Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I am not sure who he is getting advice from, but I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I agree that we must address the underlying problems with our international tax rules. We should have done that over a year ago. As a result of not doing so, as a result of simply delaying until we could get enough special interest provisions in this bill to get a majority for it, we have cost American manufacturers and exporters millions and millions of dollars. But I must voice my opposition to the conference report, a product that has not improved with age. In fact, as it has been drawn out over time, it gets further and further away from the problem it was supposed to address. There are more narrowly-crafted tax breaks in the conference report than when it left the House in June. There are fewer incentives to keep jobs in this country and just as many incentives that will continue to move jobs overseas, no matter how often they say that is not the case. Read the bill. On the whole, the balance of this measure has absolutely nothing to do with fixing international tax rules, and were it not for some extraneous provisions that are vital in several States, I doubt that we would be debating this conference report now, because it would have never passed the House in the first place. Period. So, once again, after a decade of rhetoric on tax reform and increased calls by leaders of the other side of the aisle for action on tax simplification, a product has been brought before this House that only serves to complicate and carve up the Tax Code even more. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows, in 40 months, we have expanded the Tax Code and regulations by over 30 percent. My, my, my. That is why, of course, Joe Scarborough said when informed that he campaigned on the basis of tax simplification, he shrugged his shoulders and said, ``We lied.'' That is what Joe Scarborough said. U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow, U.S. Treasury Secretary Snow agrees, indicating earlier this week that its content ``went far beyond the bill's core objective,'' which was to resolve a $4 billion trade dispute with the European Union. At a time of record job loss, especially in the manufacturing sector, Republican leaders rejected a bipartisan solution that could have passed well over a year ago, at far less cost to the country and without the delaying tactics that allowed 1 percent tariffs on our exports.

Mr. HOYER. Then that advice cannot be followed. To date, Mr. Speaker, business across this country have been harmed to the tune of nearly $187 million, because the majority did not pass this bill last year, as they should have. After having ignored fiscal discipline for the last 43 months, the majority has miraculously rediscovered the principle of revenue neutrality, but are using gimmicks, phase-outs, and controversial revenue-raisers that punish working families, small business taxpayers, and charitable organizations to do so. True, hidden among the largesse are a few deserving provisions. I would like to support those. But I cannot support this bill, which continues the path of extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility, which took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus told that we had by George Bush back in March of 2001, to the time now when we have a $3 trillion deficit confronting the children and grandchildren of this country. How sad the performance. How ill-timed and ill-conceived this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, today we must undertake the most important task entrusted to us, our responsibility to protect the American people and our country, to defend our borders, and to preserve our way of life against those who already have, and those who would again, do us harm. Specifically, we must address the shortcomings in our Nation's defenses that were exploited by murderers who killed 3,000 unsuspecting, innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001. Too many of these shortcomings have simply gone unaddressed in the last 3 years. After months of painstaking and bipartisan work, the 9/11 Commission produced a thoughtful road map to guide our efforts at shoring up our intelligence and homeland security capabilities. The Senate accepted this road map, began working immediately in a bipartisan manner on it, and has produced legislation supported by the families of the 9/11 victims, the commissioners, and 96 Members of the Senate. Regrettably, yet again, the House Republican leadership has chosen to legislate in an exclusionary, partisan process, resulting in a bill that not only falls short of many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations but also contains divisive, extraneous provisions. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concerns about the unnecessary expansion of law enforcement authority, the undermining of immigrants' fundamental rights, and the erosion of basic civil liberties contained in H.R. 10. I share those concerns. I am also troubled that this House bill fails to adequately address the gravest threat to our national security, terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Interestingly enough, both Senator Kerry and President Bush in the last debate made it clear that they thought that was the highest priority. Yet this bill on the floor does not address it. Luckily, the substitute does. H.R. 10 fails to strengthen the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program which is designed to prevent these weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, as the commission recommended and as the Senate bill does. The Menendez alternative addresses the issue of expanding our ability to acquire and get off the market for terrorists such nuclear weapons. This legislation represents a missed opportunity to learn lessons from September 11 and to implement meaningful improvements to our ability to better detect, prevent, and respond to future terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute. It can clearly pass the Senate; 96 Senators have already supported it. At a time when time is of the essence, we ought to act in as bipartisan and cooperative a fashion as we can. The Menendez substitute mirrors the bill passed in the Senate which incorporates the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and it will allow us to better fulfill our sacred duty of protecting the American people and doing so in a very efficient, effective, and quick fashion. We ought to adopt the Menendez substitute. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this critically important effort. I know that he lost many constituents in that tragic event, and I thank him for following up so diligently since then to ensure that it does not happen again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me again thank the majority whip for his diligence and leadership in working on this legislation and for ensuring its passage before we leave here for the election period. He has been a privilege to work with. His commitment to this objective is very clear and very powerful. I thank him. I join with him in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), the nephew of Eunice Shriver, a member of the family that has contributed so much to the welfare of this country and to the welfare of our people.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me say how pleased I am to have had the opportunity to work with the majority whip on this legislation. I want to say that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is my friend, and he and I have had the opportunity to work on a number of issues together. He was extraordinarily helpful with the Help America Vote Act, and he and I, as some may know, meet on a regular basis and have lunch either in his office or in my office. The majority whip referenced our working together in a bipartisan way. I think he is absolutely correct, this is an example of how we can work together and how when we do work together we can do very productive and positive things. At the outset, I want to thank April Ponnuru for the work that she has done, a member of the staff of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well as my own staff member, Jane Sung. Both of them have worked very hard to get this legislation to where it is today. I am pleased, of course, to support the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act 2004, which the gentleman from Missouri and I, and others, have cosponsored. In 1968, Mr. Speaker, at the launch of the first Special Olympics games, Eunice Kennedy Shriver repeated the words of the ancient Roman gladiators and said, ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.'' This has since become the Special Olympics athletes' pledge. Special Olympics has a remarkable history. It began with Eunice Shriver, who believed that people with intellectual disabilities were underestimated and deserved the same opportunities and experiences as the rest of society. In 1962, she began a day camp in her back yard in Maryland, where individuals with intellectual disabilities could participate in physical activities. It is ironic that I met Eunice and Sarge Shriver in 1962 at the Washingtonian Motel at the Young Democrats convention that year. Sarge Shriver was our speaker. Since that time, I have become and been a very good friend of Sarge Shriver and Eunice Shriver. Her work in the ensuing years led quickly to expanded multiple camps and eventually to the first international Special Olympics in 1968. Today, under the leadership of Chairman and CEO Timothy Shriver, the Special Olympics is a worldwide movement with nearly 1.5 million participating athletes in 150 countries around the world; one person with an idea and a vision starting something in her backyard, one person who had been given substantial benefits in life but who knew that she wanted to use those benefits, as so many in her family have done, for the benefit of all. The bill that we are considering today is about the future of Special Olympics. This bill will help Special Olympics take the next steps to reach more athletes in more aspects of their lives. For example, Mr. Speaker, this bill will formally authorize the critical ``healthy athletes'' program, where tens of thousands of athletes receive health care screenings at competition venues. This bill will also allow Special Olympics to develop educational programs for athletes, including character education and volunteer opportunities. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow Special Olympics to further expand their reach internationally through cultural exchanges and other programs in cooperation with the State Department. How very important this is at a time when tensions are so high in so many areas of the world, and this program can seek to ease those tensions while at the same time giving opportunities to the intellectually disadvantaged. But what distinguishes this from so many bills that we consider in this body is that, at its core, the biggest success of Special Olympics is not simply how it empowers and improves the lives of the athletes involved. The biggest success is how it affects the attitudes of millions of others. I do not know how many in this body have ever been huggers. That term is not used today, an analogous term is used, but being a hugger was being involved at the Special Olympics and, as those athletes competed, knowing full well that it was in the competition that they succeeded, to congratulate them, to, yes, indeed, physically hug them and say, well done, good job, you're special, what an incredible difference that has made in the lives of so many. Special Olympics has helped to reverse prejudices and stigmas that are often too unfairly put upon people with intellectual disabilities. With Special Olympics, the world sees for itself that people with intellectual disabilities can be, and are, exceptional athletes and can compete, achieve and, yes, win. I am pleased that the House of Representatives can play a role in this mission. Mr. Speaker, I had the great honor of being one of the cosponsors of the Americans with Disabilities bill. That was passed in 1990 and signed by President Bush into law. He said at the time of signing, and we have said since, that this bill opened opportunities and focused on what people could do, what their ability was, not what their disability was. This bill takes another step forward in ensuring that one of the finest programs that we have in America and around the world, the Special Olympics, will thrive, expand and serve even millions more. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that this bill fails to provide even a modest amount for the gravest humanitarian emergency facing the world today, the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians in Darfur. I want to congratulate the chairman for bringing this bill forward at this time, and I certainly support it, and I support the provisions. I certainly join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in his observations with reference to $100 million for our Caribbean friends who have been devastated. However, both the President and the Secretary of State have called the tragedy in Sudan genocide. And the United Nations has identified it as ``the world's worst humanitarian crisis.'' But we still have the opportunity to support an African Union peacekeeping force intended to put an end to the blood shed and we must not turn our backs. How can it be that destruction of 400 villages, the murder of 50,000 civilians, and the displacement of more than one million people is not an emergency worth a modest investment to stop the slaughter? It is true we have provided millions of dollars in humanitarian relief for those already affected by this ongoing horror. But we have not yet adopted the appropriate sense of urgency about ending the murderous campaign of the Sudanese Government and its Janjaweed henchmen. The USAID estimates that 350,000 more people could die of disease and malnutrition over the next 9 months. The fact is the killing must stop before the farmers and herders can return home to Darfur and resume feeding their families. At the very least, Mr. Chairman, we ought to require the administration to use existing authority to reprogram $93 million in unobligated Iraq reconstruction money now, the operative word is now, to end the genocide in Sudan, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) as proposed and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) has proposed, and indeed, I think as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) supports. Ten years ago when 800,000 Africans died in the Rwandan genocide, we vowed, as the world has too often: never again. How is it that the world so quickly forgets what ``never again'' means? What generated the sentiment ``never again'' in the children, the women, the elderly? They will not understand if we simply talk, if we simply say at some point in time we will act. We now have an opportunity to prove that we meant never again, that this Nation, a beacon for human rights, decency and freedom will not stand by, Mr. Chairman, and watch the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. This Nation and the world have a moral obligation to act. Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore that moral obligation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. State Department's 2004 International Religious Freedom report for China begins as follows: ``During the period covered by this report, the Government's respect for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience remained poor, especially for many unregistered religious groups and spiritual movements such as the Falun Gong.'' According to the report, the arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners continued, and practitioners who refuse to recant their beliefs are sometimes subjected to harsh treatment in prisons and reeducation-through-labor camps and there have been credible reports of deaths due to torture and abuse. Foreign observers estimate that half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in the country's reeducation-through-labor camps are Falun Gong adherents. Falun Gong blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism, and the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. Despite its spiritual content, Falun Gong does not consider itself a religion and has no clergy or places of worship. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls upon the government of China to immediately end the harassment, detention, physical abuse, and imprisonment of individuals who are exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association as stated in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. The importance of this cannot be overstated--the protection of religious freedom is intimately connected to the protection of other fundamental human and civil rights, as well as to the growth of democracy. A government that acknowledges and protects freedom of religion and conscience is one that understands the inherent and inviolable dignity of the human person, and is more likely to protect, the other rights fundamental to human dignity, such as freedom from arbitrary arrest or seizure, or freedom from torture and murder. Mr. Speaker, this resolution sends an important message to the government of China that we will not look the other way when they violate the basic rights of their people, and that we demand of our partners in the international community the protection of the most basic human rights--freedom to worship freely.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Sure. We have 12 of the 13 appropriation bills we have not passed. We have not passed a budget. Highway program has not passed. The FSC bill has not passed, resulting in 11 percent additional tariffs to people. The energy bill has not passed. The Intelligence bill, we have been talking about, Defense authorization and the Higher Education Act. None of those have been done to this point.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for next week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for the information. I want to assure the leader, as he says we ought to be, that the Members on this side are, in fact, prepared to spend the time necessary to address the important issues, as the leader requests. And I want to assure the leader of our cooperation in being ready to do our work. Mr. Leader, initially, may I ask, the motions to instruct, can the gentleman give us a time when those might occur, and will they occur relatively close to the votes, the suspension votes at the end of the day? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that information. Mr. Leader, as all of us know, today is the end of the current fiscal year, and 12 of the 13 2005 appropriation bills have not been passed. We do not have a budget. The new fiscal year starts tomorrow. The highway program is still pending. We extended that for 8 months. The FSC bill, which is subjecting businesses in the country doing business in Europe to an additional 11 percent tariff is still not passed. The energy bill, obviously we have not gotten to at this point in time. We have not enacted legislation on the intelligence apparatus, although I understand the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act that the gentleman speaks to. Mr. Leader, on that, might I ask this question: there is a bill in the Senate and there is a bill that has been introduced in the House that mirrors essentially the 9/11 Commission report. Is that the bill to which the gentleman is referring, or the bill that is in the process apparently of being marked up and, apparently, at some point in time, will be put together to come to the floor? Which of those three alternatives does the gentleman refer to? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, on that last point, I have heard a rumor or discussion about the possibility of coming back on November 1, the day before the election to vote on the conference report. Can the majority leader tell me whether there is any merit to that speculation? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's assertion of wanting to keep America safe, and I think that he speaks for 435 of us in that regard. He certainly speaks for me, but I think he speaks for all of us. In that vein, as I indicated to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) two weeks ago, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, while we apparently have a difference of opinion on the Senate bill, which is introduced here in a bipartisan fashion on this side of the Capitol, I believe that we have overwhelming support on this side for that proposition. In light of the fact that we are interested, as the gentleman says, in protecting America and implementing this legislation in as timely a fashion as possible, might it not be in pursuit of that objective advisable to allow that bill to be on the floor either in lieu of the bill that, frankly, has been marked up by my colleague's party exclusively? I have talked to all of our ranking members on the committees that the gentleman talked to. All of them believe they have been informed of what was going on, but they were not participants in the drafting of the legislation. As a result, there may be greater contention than would be hopefully called for if, in fact, we want to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. In addition, it is my understanding that there are substantial differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, which may require a very long conference, rather than short conference, if we do not pass something that is relatively compatible in the first instance. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will simply observe that although the votes may have been bipartisan, and I will tell my colleague very honestly, there is no confusion over here on the timing of this bill. The gentleman expects Democrats to either vote for it or to be attacked about being against protecting the American people if they vote against it. We went through the creation of a bureaucracy, the Homeland Security Department. I voted against it. I think it was not what was needed. What was needed was the coordination of information. I said that at the time. The commission in a bipartisan way has said that is what is needed. We still know that there is not the kind of coordination of information gathering, analysis and recommendation for implementation of action based upon the information gathered that we would like to have. The 9/ 11 Commission found that. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission, as I understand it, has indicated support of the Senate bill as it came out of committee. Now, there are obviously a lot of other things that need to be dealt with, including items that are either in the PATRIOT Act or could have been in the PATRIOT Act. Those items in some respects are very controversial. One of the problems, very frankly, that we have found in getting legislation passed, as the gentleman knows, in a relatively short period of time has been the addition of very controversial items, not necessarily related directly to what the 9/11 Commission had recommended, and because of the controversial nature of those additions, as it has occurred in other legislation, will slow that legislation down.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response, and let me assure the gentleman I did not think I questioned the gentleman's motives. I may question the results of actions we take, but I do not intend to question the majority leader's motives in any event. I do not think that would be appropriate nor do I do it, and if the gentleman took it to be that, I apologize because I do not question. I may have different motives of my own and I may not agree with him, but I do not question his motives. I may question his judgment. I may question that which is for or against but not his motives. I am not going to prolong the discussion on this because we are going to have discussion about this next week, but I would like to make one example of something that we feel strongly about that the 9/11 Commission felt strongly about, which the bill at least that we have seen does not deal with. One of the concerns which the Commission had was that we are not moving quickly enough or effectively enough to identify and to secure materials which could be used for the production of or creation of nuclear weapons, even dirty bombs. The Commission spoke to that directly. The Senate bill speaks to that, and the bill introduced in the House speaks to that, at least at the point yesterday, and I am not sure whether markups have occurred in committees. I guess, some committees, the answer to that is yes; some no, but that was not addressed. So, at least in that one instance, and I have got about 15 others but I am not going to prolong and go through those, that was not addressed in the gentleman's bill, while some other things that the commission did not deal with are addressed, and I understand my colleague's observation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's advice that I have the opportunity to go before the Committee on Rules. I always enjoy the opportunity to go and testify before the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and his committee. Let me move on to some other legislation. I mentioned a number of pieces that we have not done, Defense Department authorization, I mentioned, and the Higher Education Act. My question, does the gentleman anticipate that we will leave next Friday or Saturday having accomplished some or all of those pieces of legislation?

