Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support The District of Columbia Retirement Protection Improvement Act of 2004, which I sponsored with Representative Tom Davis. This bill makes simple and commonsense improvements to streamline the administration of pension benefits for District of Columbia teachers, police officers, and firefighters. This legislation eliminates duplication and promotes efficiency in the investment and accounting of D.C. pension funds. In 1997 Congress created two separate funds that operated under different rules. However, Congress has long since acted to eliminate the distinctions between the two funds. This legislation will take the logical next step of consolidating the two funds and replacing them with the newly created D.C. Teachers, Police, and Firefighters Pension Fund. I am also pleased that we were able to include provisions supported by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and the City government to transfer administration of retirement programs for D.C. Police Officers, Firefighters, and Teachers from the office of the Chief Financial Officer to the D.C. Retirement Board. This provision will consolidate responsibility of retirement benefits and has already been approved by the D.C. Government, but can only go into effect with Congressional action. Last year, I was pleased to join Congressman Davis in sponsoring another bill affecting retirement funds for D.C. Police Officers and Firefighters, the D.C. Military Retirement Equity Act, which was signed into law on November 22, 2003. That law allowed retired D.C. Police Officers, Firefighters, Park Police Officers, and Secret Service employees to ``buy back'' military service time and credit it toward their retirement in order to avoid cost reductions in their monthly benefit payments. These changes today will improve the management of pension funds for D.C. Police Officers, Firefighters, and Teachers, many of whom work in the District of Columbia but reside in my home State of Maryland. Police Officers, Firefighters, and Teachers serve our communities every day to ensure that our children are educated, our streets are safer, and our neighborhoods are protected. I am pleased to take this small step to improve the administration of pension benefits for these workers.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that range of possibilities. Does the gentleman anticipate having another supplemental appropriation before we either adjourn or recess for the election?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would partially agree with my friend, the leader, which is better than most times. I would partially agree that the problem is not in this House; but it is my observation that the problem is in another house, not the other side of the aisle.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman had to leave early. I think he had a plane to catch. And the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I had a colloquy on this. I will inform the leader that I think I am safe in speaking for my side of the aisle with reference to the transportation reauthorization. We believe, and I am sure the gentleman shares the view, that this is a very important piece of legislation to pass. We would have hoped it would have passed by last September when the authorization expired. This is a bill, as the gentleman knows, that for every billion dollars we spend, we get 42,000 American jobs. My observation, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe on our side of the aisle we would support the number that passed, as we overwhelmingly did. We would vote for a compromise between what the House passed and what the Senate passed, or we would support the Senate-passed number. So I tell my friend that for his planning's sake, I believe my side of the aisle will support anything at the level that we passed at a compromise between the two or at the Senate-passed level. We would hope this bill would move, and we want to be cooperative in accomplishing that objective.

Mr. HOYER. White would be the color of the house. And I say that somewhat facetiously; but, frankly, as I said to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), I think this independent branch of government pretty much has a consensus on what we ought to do. We ought to do it, and if the other branch of government disagrees with us, under our system, he can send it back, and we will deal with it as we will deal with it. But we have been holding it, frankly, from our observation, Mr. Speaker, for a long period of time, not based upon real subsequent disagreements between the two Houses, we could accommodate those, but between the disagreement between this branch and the other branch; and we think that is unfortunate.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the information, of course I do not have the specifics on what the house colored white agreed to in terms of a number; but I might inquire, is that number that they are keeping down the deficit more or less than the deficit we would add by the tax bill we passed just minutes ago?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is what happened in 2001?

Mr. HOYER. It even happened after 1993, as I recall. The gentleman did not mention that. It happened in 1994 or, that is to say, after 1993.

