Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ``with the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian today, the sun shines a bit brighter on the National Mall. This long overdue addition to the Smithsonian is both an architectural and cultural feat achieved through hard work, imagination and perseverance of Native communities across the country. With its combination of traditional materials and state-of-the-art technological exhibits the museum is a true testament to native communities' commitment to moving forward while honoring the traditions of the past. ``Potomac is Algonkin for `where something is brought.' Therefore, it is fitting that today on the banks of the Potomac River the Native community brings our great nation the gift that is the National Museum of the American Indian. By meeting adversity with strength and a renewed commitment to the health, welfare and prosperity of their people and traditions, the Native community is an inspiration to all Americans.'' ``While we celebrate the opening of the museum we must also take the time to recommit ourselves, our nation and our resources to helping Native communities across the country. The challenges of providing adequate housing, health care and education in Indian Country must be met with our full dedication and vigor. We must recommit ourselves to providing full ballot access to all of Indian country in this fall's election and support the efforts of the legal teams of the Native Vote 2004: Election Protection. ``In addition to dedicating ourselves to addressing the needs of the Native community, my Democratic colleagues and I are steadfastly committed to protecting tribal sovereignty and protecting the trust rights of all in Indian Country. The government-to-government relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes must be protected as we legislate and direct funds in Congress. We must honor our nation's responsibility to protect the land and resources of Native Americans fully and to the benefit of all in Indian Country.'' ``It is a brighter day in our nation and in all of Indian Country on this opening day of the National Museum of the American Indian.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for yielding me time. I want to join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and others in congratulating the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership, his tenacious, unwavering leadership on this issue, calling the Congress's attention, calling America's attention, indeed, focusing the international community's attention on the genocide that is occurring before our eyes. Mr. Speaker, the international community can no longer avert its eyes from the humanitarian and human rights catastrophe that is occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan today. Secretary of State Powell has labeled the killings in Darfur as genocide, pointing out that the attacks on innocent men, women, and children by the Sudanese government and the Arab militia group called the Janjaweed are part of a ``coordinated effort, not just random violence.'' This is an intentional, considered act of murder. The United Nations calls the situation the ``world's worst humanitarian crisis.'' An estimated 30,000 civilians have been murdered. More than 400 villages have been destroyed. One million people have been displaced, and 130,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. And still, and still the international community stands on the sidelines. Mr. Speaker, inaction in the face of genocide must not be an option. The international community and the United States must be prepared to act to end the armed conflict at the heart of this crisis. Regrettably, the U.N.'s record of responding to crises of this type and magnitude, notably in Rwanda and the Balkans, has been shameful, shameful. The United Nations talks about it, but it does not walk. The United Nations rings its hands but does not raise its hands to stop the killing. I watched with grief as the United Nations blue helmets were on the ground in Bosnia, watching genocide be perpetrated, and they did nothing to stop it. We watched as the world, ourselves included, lamented what was happening in Rwanda and 800,000 defenseless, innocent souls perished because the mighty stood by and watched. History will not judge us well for that negligence. Did the slaughter of hundreds of thousands 10 years ago not teach us anything? Does the painful memory of our inaction then not compel a different response today? The answer is muted at best. We pass resolutions in this body. We talk in New York and people die. We continue to talk in New York and people are displaced. We continue to talk in New York and women are raped. We continue to talk in New York and children starve. Talk is cheap. Talk does not stop killing. Talk does not stop genocide. It is time for the world to act. This resolution by itself will not diffuse the crisis or stop the bloodshed, but it is nevertheless a siren call to the world that we can no longer ignore the genocide, we can no longer rationalize those who commit it. We ought not to treat as citizens of the world and the United Nations nations who commit genocide. This resolution is an explicit recognition that is not only a perverse, but a grotesque, situation that Sudan is allowed to retain its membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What kind of world do we live in where the perpetrator of genocide is included on the nations of the world's Commission on Human Rights? Is there no intellectual honesty in the international community? This resolution would urge our Nation's representatives at the U.N. to seek the immediate suspension of Sudan from the commission. I would go further than that. I would suggest the immediate suspension of Sudan from membership in the United Nations until this genocide stops. But this resolution is appropriate. It is not enough, but it is a step; and I support it. I thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership and for his yielding me time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of fiscal responsibility in this country. My presumption is that every conservative in the House of Representatives will vote for this. The President talked about who is conservative and who is liberal. It is conservative to be fiscally responsible. Like the gentleman from Texas, I have supported a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I am for investing in programs that I think help America, but I am for spending money that we have, and I am not for spending money that we do not have. Quite simply, his amendment would force our Republican friends to come to grips with their irresponsible fiscal policies. They talk about balancing the budget, but they have not had a bill vetoed by this President that spent more money than we had, period; not one, not ever. And they are going to spend all of Social Security funds, they are going to spend all of the money that they borrow. Just two months after taking office, President Bush promised the American people, ``We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade.'' He explained, quoting again, ``Future generations should not be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed.'' Amen, Mr. President. Why do you not practice what you preach? Well, Mr. Chairman, the President and Congressional Republicans have run rough-shod over that rhetoric. They did not pay down the debt in 2002; they increased the debt limit by $450 billion. They did not pay down the debt in 2003; they increased the debt limit without a straight up or down vote, which they always demanded when they were in the minority, they increased it by $984 billion. When I came to Congress, the entire debt from 1789 to 1981 was $985 billion, just $1 billion more than we raised it last year alone. Now the Treasury Secretary is back for more. He warns that the national debt will exceed the statutory debt limit, now $7.384 trillion, later this month or in October. As a result, our Republican friends desperately want the Treasury Department to temporarily dip into the retirement funds of Federal employees to avoid breaching the debt limit, for which they wanted to impeach Bob Rubin. What short memories they have. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm amendment would prohibit the Secretary from doing that. Mr. Chairman, the Republican party can run, but it cannot hide, from the debt disaster that its economic policies have caused. None of us will allow the United States to default on its obligations; none of us. But let us show some courage. If the debt limit must be increased, we should vote on it in the open, up or down. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stenholm amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman has put his finger on the impasse, and that is the White House. I think frankly the Congress can reach agreement on this and I think we ought to. I urge the majority reaching consensus in the Congress and, as a separate and coequal branch of government, sending our judgment down to the White House. Obviously the White House then has its full prerogatives to exercise its judgment. But we have waited far too long on that, I believe. The last question or the last inquiry I would make of the whip is there has been a lot of talk, of course, about the middle-class tax cuts. I think both sides of the aisle feel very strongly that we want to make sure the middle-class tax cuts continue. In particular, we have focused on the child tax credit, as the gentleman knows. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth. That has been held up for a very long period of time, particularly extension to those families making up to $26,000. There are some 200,000 service families, as the gentleman knows, that are not qualifying for the child tax credit at this point in time. Can the gentleman tell us whether or not he has any optimism about that conference report coming back to us anytime soon?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that objective and I want to tell the whip, as I have, I think privately, that this side of the aisle will be very supportive of, I think, any figure that the majority can agree among itself, the White House, the Senate and the House, between the House-passed bill which passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion and in fact, of course, as the gentleman knows, Democrats, Chairman Young and all of the Republican members and Democratic members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure believe we ought to have a substantially higher number to meet the needs of the Nation than was passed here or passed in the Senate. My representation to the gentleman from Missouri would be that I think that the votes will be there on our side for, I hear a figure of very close to $300 billion being mentioned. I think on this side of the aisle in talking to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we will be obviously substantially influenced by what the gentleman from Minnesota recommends as our ranking member but we would be very, I think, supportive and we could forge a significant majority to send that bill down to the President and have the President consider it. As the gentleman knows, every $1 billion that we have in that bill creates 42,000 jobs here in America. We believe that bill is very important. We would have hoped it would have passed last year, but I want to tell my friend that he and I have the similar responsibilities of trying to count votes and I think we will have the overwhelming majority of our people for a bill. If we just split the difference between the Senate and the House, which is essentially what is being talked about, I think we would support it on this side of the aisle. I hope the gentleman's Members would support it on his side of the aisle, we send it to the President and obviously the executive, a coequal but separate branch of government, would have to make its determination as to what it wanted to do. I do not know if that is a possibility but I think we could work together in a bipartisan fashion to get that done. I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. HOYER. A couple of other questions, if I might, Mr. Speaker. The transportation bill is one of those conferences that the gentleman referred to that is pending that possibly will come back. If it does not come back next week, does the gentleman contemplate having an additional extension? The present extension, as the gentleman knows, expires very shortly in terms of the continuation of the previous authorization of the highway bill. Does the gentleman contemplate having another extension? And, if so, has there been discussion about how long a period of time that might be for?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we are all enthusiastic about that objective. We are now 9\1/2\ months into pursuing that objective and it has not happened yet, but perhaps it will. But let me ask the gentleman more pointedly, I suppose, as it relates to the length of the CR, it is my understanding that there was some expression from the highest junctures of leadership in his party that a lame duck session was not particularly favored by the leadership but we hear rumors about possibly having a lame duck, that possibly being sometime in mid-November when his organization and probably ours will be scheduled. Can the gentleman shed any light on his current thinking, in light of the fact we have 15 days left to go in the fiscal year and about, I suppose, another 20 or 25 days left before we presumably will recess or adjourn prior to the elections, as to whether or not there is a substantial probability or possibility of a lame duck session?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman, if a CR is needed and the appropriation bill does not move forward or some omnibus does not move forward, can the leadership inform us as to how long a period of time they may be contemplating a CR would cover?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Whip, we are approximately 15 days from the end of the fiscal year. The only appropriation bill signed by the President is the defense bill, leaving 12 appropriation bills still pending. Presumably we are either going to do something that would be extraordinary, passing those bills within the time frame left to us, which I guess is 6 or 7 legislative days at most, or passing some type of CR or omnibus. Can the gentleman advise the House as to what the leadership's current thinking is on how we are going to proceed as we approach the end of the fiscal year on September 30?

