Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Those who will speak have been here for some years. Most of us who speak are known as institutions. We love this House. We believe this House plays a very unique role in this democracy. It is called the People's house, a House to which one can be elected but not appointed. It is a House where the passions and wisdom of the people are joined in this crucible of decision-making process. It is a House that is composed of persons of different views, different regions, indeed different races and nationalities. It is a House where our Founding Fathers designed American democracy to be realized. And in that context it is extraordinarily important to have a House that plays by the rules. Our Founding Fathers knew that if we were to have democracy, it would have to be governed by rules. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), my good friend, the former majority leader, is on the floor; and I have heard him say so often that democracy is a substitute for war. In that context, it is sometimes confrontational; and we need a wise person helped by wise staff to, in effect, be the referee, to say to both sides that we are a democracy and we resolve questions in a peaceful way, perhaps animated, perhaps heated, but nevertheless in a way that seeks to realize the dream of our Founding Fathers, a dream which has been sustained now since 1789 because of people like Charles W. Johnson, III. Not elected to serve but selected, selected by persons who themselves are elected and who know the value of this institution and the absolutely essential position that Charles Johnson III was called to serve in. I am not objective. Those of us who speak will not be objective. We are his friends. We are his admirers. We are appreciative of the service that he has given to this House but, much more importantly, to this country. He is wise. He is also thoughtful. He is also caring of the institution, its staff and its Members but, most of all, of his country. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to thank Charlie Johnson for his service. Charlie's service will be long remembered. He will write a book, and like his predecessors, that book will be used for generations to come to help manage this center of democracy, the people's House. I somewhat lament the fact that Charlie is leaving and will be replaced by John Sullivan, not because John Sullivan is not a worthy successor, but because I prefer Gary Williams to Bobby Knight, and Drew went to the University of Maryland and therefore leavened Charlie Johnson's University of Virginia experience. But, Charlie, as you leave, as we honor you, as we thank you, we wish you God speed and wish you many years of the kind of productivity and success that you have enjoyed here in this House. You have been and continue to be a great American in the tradition of your predecessors who ensured that the people's House would be revered by its Members and respected by those it serves. Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This has got to be a frustrating debate for the American public, these tax bills. It is a frustrating debate for those of us who were for much of what is proposed. It is certainly a frustrating debate for future generations. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 weeks, our Republican friends have worn their reckless tax cut hearts on their sleeves. That is a pretty harsh phrase. But for those of us who believe we ought to balance America's budget as we ought to balance family budgets, it is nevertheless, I think, accurate. Republicans have cynically put popular tax legislation on the floor and dared Democrats to oppose it knowing full well that the only reason that many Members on our side of the aisle would cast ``no'' votes against such bills is because they were not paid for, and on the pretense somehow that cutting taxes, cutting revenues, cutting prices, if you will, for what we buy, whether it is defense, education, health care at NIH, CIA agents, FBI investigators, whatever we are buying, you will want to cut the cost and will not pay for it. You want to put it on our national credit card, and you want my kids and your kids and our grandchildren to pay for it. Very frankly, if this were a Democratic President today making these proposals, there is not a person on your side of the aisle that would not be outraged at the fiscal profligacy, at the fiscal irresponsibility, at the fiscal immorality of the policies that you are pursuing. I assume you go back to your districts and say, oh, the deficit will take care of itself, just as it did in the 90s. Baloney. What took care of the fiscal deficit in the 90s was a bill that George Bush, the first, had the courage to sign, a bill in 1993 that no Republican voted for in the House or the Senate. And in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we came together and passed a balanced budget amendment for which I voted, and we passed PAYGO, for which most of you voted, which said that PAYGO would apply to spending and to taxes. You are digging a hole. You are not digging a hole for yourself, though. You are digging a hole for my children, my grandchildren, and all the children and grandchildren in America who are going to have to pay this debt. I do not get it. I do not get the intellectual disconnect between what you said in the 70s and 80s and 90s and what you are saying today. I do not get it. And you are hoping the American public does not get it either. You are hoping the American public is saying only that I want tax cuts. I want tax cuts. I want tax cuts and to heck with my children. We are talking about one another. How sad. The deficit is going to be half a trillion dollars this year. When I came to Congress it was $985 billion. Last year we raised the debt limit by $900-plus billion. And yesterday all of you voted, almost all, to increase the debt limit by $670 billion. And how your side of the aisle railed, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut has been here long enough to remember that railing, against increasing the debt. How awful that was and we ought to stand up and vote for it. And what did you do? You hid it by the Hastert rule in your budget because you did not have the courage to stand up and say, these are the policies that I am going to pursue as a Representative of the Congress of the United States. Democrats are for fixing the marriage penalty. Democrats are for keeping the 10 percent tax bracket. Democrats are for fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax. Democrats are for making the child tax credits permanent. We