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, A, the majority leader's taking the time to go through those and letting us know where he thinks they may be and whether we will address them next week. Additionally, when we leave next Friday or Saturday, can the leader tell us, for scheduling purposes, and I know we are going to have the leader's organizational meeting, I think we will schedule our organizational meeting the same week, but is it your view that we will have a lame duck session on November 15 or November 16 and days thereafter? I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think the leader is right. I think for that to happen lightning is going to have to strike. Lastly, Mr. Leader, we talked about the intelligence bill being on the floor next week. Can the minority be assured that we will have a substitute for that bill? The gentleman indicated there are 100 amendments pending on the Senate floor. This is a very important piece of legislation, obviously. The bipartisan commission has spoken to this. I have read the report, by the way. I think it is an excellent report. We are very hopeful that we not only will have the opportunity to amend any and all sections of the bill, but that we will have the opportunity to offer a substitute, not just simply a motion to recommit, but a substitute at the appropriate time. I would hope that the leader, given the importance of this legislation, would assure the minority that we would have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the majority leader and to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, this legislation was introduced less than a week ago. It has been marked up this week. It will be on the floor next week. That is a very rapid progression. I think, Mr. Leader, respectfully, that that calls for even greater opportunity for Members to work their will on the floor, with the ability to offer such amendments as they deem to be appropriate and would include the opportunity to offer an entire package in the form of a substitute. I would hope that that would happen.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but I believe, like Vice President Cheney, that this is an issue that should be regulated by the States, as it has been throughout the history of this great Nation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the chair of the House Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) stated on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal and I quote, ``The Federal marriage amendment would do more harm than good were it to be enshrined in our charter.'' That is the statement of the chairman of their policy committee. Through their legislatures and courts, the States have proven quite capable of determining the legal definition of marriage. I believe the proper venue to consider decisions affecting this issue is in State courts and legislatures, and yes, with the people of the individual States. Thus, I oppose this constitutional amendment which is, at its core, based on intolerance and is a patently obvious effort to energize a part of the Republican Party's base and inflame the passions of others. None of us should ignore the Republican majority's real intent here today. This constitutional amendment represents the perfect marriage of raw political cynicism and distraction. Everyone in this Chamber understands that this amendment is not going to pass. In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) said again in the Wall Street Journal, ``The Federal marriage amendment is more symbol than substance given the near impossibility of a two-thirds vote.'' Even the majority leader himself acknowledged as much this week, telling Congress Daily, ``I think it is really important to put Members on the record, particularly before an election.'' Orval Faubus would have agreed with that; George Wallace would have agreed with that; Lester Maddox would have agreed with that. The majority leader's decision to move this amendment to the floor just 7 months after stating that it was unlikely to be considered this year is more than ironic, it is patently political. The purpose in bringing this amendment to the floor today, just 4 weeks before the election, is to create the fodder for a demagogic political ad that appeals to voters' worst fears and prejudices rather than, as we should do, to their best instincts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, given that this amendment is not going to pass, it is nothing short of amazing and irresponsible that we are spending time debating this issue on the floor today. Again as our colleague from California (Mr. Cox) pointed out, there have been more than 130 amendments to the Constitution proposed in our history regarding marriage. The gentleman from California pointed out not one of those amendments has ever been voted on in either House because the leadership in those houses over those years thought those 130 amendments did not belong on the floor. How sad it is that we do not have that kind of leadership today. At midnight tonight, my colleagues, the new fiscal year begins. How many of 13 must-pass appropriation bills have passed? One. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority's legislative malfeasance is on full display today. The appropriations process is in meltdown. This Republican Congress has failed to enact a budget, failed to enact intelligence reform, failed to enact energy reform, failed to enact the reauthorization of the highway bill, failed to enact the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The list goes on and on. Yet with all that outstanding legislation, with all of America's business bottled up and pending, we consider a constitutional amendment that the chairman of the policy committee on the Republican side says will not pass. How patently political today is. Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority has failed. The American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today, our Republican friends are waving a white flag, announcing what has become so obvious to so many, that they have surrendered to their own intransigence, that they cannot get their work done. The sad fact is that the gentleman presenting this bill is not responsible for this failure. In fact, his leadership of the committee was consistent with doing our work on time. But his colleagues did not assist him in that effort. This continuing resolution is nothing less than an admission of failure by the House Republican leadership. But it is a fitting capstone to the least productive session of Congress that I have been a part of since I was elected to this body in 1981. We are setting a record today, Mr. Speaker, but not a record that any of us can be proud of. So far, and all of my colleagues ought to listen to this, so far in this second session of the 108th Congress, we are on course to work fewer days, 93 as of today, than any other single session since 1948; 1948 was the famous ``Do Nothing Congress.'' This Congress is doing even less than the ``Do Nothing Congress.'' Yet while this Republican Congress keeps banker's hours, it has failed to enact a budget. It has failed to enact a comprehensive energy bill. It has failed to enact intelligence reform. It has failed to enact a bill to eliminate European