Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I will ask one more question on the intelligence issue. Does the gentleman know whether the administration is supportive of the position taken by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee or not? Has the administration taken a position on that?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations, who does such an extraordinary job and who knows firsthand the extraordinarily adverse consequences of racism and anti-Semitism and other ``isms'' wrought against human beings. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her sponsorship of this resolution and for her leadership on these issues. Madam Speaker, intolerance based upon one's religious beliefs, ethnicity and race is a poison that has coursed throughout the body of human history; and it has caused untold pain, suffering and strife. Unfortunately, that is not on the ash bin of history. It is present today. The Members of this House, the elected representatives of the strongest and freest nation on Earth, have a moral responsibility to expose and combat such intolerance and prejudice wherever it rears its head, whether it rears its head in the United States, in the United Nations, or any other place in the world. That is precisely what this important resolution seeks to do. This resolution calls on the United Nations to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic statements made at U.N. meetings and by U.N. member states. It is to the discredit of the United Nations that anti-Semitism continues to find a forum in that body. This resolution also calls on the U.N. to create worldwide programs about the Holocaust in an effort to reduce anti-Semitism, and it directs the Secretary of State to report on anti-Semitic activities by the U.N. and its member countries. Let me add, Madam Speaker, that last year I strongly supported language included in the omnibus appropriation act that directs the State Department to report on votes in the General Assembly concerning Israel. I regret to inform you, Madam Speaker, that there are nations, many nations, indeed the overwhelming majority of nations, who fail to support the United States and its positions on Israel more than 10 percent of the time, the majority of nations in the United Nations. The disturbing, undeniable truth, Madam Speaker, is that rank anti- Semitism continues today in the world body ostensibly dedicated to peace, understanding and tolerance. Israel, Madam Speaker, is the only member of the U.N. to never have served on the Security Council. It is denied the opportunity to serve on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, while well-known human rights abusers, Syria, Sudan, Libya and countless others, serial abusers of human rights in their own countries, have served on that body. And each year, Madam Speaker, Israel is singled out for criticism nearly two dozen times in the general assembly, each year, while Sudan, who has seen the murder of thousands of people, or Rwanda, millions, or at least over a million, receives not the attention that it should. Madam Speaker, too many U.N. members believe that they can make anti- Semitic statements and take anti-Semitic actions with impunity. This Nation ought to send a very loud, a very clear, a very definitive message that that is not the case. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any corner of the world, in any forum in the world, but particularly so in the forum committed to world peace, to world understanding. Members who believe that they can act with impunity are wrong, and they must be held accountable. They must know that their anti-Semitic statements and actions not only affect their relationship with this Nation but also eviscerate their credibility in the family of civilized nations. Again I congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from California for their leadership, not just on this resolution, Madam Speaker, but every day of every week of every month of every year because that is what it takes to ensure that anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and every other kind of prejudice and bigotry is rejected in this body and in every place that we find men and women of goodwill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, late last month--on April 25, 2005--the family and friends of Neale Chaney Slater, the community of Mechanicsville, and the State of Maryland suffered a devastating loss when this caring and accomplished young man was struck down just as he was preparing to enter the prime of his life. WhIle driving out to help a local farmer, Neale, 20 years old, was killed in a tragic two-vehicle accident on Route 5 in Hughesville. Yet, in such a short period of time, Neale gave so much to so many others. At the age of 16, Neale joined the Mechanicsville Volunteer Fire Department, and had held the office of assistant secretary and treasurer. Neale was a Firefighter II and certified emergency medical technician, and was recognized by his peers with the Mechanicsville Volunteer Fire Department as ``Rookie of the Year'' in 2001. He also was awarded Fire Prevention Awards in 2001 and 2002. ``He told me he was following the family tradition,'' said Willie Wilkerson, president of the department, noting that Neale's grandfather and uncle had also been members of the department. ``For such a short life, he got a lot accomplished.'' That, in fact, is an understatement. Neale was a 2003 honors graduate of the Leonard Hall Junior Naval Academy in Leonardstown, where he achieved the rank of Battalion Commander in his junior and senior years. He also was awarded Midshipman of the Year in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and was also awarded the Military Excellence, Headmaster's and Loyalty Awards at graduation. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was an exceptional young man--a young man who envisioned a career in public service early on. At the time of his passing, Neale was a Cadet in the Maryland State Police, which he joined in 2003. This coming fall, he was set to join the State Police Academy. Without question, Neale embodied the best this country has to offer through his dedicated public service, his educational achievements, and the respect he had earned from all who knew him. Neale was held in high regards by the community he served, and rightly so. Colonel Thomas E. Hutchins, Secretary of the Department of State Police, said that Neale was ``a young man with a strong work ethic who was committed to doing his best in every mission he undertook.'' Mr. Speaker, the passing of one's child, particularly one with so much to contribute to his community, his State and his Nation is as painful as it is incomprehensible. Today, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to Neale's parents, Eleanor Fowler Slater and Austin Joseph Slater, Sr., as well as all of his family members and friends. I realize that these words are small solace. But I hope the Slaters, in time, find some comfort in the fact that they raised a truly fine young man who will be sorely missed and never forgotten. The Slaters have established the Neale Slater Memorial Fund in his honor at the Leonard Hall Junior Naval Academy for a graduating senior intending to enter law enforcement. I know the recipients of this scholarship will always be inspired by the example set by Neale, and the extraordinarily positive impact he had on his community will be felt for generations to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Defense Authorization Act because I believe it provides the critical items necessary for our forces arrayed in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world. I also support the recognition of the pay necessities that confront our people and gives them a raise. In addition, it provides increases in enlistment bonuses obviously necessary, hazardous duty, and other special pay to improve recruiting and retention, and funding for a number of key modernization priorities that will ensure that our military remains the best-equipped fighting force in the world for decades to come. I believe many Democrats will vote for this legislation because we are committed to providing our troops with every resource necessary to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else the call to defend freedom takes our men and women in the military. However, this measure is by no means perfect. First, I would say I was disturbed by the rule. I was particularly disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the most substantive amendments that was offered, was not allowed by the Committee on Rules. I think it is a shame that we did not have a full debate on the Spratt amendment dealing with proliferation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it highlights the Republican Party's inability to move past the threats of the Cold War to the threats posed by global terrorism and have a full debate on the ramifications of that. Specifically, this bill underfunds the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has helped to keep unsecured weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union out of the hands of terrorists. This is the gravest threat that our Nation faces; yet, funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program barely keeps pace with inflation, even though the 9/11 Commission urged that it be expanded. At the very same time, this bill provides billions of dollars for a national missile system that moves forward the process of developing new nuclear weapons. Neither of these priorities helps to protect the American people from a future terrorist attack. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill, but it is a shame that we will not have a fuller, effective debate on the grave policies that this bill deals with or fails to deal with.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for her leadership and his leadership on this bill. This is, I think, one of the most important bills that we will consider for the welfare of people not only in this country, but throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what this bipartisan, moderate bill would do and not do. This legislation, which has 200-plus cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, would not permit Federal funding for cloning; it would not permit Federal funding to create embryos, nor would it permit Federal funding to destroy embryos. This important legislation simply expands the current Federal policy of allowing Federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived after the arbitrary date of August 9, 2001, from embryos created for fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded. Recall that on that date, President Bush announced that Federal funds would be available to support research on human embryo stem cells so long as such research was limited to existing stem cell lines. At the time it was believed that 78 stem cell lines were eligible. Yet today, as we know, only 22 such lines are available for research, and these lines are aged, contaminated or developed with outdated research. Meanwhile, there are at least 125 new stem cell lines with substantial potential that federally funded researchers cannot use. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I believe the issue before this House today is this: Will we foster embryonic stem cell research, research that holds great promise for the potential treatment or cure of diseases such as ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other diseases, and offer hope to those with spinal cord injury and other injuries of the nervous system, or will we stand in the way? I know that the opponents of this bill believe that we are ignoring the ethical and moral implications of such research. I do not share that view. But, in fact, this legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to issue guidelines for ethical considerations; it requires a determination that the embryos would never have been implanted and would have been discarded; and it requires the donor's written, informed consent. Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a difficult issue for many. It is, however, I think, an issue that the American people have made a judgment on. It is an issue which they, I think, overwhelmingly support. The polls seem to reflect that at least 60 percent of the Americans asked the question support this important effort. They believe it holds promise for them, for their spouses, for their children. We have talked much about life on this floor. It is important that we do so. It is important that we do so in a thoughtful and principled way. I believe that this moderate, well-thought-out, carefully constructed bill takes a step that America expects us to take. This is the People's House. I believe the people would have us pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the citizens of Israel and the entire Jewish community on this 57th anniversary of the State of Israel's founding, also known as Yom Ha'atzmaut. For 57 years, the Israeli people have faced persistent challenges and threats, and they have prevailed--and will continue to prevail and flourish--because of their unshakable courage and faith in Israel's democratic future. Israel is today the only true democracy in the Middle East, and the foundation of her government is similar to our own--freedom of religion, freedom of speech, respect for basic human rights and respect for the rule of law. The American-Israel partnership is unbreakable. We are both nations of immigrants. We are safe havens for the oppressed. We are partners for peace. And we are united in fighting terrorism. I am pleased that once again this summer I will have the opportunity to lead a delegation of Democratic Members of Congress to Israel. Two years ago, I had the honor of leading the largest Congressional delegation in Israel's history to the Jewish state. And, I believe it is imperative that our newer Members see Israel's security challenges first-hand and gain a better appreciation of her importance to America's national security interests. I urge my colleagues to support this important Resolution.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that observation and hopefully we can, in fact, move on that. We not only passed it last week but we passed it a number of times before that. Mr. Leader, I would simply observe on our side and, frankly, on your side that the Senate number is a number that I think our committee certainly and this House could well approve. I know the President does not like that number, but very frankly, as the gentleman knows, our own committee almost unanimously on voice vote passed out an authorization figure at, I think, 375, so $80 billion more than the Senate-passed bill. I would certainly hope that the Congress could exercise its will. The Senate was at 218. We were at 284. Now it is a little bit in between that. I would hope that we could move this conference as quickly as possible. It has been held up a long time and has a significant consequence for jobs, as the leader knows, significant consequence for contractors, States, municipalities, localities, and we have been a long time waiting for this passage that is now some 2 years late. But I appreciate the leader's observation that we will appoint conferees next week, and hopefully perhaps the leader can help accelerate that conference so we can agree. And then the President, of course, will have to do what he thinks is best and make a determination, and then we might have a shocking event and he may veto a bill and send it back to us, and I am relatively confident we would work our will at that point in time. I do not know whether the leader wants to make an observation.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. With respect to the defense authorization bill, can you tell us now what kind of a rule might be applicable to the consideration of that bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information. If I could go through a couple of these bills. The defense authorization bill, Mr. Leader, do you expect at this point in time to have that on a particular day of the week? Do we know when that will be?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I recall that Democrats, when they were in charge, had a slightly different perspective, believing we were a co-equal branch of the government. We would adopt our policies based upon what we believed to be in the best interests of this country, and that the President, as a co-equal branch of the government, would make his determination, and if we disagreed we would override his veto. As a matter of fact, I voted to override a number of vetoes that the previous Democratic President disagreed with us on. The gentleman is right. We do not seem to do that. We have a 4\1/2\- year unblemished record, as the leader points out, of not doing anything that this President did not want us to do.