are for that, and we are for paying for it so that we do not say we are going to fix it. But generations to come, young people, hear me, young people, you are going to pay for it. That is bad policy. That is bad morality. Let us pass the Democratic alternative, which seeks to be responsible and honest with America and with generations yet to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, I pay special tribute to Army Specialist Jason Christopher Ford who was killed on March 13, 2004 in Tikrit, Iraq. Army Specialist Ford epitomized the duty, valor and sacrifice that we honor in our members of the armed services. Spc. Ford grew up in the Bladensburg, MD area. He was an optimistic young man who had an abiding love for his family. He was a good athlete--a swimmer, baseball player and avid bowler. Spc. Ford joined the U.S. Army in 2002 for the chance to travel. After completing basic training he was stationed in Germany and assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment. In early March 2004 he was sent to Iraq. On March 13, 2004 while on patrol, an improvised explosive device exploded next to the Humvee Spc. Ford was riding in and he was killed. Every day, the men and women of our armed services are exhibiting courage and making sacrifices ensuring that 25 million human beings who had been enslaved for a quarter of a century have been liberated. It is because of their courage and sacrifice that a dangerous dictator no longer menaces his own people or the world, but instead awaits the justice that he denied millions. And it is because of their courage and sacrifice that the universal aspirations of all men and women--freedom, democracy, and basic human rights--are being extended half a world away. This generation of Americans, and future generations, are indeed blessed that when freedom's call came, brave Americans like Spc. Ford answered. We honor Spc. Ford's service to our country and his willingness to answer the call to duty. Today we say a special prayer for his family, friends and fellow soldiers. They must know that a grateful nation mourns their loss and shares their pain. Daniel Webster, the noted orator, Member of Congress and Secretary of State, remarked nearly two centuries ago: ``God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' Army Specialist Jason Ford was ready and he defended liberty. Today we remember and we pay our respect to a beloved son, brother, friend, and now a fallen American patriot who has made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and the principles for which we stand--liberty, justice, equality and decency.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, I pay special tribute to Maryland State Trooper Anthony Jones who was killed last week while on duty assisting another trooper. Trooper First Class (Tfc.) Jones every day exemplified the service and sacrifice that we honor in our law enforcement officers. As the recipient of awards for his valor and bravery, and as the anticipated recipient of the ``Top Cop'' award from the College Park Barracks this month, Trooper Jones demonstrated a commitment to public service and a sincere dedication to protecting and serving our community. Tfc. Jones joined the state police after retiring from the U.S. Air Force in 1998. He spent his entire police career working as a road patrol trooper. He was on patrol when he stopped shortly after 2 a.m. to assist another trooper working at the scene of a single-vehicle crash in Prince George's County. Investigators said Jones crossed the four-lane highway on foot to remove a tire that was part of the accident debris and was making his way back across the road--using a flashlight to warn oncoming traffic--when he was struck and killed. Every day, law enforcement officials like Trooper Jones risk their lives in dangerous situations on our highways and roads to protect the citizens who travel along our roadways. Last week we joined together in commemorating Trooper Jones and all of the law enforcement officers whose brave deeds led them to make the ultimate sacrifice, or left them disabled. Trooper Jones is the 39th Maryland trooper to die in the line of duty, and we say a special prayer for his family, friends, and fellow officers of the Maryland State Police. The Joneses must know that a grateful nation mourns their loss and shares their pain. We honor Tfc. Jones for his service to our country and to his community. I am confident that he will long be remembered with the utmost gratitude and respect. He willingly answered the call to duty, sacrificing his own safety for the safety and security of his community. We shall never forget that sacrifice and will bear witness to future generations the honor and courage Tfc. Jones exhibited as he served the State of Maryland. Although we don't often thank them for it, officers like Trooper Jones help protect our most cherished rights as laid out by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We owe these fine and hard working people a great deal for their contribution to our freedom and security. The words of John F. Kennedy strike a chord this week, ``a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' As these valiant men and women died because they made it their duty to protect and serve, it is our duty to honor and remember them for their selfless contribution to our communities.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the economy on that side of the aisle. I do not blame them. I would not talk about this budget either. I, frankly, would not talk much about the economy either. A net loss of jobs to this date. Does anybody want to dispute that? Apparently not. Let none of us be mistaken about what we are witnessing here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, as important as the budget debate is at a time of record deficits, at a time of exploding debt, at a time of war, this debate is about far more than the budget. This debate marks the death, in time and place, of the so-called Republican revolution. Ten years ago, the Republican Party recaptured the majority on a pledge of reform and a wave of hot rhetoric. Today, with this, and I use this word advisedly, dishonest, phony, political Band-Aid that the majority wants to call a budget, they, for all intents and purposes, are raising the white flag of surrender and announcing to all of America: We Republicans simply cannot govern. We Republicans simply cannot fulfill one of our most basic responsibilities, to pass a real, honest budget. We Republicans have been so blinded by our tax cut ideology, that we do not recognize the irresponsibility and, yes, the immorality of