Union trade sanctions on American manufacturers. And it has failed to enact and pass a highway bill, a reauthorization which would create 42,000 American jobs for every $1 billion spent on repairing and building highways, repairing and building bridges, and fixing and providing for mass transit systems in America so that commerce and people could move effectively. And now, now, this Republican leadership must pass this continuing resolution because it has enacted only one of 13 appropriation bills within the time frame established for it. This is the leadership that said in the Contract with America that we are going to bring efficiency and effectiveness to the management of the House of Representatives. Joe Scarborough the other day said in an article, ``We said all this and we lied.'' Joe Scarborough, conservative Republican from Florida. I intend to vote, of course, Mr. Speaker, for this continuing resolution, as the chairman will, because it is necessary and responsible to do so. But let no one be mistaken, this CR is far more than a mere formality. The Republicans' failure to pass appropriation bills on time has real-world consequences to real people, to States, localities, municipalities and every individual. Because they failed to enact the Homeland Security bill, critical funding for the SAFER program is not available, money to hire additional firefighters and emergency response teams. That means fire departments across the Nation will be delayed in their efforts to hire, recruit and retain firefighters. Because they have failed to enact the Transportation-Treasury bill, nearly $1 billion in airport improvement grants is not available. That means airport security fencing and the construction of airport rescue and firefighting stations will be delayed. Because they failed to enact the Commerce, Justice, and State bill, $658 million in worldwide security upgrades at U.S. facilities, for instance, in Kabul, Afghanistan, are not available. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. The majority's failure to pass appropriation bills on time will delay funding for everything from construction at Veterans' Administration facilities to humanitarian assistance to the victims of genocide in Sudan, to additional funding for food safety inspections here at home. Mr. Speaker, in February, former House majority leader, the majority leader in the last Congress, commented ``Republicans own the town now.'' What he meant was Republicans control the presidency, the House and the Senate. Democrats cannot stop and, frankly, cannot get it to go so that the failure lies solely at the desk and feet of the Republican leadership in both Houses. But everyone can see today their record is not an enviable one, notwithstanding the fact that they own the town. It is an embarrassment. The American people deserve better. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will vote for this continuing resolution. It was originally scheduled to be until October 8. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I have a colloquy at the end of every week, and in that colloquy last week, I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) how long this CR was going to be. He said he did not know specifically but he thought October 8. But they have decided, no, it will be November 20, after the election, after the American people will be able to make a judgment on what they are really going to do. How sad. How failing in our responsibility to this institution, to the American people and to our Nation. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman-in-waiting of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I support this motion to instruct conferees on the DOD authorization bill to keep the Senate-passed hate crimes legislation in the conference report. This straightforward legislation would provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It also would add gender, disability, and sexual orientation to the existing Federal hate crimes law and clarify the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated and prosecuted. Enacting these important additions to existing law will send, I believe, a very powerful message that crimes committed against any American just because of who he or she is are absolutely unacceptable and that the Federal Government stands ready to assist or, yes, step in to assure that perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice. While the heinous murder of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., will never be forgotten, thousands of other brutal crimes are committed every year that may not command the Nation's attention, yet nonetheless strike fear among entire communities in which they occur. That is exactly what makes forcefully addressing hate crimes so essential. This legislation should have become law 4 years ago, when the Senate added hate crimes legislation to the Department of Defense authorization bill and the House, on a strong bipartisan vote, instructed conferees to accept the Senate's position. Unfortunately, however, because the Republicans' leadership opposed such a move, the hate crimes provisions was dropped in the conference, thus opposing the will of the majority of the House and the Senate. Let us right that wrong this year. We should adopt this motion to instruct. And if the motion succeeds, I urge the leadership of this House and of the Senate to include it in the conference report. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let me say this. Why do we include hate crime as a specific and distinct crime? Clearly, if one knocks me over the head, he or she commits an assault. That is a crime at the State and local level. It is also a crime at the Federal level. Why should there be a specific crime if the motivation for hitting me over the head is that I am, well, I used to say blond, like my grandson, but gray haired? The reason for that is that this Nation holds as a principle truth that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Therefore, because we believe that every individual is entitled to rights, an assault on that individual is a crime; but if it is because of the class to which that person belongs, it is the undermining of the very essence of America, of our welcoming of diversity, of our rejecting prejudice and bigotry, of assuring every American equal protection of the laws. That is why this is a distinct and different crime. We have found all over the world that hate is dangerous, that bigotry is dangerous. It undermines democracy. It undermines the safety and security of individuals. Let us pass this motion to instruct.