Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as responsible?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, do not take it from me, my Republican friends, listen to a respected Member of your own party, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young.) In February Chairman Young said, and I quote, ``No one should expect a significant deficit reduction as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up.'' So said the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, one of the most respected Members of this body. And why do not the numbers add up? Because nondefense discretionary spending represents only 17 percent of the entire Federal budget. The fact of the matter is we could wipe out all domestic discretionary spending, the funding for this House, the funding for the Senate, FBI, CIA, NIH, NASA, all of that. If you wipe it all out, we would still be running a deficit of more than $100 billion. Yet this week the Republican majority continues its markup of a budget resolution for fiscal year 2005 that utterly ignores mathematical and fiscal reality. By applying pay-go rules to spending only, the Republican budget resolution pretends that making existing tax cuts permanent or enacting new ones are a freebie with no budgetary impact. But, of course, that is false. And if one said it, it might even be a lie. The truth is this Republican budget resolution cuts taxes while spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus between fiscal year 2005 and 2009. All of it. Every nickel of Social Security surplus, spent. And it would continue to do so in subsequent years. The truth is the Republican budget resolution would make our deficits $247 billion worse over the next 5 years under current law. And over 10 years it would increase the deficit, already projected by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion, by another $1.6 trillion. There are a lot of young people who are going to pay the price for our profligacy and irresponsibility. Indeed, this budget resolution proposal, as has the economic policies of this administration, been immoral to the extent that they adversely affect generations to come. And the truth is this budget resolution would freeze funding for domestic appropriations outside of Homeland Security to make room, not for defense, not for homeland security, but for new tax cuts. For years House Republicans preened as, quote, deficit hawks. Some even suggested that tax cuts are not in fact sacrosanct. For example, in 1997 the majority leader himself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who I quoted earlier, said of Jack Kemp, you all remember Jack Kemp, he served in this body, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, candidate for Vice President of the United States, he quoted and he said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this: ``Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has always said that deficits do not matter.'' Now, this is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority leader, the Republican leader of this House. He concluded by saying, quote, ``We think that deficits do matter.'' What a tragedy for our country and for our young people that the policies do not follow that conviction. My Republican friends, this week and next you are going to show the American people whether you are really serious about reducing the deficit you created or whether you are simply taking it and lack the courage to make the tough choices. Now, when I say the deficit of your creation, let me remind all of our colleagues the first 4 years took us on a straight line out of deficit financing and the last 4 years, for the first time in 8 decades, in the lifetime of anybody older than 80, was in surplus for 4 years straight. So this administration inherited a budget surplus which they said, not what we Democrats said, which they said was $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that they had to work with. It is now $4 trillion of debt. That is what I refer to as immoral. As Republican Senator John McCain said last week in supporting pay-go rules that apply to existing as well as future tax cuts, and I will quote again, Senator John McCain. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's response. In addition, of course, to the substitute, or an amendment to the budget in the form of a substitute, I am sure that we would be, depending upon what comes out of the committee, very much committed to offering an enforcement mechanism proposal of our own. We believe that the enforcement mechanism that was in place some years ago was effective in reaching balance and, in fact, taking us into surplus. That was allowed to lapse, and is not in force now, which allowed us to do the tax cuts that were passed over the last 3 years. Is the gentleman of the view that we will be allowed to have, under the rules, a substitute and/or amendments to the proposal for enforcement that is reported out of the Committee on the Budget? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation, and I would hope we do follow that practice. Because, clearly, while the budget document, in particular for those of us who serve on the Committee on Appropriations, is a relatively broad-brush document, it does very pointedly speak to the priorities that Members have and that we think our country ought to have. Because of that, it becomes even more important, I think, in the people's House that the people's representatives have an opportunity to offer alternatives so that not only Members, but the American public can form a judgment of their own as to what alternative is in the best interest of our country. So I appreciate the gentleman's observation that full substitutes, and usually, as you know, that is what we have been offering, and certainly it is the intention of the gentleman from South Carolina, as the ranking member, to offer a substitute. Of course we do not know what ultimately is going to happen, we will have to see what the Committee on the Budget produces, but I am sure that the gentleman from South Carolina will want to offer a substitute. The gentleman mentioned enforcement mechanisms. The Senate, as you know, the other body, has adopted an enforcement mechanism, which we think if you are going to have an enforcement mechanism makes sense. First of all, does the gentleman know whether the enforcement mechanism will be in a separate piece or legislation included in the budget offering itself? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Last week, I asked the leader and would ask the gentleman, as we approach next week, assuming that the budget is to be on the floor next week, about the commitment of the majority to allowing the minority, as has historically happened, to have various alternatives. As the gentleman knows, the Congressional Black Caucus has always had the opportunity to offer an alternative that was a thoughtful, persuasive budget. I did not always support it. We have other caucuses who may want to offer alternatives as well, and clearly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget on our side of the aisle, will want to offer a substitute as well. Is the gentleman aware of whether or not, as has happened in the past, we will be afforded the opportunity to offer various alternatives to the budget document that will be reported out of committee? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information; and I understand he is a little bit in the same position I am, having just learned of this in the last few minutes. I am pleased to hear that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will be communicating with and working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Again, while there are, obviously, as we all know, disagreements on the prosecution of that effort, whether we should have undertaken it, there is no, I think, dispute on the underlying support of our troops, their effort, their safety, and their objectives. Hopefully, that is what we will articulate. I thank the gentleman for his information, and I will surely be talking to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as I know our leader will, to try to make sure that we are all together on this statement, which I think will be good for our troops and good for the world to see as well. I thank the gentleman. We had expected to see the budget resolution on the floor next week. Then, frankly, we had heard in the last few hours, or few minutes, that that was not going to be the case, that the markup had been called off or cancelled, rescheduled by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for next week. Our presumption was, if that was the case, then the budget would be delayed a week. Now the information is, and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the leader, is not on the floor, it is my understanding that perhaps he is working on trying to effect agreement, but can the gentleman tell me whether or not he has confidence that that will be on the floor next week, or are we waiting to see what is going to happen today to make that final decision?