policies that force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. Mr. Speaker, this 1-year Republican budget is simply not credible. It brazenly attempts to conceal the record deficits that Republican policies have created and the fact that they have no plan to rein in those deficits. In fact, for the 1 year it does cover, it projects a deficit of $367 billion. It conceals the fact that Republicans are robbing the Social Security trust fund to pay for Republican tax cuts skewed toward the highest- income taxpayers. It conceals the fact they would freeze domestic priorities, such as health care and the environment, and cut them drastically in the future. And it conceals the fact that this conference report would increase the statutory debt limit by $690 billion. And not one of my colleagues on that side of the aisle has the courage to stand up and vote for that increase. Not one. I have been here long enough to hear my colleagues railing about increasing the debt. Last year, my colleagues increased it even more, without a vote. It was increased to almost as much as the entire debt from 1789 to 1981 at the time I came to Congress. It was $981 billion then, and my Republican colleagues increased it $940-plus billion last year and another $670 in this budget. So, Republicans, my friends, when you vote on this budget, know that you are voting to increase the debt by $670 billion. This budget also conceals the fact that this conference report would lead us into further debt of $8 trillion. Yet under the Hastert rule, there will be no debate and no vote on that action. Mr. Speaker, with this conference report, the majority demonstrates its inability to govern and refuses to address the problems that its own policies have created. This is the last gasp of the revolution. I do not think that they will accept it on the other side, certainly they should not; and I do not think they will. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in February, the former majority leader in this House, Dick Armey, stated the obvious: ``I am sitting here and I am upset about the deficit, and I am upset about spending,'' said the former Republican leader. And he added, ``There is no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' Yes, they do, Mr. Speaker, the House, the Senate, and the White House. Yet, under Republican leadership this Congress has become a quicksand of ideology and intransigence that is swallowing up America's priorities and performing a disservice to the American people. The annual budget is a blueprint of our Nation's priorities and values. But with a Memorial Day recess approaching and the April 15 budget deadline long passed, House Republicans have tied the process in knots. They refuse to pay for tax cuts even as they have run up the largest budget deficit and deficits as far as the eye can see in American history. Republicans' intraparty bickering continues to get in the way of other priorities. In addition to the budget, two job creation bills, a tax measure for domestic manufacturing called the FSC/ETI bill, and a major transportation bill have been stymied, held up, not moving since last year. The transportation bill could create millions of jobs in a tough job market, and the FSC bill would end harmful European Union sanctions against struggling American manufacturers. Both of these bills could have been passed, should have been passed last year with broad support in both Houses of Congress. But with House Republicans it is my way or the highway. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have even rejected progress on an issue that has broad bipartisan support, tax cuts for the middle-class and working families. They have done so not once, not twice, but three times in 3 weeks. And they are poised to do so for a fourth time this week. By refusing to offset the cost of their tax bills, Republicans are not only endangering support for tax cuts which Members on both sides want to see become law, but also putting themselves on record in favor of placing an enormous debt tax on future generation of American children. House Republican leaders may be content with inertia in the people's House. Democrats are not. Last week the Washington Post shined a light on the Republican strategy of biding their time until the election. The Post story observed that, and I quote, ``Despite the burgeoning scandal over U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners and persistent concerns about the economy and the deficit, the House has been keeping banking hours.'' Frankly, the bank would be bankrupt if it kept our hours. In contrast to Republican leaders of the other body, House Republican leaders have refused to fully investigate the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. This is just the latest example of an abdication of this body's constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch. Even a prominent Republican from the other body has said, and I quote, ``We Republicans have never quite reached the level of competent oversight that the Democrats developed over their 40 years that they controlled Congress.'' He continued, major Republican leader, ``We tried to emphasize legislating and we have delegated so much authority to the executive branch of government and we ought to devote more time to oversight than we do.'' This House must not abdicate its constitutional responsibility as an independent, coequal branch of government. Failure in this regard is not an option. Failure is not an option in Iraq. And Democrats will support the funding necessary to support our troops and finish the job. But we want to see where that money is spent, how it is spent, and how effectively it is being used. But there is absolutely no question that Democrats as well as Republicans should want to hold this administration accountable for how it is spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in so many different areas. As a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Speaker, I will continue my efforts to attach accountability to the billions of dollars being spent on the war in Iraq. There are no checks and no balances in Washington today. Right now we need to focus on the oversight responsibility that our Founding Fathers expected, particularly the people's House, to exercise. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the performance of the first 5 months, we will soon see such responsibility exercised.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I am sorry. Declined or inclined?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was not quite sure whether it was an ``in'' or a ``de.''

