Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. Will we be able to offer a substitute as we have in the past?

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, can you tell me whether these bills will be in exactly the same form as they were when they passed the House last year.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, can you call me when you do read them. Mr. Leader, would it be fair, and I see the chairman is on the floor, would it be fair to assume that these bills will not be considered in committee again?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, although we have considered them before, you are not sure whether they are going to be in exactly the same form as when they last passed the House last year?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that I associate myself with his remarks and thank him for those comments. Let me say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, he and I voted together probably 95 percent on issues of defense. I will tell my friend, he has repeated the fact that we knew this in January at least four or five times, that I have heard. If that is the case, and I take him at his word, frankly, I did not focus on it, the chairman did not focus on it, there have been no hearings, there have been no investigations. It is a shameful reality that perhaps some knew this as early as January, and we are here today, some 4 months later, with the public getting that information and the Members of Congress being energized by it. And this resolution did not come from your committee, I say to my friend, until almost mid-May, notwithstanding the fact that you read that disclosure over and over and over again.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are on this floor today considering a resolution condemning outrageous conduct by American soldiers and perhaps some civilians against defenseless Iraqi detainees is an unmitigated and shameful embarrassment for this Nation. This abuse, which is as criminal as it is un-American, demands full accountability. And full accountability must be demanded not just at the bottom of the military chain of command, but for the highest ranking military and civilian officials who knew or should have known about this behavior and either turned a blind eye to it or failed to immediately address it. Let us be clear. The buck should not and it must not stop with a 20- year-old enlisted man or woman who may well have thought they were acting within the framework of a psychology that permitted them to demean and deny basic decency of treatment to detainees. Mr. Speaker, 43 years ago, I stood in front of this Capitol building as President Kennedy told the American people in one of the most famous inaugural addresses in our history that Americans, he said, are ``unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed and to which,'' he said, ``we are committed today at home and around the world.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe we are still committed to those. That is the America that every Member of this body knows and loves; an America that stands for the rights and dignity of every human being; an American America that fights oppression, inhumanity, and intolerance wherever it rears its head. This Congress, the elected representatives of 290 million Americans, must fulfill its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government and demand accountability for these criminal acts. This means that we must hold hearings so that the American people and all the world know the truth about this episode. I am pleased to see the chairman of the committee is holding hearings. Some 4 days ago, he said they were not necessary and the leader of his party said they were not necessary. Those who perpetrated these criminal acts and those who created the environment in which such acts were thought to be acceptable should be, must be, held accountable. Today we learn that the Secretary of Defense has known for months that prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured, and even murdered. Twenty-five prisoners have died in U.S. custody. And, still, there is virtually no accountability for those deaths. No House congressional inquiry, no presidential or secretarial condemnation, and no end. The buck must stop somewhere. Private admonishments are not sufficient. Full public accountability must be demanded. If the Secretary of Defense failed to perform his duty, he should be held responsible. If anybody below him failed to perform their responsibility, they too should be held responsible, as should those perpetrators. Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of tragic that this indefensible conduct threatens to overshadow the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of our brave men and women in our Armed Forces. I have supported their efforts and supported the President in removing Saddam Hussein. We have liberated 25 million Iraqis from the clutches of a ruthless dictator. How proud we are of our men and women in uniform. The only way we can remove that dark cloud that now hangs over their noble efforts is to ensure that those who have acted outside the law are required to answer to it and those who allowed it to go unchecked and unpunished are removed from positions of responsibility. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the damage inflicted upon our image and standing in the world is incalculable. As Tom Friedman pointed out in the New York Times this morning, it has been quoted before but let me quote it again: ``We are in danger,'' he said, ``of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world.'' I will offer a motion to recommit, which makes more clear our outrage and more pointed our demand for full investigation and responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. I do.

Mr. HOYER. That means not only can it not be considered on the floor, but it cannot even be disclosed to the Members?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the motion into the Record.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the appeal.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker. He has answered my question. I withdraw my reservation because, under the rule, we have been gagged.

Mr. HOYER. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. My question is, does that preclude us, therefore, from offering an alternative that gives an alternative proposal to have that proposal be considered on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it the contention that the rule, as presented and as passed by the majority, prevents the minority from offering a substantive substitute under the rule so that the alternative felt to be preferable by the minority may not be heard? Is that the condition under which the rule places the minority?