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information and would ask that certainly the substantive Democratic amendments be made in order. This, obviously, is a very important bill, a large sum of money, critically important at a time when we are confronting terrorists in Iraq and around the world and our men and women are in harm's way. All of us want to make sure that we have our ideas on how we can best strengthen our efforts in that bill. So to the extent that the leader can prevail upon the Rules Committee to allow such amendments as Democratic Members and, for that matter, Republican Members want to offer, I think that would be in the best interests of full consideration. Mr. Leader, the stem cell research legislation you indicate will be on Tuesday. It is my understanding that that bill will be brought to the floor and that it will not be subject to amendment; it will be considered as reported out of committee. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader. I know that our leader and your office are working on that unanimous consent and the parameters of the consideration of, as you point out, a very, very important bill. There are obviously different points of view on the legislation. I know we are going to be meeting Monday night and going to come in early Tuesday. Would you have a thought as to when, because of the importance of this bill, our Members want to be sure that they are here, as I am sure yours do as well, what time of day you would expect to be considering that piece of legislation?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that observation. The happy circumstance is we both certainly agree on this procedure, that it needs to have a thorough airing and debate and discussion. There are strong views on either side of this issue and quite obviously the consequences of this bill are very substantial. Whether it passes or whether it fails, the consequences are substantial. So we appreciate the fact that there will be significant time to discuss and debate this issue. Mr. Leader, I have two items left. The Head Start reauthorization has now, as you know, been marked up by the committee. I know it is not coming next week, and we will be out the week after that for the Memorial Day work period. Can you tell me when you might expect the Head Start reauthorization bill to come to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and would hope that we could try to move that as quickly as possible. Obviously, people will want to be planning for the next school year and next Head Start year. Lastly, Mr. Leader, the highway bill. As we know, the highway bill is now more than 2 years overdue in terms of reauthorization, has been sitting for some period of time. The Senate has now passed that bill. Can you tell us when we might appoint conferees for the highway conference?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman by any chance remember the ag bill?

Mr. HOYER. The ag bill that was passed some years ago. The President was not too excited about that spending level, as I recall. He signed the bill, nevertheless.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for some period of time, as the leader knows, and the only bill that Ronald Reagan vetoed that was overridden by the Congress was a bill in which he said we did not spend enough money in 1983. He vetoed it because we did not spend enough money.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information and appreciate his working with Leader Pelosi in determining that, because this is important. I think all Members will want to make sure that that time frame in which it will be considered, they will be available to be on the floor or be watching the floor debate with the ability to come to the floor to offer their thoughts. I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I asked my dear, dear friend of a long time, Speaker Michel, glad to have you here. You former Members, I want you to know that at one point in time I went up to Ray LaHood in 1995. I would particularly like my Republican friends to hear this. I went up to Ray LaHood, who was presiding in 1995. I went up to him and I said, look, we have got 197 Democrats, and if you could just get 20 Republicans, we will elect Bob Michel speaker. But LaHood could not deliver, Bob. I do not know what happened. But I always like the opportunity to come and visit with those of you who have served so well in this Congress and provided for us such an outstanding institution in which to serve. It is a little more acrimonious than when most of you served here. Perhaps that will, at some point in time, get better. But in any event, on behalf of all of us who still serve here and who have benefited by what you have done through the years, thank you very much. And I hope that you have had a great visit back. We see you often. I see Bob on a very regular basis, but I hope that all of you are doing well. Thank you for your assistance through the years. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars on homeland security since September 11, the reality is that America's ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems and critical infrastructure are still to this day vulnerable to attack. Are we better off? Yes. Are we where we need to be? No. As Stephen Flynn, the former U.S. Coast Guard Commander and a foremost expert on homeland security, stated a few months ago on Meet the Press, ``The measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined terrorists.'' This Congress can and must, Mr. Chairman, do more to protect our citizens from attack at home, even as we take the fight to our enemies abroad. That is what the Thompson substitute does. It provides $6.9 billion more than the Republican bill, including funding to fulfill our homeland security commitments in the Intelligence Reform Act. It includes $1 billion for grants for port, rail, transit and bus security, critical priorities; $380 million to hire 2,000 new border agents; and $500 million to ensure that first responders can communicate with one another. It requires a plan to ensure that all air cargo on passenger planes is screened, giving sufficient time to develop the requisite technologies, and it sets deadlines for establishing security plans for critical infrastructures. Republicans will and are objecting to the funding level in our substitute, but let us put it in perspective, Mr. Chairman. This additional funding is nearly $2 billion less than the funding the Bush administration has failed to account for, some $8.8 billion, in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, if the Bush administration can lose track of nearly $9 billion in Iraq, I submit that we ought to be able to find $6.9 billion to make this Nation, its people, its communities and its families safer and more secure. I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has done such an extraordinary job in raising the consciousness of the Congress and of the American people with respect to the importance of our volunteer and paid fire fighting community and our emergency medical response teams throughout this country. I also want to join my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I want to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) in thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his agreement to move this forward and for helping us fashion this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as well, the chairman of our full committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express sincere appreciation to all of those involved, and I particularly want to recognize my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) whose effort was extraordinary in the adoption of the Fire Act, which provides for the basic grant program. All of us were involved, but no one was more involved and more in the leadership, and of course his bill was the basis for the establishment of this. I would be remiss if I did not also reiterate how important the Fire Service Caucus has been and Bill Webb, who is the Executive Director of the foundation, and their focus on the issues that confront us. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much needed increases to both the Fire Grant and SAFER programs, and moves us closer to fulfilling our obligations to ensure that our Nation's firefighters have at their disposal every resource possible to not only guarantee their own safety, but also to allow them to better serve each of our communities. The $25 million we add to each of these accounts brings the funding in the bill to $650 million, $575 million for the Fire Grant program, and $75 million for SAFER. The SAFER program deals with personnel, the Fire Grant program is a broader application of moneys dealing both with equipment, safety equipment, training and other matters. This is $150 million above the level requested by the President and is a reflection of Congress' commitment to ensuring that our fire departments are properly staffed, trained and equipped. But these amounts are still, Mr. Chairman, well below the authorized levels and far from meeting the needs of the fire service. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out the fact that the Base Closure Commission or the Pentagon has recommended to the commission the closure of many Guard and Reserve units around the country, and while first responders are critically important now they will be even more so if this action is taken. The Fire Grant program was established by Congress in 2000, as I said through the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and so many others, to meet the basic equipment, training and fire fighting 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, providing more than $3 billion for the infrared cameras, HAZMAT detection devices, modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and physical fitness programs, new turn-out gear, fire trucks and interoperable communications systems, to name but a few of the items that have been provided for by the Fire Act. 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 play a role in this program. The SAFER Program authorized 2 years ago and funded for the first time last year is a vital compliment to the Fire Grant program, because insufficient staffing, defined by 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. Not only does that understaffing put at risk the firefighters but, as I said, it puts at risk those whom the firefighters would save, whether in a very serious automobile accident, in a fire, earthquake or other natural disaster. Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's two-in/two-out standard for safe fire-ground operations and adds unnecessary risk to the already dangerous job of fire suppression. Mr. Chairman, the NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 firefighters are required across the country and the additional funding we provide today will move us a little closer to achieving that goal. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all of those who have been involved in supporting these two vital programs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader. Reclaiming my time. Lastly, Mr. Leader, there has been some discussion about having bipartisan support for the legislation, some of the legislation that is going through this body. We have had bipartisan support for some of those pieces of legislation. There is a bipartisan bill, the Castle-DeGette bill, on stem cell research. I know it is a controversial piece of legislation, but it does have bipartisan support and broad support I might say. Can the Leader tell us when the gentleman might contemplate that bill coming to the floor? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLAY).