Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Reclaiming my time, I think we still have some work to do on that, hopefully in a bipartisan fashion. This is obviously a critical problem confronting the Congress and the American people. Hopefully, perhaps, we can reach some agreement on that. If we had some extra time, that might be possible.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. One additional, and I think final, item, the continuity of Congress challenge that we have has been discussed. There are obviously a number of different proposals, including constitutional amendments, as well as legislative action, as well as rules considerations. We have heard on this side there may be something happening next week. The gentleman did not mention it in his announcement. Can he tell us whether or not there is any possibility of having that matter on the floor next week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, let me correct for the record because I was in error, it is my understanding that Mr. Kahn has been told, who is our chief clerk on the Budget Committee. I am sure that the gentleman from South Carolina now knows. I thank the leader for his comment. I wanted to clarify that, that we have received, apparently, notice. Is it the majority leader's thought in light of the fact that we will be leaving next Friday for a 2-week break, district work period, that the conference report will be returned to the House next week? Would it be the gentleman's expectation that we might take up the conference report next week?

Mr. HOYER. I had asked the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) whether or not he contemplated any action on Monday. He indicated that he had not. Subsequently, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) have talked, but I do not know whether the gentleman from South Carolina knows that at this point in time. Do we know whether they have really made a decision on that? I know the gentleman hopes to do that, but would it be fair to believe that this matter is still under consideration, or is the gentleman positive that there will be action on Monday afternoon?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for his comments. I understand the background. As long, obviously, as we do have, within the structured rule, an opportunity to debate different points of view, that will be, I think, helpful to all the Members. The gentleman from Texas did not mention in his initial discussion of the schedule whether or not there was any plan, at least on Monday, to do anything with respect to going to conference on the budget or instructions. Can we assume from that that there will be no action on the budget going to conference, at least on Monday night?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for the information. First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the highway reauthorization bill, can the majority leader give us some view? I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules is on the floor. Can the gentleman from Texas give us some view of the rule under which the majority contemplates consideration of the highway bill?

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Obviously this is a very important bill. I think most of us believe it is very important to pass this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the chairman believes what he says. If so, he is extraordinarily wrong. But those of us who have been here for some period of time have heard this rhetoric before, over and over again. In 1993, when we offered an economic program, every leader, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, Speaker Gingrich, Leader Armey, an economist, came to this floor and said if you adopt the Democratic alternative, the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket. They were 180 percent absolutely wrong. In point of fact, we had the best economy, the best economic performance in the next 8 years that we have had in the history of America. They do not know what they are talking about. Maybe they believe it, but they are wrong. Let us compare the 8 years under George Bush, George Bush the senior, and George Bush ``W.'' They ran deficits of $2.5 trillion. There is one person in America that can stop spending in its tracks, just one, the President of the United States. Neither George Bush nor his son have ever had a veto overridden stopping spending. Not once. Let us get real. Under the 8 years of the Clinton budget, which the Republicans said would take us down the road of deficits and unemployment, we had a $61 billion surplus and ran the last 4 years in surplus, the first time that had happened in the lifetime of anybody in this room. Get real. Stop giving us this stuff. And the reason to stop giving the stuff is what you are doing is back to the same old $2.5 trillion in debt, except this time you take it from a $5.6 trillion surplus. Who said we had that surplus? George W. Bush said we had that surplus. What is it now? A $4 trillion deficit, an almost $10 trillion turnaround. I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that is your performance. That is the result of your budgets. That is the result of your economic program, a $10 trillion turnaround to the worst. And who pays the bill? That is the sad part. The children and grandchildren of America, that is who will pay the bill. What this budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is offering does, unlike that of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), it brings the budget to balance within 8 years. Does it ask some people to pay the bill that those young men and women in Iraq are paying? It does. Is that right to do? It is. It is exactly what you said in 1993, and you were dead, flat wrong. Vote for the Spratt alternative. Put America on a safe track so that our children will not be put deeply, deeply, deeply in debt. Vote for Spratt. It is right for America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday on this House floor, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, remarked that this budget debate frames the Democratic and Republican Parties' competing visions of America. On that, we are in complete agreement. The Federal budget is indeed a statement of our national priorities. It is a statement of our values. And today, through its budget resolution, the Republican Party tells all of America that it lacks the will and it lacks the courage to address the fiscal crisis that its failed economic policies have created over the last 3 years. Last week, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa, said this: ``We don't believe you should have to pay for tax cuts.'' Well, my Republican friends, you do not. But our children and grandchildren will pay for them. With a projected record budget deficit of more than $500 billion this year alone, this budget resolution would dig an even deeper deficit hole. It would increase the deficit by nearly $250 billion over the next 5 years, and over the next 10 years increase the deficit already projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be $2 trillion, an additional $1.6 trillion of deficit, that young people will have to pay off. Democrats believe that it is irresponsible, indeed immoral, to adopt such a policy and to plunge our Nation even deeper into debt and to force future generations to pay our bills. Republicans apparently are not bothered by that. This budget resolution would spend the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus, all of it, every nickel of Social Security surplus over the next 5 years and in subsequent years. Democrats believe that it is irresponsible, indeed, as I have said, immoral, to rob Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts. Republicans apparently do not. And this budget resolution would freeze funding for domestic appropriations outside of homeland security to make room for tax cuts. Even a respected Member of your own party, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida, has recognized the folly of trying to balance the budget on the backs of children, veterans, the elderly and the uninsured. In February, Chairman Young, one of the most respected Members of the Republican Party, a leader in this House, said: ``No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up.'' Why do the numbers not add up? Because nondefense discretionary spending represents only 17 percent of the entire Federal budget. And then we are told, my friends, that we will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. I am for that, and I am shocked that the Republican administration has been in office for 3\1/2\ years, controlled this House and the Senate, and we still have significant waste, fraud and abuse in Washington. What is wrong with this administration? Do they not care about waste, fraud and abuse? Why have they not gotten rid of it? The truth is, we could wipe out all nondefense discretionary spending and we would still be running a deficit of more than $100 billion. In other words, we would shut down all of government. Maybe some would like to do that. But the people who ride on roads, the people who want the FBI on the job, the people who want the CIA on the job, the people who want NIH researchers trying to find out how to cure cancer would want them on the job. Mr. Chairman, Democrats fought for pay-as-you-go budget rules that require both spending increases and revenue decreases to be offset. That is what Alan Greenspan said was responsible. That is what the other body voted for. A bipartisan majority of the other Chamber voted for that. And all of us know that our bipartisan agreement on such rules in 1990 led to steadily decreasing deficits, four consecutive surpluses and the strongest economy in our lifetimes. But House Republicans have refused. Instead, they want to pretend that they are committed to fiscal discipline. They say they want to apply PAYGO rules to spending increases, but not tax cuts. In fact, they will not bring it to the floor. The majority leader says it has got to ``ripen.'' I am not sure what ripening means, but that is what, apparently, it has got to do. But, of course, it is doubtful whether their budget enforcement bill will ever see the light of day. For years, Mr. Chairman, House Republicans preened as ``deficit hawks.'' Some even recognized that tax cuts are not, in fact, sacrosanct or freebies. That is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said. We ought to reject this Republican budget resolution and adopt the responsible, effective Spratt alternative. The Blue Dog alternative does the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. David Wartofsky's contributions to National Transportation Week. For the past five years, Mr. Wartofsky has closed Potomac Airfield, his private airport in Ft. Washington, Maryland, so that 1,000 school children can participate in National Transportation Week events. This year, on May 20, Potomac Airfield will host nearly 1,000 students from Washington D.C. area elementary, middle and high schools. These children will have an opportunity to view 22 different aircraft and 18 transportation-related exhibits. In addition, the winners of several contests will be recognized. Winners of Odyssey of the Mind Aircraft Flyer Contest will demonstrate their aircraft on the runway. Winners of the Music of the Mind will perform on stage, celebrating, ``One Nation on the Move.'' Winners of the poster contest will see their work on display. All of this would not be possible without the cooperation and support of Mr. David Wartofsky. Fondly nicknamed the ``Big Cheese,'' Mr. Wartofsky is a pilot and self proclaimed gadget freak. As the owner of Potomac Airfield, he prides himself on being at the ``heart'' of our nation's airspace, and that statement has come to mean so much more than geography. His passion for aviation is more than the business he operates; he's transformed it into an investment in our community. I applaud Mr. Wartofsky for his contributions to National Transportation Week. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. David Wartofsky and Potomac Airfield which reflects the personality of the ``Big Cheese'' and is often described as a ``fun airport and a good bunch of interesting friends.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in a world of priorities, the gentleman just got mine.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. There are, of course, so many things which disappoint us when the majority leader announces them; but that is not one of them, I assure him. I appreciate the majority leader's advice that Wednesday and Thursday we will be considering the budget, obviously one of the most important policy documents that we consider. And it appears from his announcement that there will be substantial time on Wednesday and substantial time on Thursday, I presume, for a full and fair debate on the underlying proposal that will be reported out of the committee, as well as such substitutes as may be made in order. Is that correct?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I think that is very important for the House and for the American people, and we look forward to that discussion and the substitutes. As the gentleman knows, we will have the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), our ranking member, who will have a substitute. I expect the Black Caucus to have a substitute, and perhaps there will be some other substitutes as well. Certainly the Blue Dogs will have a substitute, all of which I think, in the gentleman's understanding of it, would be very substantive budget resolution proposals, and we anticipate them being made in order so we can debate each of those as well. Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects, as the majority leader knows, there has been a lot of discussion about enforcement mechanisms. We believe on this side of the aisle that enforcement mechanisms are critically important if we are going to get to balance at some time in the future, which is our objective and I think the gentleman's objective as well. Can the gentleman tell me when and in what form enforcement mechanisms will be brought to the floor? I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response. I would observe that, clearly, enforcement mechanisms we believe are critically important as we consider the budget in the mid- 2005 budget, but also the outyears as well, whether we use a 5-year or 10-year budget analysis. Without enforcement mechanisms, obviously, we really do not know what we are doing. We can say we are doing something, but without enforcement mechanisms to make sure that, in fact, we are controlling spending, controlling revenues, controlling entitlements, we do not have really a budget that is meaningful and enforceable. So we are hopeful that that will come relatively soon. We would like to do it contemporaneously, but I understand what the gentleman is saying; the Committee on Rules wants to consider that. The Senate I think considered that contemporaneously and, of course, there are some in this country who have made it very clear that an enforcement mechanism that impacts on both spending and on revenues was the only kind of enforcement that would really be meaningful. I know there is a difference of opinion among people on that issue, but we think that needs to be debated fairly soon and fairly proximate to close the consideration of the budget. Mr. Leader, my last question would be, if the gentleman knows, and I notice we have a member of the Committee on Rules on the floor, when will substitutes need to be filed, if the gentleman knows; or can the gentleman inform us when substitutes will need to be filed?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. He is right.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution. I will support it as an expression of our Nation's gratitude and pride in our men and women in uniform who have performed with brilliance and valor in Operation Iraqi Freedom. To date, 565 Americans have given the ultimate measure of devotion to our country in Iraq, including a young soldier from my district, Jason C. Ford who was killed just a few days ago by a roadside bomb, 2 weeks after arriving in Iraq. We mourn the loss of Jason and all other fallen patriots, and extend our most profound sympathies to their loved ones. We also pray for the full recovery of the more than 3,200 servicemen and -women who have been wounded there. And to the approximately 110,000 Americans still in Iraq, we must offer this pledge: we will do everything within our power to ensure your success and safe return home. Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have simply expressed the support of this House for our Armed Forces now in harm's way. Regrettably, however, the majority has handled this resolution in a manner which inevitably led to division. Our troops and the American people expect and deserve better. On a matter of the highest national importance, the majority has undermined the democratic process in this House, treated those who hold different views with disdain, and created a bludgeon where it should have built a bridge. This is the same approach that has guided the current administration's foreign policy and which has undermined our Nation's credibility and driven many allies away from us. This is a time to bring together, to consult, to be unanimous. Mr. Speaker, I share the view that the Middle East and the world are better off with Hussein in custody and his Baathist regime on the run. But our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished. Even as we speak here, a car bomb has rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people. This comes on the heels of attacks on our troops, civilians and even innocent worshipers. Success must be our only exit strategy. And only when our objectives are accomplished can we say with certainty and conviction that the world has been made safer. As today's events in Baghdad and last week's horrific attacks in Spain make clear, this war has not been won. Yet. But we send an unequivocal message to those who perpetrate such madness: we will not retreat from our objective to eliminate the source of terrorism and those who perpetrate it. The legacy of the men and women who have committed the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq demands that we do no less. It should also demand that we do so united, united by common resolve and not divided by efforts to achieve political advantage.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. While I cannot characterize the debate that occurs on the other side or characterize the position of the Senate itself, is the Parliamentarian or is the Speaker saying that the quoting of a Member who happens to be a Member of the United States Senate is contrary to the rules of this House?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friends that a prominent American has said recently that our failure to start making some of the tough decisions will land squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Their financial future will be strapped with the digging out of holes that have been created by our actions and inactions. I agree with that sentiment, and let me add that our failure to make the tough decisions also threatens the very future of Social Security and Medicare, two programs which now keep millions and millions and millions of Americans out of poverty. Next week, Democrats will propose a budget plan that meets America's priorities and gets our financial house back in order. I urge all of my colleagues to support it because it is intellectually the right thing to do. From a fiscal policy, it is the right thing to do, and from a moral values, pro-family perspective, it is the right thing to do. It is time we delivered real responsibility this week to the American public.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one week ago today, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), told the Members of this body and the national television audience watching C-SPAN, and I quote, ``It is responsibility week here in the House.'' ``It is responsibility week here in the House.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader was only half right. Last week indeed was responsibility week, but the real responsibility was being exercised not here in this House but on the other side of Capitol Hill. While we named post office buildings, honored professional sports teams, and passed legislative solutions in search of national problems, the other Chamber adopted a bipartisan pay-as-you-go measure that repudiates the central fiction of the Republican Party's fuzzy math: that we can somehow reign in record budget deficits created by the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress while ignoring the consequences of tax cuts. Do not take it from me, my Republican friends. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore