Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Rather than prolong the debate, I want to adapt that which has been put forward by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) in sponsoring this, and adopt the gentleman's remarks as well, and simply say that I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have put their finger on it. We abrogated essentially laws, statutes passed by the Congress, signed by the Presidents of the United States, without reviewing the changes that would be put before us and would impact on our Federal employees. That is all I think the sponsors are asking for the opportunity to do, and I would hope that the Members on both sides of the aisle would adopt this amendment, proceed in that fashion over the next year, and have the opportunity to review the changes that are suggested. I thank the gentleman from Washington State, who has been a giant on behalf of Federal employees during our careers here, and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purposes of requesting of the majority leader information regarding the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of giving us the schedule.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Now, on the PAYGO bill, or the budget enforcement legislation, we marked up a bill some time ago, the budget itself. On this enforcement act, will Democrats, Mr. Leader, be allowed to substitute on this very important legislation? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned two appropriations bills scheduled for next week: Defense and Energy and Water. Can the gentleman tell us on what days he anticipates those bills to be on the floor, and does he anticipate that they will come to the floor under the customary open rules? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. The second question was, under traditional open rules, can we expect to consider them under such rules?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that response and I thank the gentleman for that procedure. With respect to the Intelligence Authorization bill, the gentleman has listed that bill for next week. Under what procedures will this be considered and, specifically, can the gentleman comment on whether the Democratic amendments will be allowed, including amendments in the nature of a substitute?

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is anticipating me, and I will ask that. Can I ask one other question on the Intelligence bill first? Does the gentleman know, if we consider Defense on Tuesday, when does the gentleman think we would consider the Intelligence authorization?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would it be appropriate for me to perhaps address the question to the Committee on Rules chairman? I will not do so if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) thinks at this point in time that is premature, but I will do so if the gentleman thinks it is appropriate.

Mr. HOYER. About what?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have an answer to the question, if one is available. I yield to the leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas can make a joke, and then we will get serious.

Mr. HOYER. That is what he said. That is why I took it jocularly and moved on.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the leader's view on that. I think we share that view. There are obviously differences on how to accomplish the objective but, clearly, the objective; that is, of ensuring a responsible management of the fiscal affairs of this country, is obviously of concern to all in this body.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his observation. As the gentleman knows, we were disappointed we did not get a substitute to the tax bill that was considered yesterday. With a substitute, we can offer alternatives in a way that we cannot necessarily via amendments. We would appreciate and think it in the best interest of deliberations, whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance, that that process be followed; and we thank the gentleman for his consideration of that. Mr. Leader, you have not listed, but I believe we do need to act, the transportation bill. You did not list it in your report, but would I be correct in anticipating that we would extend by some additional period of time the authorization or the existing transportation program? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. That would be my question. Your anticipation would be that they would be agreed upon, that they would be on the suspension calendar?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his information.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the other side can say it over and over and over again, but the facts are correct that this is not about jobs here because if it was about jobs here, we could have passed the Manzullo- Rangel bill 6 months ago. We did not. We did not because we wanted to pass a partisan bill. The Heritage Foundation says, ``There is always a certain amount of grease that is part of getting any tax policy changes through the process,'' but with this bill the Heritage Foundation says that ``the actual policy seems to be secondary to the grease.'' This is a sad day in this House. I have served here for 23 years. This is the worst tax bill that I have seen on the floor of this House. It is the most irresponsible bill. I challenge the Members on that side of the aisle to bring me one editorial, Members will not find it in the Wall Street Journal, Members will not find it out of the Heritage Foundation, one editorial that says this bill is worth passing. We have been involved in an orgy of self-indulgence. That is how great empires fail, so focused on self and corporate and individual embellishment that they forget about the community, they forget about their country, they forget about investing in their people. They forget about investing in jobs in America. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is not on the floor, he was just a few minutes ago. He and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) had a bill that spoke to jobs in America. This bill does not. Defeat this bill. Be responsible, stand up for America, send this bill back to committee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there will be some Members who will speak on behalf of this bill, but I have not talked to one of them that thought this was a good bill. They think there are provisions in this bill, as the chairman said, that have not been considered for some time, and they are voting for that provision. Not one Member have I talked to on this side of the aisle or that thinks this is a good bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I have for many years had the great honor of cochairing the Fire Service Caucus, which is the largest caucus in this House. I notice that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another cochair, is on the floor as well, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been a cochair of the Fire Service Caucus, and others who have been strong supporters of the fire service, the emergency medical response teams, and when I say the fire service, both the paid professionals and the volunteer professionals who do such an extraordinary job in our community. It has been said that there have been cuts in this bill to fire service assistance, and that is true. I know the chairman and the ranking member have fought very hard because the funds that they have available to them are limited. And I want to thank the chairman, as has the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for agreeing to work with us to offer this $50 million to the SAFER funding, which will provide additional dollars for personnel for both paid and volunteer departments which is so critically needed in the country today. So without further prolonging the debate, I want to thank the chairman for facilitating the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, technology has become tremendously important in everyone's daily lives, but there are perhaps few places where technology plays as important a role in an individual's daily life than for individuals with disabilities. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, considered in the House of Representatives today. Assistive technology devices and adaptations are critical to ensuring that individuals with disabilities can live with independence and pursue work, education, communication and other aspects of daily living. Since the Assistive Technology Act was enacted in 1998, assistive technology state grants have provided funds to states to start-up and establish systems for distributing assistive technology devices and services. States have since made significant progress in building and improving these systems. The Maryland Technology Assistance Program, for example, provides a low-interest loan program to help people gain access to and afford critical technologies. The previous authorization originally included a sunset provision to phase out the state assistance grants. However, as it has become clear that technology was increasingly important and that this program provided crucial assistance, support has grown to make this program permanent. I am pleased that over the past several years, we have been able to include language in the Labor-HHS-Education bill to waive the sunset provision and adequate funding, so that states would not have to eliminate their programs. With this important reauthorization bill, we will no longer have to include this language on an annual basis, and individuals with disabilities can be confident that this program will continue to provide states with needed assistance. I am also pleased that this bill has been written to revise the program with greater focus on providing direct benefits to individuals with disabilities. I hope all of my colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and tell him that we simply refer to it as the ANWR bill. It is so much easier. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has listed several pieces of energy legislation for consideration next week. Can he tell us the procedures that he anticipates these bills will be considered; specifically will amendments and/or substitutes be allowed, and will the rule bundle the bills to send them over to the other body, or will we pass them seriatim one at a time to the other body?