Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker. I am disappointed at the response, but I understand it. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. WAXMAN (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. When a bill does not have a hearing----

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the tally clerk that every Member of Congress who is in town has voted. Has voted. Has voted.

Mr. HOYER. I do have a parliamentary inquiry. In that instance, is it not appropriate, once the people have spoken through their representatives in this House, to bring the vote to a close?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there are many good provisions in this conference report, and I intend to support it. I am pleased, for example, with the $110 million appropriated for the SAFER Program--and was proud to have worked with Congressmen Weldon and Sabo on an amendment to provide additional SAFER funding. The President's budget zeroed out this program of hiring grants, which help achieve adequate staffing levels and improve the safety of our firefighters and communities. I also am pleased that the conference agreement contains $545 million for the Fire Grant Program--representing an increase of $45 million over the President's request. Nonetheless, even this funding level is $100 million below last year's level. The Fire Grant Program is authorized at $1 billion, and we must work to increase--not decrease--funding that ensures that firefighters have modern equipment and advanced training. However, none of us should delude ourselves. This Republican Congress is simply not doing enough to address our unmet homeland security needs. The inept Federal response to Hurricane Katrina--almost 4 years to the day after the terrorist attacks of 9/11--has only heightened concern about this Nation's ability to respond to another catastrophe. Democrats would meet our first responder needs. Yet, this conference report cuts three of the four first responder grant programs. Democrats would meet our needs for port security. Yet, with this conference report, we have funded only 12 percent of the amount needed for ports to comply with the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Democrats would meet our needs for rail and transit security. Yet, while an estimated $6 billion is needed to improve rail and transit security, this conference report provides only $150 million for fiscal 2006. Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress--despite its proclamations otherwise--simply is not addressing our Homeland Security priorities. I intend to support this conference report. But its flaws ought to give all of us pause.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and perhaps the gentleman and I can discuss this after the colloquy.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority whip and acting leader. Mr. Leader, so that Members can be certain as to the schedule for next Thursday and Friday, on Thursday the House will begin business at 10 a.m., I understand, with no votes to occur before 2 p.m., and we will consider suspension bills and the conference report on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and then the House will meet on Friday at 9 a.m. to consider the energy bill. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could tell us, because we have discussed with our Members from California, from Washington State, Oregon, and others, if they take a 7:40 a.m. plane, they do not get here much before 4 or a little after 4. Therefore, if those votes are started at 2 p.m., that requires some of our Members to leave the night before. Some of our Members, as you know, because of their religious observance, cannot leave until after sundown, requiring them to take the red-eye. I discussed this with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) last week, and I am wondering whether or not, because I am sure Members on your side, well, I guess they do not, now that I think about it, have similar problems. But the fact of the matter is that it causes some difficulty for our Members traveling. I wonder if there is a possibility of starting at 10, continuing debate, but rolling votes until after 5 rather than after 2.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I am sure the Members will be pleased about that objective as well. The week of October 17. I know that is some time away, but we will not be having a scheduling colloquy next Friday, probably. Can you give us any indication as to what bills may be on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate those problems. Perhaps we will discuss that. I believe that starting at 10 makes sense. I understand we want to use all of the time that is available that day, so I am not suggesting that we change that. It is the time when we start votes, and then I am sure there will be a series of votes at some point in time that evening, as we have every Tuesday when we return at night. But perhaps we can discuss it a little further after the colloquy, and then perhaps, if there is any change, inform Members of that change. Regarding the energy bill, under what type of rule would the gentleman expect that to be considered; and how late would the gentleman expect votes to go on Friday? First of all, the energy bill and the kind of rule the gentleman expects on the energy bill. And I say that to my friend in the context, as the gentleman knows, that the bill was introduced Monday of this week. It is my understanding there were 16 hours of markup yesterday, going until 1 a.m. this morning. So there has been little time, really, to review this bill. Obviously, there will be over the week, and we will not get back until Thursday, so there will be that time. But can the gentleman tell us what kind of rule he might expect on that bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest cliches in sports is that you do not want your team to be number two. However, the same does not hold true in other areas. That is why today I want to congratulate the entire St. Mary's College of Maryland community, including the students, alumni and parents and President Margaret O'Brien and the extraordinary faculty, for being ranked the number two public liberal arts college in the Nation. Mr. Speaker, it will surprise no one that St. Mary's College is in my district. Furthermore, for full disclosure, I am on the board of trustees of St. Mary's College. It is an extraordinary institution of higher learning. In fact, according to the latest college rankings by the magazine U.S. News and World Report, St. Mary's College is again one of the top 100 liberal arts colleges in the Nation, rising to 84 from 87 the year before. So not only is it number two of small colleges; it is number 84 in the entire Nation of all colleges. When it comes to public liberal arts colleges, St. Mary's finished only behind the Virginia Military Institute in the U.S. News rankings. Those rankings are based upon several criteria of academic excellence, including graduation and retention rates, faculty resources and peer assessment. And this year, St. Mary's peer assessment rose to 2.9 out of a possible 5.0, and the freshmen retention rate rose to 88 percent. Mr. Speaker, with roots going back to 1840, St. Mary's College is the State of Maryland's only public honors college, offering the academic excellence of a top private college with the openness and affordability of public education. Today, about 1,950 men and women from 35 States and 23 countries attend St. Mary's, and the average SAT score for the entering freshmen is 1,252. The faculty also has distinguished itself, and more than 94 percent hold doctorate degrees. By combining the virtues of public and private education, St. Mary's provides a unique alternative for students and their families. This special identity underpins the college's success and its reputation for excellence, in a waterfront setting in the heart of the Chesapeake Bay region just 70 miles southeast of Washington. It is an extraordinarily beautiful setting for an extraordinarily excellent college. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the college's board of trustees since 1995, I have seen this wonderful institution flourish over the last decade, and I am particularly pleased to see St. Mary's is winning national recognition among it peers. This is not the first time that has been the case, but it is a continuing affirmation of the excellence at St. Mary's. Our 34th President, John F. Kennedy, once said: ``Education is the mainspring of our economic and social progress. It is the highest expression of achievement in our society, ennobling and enriching human life.'' Mr. Speaker, St. Mary's College of Maryland truly enriches southern Maryland and our entire State. I want to congratulate the entire St. Mary's College community on receiving this latest national recognition. Well done, well deserved.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The time is insufficient, not only to explain my position, but also the time for consideration of this bill has been insufficient. Thirty-two years ago, we passed a bill that a Republican President, Richard Nixon, signed to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction. Unfortunately, though, the underlying bill, which has been fast-tracked since its introduction, would substantially undermine the Endangered Species Act. That is what this is about. For example, this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible Federal agencies to ably perform their oversight roles, and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration. The bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible, open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law. In contrast, the bipartisan substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has a far more reasoned approach. It ensures consultation between the Secretary and other Federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species. It strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the Secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival. I urge support of the substitute and opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman. Thirty-two years ago, Congress passed and a Republican President--Richard Nixon--signed the Endangered Species Act to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction. Today, there are 1,268 species listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, including 26 in the State of Maryland. This law is not perfect, but it has been very successful. Roughly 40 percent of listed species have witnessed the stabilization or growth of their populations. And, less than one percent have been declared extinct since the law's enactment. The fact is, this law has enabled the very survival of some of our most vulnerable species--including the bald eagle, the gray wolf, the California condor, and the whooping crane. Unfortunately, though, the underlying bill--which has been fast- tracked since its introduction last week--would substantially undermine the Endangered Species Act. For example, this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible Federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce and Interior--to ably perform their oversight roles, and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration. The bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible, open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law. In contrast, the bipartisan substitute offers a far more reasoned approach. It ensures consultation between the Secretary and other Federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species. It strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the Secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival. The substitute also creates conservation programs that would provide technical and financial assistance to landowners committed to efforts that protect species. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to protect our environment--as well as the diverse forms of life that share it. The bipartisan substitute will help us achieve the goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am pleased that we have a bipartisan bill here. I want to congratulate the chairman, congratulate the ranking member, and congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for coming out with a bipartisan bill. Unlike the bill considered by the House in 2003, this legislation does not attempt to block grant Head Start programs, which was controversial. I think that is good for the passage of this bill. Furthermore, it strengthens academic content, improves teacher quality, promotes better coordination between Head Start and other early childhood programs, and it strengthens accountability. My wife supervised Head Start in our jurisdiction for many years. There are 24 Judy Centers around the State of Maryland right now, many of which include Head Start. This bill was reported out of committee almost unanimously, if not unanimously. Unanimously. While the underlying bill contains long- standing nondiscriminatory provisions, and I congratulate the committee for that, there is an amendment lurking that will undermine that bipartisanship and, not only that, undermine an extraordinarily fundamental principle in our country: we do not discriminate. We do not countenance discrimination. The previous gentleman indicated he does not know of any instance where there has been discrimination. I agree with that. I have never had anybody contact me ever, and this is my 37th year in public office. Never, from 1967 to today, have I had somebody come to me and say this is a problem. The committee has seen fit to report out a bill which does not allow discrimination. Why? Because there is no problem here. Frankly, the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to create a problem where there is none. We ought to reject that amendment. If we do not reject that amendment, the overwhelming majority of us on this side of the aisle are going to vote against this bill. That is unfortunate because we are all for Head Start. It is a program that works. It is a program that is important. It is a program that we ought to reauthorize. And I urge us to support this bill, but reject a crippling amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chief deputy whip for the purpose of ascertaining the schedule for the following week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief deputy whip for that information. If I could call the gentleman's attention to October. Clearly, the first two weeks in October, as we all know, have a number of holidays, including Columbus Day holiday, which have impacted the schedule. It has been announced that we will not have votes the second week of October; but we still do not have, as I understand it, a clear picture of the first week of October. We have a number of Members from the west coast who indicate that they will not be able to travel on Wednesday. There has been some discussion about possibly meeting Thursday and Friday. Could the gentleman give me his thoughts or the thoughts of the majority with reference to that particular week, particularly as it relates to Wednesday which, as the gentleman probably knows as well as any of us, is a problem for some of our Members. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me ask the gentleman, if we are in session on Thursday, again, because many of our Members will not be able to travel on Wednesday, would I be correct in assuming that votes would be delayed until 6:30, as they usually are on a travel day? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, given that assumption, can the gentleman tell me when he would expect to have on the floor a continuing resolution, in light of the fact we clearly will not have passed most of the appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I have noted that all of my suggestions are taken with great solemnity and consideration on your side of the aisle, and I very much appreciate it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if am I to understand about the discussions then as to what would be in the CR, the advice I would have, for whatever it might be worth, is that we try to consider it prior to Friday, in light of the fact that Friday is the last day, and if a glitch occurs, for whatever reasons, I would hope that the majority would bring a CR to the floor either Wednesday or Thursday, so that if we have a problem that we may be able to deal with that either Thursday or Friday. But if we have not considered it until Friday and a glitch occurs, we are going to be in a bad spot with reference to the end of the fiscal year and the lack of funding authority for many agencies at that point. I do not know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that or not, but I yield to him if he does.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there was thought that we might meet tomorrow; that is obviously not happening. It is my understanding Friday is on the schedule for next week. Can the gentleman tell me how likely it would be that Friday, while there for contingencies, the likelihood of our meeting on Friday? Does the gentleman have any thought on that? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information and for that concern. I think that would be appropriate. Might I suggest that by next week we have some more precise advice in terms of time so Members can plan accordingly.

Mr. HOYER. Would that be 6:30? I hate to press the point; but, obviously, Members, for purposes of planning and travel and reservations, need to have pretty precise knowledge of when they have to be back here for votes. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me say on behalf of the minority, the Democrat side of the aisle shares your concern and commitment to assuring retirement security for our people. As you know, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that has been made by the administration with reference to the creation of private accounts and what we perceive as privatizing parts of Social Security. But I want you to be assured that we share your view that we want to make sure that retirement accounts are secure and that Americans have opportunities to participate in the creation of retirement accounts. I thank the gentleman for his observation.