Mr. HOYER. Are you pretty confident it will not be on the floor next week?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will so advise Members. Mr. Whip, you indicated some of the legislation we are going to consider, and you did not specifically mention Friday. Can the gentleman advise us at this time what the intention is for Friday of next week?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my question is in light of the fact that general debate and most of the bill has been objected to or much it has been objected to, there are still pending amendments. At what time do we need to advise Members who have amendments that are pending that they must be here? Obviously we are starting at 2. There are suspension bills, but can we give them some perhaps target time that they should be here to protect themselves in the offering of those amendments?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. Apparently we are going to do some suspension bills on Tuesday, and then we will go back to the Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the distinguished minority whip the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, assuming on Tuesday or Wednesday we pass the Transportation-Treasury bill, that will leave only the VA-HUD bill pending from the Committee on Appropriations from the House perspective. Can the gentleman advise us whether or not the VA-HUD bill may be coming to the floor next week? It was not mentioned for next week, but the week following?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, as well as Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos from the International Relations Committee, for bringing this resolution before us today. In recent weeks the world watched in shock and horror as terrorists brought down two Russian aircraft and detonated a deadly bomb at a Moscow train station. Russia is no stranger to the global war on terror; still the devastation and timing of these attacks were notable and shook the confidence of the Russian people. But nothing prepared the world for the unspeakable act that was perpetrated in Beslan beginning the morning of September 1. On their way to the celebrate the first day of school, more than 1,100 schoolchildren, parents and teachers were taken hostage by approximately 30 armed terrorists. These innocent men, women and children were inhumanely held with no food or water for more than 52 hours, and their treatment at the hands of these terrorists was savage and cruel. Tragically, the siege ended in a hail of bullets and series of explosions. In the end more than 355 innocent hostages were killed, including 156 children. Nearly 200 persons still remain unaccounted for amid the rubble of the school. Let there be no mistake. These were not the actions of rebels or freedom fighters; these were the despicable and abhorrent acts of terrorists. As the Russian people attempt to come to terms with their loss and cope with the anguish inflicted by these loathsome individuals, may they find comfort in knowing they are in the thoughts and prayers of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the heart-wrenching scenes of parents frantically searching for missing children, or mourning the loss of their children have steeled the resolve of the United States to stand with the people of Russia, and rededicate ourselves to rooting out these cowardly terrorists from every corner of the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his generous yielding of time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concern about the funding in this bill. I realize the chairman's hands are tied by the allocation given to the subcommittee which is in turn driven by the budget resolution passed by the House earlier this year, but not passed by the Congress. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for doing the best they could with the limited resources available to this committee, but this committee did not have sufficient funds to meet its responsibilities. This highlights the fact that the decisions we make about the budget and taxes have real consequences. With this bill today, we unfortunately see one major result of our decisions. We have failed to live up to the commitments we made to our constituents. I am, however, pleased in certain instances that we have followed the President's recommendation. The FDA consolidation which we are about has been included in the bill, an extraordinarily important effort that a bipartisan effort of the administration and the Congress has pursued. These funds will go a long way in helping to relocate FDA employees from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art facilities. The consolidation would bring to an end the practice of extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout the region. We in fact will save money as a result of this. On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not provide any election reform grants. We have funded the commission. That is appropriate. We had a press conference this morning with the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State. One of the most important things that remains left to do on election reform is revising the statewide election system of recording registrants and having those registrants available to each and every precinct. The grants that are due under the authorization are not included in this bill. The administration, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, must show a stronger commitment to election reform, including calling for more funding, if this Nation is to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election debacle. We will not do anything between now and November 2 with this money; but very frankly the registration that we require in the bill be a statewide system must be online by January of 2006. That is a very brief period of time, some 14 months from now. And if we do not fully