Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, would it be safe, therefore, for Members to conclude that they need not be here before 5? If we went in at 1, you gave 2 hours' notice, the first vote would be 3, but am I correct that the Defense appropriations conference has not convened because the chairman sadly lost his mother, and it is my understanding he is coming back sometime, maybe he came back this afternoon, but would I be reasonably correct in saying that the chances of the Defense appropriations bill being ready to report prior to 5 would be very slim? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, obviously the Members as we all know on both sides have been here for some period of time today and are very obviously desirous of knowing what our schedule is. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot agree with the previous speaker. I think the tone of this debate is good, but the process is terrible. Mr. Lantos, the ranking member of the committee, attempted to participate in making this a truly bipartisan resolution. Now, I am one of those who has consistently supported the policies of our government and who supports success in our efforts in Iraq. I think that is in the best interests of America, certainly in the best interests of the Iraqi citizenry and the best interests of civility in the Middle East. However, I am saddened by the continued partisanship with which this issue is handled. Mr. Lantos and I and Ms. Pelosi offered a resolution which congratulated the Iraqi people, noted their courage, noted their determination to reach for democracy. That is what this effort is about. There was no attempt at bipartisanship. That was rejected out of hand, not even allowed as an amendment. That is not the way we bring our country together. That is not the way we strengthen our resolve. That is not the way we show the world that we are of, if not exactly one mind, of one objective. I thank my friend for yielding me time. I thank him for his efforts. I generally agree with the propositions set forth in the resolution, but I am not sure I am going to vote for it because I am deeply grieved by the continuing failure to try to bring this House together on this issue and to bring this country together on this issue and to ensure that together we go forward to achieve success.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is correct, that it would not be shared with the whole House as a public disclosure. My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that every Member of the House, however, has the opportunity to go to the Intelligence Committee and see that information for themselves. I think I am correct on that. The gentleman may know more about that than I do.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight, and I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, this side of the aisle believes that you have been more bipartisan and are trying to include both sides in the deliberations, and we believe that is the correct way to do it, and we congratulate you for that. This issue, of course, came up after your bill passed, so it could not have been offered in your bill because the issue was not known. It asked for a report to the Defense Committee as well. That is the bill that we are discussing. It is, I think, very relevant. I would hope that every Member would vote for this motion. Quite simply, this motion would instruct conferees to agree to a Senate provision, passed 82-9, that requires the director of the National Intelligence Agency to provide members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with a detailed report of any clandestine prison or detention facility where detainees in the global war on terrorism are or were being held. This Congress ought to know that information. The Intelligence Committee ought to know that information. Indeed, in my opinion, perhaps all America ought to know that. I say to my colleagues, whether you are troubled by recent revelations that the United States operates a clandestine prison or prisons on foreign soil or not, and I am one who is troubled by it, you should not quarrel with the proposition that the Members of this Congress have a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight on the administration's conduct of this war. That is what makes America different.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the reason for that is for the same reason that overwhelmingly in the Senate they asked, because they wanted to assure that the information on the publicly disclosed conduct is in fact available to the Intelligence Committees of both Houses and to the Defense Committees. Now, the gentleman who chairs that committee has said, we have that information. We do not have the information on our side of the aisle that in fact we have information from the National Intelligence Director as it relates to the publicly disclosed facilities and the use of those facilities and the countries which are receptors for those facilities.