Mr. HOYER. But, Mr. Speaker, revenue went up after they occurred, and we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the intelligence legislation, obviously there has been a lot of discussion about that. We have been very concerned about passing that legislation in a bipartisan fashion. The 9/11 Commission report has now been on our desks for many weeks now. Can the leader inform us of where that legislation currently stands?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response. The gentleman has cited the marriage constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I understand it, has not been marked up in committee at this point in time. Is it the gentleman's expectation that this will come to the floor, the constitutional amendment, without being marked up in the committee? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Another piece of business that has not been completed but is in the works or at least pending is the transportation reauthorization. Can the leader tell me whether or not there is an expectation of passing that bill or a relatively short-term extension prior to our leaving on whatever date we may leave? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I am sorry? He does expect it to be brought to the floor without being marked up, but under a rule?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) about that, but obviously, because it is a constitutional amendment, I understand there have been four hearings. Presumably those four hearings were an attempt to elicit some information about the merits of the constitutional amendment and any changes that may or may not be necessary, which could obviously be perfected by an amendment in the committee. Does he expect any amendments to be considered in the Committee on Rules?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Next Friday is the beginning of the new fiscal year, as the majority leader knows; and we only passed, as he knows, one fiscal year 2005 appropriation which has been signed by the President, and that, of course, is the Defense bill. Assuming we will have a CR, can the leader give us an idea for what time period that CR may be? I further yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. I have not talked to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) or the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is on the floor, about the substance of the proposal; but I will certainly discuss it with them. I hope they have been included in these deliberations of a bill that may be introduced because if they have, I think it would make it easier for us to get it passed in a bipartisan fashion in a very efficient and speedy way. Mr. Speaker, I have no further inquiries as to the schedule, and I appreciate the leader's engaging in somewhat the colloquy about the transportation bill, which we feel very keenly about. I hope that we can speed that bill as quickly as possible. I thank the leader for his comments.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes is obviously not sufficient time to respond to simplistic arguments. The previous speaker said he has heard simple legal arguments. He talked about why people came to America. I chaired the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, and I went to numerous countries in which the judiciary was not independent, where it was dictated to by the legislature and the executive departments if the judiciary did not do what the legislature and the executive wanted them to do. That is the perverseness of this legislation. That is the demagoguery of this legislation. This is the simplistic approach that this legislation takes. Let me say, I believe that ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is absolutely appropriately there. It is constitutional, and it ought to be there. And frankly, if the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, I would vote for a constitutional amendment to ensure its presence. The gentleman is correct; Thomas Jefferson intoned those compelling words that we get our rights not from the legislature, not from the executive, not even from the majority. Those basic rights are within us as children of God. That is the difference between this country. That is what Marbury v. Madison meant. It meant a legislature, irrespective of its animus, irrespective of the prejudice that it wanted to include, not in this instance but in other instances, could be overseen by the courts of this United States. The gentleman mentioned the Dred Scott decision. It was not the legislature that overturned that decision or the majority of Americans that overturned that decision; it was the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately that said that is wrong. The gentleman is absolutely correct; the Supreme Court said separate is not equal. But had they been precluded from having the jurisdiction over that case, we would still have segregated schools. We would still have separate but equal, but it was the courts that stepped in and made sure that the dream of America was the reality of America. Defeat this legislation. There is no case pending. It has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. No court in this Nation has precluded. Every child in America now stands and proudly stands, as we do in this chamber, and pledges allegiance to our flag and to this Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. But we have found through the centuries that justice, justice, justice is protected by our independent judiciary. Let us keep it that way for all Americans. Defeat this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Wall Street Journal, former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough wrote, and this is a conservative, a Republican former member from Florida: ``Ten years ago, Republican congressional candidates like me were running as Washington outsiders, promising to balance the budget and pay off the debt,'' but, Joe Scarborough added, bluntly, ``we lied.'' That is what Joe Scarborough said, referring to ``we'' being Republicans running as outsiders for the Congress of the United States. Joe Scarborough, ``We lied.'' Mr. Speaker, that is Joe Scarborough, former member of your Republican Conference, issuing that indictment. Not Steny Hoyer, not the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), not even my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), but Joe Scarborough: ``We lied.'' Last year's record budget deficits of $375 billion will be eclipsed by a projected deficit of $422 billion this year and deficits totaling nearly $2.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the result of ``we lied.'' And because of the Republican Party's fiscal mismanagement, this Congress is on the verge of increasing the ceiling on the national debt for the third time in 3 years to $8.1 trillion, but it lacks the courage to do so on an up-or-down vote before the November elections. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has tried to have us do that. Very frankly, if that is the issue, I vote aye. I am not for America welching on its debts. I am not for doing it secretly. I am not for doing it in the dead of night. I am not for hypocrisy which said, when we were in charge, oh, you cannot do that, and when you are in charge, hiding it under the rug. Now, Mr. Speaker, I join virtually every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle in supporting the extension of middle-class tax cuts, the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and expansion of the 10 percent income tax bracket. But we cannot continue to disregard fiscal reality. It is very nice to say that we are going to give everybody a tax cut and have the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania come up here and say, the extensions will help. They will; we agree with her. But deep deficits will not help our economy in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the historical turnaround from budget surpluses to record deficits and exploding debt during the last 4 years. We conservatives are offended by going deeply into debt. Fiscal irresponsibility is radical, is not conservative. It puts our country at risk. We cannot continue to pretend the tax cuts have no effect on our Nation's ability to invest in homeland security, invest in education, veterans and health care, and we must not ignore this generation's responsibility to our children and grandchildren. I have three children and three grandchildren, and we are putting them very deeply into debt. That is wrong. Saddling them with deeper debt and a diminished future is nothing less than fiscal child abuse. Hear me: fiscal child abuse. I urge my colleagues to vote conservatively, to make sure that we do not plunge this country deeper into debt. Let us extend these tax cuts, but let us pay for them. That is what this generation has a responsibility to do for the next generation. Let me continue to read from what I know my colleagues want to hear from their conservative colleague, Mr. Scarborough: ``Mr. Bush, like most Republicans these days, only pays lip service to smaller government and balanced budgets. He is, after all, a President who inherited a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a $442 billion deficit.'' Mr. Scarborough, our conservative former colleague said, ``It is ironic that we Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by attacking Bill Clinton for his free-spending ways. But spending grew annually under Mr. Clinton at a 3.4 percent rate, while exploding under President Bush at a 10.4 percent clip. Republicans taking credit for restraining Mr. Clinton need to explain why they did not hold their own President to the same standards.'' How ironic it is that my Republican friends claim credit for restraining the government when we had the presidency, but they cannot do it when their own President is in charge. Can anybody believe that representation? I am going to vote no on this tax bill. I urge others to. The individual items in this bill are good, but the overall policy is disastrous, and Joe Scarborough told the truth.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate vote on the Stenholm amendment trying to contain the national debt.