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a shame we cannot have a longer, more substantive debate on this. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) got up and criticized the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his inconsistency. He is for middle-class tax cuts, as I am; but he wants to pay for them. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 1997 voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment, as I did, which had exactly the same PAYGO as is included in the Moore motion to instruct. Hear me, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) voted for exactly the same PAYGO as did 193 Republicans. Stick with your original convictions.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand his analysis of the last 6 months; we have had a good growth in the last 6 months. Not as good, contrary to what the gentleman says, as we had in terms of the Clinton years, because where we grew 23 million new jobs, we have still lost jobs. The gentleman pointed out we raised 300,000 jobs. As he knows, 100,000 of those were returning workers from the strikes around the country. But the point I would make is that in 1993 when we adopted the Clinton economic program, Mr. Armey and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I cannot say the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but Mr. Kasich was then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, they said that program was going to destroy America's economy, we would lose jobs, have high deficits and high unemployment and high interest rates. In fact, exactly the opposite happened, and we had the best economy we have had in the history of the country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I got up to my office, and I heard the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) both said not the perspective you thought revenues were going to increase, but that they had increased. That was not accurate. That was my point, and I think your review of the book indicates that I was accurate.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I have a prepared statement. I am not going to give it. Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and perhaps the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) believe if you say something enough, somebody will believe it. I refer the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) to page 22 of the administration's budget document on receipts. For 8 years under Clinton, receipts went up. After we passed the 1993 bill, the economy went up and deficits went down. However, for the 12 years of Reagan and Bush, deficits went up, and under this administration, deficits have soared. And I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), check out page 22. Receipts have gone down, my friend. Down. Starting with 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001, $1.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), he is not listening to these figures. I know he wants to know the truth. I know he wants to know the facts. I am trying to give them to him so he will not misstate again. I want him to hear these facts, and then he can respond. This is the administration's book, not mine. I will give them to the gentleman again. In 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001 $1.9 trillion; 2002, 1.8 trillion; 2003, 1.7 trillion. So to not tell us and the American public that resources are going up, they are not. This graph reflects what the Republican budget book says. Now, with respect to spending, I say to my friend, we are spending less on discretionary spending than we spent in 1962 of GDP. But you all talk about that. Why? Because it is easy to talk about that. It is 17 percent of the budget; you do not talk about the other 83 percent. What the gentleman from Kansas is saying, I say to my colleagues, is do not pass these tax cuts for which there is no money to give anybody. You are taking it from Social Security. You are taking it from Medicare. And, more importantly, I will tell my colleagues who is going to pay for these tax cuts: my children, my grandchildren, and the generations yet to come. That is not only intellectually wrong, it is an immoral fiscal policy. Mr. Speaker, if the vote on this motion to instruct budget conferees is anything like the first one on March 30, then someone should summon the house physician because there may be some very sore arms on the Republican side of the aisle. Certainly, we remember that five-minute vote? The Republican leadership held it open for 28 minutes so that it could (quote/unquote) persuade eight Republicans to change their votes from yes to no, and defeat the motion on a tie vote. As David Broder, the syndicated columnist, pointed out (and I quote): Clearly, on a free vote of conscience, narrow majorities in both the House and Senate would be prepared to impose this degree of self-discipline [meaning pay-as-you-go budget rules]. The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget projects that our Nation will run a record budget deficit of $521 billion this year. That figure does not include the costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an estimated $50 billion to $75 billion. The 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion that George W. Bush inherited when he took office has been turned into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion in just 3 short years. And now, our Republican friends want to drive us even deeper into debt with tax cuts that are not paid for. Perhaps Mr. Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up the Republican philosophy best. In March, he said (and I quote): We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts. Well, my Republican friends, you don't. But our children and grandchildren surely will. That's why the list of those supporting pay-as-you-go rules includes, among others, House Democrats, a bipartisan majority of the Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the Concord Coalition, the Committee for Economic Development, and the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget. Republicans have not always believed that tax cuts are sacrosanct. In fact, the majority leader himself even said in 1997 of Jack Kemp, a former member of this body (and I quote): Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has always said that deficits don't matter. We think that deficits do matter. Mr. Speaker, PAYGO rules will not preclude tax cuts. They simply recognize that, with a fiscal crisis looming, it is irresponsible--indeed immoral--to force the next generation to pay our bills. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, while all of us rightly focused on the continuing effort to secure and stabilize Iraq, none of us can close our eyes to the ominous and growing danger posed by the government of Iran. That is why I strongly support this important bipartisan resolution brought to the floor today by the chairman and ranking democrat on the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos). This resolution condemns in the strongest possible terms Iran's continuing deceptions and falsehoods to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community about its nuclear programs and activities. For example, Iran failed to properly disclose the existence of a fuel enrichment plant and facility at Natanz, until both were revealed by an opposition group. It confirmed that it had conducted research on uranium conversion processes, but only after it denied doing so. According to a February report by the director general of the IAEA, Iran continues to engage in deception regarding its nuclear activities. This resolution also calls on the United States, as well as all state parties to the treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to use (and I quote) ``All appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' The fact is, our national security demands that we do everything in our power to prevent Iran from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranian government is hostile to the interests of the United States. It is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is a committed enemy of the state of Israel, our staunch ally and the lone democracy in this most volatile region. It is vital that we speak with one voice on this issue of utmost gravity. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.