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Clearly, all of us know that the pay-as-you-go provision has been apparently the stumbling block in the reaching of an agreement between the two Houses. There was, as I understand it, our expectation was that there would be a freestanding bill coming to the floor on the pay-go issue. Can the leader tell us whether that is still contemplated or whether we might see that at any time in the near future? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. The hope is that we will, in fact, move this piece of legislation and that there will be a bipartisan attempt made to move this legislation which is critical to our country, and a bipartisan agreement would be reached, as the leader points out, with the minority, giving them confidence that they will play a full role in the conference. I am hopeful that that happens. I thank the gentleman for his observations.

Mr. HOYER. As was yours almost, as I recall.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time just for a minute for accuracy's sake, all of them wanted a Medicare prescription bill. They wanted a different kind of bill. That is what he says conference is trying to iron out. That is my point. I think he makes it.

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

Mr. HOYER. On the last issue, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act to which the gentleman referred, and he indicates that it will expand the number of families eligible for the credit, we had discussed this last week. Am I correct in presuming that that means that those under $26,000 will be covered as well as those over $26,000. As was the case with the Senate amendment that came over to the House?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it does we will be pleased, and I presume the Senate would be ready to approve that, assuming that it is paid for. Under the procedures of these bills, in terms of the OSHA legislation and the paperwork reduction, can the gentleman tell us under what procedures they will be considered, and will substitute amendments be allowed?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's observation. It is my understanding that the Senate, certainly on the minority side, will agree to go to conference as soon as we are given a number as to what we are going to conference. My understanding is, however, that the gentleman's side of the aisle cannot agree with the White House on what that number ought to be. So in fairness, there seems to be a disagreement on the number that the President will sign, and, I think accurately, that is the reason for the hold-up because I think, frankly, the Senate could agree to the 318 and I would hope we can agree to the 318. I would be for a higher number personally, but I would hope that we could agree to that. The problem is, I understand, the executive does not. But I would suggest to the leader, with all due respect, that this body can and should act independently and send the legislation that it deems to be appropriate and if the executive disagrees, he has the option of vetoing that bill and sending it back to the House. As one of the Senators on the gentleman's side of the aisle observed, that is the way the process is supposed to work. And I would think, because we share the view that this is very important, we believe it is a jobs bill, that we could pass a bill relatively easily with overwhelming votes and certainly votes significant enough to show the President that at least two-thirds of the Members of this body and the other body believe it is an appropriate bill to pass forthwith.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, quoting the majority leader of last week, I do not see it that way. Clearly, as the gentleman has just pointed out, there is not agreement. I think we could get agreement if we could allow the minority to have some sense that they knew the parameters of where we were going, and I think that is all the minority is asking for. I think that is a fair request. But in any event, I think we ought to move this bill, and the gentleman's side is in charge and we would hope that would happen.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. If one assumes that perhaps we do not adopt a budget resolution, would it still be the intent of the majority to bring forth an enforcement bill, the one that has been considered in committee, or is it a condition for that bill coming to the floor that the budget pass? I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. My good friend knows me well. The fact of the matter is we have been debating for some time the way we can internally, Congress can control this spending, and reaching what the gentleman says is a good thing, a balanced budget. And that, of course, is doing what we did all through the 1990s: applying the pay-as-you-go provision to both revenues and taxes, which is the discipline that this body placed on itself so we did not have to rely on the executive branch.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, because I understand what the gentleman is saying, I think it is important to note that every working person in America pays taxes. We call it FICA tax, and 50 percent of Americans pay more FICA tax than they do, but we are using, as the gentleman knows, part of their taxes because there is a surplus in the Social Security account for general expenditures. So in that sense, the overwhelming majority of employees are paying.