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a cosponsor of this resolution. Obviously, it was his conclusion the Intelligence Committees did not have it. Regrettably, very frankly, I tell my friend from New York, this Congress has shown little inclination for oversight. I am not going to go into the number of incidents that I think we should have had oversight on that we have not, particularly in the House as opposed to the Senate, which has had some more but not much. In my judgment, the revelations of clandestine CIA interrogation centers are serious and disconcerting, and this Congress, on behalf of the American people, needs to get at the bottom of it. The contention is that we have. Perhaps so. But apparently, again, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee does not think that is the case. These revelations, if true, and the administration has not denied them, threaten to undermine our standing as the world's leading advocate for basic human rights and the rule of law. That concerns me. I presume it concerns every Member of this body. They threaten to underline our alliance. Following in the footsteps of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which I think seriously undermined our position, Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Air Base, this story is yet another example of the administration's attitude toward adherence to domestic and international law. That concerns me. It ought to concern the Congress. That is what separation of powers is about. When we abandon the moral standards upon which our country was founded in the conduct of the war on terror, which I have supported, we not only diminish our standing in the world, we foment resentment against the United States and embolden those with whom we are engaged in a daily struggle. I have supported that struggle. I intend to continue to support that struggle. But I think our moral standing needs to be as strong, frankly, as our military standing. Both will stand this country and Nation in good stead, as they have through history. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and urge support of the gentleman's motion.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York, had I more time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I understand the gentleman from Hawaii, and I checked to make sure I understood him correctly and the facts correctly, is that the Senate has offered an amendment which is included in the Defense bill which is being conferenced, the very bill to which this motion is being directed, that we take the Senate language that is in the Defense bill. So, obviously, it is absolutely relevant on the bill that is going to conference. In fact, it would not be relevant in any other piece of legislation. I suggest to my friend that the gentleman is correct, it ought to be offered in a relevant time, and now is the relevant time.

Mr. HOYER. Are you asking me whether Ms. Harman has it? I have not had a conversation with Ms. Harman, so I cannot respond.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let us set the record straight. This legislation is not real. It is a cynical political ploy. Do not take my word for it. Grover Norquist, one of your heroes, said this, this morning: ``The good news is that the legislation that is being voted on, even with amendments that would improve it and make it less problematic, is not a piece of legislation that is going to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.'' So we are making political points, not policy. This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue that confronts our Nation: the Federal Government's failure to ensure that our borders are secure. Who says that? George Bush, President of the United States, says that. Let no one be mistaken. Our Nation has a border security problem. And it has an immigration problem. These problems were not created overnight, and they will not be remedied with a misguided, mean- spirited proposal that the majority has put on the floor today. The fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill-prepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. Do not take my word for it. Tom Kean, former Republican Governor, and the 9/11 Commission gave Congress and the White House grades of D and F on the implementation of 17 of the commission's recommendations. This legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from entering our country. Democrats are for the rule of law. We want to get border security right. But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about harsh, punitive measures that will not work. Oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, let's set the record straight: This legislation is a cynical, political charade. But don't take my word for it. Just listen to Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform and a White House confidante. This morning he is quoted as saying: ``The good news is that the legislation that is being voted on, even with amendments that would improve it and make it less problematic, is not a piece of legislation that is going to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.'' This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue that confronts our Nation--the Federal Government's failure to ensure that our borders are secure. Let no one be mistaken: Our Nation has a border security problem. And, it has an immigration problem. These problems were not created overnight. And they will not be remedied with the misguided, mean-spirited proposal that the majority has put on this floor today. The fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill- prepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. The 9/11 commission just issued a report card that gave Congress and the White House grades of D or F on the implementation of 17 of the Commission's recommendations. This legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from entering our country. Democrats are for the rule of law, we want to get border security right. But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about harsh, punitive measures that will not work. This Republican Congress has simply failed to provide the resources that our Federal law enforcement agencies need to get the job done. And, we certainly do not have the detention space necessary to keep all the undocumented migrants we detain--much less the millions of people that this bill would force us to incarcerate. So, after allowing this situation to become a crisis, Republicans today offer a purely political proposal that promises a quick-fix, a magic bullet: Make them all criminals--the workers, their neighbors, and their employers. And, make local and State law enforcement officials do the job of the Federal Government. Democrats have a different approach. We want to take on this challenge in a comprehensive fashion. We would do what's necessary to protect our borders, give law enforcement the tools that they need, ensure that our businesses have the workers they require, allow families to stay united, and honor the principles of inclusion and freedom that have always been our hallmark. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary efforts of Joe St. Clair, Tom Jarboe, and Donald Cropp, founders of the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund. That is the county in which I live. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, these three men organized the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm in the small town of D'Iberville, Mississippi, located in the district of my friend, Congressman Gene Taylor. This October, Joe, Tom and Don drove two tractor trailers stocked with needed school supplies, book bags and other goods the entire way to D'Iberville. These items were collected with the assistance of countless St. Mary's County businesses and volunteers. Literally, tens of thousands of dollars of contributions. The Hurricane Relief Fund's work to help D'Iberville did not stop when they returned to St. Mary's County. Since their initial trip, the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund has organized an Adopt A Kid Campaign to ensure that the children of D'Iberville had the resources that they needed, facilitated stationing a medical team in D'Iberville, sent educational supplies to Sacred Heart Catholic School, sent 80 first-aid kits to D'Iberville Health Care Clinic and worked to fulfill the needs of the community as requested by D'Iberville officials. This December, Joe, Tom and Don organized another massive donation drive, Operation Mississippi Christmas, this time to ensure that no child in D'Iberville went without a present. Last Friday, I visited with the organizers and a group of volunteers at a warehouse as they loaded two additional tractor trailers bound for D'Iberville. That is four tractor trailers for these young people. I am proud I was able to participate in this noble effort by donating hundreds of duffle bags filled with gifts. When the trucks left for the gulf coast on Saturday morning, they were loaded with more than just presents, and included among their cargo were 200 book bags loaded with school supplies, 50 additional first-aid kits, cases of needed medical supplies for the D'Iberville clinic, quilts donated by the local Amish community, bicycles, hundreds of duffle bags, 35 complete computer systems with printers, cables, et cetera, all donated by SmartCo, defibrillator batteries and a charger donated by St. Mary's Hospital, a critical item for the medical clinic, and 1,160 Wal-Mart gift cards for the upper middle and high school students. On Sunday afternoon, the trucks rolled into D'Iberville, completing the approximately 16 hours and 1,000 mile journey. On Monday, D'Iberville Elementary School held a pizza party as the presents were handed out and the goods distributed to the grateful community. At the end of the day, I received a call from the group indicating they had accomplished their mission of handing something to every school child, every school child in D'Iberville. St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund has organized an amazingly successful relief effort, and I applaud its hard work. I would like to personally and publicly thank you, Joe St. Clair, Joe Cropp, Tom Jarboe, Guy Curley, Reggie Townsend, Ann Raley, Vince Whittles, the St. Mary's Chamber of Commerce, Father John Ball and the St. Mary's Trinity Episcopal Parish, Technology Security Associates, Larry Wise and the folks at BAE Systems, Bo Bailey and his son Tony for driving the trucks, and the hundreds of additional contributors, volunteers and businesses that contributed St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund's drive to help D'Iberville, Mississippi. I am proud that my constituents, realizing that they are part of a community bigger than St. Mary's County, have sought to help our neighbors in Mississippi during their time of need. Their efforts surely for us all symbolize the true meaning of compassion, and I think it sets a great example of giving in this holiday season. Joe St. Clair and Don tell the story of the children and their eyes gleaming as they received these gifts. Joe St. Clair, a crusty businessman about 55 years of age, telling me the story had tears flowing down his cheeks. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of acrimony on this floor too often, and too often we forget to remember our neighbors and our friends. This is an example of the best that is America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important bipartisan resolution calling on member states of the United Nations to stop unfairly criticizing Israel and to promote a more balanced approach to the challenges in the Middle East. In June of this year, the House overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning anti-semitic statements made at U.N. meetings and by U.N. member states. It was proper and appropriate that we publicly and vocally condemn some of the outrageous statements made by U.N. officials and member states. However, there also is a more subtle form of anti-semitism that has been taking place at the United Nations for far too long--the alarming rate at which the U.N. General Assembly has considered and adopted anti-Israel resolutions. As noted in the text of Mr. Rothman's measure, 21 of the 71 resolutions adopted by rollcall votes during the 59th session of the General Assembly dealt with Israel, and in recent years, the General Assembly and Security Council have introduced and approved hundreds of measures and resolutions that unfairly criticize and condemn Israel. At a time when the international community is confronted with crises such as the ongoing terror campaign being waged by AI Qaeda against democracies in every corner of the world, the tragic genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and the continued spread of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, the U.N. General Assembly has seen fit to devote nearly a third of its time to castigating the state of Israel. These unbalanced and discriminatory anti-Israel resolutions have been adopted by overwhelming margins. Meanwhile, there has been a disturbing lack of condemnation of Palestinian terror attacks against Israel. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only support this resolution, but also to carry its message to the ambassadors, foreign ministers and heads of state with whom they meet on a daily basis: The mistreatment of Israel at the hands of the United Nations has not gone unnoticed, and it is no longer acceptable. Furthermore, this obsessive and inappropriate focus on Israel at the United Nations only serves to harm that institution's credibility and to undermine the U.N.'s ability to serve as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. This is not Mr. Regula's bill. I do not really believe it is Mr. Lewis' bill. It is the bill that is the result of the fiscal policies we have been pursuing for the last 5 years, however. And let us be clear. The so-called new and improved Labor-HHS bill is virtually identical to the conference report that the House rejected on November 17 in a bipartisan way. There is no reason for any Member to vote for it today, in my opinion. It is just like the flawed first version. This conference report betrays our Nation's values and, I think, investment in our future. Last week, this House majority passed more than $94 billion in additional tax cuts, the benefits of which go mostly to the wealthiest in America. This week with this bill, we are slashing discretionary spending for education, health care programs, worker training, and assistance to the most vulnerable of Americans. That is just half of it. If the Republican leadership gets its way, it will impose an across-the-board cut that nearly doubles the cuts in this bill to some $3 billion. Let no one be mistaken. When push comes to shove, this majority without fail puts its friends ahead of our Nation's future. I do not refer to the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee. Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can claim there is little they can do to improve the funding levels in this bill, because the fiscal policies they have pursued have put them in a position where we have insufficient funds to fund the priorities of this Nation. They say they have no options, no alternatives. They say they are only complying with funding levels dictated by the Republican budget resolution. One of my Republican predecessors, Mr. Regula's Republican predecessor, refused to vote for the budget simply for that reason a number of years ago. He said, I cannot do this bill within the context of the budget that is presented. Now they want to conveniently ignore the undeniable truth. They voted for that budget resolution, which put them in the straits they now find themselves. They want to vote for draconian cuts in April and proclaim that they are getting tough on spending and then 8 months later they want to disclaim responsibility when those cuts are enacted. The inappropriate funding levels in this conference report are the inevitable consequence of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our Nation that we are pursuing, of policies that have spawned record deficits. This administration started with a $5.6 trillion surplus. It is now confronted with a $4 trillion deficit. There are no fiscal conservatives on that side of the aisle, I tell my friends, of policies that this Republican majority and the administration have enacted to deliberately deprive our government of the resources that it needs and that our people know our country needs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am particularly incensed that at a time of record heating costs, the subcommittee defeated Mr. Obey's amendment to provide an additional $2 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I predict to you today, just as when we rejected funding for the veterans that we said was necessary and their health care, you are going to be back here with a supplemental funding additional energy costs for seniors. And, by the way, let me also say Mr. Obey had an amendment which was going to give to seniors an additional 6 months to make a determination to figure out this incredibly complex prescription drug bill that we have put on their doorstep, and that was rejected unanimously by Republicans while it was unanimously supported by Democrats. The message here, Mr. Speaker, is unmistakable and sad. While the wealthy have money to burn, the poor get to shiver in silence. I simply do not understand why the majority refused to adopt a second amendment, as I said, to extend time for seniors. We all know the reality. The Republican prescription drug plan is so complicated and confusing that millions of seniors need and deserve more time to weigh their options. I urge my colleagues to vote against their conference report. I regrettably say that, but I think the failures contained in it compel that conclusion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle: Support this critically important motion to instruct. It is identical to the amendment offered by Senator McCain--and passed 90-9 and by voice vote in the Senate--on the defense appropriations and defense authorization bills. This motion would do two things. First, it would establish the Army field manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of department of defense detainees. There is still much confusion about which interrogation techniques are permissible--and this confusion has been fomented by a White House that believed the Geneva Conventions were outmoded and inapplicable. Secondly, this motion would prohibit ``cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment'' of detainees. Thus, it is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Sadly, this prohibition on torture is necessitated by the administration's own actions: its endorsement of interrogation tactics that border on torture, anything short of ``organ failure'', and a large number of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the President stated in November that ``We do not torture,'' his own Vice President has worked against this motion and sought legal language that would allegedly allow the CIA to utilize torture tactics against foreign prisoners it is holding overseas. As Senator McCain, himself a victim of torture at the hands of North Vietnamese, recently stated: The administration's position ``means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment.'' The administration's position on this matter is simply not defensible. It undermines our credibility in the world. It harms our efforts in the war on terror. It makes more likely the exposure of our own troops to torture. And, it completely betrays our cherished American values. This is not a question of whether we must combat--and defeat-- terrorists. We must. This is an issue of who we are as a people. And we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant; that we stooped to the depths of the dictator. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the responsibility under article I, section 8 of our Constitution to make ``rules concerning captures on land and water.'' That is a responsibility that we must embrace today, and not delegate to a zealous executive branch. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Our friend, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Speaker, tonight there will only be unanimous bipartisan agreement on this House floor. Tonight, the Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, our Speaker and our Democratic leader join together to recognize the extraordinary and many accomplishments of a great Member of this House. And to honor that service to our Nation we honor an American giant: The Dean of the House, our colleague from the State of Michigan, Congressman John Dingell, Jr. This day, December 13, 2005, marks Chairman Dingell's 50th anniversary as a Member of this great body, the people's House. The people are proud of John Dingell and rightfully so. He is the third longest serving Member in the history of this institution. That means he has survived a long time. And, frankly, 50 years of service is itself something that ought to be honored, but John Dingell is deserving of honor for much more than longevity. As I can attest, Congressman Dingell shows no signs of slowing down. Only Jamie Whitten of Michigan, with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee, with 53 years and 10 months of service, and Carl Vinson, the great Representative of Georgia, with 50 years and 2 months of service have served longer. John Dingell will surpass, God willing, both of those. Just consider that during the last half century Congressman Dingell has searched under 10 presidents. No, that is wrong. John Dingell serves under no one. John Dingell has served with 10 Presidents. He has cast nearly 22,000 rollcall votes. In fact, one-fourth of the Members who serve here today, 107 Members to be precise, were born after John Dingell came to the Congress of the United States. However, no one should be mistaken. As notable as the length of Congressman Dingell's tenure is, it is eclipsed by his truly remarkable record of substantive legislation over the last five decades on behalf of his people, on behalf of the people of Michigan, on behalf of the people of this country. John Dingell, my constituents, are proud of your service and thankful for your contributions. You have made their lives better. You have made the Chesapeake Bay better. You have made Maryland better. In serving Michigan, you have served us all. Many of the most important pieces of legislation, on health care, as Leader Pelosi pointed out and as Speaker Hastert pointed out, on the environment and on workers and consumers rights bear John Dingell's strong imprint, and a significant number of these bills were written by him. Examples: The 1990 Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Mammography Quality Standards Act. And he is still fighting for a real Patients Bill of Rights. We should have passed and enacted John Dingell's Patients Bill of Rights a few years ago. That would have indeed been a testimonial that would have been worthy of his service. In addition, Congressman Dingell halls helped craft legislation on issues ranging from telecommunications to drinking water quality, and blocked proposals such as electric utility deregulation that he opposed. Said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ``he has a role in almost every major legislative effort to help average families,'' working Americans, and his fellow citizens. And when it comes to effective, tenacious congressional oversight Congressman Dingell has demonstrated that he has few peers. He has fought to ensure that the intent of the laws were carried out and that tax dollars were spent properly. He wanted to invest, but he wanted that investment to be honest, he wanted that investment to be effective, and he wanted that investment to be carefully husbanded. The work of his Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led to the firing of