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if I can just briefly, I share the gentleman's view. I do not think such a bill could be reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means either. Our perception is, as the gentleman well knows, it is tough to pass bipartisan bills out of the Committee on Ways and Means because I do not think there is any interest in doing that. I think that is unfortunate because this is a critical problem confronting us. I think we could have, as we have in the past, and the drug reimportation being a perfect example of a bill that passed very handily in a bipartisan fashion through this House. Unfortunately, it did not make it out of the conference committee. Notwithstanding the fact that both Houses were for it, there were people who were not for it. But this is a critical problem, and my only suggestion to my good friend, with whom I have worked in a very bipartisan fashion on very successful legislation, and I know the gentleman's inclination is to do that, to legislate, not just to throw bombs at one another. I thank the gentleman for his observation and hope, in fact, that he is correct and we move on this quickly. And if it is not a bipartisan bill as it comes to the floor, I hope that we do provide for the minority an opportunity to offer an alternative which we think will be in the best interest of this country. We will debate that and the majority will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and thank him for the information.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House for the purposes of inquiring of the acting majority leader the schedule for the coming week; and I would be glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who chairs the leadership committee, or I am not sure of his exact title, but he is my friend and an able Member of this body, and I am glad to yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and while I accept his premise that it is a high priority, very frankly, I will tell my friend from Ohio, there is no doubt we could have passed a bipartisan supported bill here with a very substantial number of votes many, many months ago. That was not the determination, apparently, of the committee to report out such a bill. We think that is unfortunate. We believe that if the Rangel-Crane or the Rangel-Manzullo bill, or the Manzullo-Rangel bill were reported out, I think we would see well over 225 to 230 votes for that, maybe more. But in any event, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has provided us. This is the first time at least that I have heard of the consideration of the Iraqi resolution next week. I understand the timing of that and the date on which that effort began. Because I have just heard about this and have not had an opportunity to talk to our ranking members on either the foreign affairs committee or on the defense committee, can the gentleman inform me as to whether or not this resolution has been put together in a bipartisan way, with participation by the minority? The reason I ask the gentleman that is I think all of us want to ensure that we are united on it. I have not seen the statement so I do not know what it is, but clearly we are, I think, all proud of the actions of our Armed Forces; and they carried out their mission in an extraordinarily effective, efficient, and courageous manner. We are all proud of our men and women in uniform for what they have done. We are all pleased, as well, that Saddam Hussein has been captured and is in custody and no longer at least poses a personal threat; but I am sure my friend from Ohio agrees that hopefully this statement will be one which is reached in a bipartisan way and we can have overwhelmingly bipartisan support of. I certainly, as one who supported, as my colleague knows, the effort in Iraq and supported the funding for that effort, want to be able to support it. I have not seen it, but I am hopeful that we do this in a bipartisan way. I would be glad to yield to my friend to comment on this issue.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's comment, but as he knows, Mr. Greenspan, who has not been necessarily an advocate of our side of the argument, as a matter of fact, has been on the gentleman's side of the argument on the tax cuts, has made it very clear that he believes, for the interest of economic security and stability in the country, that the pay-go rules ought to apply on both the spending and the tax side. Because, of course, in either event, you can plunge yourself, as we believe we have, into deep deficits. So I think that will be a good debate. We will obviously point to Mr. Greenspan's assertions, which we agree in this instance, that it is very difficult to control if you do not have pay-go applying on both sides of the ledger. Lastly, if I might, as a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman knows that the Foreign Sales Corporation legislation has been pending for many, many months now. We are concerned, as you know, that the Europeans are now imposing sanctions as a result of the WTO's finding that we are not in compliance. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the FSC legislation will be on the floor any time soon; and, if so, whether or not the Rangel- Manzullo alternative will be made in order as an alternative? I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important Resolution commending the incredibly diverse, democratic nation of India on the celebration of its Republic Day. This Resolution reiterates the overwhelming Congressional support for continued strong relations between the United States and India. And it notes India's commitment, under the Indian constitution, for universal suffrage; equality for all citizens, regardless of faith, gender, or ethnicity; and protections for freedom of speech, association and religion. Our two nations are ``natural allies,'' as Prime Minister Vajpayee has stated. For while our alliance is relatively young, it has already begun to flourish based on our shared values and commitment to democratic principles. In recognition of our growing relationship, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and I led a delegation of nine members of Congress to India in January. During our trip, we were privileged to be received by a number of Mr. Vajpayee's Ministers and we engaged key policymakers in thoughtful discussions on issues ranging from Kashmir and Pakistan to this year's national elections in both India and the United States. While we certainly discussed, and even debated, a number of issues on which our countries have legitimate differences, the lasting impressions were the broad areas of agreement and cooperation, and the strength and dynamism of the growing U.S.-India relationship. Madam Speaker, the mutual respect demonstrated in these discussions was a clear sign of our maturing relationship and the trust between us. For example, our armed forces now regularly participate in joint exercises involving all branches of the military, and the sale of U.S. military equipment to India approached $200 million last year. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, India pledged its full cooperation and offered the use of all its military bases for counterterrorism efforts. And India continues to play a key role in stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Our economic cooperation also is noteworthy. In fact, the nearly 60% increase in total trade between the United States and India since 1996 illustrates that. With more than 1 billion citizens, India still faces many problems. And the increasing engagement with the United States will help India to address them.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of a dear friend and a great American. Blair Cross was a loving family man, a patriotic veteran, and a dedicated activist. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work closely with Blair and witnessed his tireless advocacy on behalf of Korean War veterans across the country. Specifically, Blair and I have been working on legislation that would grant the Korean War Veterans Association a Federal Charter, enabling the Association to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Blair was the Korean War Veterans Association's top advocate for this issue, and I am grateful for his activism, and the activism he encouraged among his fellow Korean War veterans. Mr. Cross's distinguished service did not go unnoticed. The Joint Veterans Committee of Maryland selected Blair to receive the honor of Veteran of the Year and he was to be recognized this April. Blair was chosen to receive this award from over 10,000 veterans throughout the State. Mr. Cross also helped in founding the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training. The Baltimore homeless shelter has aided thousands of veterans over the years. The community, the State, and the country have incurred a tremendous loss with Blair's passing. His advocacy and leadership on behalf of veterans in our State will long be remembered and I send my deepest sympathies to his wife Jane, daughter Sharon and Blair's family and friends.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information, and also for planning purposes that assurance for March 12. We talked last week and we know that the highway reauthorization extension for 2 months was worked out. When can we expect the committees to mark up the reauthorization bill, and when do you expect to see it on the floor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Can the leader tell me whether or not there is an expectation that this will be, as we have had in the past, a 6-year reauthorization, or is it possible that there would be a shorter reauthorization, say, of 2 years, obviously focused on trying to build jobs and create jobs in the country?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. As we, as well, also discussed last week, can the leader bring us up to date on the progress of the budget resolution and when he expects it to be marked up in committee and when we can expect to have that bill on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I know this is preliminary and it is early, but my presumption would be that as we did in years past, that the minority would have its rights to submit such substitutes as it deemed appropriate?