fund the authorization, I fear the States will not meet that deadline. We made a promise to the States that the efforts to address the most serious deficiencies in their electoral systems would not turn into another unfunded federal mandate. By failing to fund fully the commitment of the authorization bill, we have mandated something and we have not helped pay for it. Also, Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned that the proposed funding for tax law enforcement is insufficient to adequately enforce compliance and make our tax system fair and efficient. I am also disappointed there are no funds to reimburse small airports in the Washington region for the losses incurred when the Federal Government shut them down. I have had extensive discussions with the chairman on this issue. There is some language in the bill that hopefully will make this a conferencable item, but I will tell the chairman once again and I will tell the chairman of the caucus it is ironic that small business people who have invested and taken a risk in being entrepreneurs, as the majority party says it supports, are left hanging in the wind by governmental action and, through no fault of their own, none, zero, find themselves one of the few people who have not been reimbursed for the losses they have incurred. That is, I think, ironic and wrong. While the bill recognizes that the Department of Transportation should consider ways to reimburse general aviation, the failure to provide funds will only leave small airports, specifically College Park, Potomac, and Washington Executive, dangling on the brink of financial ruin. We should do more for general aviation and small business, what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, help ease the burden our actions have caused. Those actions were caused by terrorists. I urge the chairman to include funds for general aviation reimbursement as we move forward to make fair restitution to the small airports. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the failure to provide funds for DOT headquarters is short-sighted, in my opinion, and leaves the Department of Transportation headquartered in an aging building with an infrastructure well beyond the end of its useful life. I urge the chairman to correct this oversight, and we ought to look for the resources to do that. I appreciate the committee's hard work, and I hope we can make some changes and make this a better bill. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, we will want to work closely with you to accomplish that goal. Let me ask you an additional question raised by your response. Would there be in the realm of contemplation on the majority side a lame duck session? When you refer to this calendar year, as I said, we have 3 weeks, maybe 4, I am not sure how long the majority intends to go prior to recessing or adjourning for the election, but does the majority, if the gentleman knows, contemplate the possibility of a lame duck session?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Our concerns, of course, as the gentleman can well imagine, are based upon the fact that, for instance, in the air traffic controller situation, both Houses of the Congress overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, directed that they not be outsourced or privatized. Notwithstanding that, that was dropped from the conference report. So we would just, on behalf of the minority, strongly request that the majority vote, bipartisan vote, in the House, be supported by our conferees. That is not a motion to instruct. It was a very strong vote, almost 40 of the majority, of the Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats. I hope that would be honored. I yield further to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Next week, the gentleman indicated, and we knew this was going to be on the schedule, the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill will be on the floor. That is the 12th of 13 appropriations bills to be considered by the House, leaving only the VA-HUD bill to be the last to be brought to the floor. The first question, and this may be unfair because this does not fall within your expertise, but perhaps you can be advised. When do you expect the VA-HUD bill, if there is an indication of when that might be on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. We are hopeful that we can in fact work together in a bipartisan fashion, as seems to be started by the Senate and in this House as well, to accomplish the objective of the early passage of a reorganization to make us better to respond to the terrorist threat to this country. We hope that that will happen. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. This week, after a long August recess, bipartisan bills were introduced to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with regard to reorganizing the intelligence operations of our country in order to better protect our people and our country. Earlier this week we met, as I said to the gentleman, with the President, who asked us to send him legislation quickly. The reason for my question is, the Democratic leader, after requesting participation by your side of the aisle and a determination was made not to participate, introduced legislation drafted to incorporate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to that, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman have introduced legislation in the Senate. Mirror legislation has been introduced by a Member on your side and a Member on our side as well. The President, as you know, changed his position on the budget authority for the National Intelligence Director and apparently now supports that, so there may well be good bipartisan White House- congressional agreement. Clearly the American public are very concerned about this, we are very concerned about it, and I know the gentleman is very concerned about it. We want to put our intelligence community in the best possible posture, as the 9/11 Commission recommended, to respond to the terrorist threat to this country. My question is, therefore, sir, can we expect, do you think, to perhaps take the bipartisan bills that have been introduced in both the Senate and the House, mirror images of one another, and work on those bills and pass them prior to the time that we either recess or adjourn prior to the election?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I would simply request that, realizing the vagaries of the legislative process make it difficult to determine, but just as obviously Members will be making up schedules for the post-election period, either to take time off after the election or for other family-related matters or district matters that they might have. The sooner we might give them notice of that, obviously the more helpful on both sides of the aisle that would be.