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I really could take 30 minutes to try to correct what the gentleman from Wisconsin has been saying. First of all, he is a very bright young man. I like him. And it is your money, he says. Now, that is the mantra, and that mantra I have heard for 20-plus years. And, of course, it is your money. And by the way, it is my money, too. I pay more taxes effectively than the Vice President of the United States, who made almost 10 times as much as I make, but I am not poor-mouthing that. And, by the way, the gentleman talks about these large corporations. They do not really care what the rate is because, as we notice, I say to the gentleman, 60 percent of them do not pay any taxes because of their preference items. An aside that the Republican majority has made the Tax Code extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, let me call to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), some facts. A, Mr. Armey said you own this town. You have the President, you have the Senate, you have the House. Now, I have been here a lot longer than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He talks about debt. Under Ronald Reagan, we raised the debt level 17 times. Under George Bush, the first, in 4 years we raised the debt limit 10 times. Under this President, we have raised the debt limit by $1.5 trillion over 3 years. Over 8 years, under President Clinton we raised the debt limit five times for $1.58 trillion. The difference, however, is that under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the first, we added about $2 trillion to the debt. Under this President, we have added about $1.5 trillion to the debt, and under Bill Clinton, over 8 years, less debt and net $79 billion worth of debt, not trillions, net. Why? Because for 4 years of the last 4 years of the Clinton administration we created surpluses. Secondly, the gentleman and all the Republicans talk about it is spending that is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) says that spending is the problem. I would like to have the gentleman's attention because I know he is going to find these figures very edifying and interesting because he talked about spending, that is a legitimate issue to raise; and I want to call the gentleman's attention to the administration's budget numbers. We have it from 1962 to today. Under Ronald Reagan's Presidency, a, we spent 22.5 percent of GDP on average, some years higher, some years a little lower, under Ronald Reagan, never below 21 percent. Let me remind my colleagues that not a penny was spent in America during Ronald Reagan's term of office without his signature, not one. We never overrode a veto. The Democrats never imposed spending that the President did not sign off, not once. So we understand nondefense discretionary spending was 3.4 percent under Ronald Reagan. Under George Bush, the first, it was 21.9 percent of GDP. Again, he never had a bill veto overridden stopping spending. He signed every nickel of that expenditure, 3.3 percent on nondefense discretionary spending. Under George Bush, the second, we have done 19.85, almost 20 percent, and 3.5 percent, Dick Armey, they control this town, 3.5 percent of that was on nondefense discretionary spending. I will tell my friend from Wisconsin this fact is going to amaze him. We spent less GDP under Clinton for 8 years and we spent less on discretionary spending, less on discretionary spending, and I heard the gentlewoman from Tennessee about an hour ago saying we have created 1 million jobs since last August. We created 23 million jobs in 8 years or about 4 million a year on average under Bill Clinton. So, when we are talking about the facts, we ought to know the facts because the facts belie what the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. That is why we are here, because we believe my colleagues' policy is not only fiscally wrong but it is also immoral. My friends on the Republican side want to create the impression that they are the only ones who support this 10 percent bracket. They are not. We want to make it permanent, but we do not want to impose a tax. He talked about various people who are going to get tax increases. Under their bill, 290 million Americans are going to get a tax increase, but guess what. They will not get it immediately. We are going to delay it a little bit, not only past the next election but maybe past a couple of elections after that. Why? Because interest rates are going to go up, taxes are going to go up to pay the interest on this debt that my colleagues are creating, over $200 billion of additional debt in this bill alone. That is all we are saying. We are for this policy. We are for keeping this 10 percent bracket. We want to assist those at the bottom rungs in our society, build themselves up, grow their families, have a better opportunity to pay for the education of their children and their mortgage payments and buy their cars and have a better quality of life. We want that, but we do not want to give them a bill for it 10 years from now that says guess what, you have got a big interest that you have got to pay. I would urge my colleagues to look at the facts. Look at what we did under a piece of legislation passed in 1993, one passed in 1990 and, yes, one passed in a bipartisan way in 1997, which led to the creation of surpluses. Let me close by this, and I do not have as much time as I would like, but Chairman Greenspan said just the other day, who is not a Democrat, ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.'' Vote for this substitute. My colleagues will vote for the policy and responsible fiscal policy at the same time.

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely, that is my point. And if the gentleman would support pay-as-you-go, perhaps we would not have to look to other ways to try to get to balance.