the Superfund administrator, the discovery of a defense contractor who charged the Pentagon for boarding a dog, and improper billing practices by universities for research expenses. I had a 15-minute interview with a reporter from USA Today and, unfortunately, she took two words that I said. I said, yes, John Dingell is a wonderful man. She said, well, I hear he's pretty tough. I said, he can be sometimes gruff and intimidating. He has intimidated me sometimes. But the vast majority of my comments were about his caring for his fellow human beings, his love for Debbie, and indeed the love and respect and honor that he gives to every one of his colleagues, realizing that they too have been chosen by their constituents to serve in this people's House. The people's House is a greater place, this country is a greater country, the people are a richer people because of the service of John Dingell. God bless you, John Dingell, and thank you.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those remarks. Clearly, that is critical not only, as I said, to the people that you mentioned from the areas affected, but to all of us who want to ensure assistance gets to the people there. And while the tax provisions may well be important, they are longer-term impacts, and in some respects shorter-term impacts, that we would otherwise provide. Lastly, Mr. Leader, if I can, can you perhaps give us a preview of the schedule for next year? It is our understanding on this side that the probability is we will not be returning until the 31st of January. Has that been decided? Can you confirm that and maybe give us a brief preview of what our schedule next month and the months thereafter in the year to come might be? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. As he observes and I have observed, there is great interest. We know this is an important piece of legislation. Both sides and I think all interest groups want to address his issue as soon as we can. Hopefully, we can work together to effect a piece of legislation that can enjoy bipartisan support, can pass, and go into effect to assist so many millions of Americans who are concerned about the security that they have in their pensions. I know that is your desire, our desire, and hopefully we can proceed on that. Mr. Leader, Mr. Taylor from Mississippi is on the floor and Mr. Melancon from Louisiana was also on the floor. Both of them had inquired of me, appropriately, the status of the Katrina relief legislation. We are very interested in that being brought to the floor next week. It is my understanding that it probably will be, but it might be brought to the floor attached to another bill. That is a critical piece of legislation. I think all of us want to make sure that we have the resources necessary and some of the legislative authorizations and law necessary to facilitate rehabilitation of the gulf area. Can you tell me when that might come to the floor and on what vehicle it might come to the floor, either as a freestanding bill or attached to another? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Something that is not on the notice, but there has been significant discussion of and great interest in on our side as well as your side, is the pension bill. I notice it is not on the announcement, but do you anticipate that that might be on the calendar; or has that been decided to go over? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, the border security and immigration, one comes out of Homeland Security and one comes out of Judiciary. Mr. Leader, do you anticipate that they will be joined for purposes of consideration on the floor, or is it your anticipation that we will consider each one of them individually? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I understand that knowing a specific day on which that could be done would be practically impossible. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. On the border security and immigration bill, which you note will be on the calendar next week, can you tell us whether or not we can anticipate that being on, presumably, either Wednesday or Thursday? We are coming back Tuesday night. You indicated it is possible we could get out Thursday. So I presume that bill, which is ready for the floor, will be on either Wednesday or Thursday. Can you tell us specifically when you might anticipate that bill being on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. On the budget reconciliation conference, when do you expect that to hit the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, this is not a question, but let me tell you the difficult position this puts us in, which I hope we ought to really preclude in the future in fairness. The purpose of a motion to instruct conferees is obviously to convey to them the opinion of the House as it relates to the product of the conference. Clearly, if that motion is not made until essentially after the conference work is done, the motion essentially is of little, if any, value. I understand the problem that the majority has been dealing with and the differences between the administration and at least the Senate. But it does place us in a position where essentially whatever the House might want to do on a motion to instruct would be essentially a meaningless act. That is certainly not, I think, the intent of the rule for a motion to instruct, nor is it the spirit, I think, of the rule. The gentleman does not have to comment on it. If he wanted to make a comment on it, I would be glad to hear it; but I think you understand our consternation for those of us who particularly feel very strongly on the importance and the appropriateness of the McCain amendment as passed by the Senate being in the final bill. Again, the gentleman does not have to comment on that. If he would like to, I will certainly yield.