.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader. I know that all of us hope that the leader's optimism is justified by results. I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. HOYER. I know you hope so. But my question was, do you expect so?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. With respect to the budget, the fiscal year 2007 budget, we are now 3 weeks beyond the point when we should have had a conference report adopted under the rules. Yet we have not had the House version of the budget on the floor yet. Do you expect the budget to be on the floor anytime in the near future?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, the tax reconciliation conference and the pension conference, we have heard something about the tax reconciliation conference perhaps having reached agreement. Can you tell me the status of those two conferences and when we might expect to consider the tax reconciliation conference and/or the pension conference?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Speaker indicated it was within the rules and within the precedents. In fact, the precedents were numerous times that Republicans rose and did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second week in a row that it is my perception that the motivations and intentions of a Member are being put in question. Now it is being put as a question of parliamentary procedure. Particularly the second speaker who spoke on this clearly implied that and meant to imply it. First of all, I would say, Mr. Speaker, if Members' amendments were made in order, if in a democratic fashion these amendments could be on the floor, if in fact you were to subject yourself to debate and a fair vote on these issues, perhaps this issue would never come up. Secondly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, as I said last week when another Member's actions were questioned, whether they were within the ambit of the rules or whether they were being honest in their representations, the fact of the matter is that a Member's view of a bill does in fact change in light of the action on a previous amendment or a motion to recommit or some other action that might occur. So, as I said to the gentleman last week, the situation substantively changes. It may be the same bill, but it is a bill that has been subjected to an alternative amendment. Then the Member who is opposed to the bill at that time without that amendment being considered, that amendment fails, the Member is put in a different position. He or she then has to make a judgment, do I support or oppose this bill as it now is and as I have failed to perfect it with an amendment. So I suggest to the gentleman, who has now raised it a second time in a row, and I frankly thought it had been resolved, that he is wrong in his premise, he is wrong under the rules, and I would hope that we could put this behind us. I would certainly hope, and the gentleman who chairs the Rules Committee is on his feet, that we could allow these amendments; that we could allow, as the gentleman so often when he was in the minority asked to have done, allow these amendments to be considered in a fair and open debate and subject them to a vote. So that in a democratic body, in the People's House, they could be voted on up or down. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman was fully within the rules and fully within his rights and did exactly the only thing that he was given the opportunity to do in order to raise an important issue in this democratic forum.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to assure him that when we are in the majority next January, we are going to consider very carefully your proposal. The fact of the matter is that when I said both Republicans and Democrats have pursued this procedure, and when the Chair has ruled that they are acting within the rules, as the Chair has now done both times that the gentleman raised the issue, that we will understand, and perhaps better than we did in 1994, having served in the minority now for 12 years, we will better understand the frustration that is engendered by the failure to give to the minority its full opportunity to place on the floor and have debated fully and having a vote on an alternative that they believe is superior to the bill offered by the majority. We better understand that frustration, but I will tell you that the gentleman from California, the chairman of your Rules Committee, rose and said he complained bitterly as a member of the minority. You remember that. I remember that. We have been here for some period of time. We understand that frustration. But we also understand that repeatedly members of your party pursued the same process and were, as our members have been, held to have been in order. And for you to repeatedly raise this, raises, I tell my friend, and he is my friend, it raises the issue of the integrity of the Member making the order. We believe it is within the rules. We have been ruled in order. I think that continuing to pursue this simply raises the motivation of the Member. I know you don't believe that. I know you are not raising that. That is not your intent. But it seems to me that is its effect. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would hope we could resolve this and move on.