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, if I may say, somewhat, I know, facetiously, but we are pleased that the leader is encouraging us to do so. As a matter of fact, we are as pleased about that as we were last year when the gentleman from Texas urged everybody to support our motion to instruct, that we follow the House Democratic substitute as opposed to the one that we actually passed. So we are encouraged by the gentleman's encouragement. Last, if I can, the FSC bill. We talked about this last week. Obviously, the Europeans have started to impose some penalties. Can the gentleman tell us the status of legislation to deal with the FSC issue?

Mr. HOYER. I presume, as well, that when and if that is brought to the floor, because there has been some real disagreement on who that bill ought to advantage and focus on as the gentleman knows in terms of domestic manufacturers as opposed to manufacturers who do a lot of work overseas, and hopefully we will be able to offer alternatives to certainly the bill that was reported out last year, if it is the same bill. As the gentleman knows, we would have an alternative to that. Can the leader give us assurance that we will have that option?

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

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

Mr. HOYER. I thought of that question, Mr. Leader, but I thought it was probably not worth asking because I knew the answer. But to the other question, with respect to offering substitutes, very frankly, what happens is you can offer a substitute, but if it is not germane and you do not receive a waiver when you are granted the right to offer the substitute, obviously on the one hand you have the ability to offer a substitute, but you do not really have the ability to offer an alternative. There is a very substantial difference. I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but I really would hope, because we are talking about very significant, important issues, where there are differences in a bipartisan fashion on either alternative, that alternatives should be allowed that are consistent with the objective, although, as the leader well knows, from time to time because of what is or is not included in the committee product may or may not be germane even though it is pointed to the subject. I offer that as food for thought because I think it is fair and I think it would be good for the American public to have a broader spectrum of options than is sometimes allowed to us, notwithstanding the fact that theoretically a substitute is made available. I think the gentleman understands my point, and I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that observation. One additional observation. That is obviously an important option. I think the gentleman states correctly the practice of the House under both Democrats and Republicans.