Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I do know that our conferees again who have not been included in the discussions are very concerned about an issue that is rumored to be included in the conference report that has not been debated at all by either the conferees or by the House. So I raise that concern and would hope that the gentleman would raise that concern with the Chair of the conference committee. I know today is the day the congressional Republican leaders have articulated as the day that they would complete the conference on the Medicare prescription drug bill. Could the majority leader bring us up to date on the status of that and when, if the gentleman expects between now and November 7, for that conference report to be brought back to the House. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, of course, as the gentleman knows, we all would like to have a bill; but there are, obviously, differences of opinions as to what ought to be included in that bill, which always makes the legislative process difficult and time consuming. But this is another example, Mr. Leader, whereon Mr. Breaux and Mr. Baucus on the Senate side have been included, to some degree, in the conference. However, on this side, none of our Members have been included in meetings related to the policies that ought to be included in the conference report. I have mentioned now the appropriation bills, the energy bill, and now the prescription drug bill. It is of great concern to us that there is an obvious pattern of not including the minority, who are appointed conferees by the Speaker, not including them in discussions. And in light of the fact that there are no meetings formally of conferences and are not noted for conference meetings, it is impossible for us to know, A, what is going on; B, to have input; and, C, reach any kind of an agreement which might make the passage of prescription drugs, child care tax credits, an energy bill, appropriations bills, or any other legislation on behalf of the American public, made easier. I do not know if there is anything further the leader can say on that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to assure the majority leader we want a prescription drug bill. We have been fighting for a prescription drug bill, but that does not necessarily mean we want your prescription drug bill. We want a bill that has the support of the majority, the American people, and that we believe we can have. We are fighting for such a bill. We want an energy bill. We think this country needs an energy bill, certainly in light of the August 14 blackout in the northeast. We think we need to address that issue. So let me assure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that we want to see these bills passed. But let me also assure the gentleman that if the condition preceding to having a conference in which we are included is saying that we will agree to it as it passed the House, if we oppose it, that is neither a reasonable request on your part, I believe, nor is it the expectation of either side that they be included in a conference only on a condition that they will agree to what the leadership wants to do. I think we have probably discussed this sufficiently, but it is a real concern that we are not including both sides in these conferences. Because on the energy bill, I do not believe there has been a conference nor does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as we understand a conference. But we have a different view, perhaps. Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader wants to make additional comments, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is now, as the majority leader, not on the committee because he has been elevated to his present position. But the gentleman and I have sat in many conferences together, he on one side of the aisle, me on the other side of the aisle, in which we had probably 30 members of the Committee on Appropriations from our side, usually eight or nine from the majority side, 12 or 15, so 20 to 25 Members, and discuss issue by issue and go through it. That is what we expect the conference to be, because that is what we expect the democratic process provides in a conference committee to resolve differences that might exist.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this supplemental. We must give our troops in the field who have performed brilliantly in deposing the despotic Taliban and Hussein regimes the equipment and materiel they need to succeed in their mission. That tragically was not done with our previous appropriation. It must be done with this one. Failure in Iraq is not an option, and additional funding is vital to our efforts. I also believe that the reconstruction grants in this bill are inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success. As The Washington Post stated yesterday, ``Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety, all of this is central to hopes for stability and representative government.'' However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without reservations or deep concern about administration failures to date. American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy. Virtually every assumption that the administration made going into Iraq has either been wrong or has yet to be proved correct. Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops to succeed in Iraq. He was right. Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi weapons caches. Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz prior to the war assured us that ``we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' Consideration of this bill today demonstrates the falsity of that claim. Furthermore, the administration's postwar planning has been abysmal. As Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, stated in September, ``I think the Bush administration did a miserable job of planning for post- Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress, like a nuisance. To that extent our allies are treated like the people's elected representatives here. This Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable.'' I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have scrutinized this legislation last week and made modifications and adopted amendments I offered requiring the administration to provide quarterly reports on a range of issues and advanced review of no-bid contracts raising justifiable concerns of war profiteering. Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq; and thus the law-supporting nations of the world have an obligation, yes, a duty, to assist in securing and reconstructing Iraq. I urge the international community to step up and meet its responsibility at the donor conference next week. Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the security of the region and the world. Having undertaken this task, we must succeed. The American people expect it, and our security demands it. We must, therefore, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the brave young men and women who are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor, and our taxpayers who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction review the policies, plans, and actions being proposed and taken to accomplish this critical mission. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct in that. The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global war, and it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But it is a war we must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this 21st century. I will, therefore, support this effort to accomplish that victory. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this emergency supplemental appropriations bill providing $87 billion for our continuing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must give our troops in the field, who have performed brilliantly in deposing the despotic Taliban and Hussein regimes, the equipment and materiel that they need to succeed in their missions. That tragically was not done with our previous appropriation. It must be done with this one. Failure in Iraq is not an option. And additional funding is vital to our efforts. I also believe the reconstruction grants in this bill are inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success. As the Washington Post stated yesterday: ``Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--all this is central to hopes for stability and representative government.'' However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without reservation or deep concern about administration failures to date. American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy. Virtually every assumption that this administration made going into Iraq has either been wrong or yet to be proved correct. Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi weapons caches. Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz assured us that: ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' Consideration of this bill today demonstrates the falsity of that claim. Furthermore, the administration's post-war planning has been abysmal. As Senator Hagel stated in September: ``I think [the Bush administration] did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress, like a nuisance.'' To that extent, our allies are treated like the people's elected representatives here. This Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. I am pleased that the appropriations committee scrutinized this legislation last week, and made modifications and adopted amendments I offered requiring the administration to provide quarterly reports on a range of issues and advanced review of no-bid contracts, raising justifiable concern and outrage about war profiteering. Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq. And thus the law-supporting nations have an obligation to assist in securing and reconstructing Iraq. I urge the international community to step up and meet its responsibility at the donor conference next week. Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the security of the region and the world. Having undertaken this task we must succeed. The American people expect it and our security demands it. We must, therefore, on behalf of the brave young men and women who are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor and our taxpayers who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction review the policies, plans and actions being proposed and taken to accomplish this critical objective. The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global war. And, it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But, it is a war we must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this 21st century. I will support this further effort to accomplish that victory.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Maryland District 7 Softball Team--this year's winners of the 2003 Softball Big League World Series. This softball powerhouse breezed through the tournament to win their fifth championship title in seven years at the Big League Softball World Series. In eight innings, Maryland defeated Puerto Rico in the Championship Game by a score of 3-1. I want my colleagues to know about the hard work ethic and determination these outstanding young athletes possess. Mr. Speaker, this is a sports success story and fans were thrilled by the championship effort and heart displayed by these young women from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Maryland District 7 Softball Team on their triumphant season. The Maryland District 7 Softball Team: Jamie Baden, Lacy Cochran, Kim Fowler, Heather Hall, Heather Holley, Carrie Higdon, Cory Karcesky, Amanda Mitchell, Caryn Moreland, Lindsey Preuss, Kelly Seger, Maris Smith, Danielle Sturman, Jamea Waltersdorff, Abbey Welch, along with coaches Andy Adams, and Mike Kriner and manager Tommy Morrison.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. And I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership and sponsorship of this legislation. This bill is part and parcel of our Nation's continuing war on terrorism. And it is a necessary reminder to states that want to belong to the family of civilized nations while simultaneously sponsoring and providing safe harbor to terrorist organizations, you cannot have it both ways. Syria has regularly appeared on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Let me recall the remarks of our President as he spoke to a joint session of Congress on September 20. He said, ``And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,'' our President said, ``either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.'' Now, when he said ``us,'' he did not simply mean America; he meant the civilized law-abiding nations of the world and peoples of the world. ``From this day forward,'' he went on, ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' Strong words but appropriate words. Syria provides safe haven and support for terrorist groups operating in Israel and throughout the region, including, as has been mentioned, Hezbollah. I saw that, Mr. Speaker, with my own eyes when I led a congressional delegation to Israel just a few weeks ago. We traveled to the Israel-Syrian border in the Golan Heights where members of Hezbollah openly walk about on the Syrian side, have arms on the Syrian side, have missiles, and launch terrorist attacks from the Lebanese- Syrian side. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, Syria's relationship with Hezbollah is reason enough to end economic relations with Damascus, as the President indicated we would do, but there are others as well. Damascus has failed to fulfill its agreement to withdraw its forces from the security zone in southern Lebanon. In recent years, Syria had become a major supply route for oil flowing out of Iraq and illegal arms shipments into Iraq. And Syria is believed to be pursuing both nuclear weapons and missile development. Syria, in fact, is subject to fewer sanctions, fewer sanctions than any other country designated by our government as a state sponsor of terrorism. This bill would require the President to impose economic and diplomatic penalties on Syria unless immediate and meaningful changes are made in its policies. Left unchecked, I strongly believe Syria poses a grave risk to Israel, to the Middle East, and to our interests. It threatens regional stability and is ultimately a major U.S. national security concern. This bill seeks to reign in one of the major impediments to peace in the Middle East. And I urge my colleagues to support it. The President was correct, you are either with the civilized law- abiding nations of the world or you are not. And if you are not, our relations with you should not be normal. In fact, they should impose sanctions and penalties for such conduct destabilizing and making less secure the region and the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague and good friend from Virginia, Mr. Davis, in supporting H.R. 3054, the DC Military Retirement Equity Act. This measure goes a long way in providing a fair solution to an unjust problem. When I was notified that hundreds of former military service members and retired Firefighters, Police Officers, Secret Service personnel, and U.S. Park Police were having their annuities forcibly reduced due to no fault of their own, it was clear that this was an injustice in need of swift action. The solution, H.R. 3054, will allow retired and active duty DC Firefighters and Police Officers as well as U.S. Secret Service and Park Police to buy back any military service time in order for them to maintain their monthly annuity. An oversight in the administration of their retirement plans neglected to account for a federal law prohibiting any post 1956-military service from being credited towards a retiree's benefits once that retiree becomes eligible for Social Security. In the past few months, many retirees have had their hard earned monthly annuities reduced by up to $600 per month. Future retirees can expect similar reductions, unless we pass this measure. Unlike options given to federal employees under FERS and CSRS, these members were never told about this provision and never offered an opportunity to buy back their time. H.R. 3054 will allow retirees to maintain their monthly annuities and will allow working men, women and their families to accurately plan for their retirement. These dedicated men and women selflessly served their country in the military and continued in their service by protecting our communities. We have a responsibility to ensure that they receive what they have rightfully earned. I am pleased that Chairman Davis, Chairman Weldon, Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, Congresswoman Norton and I have been able to work in a bipartisan manner to develop a positive solution to a potentially crippling injustice. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3054.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), not only for his extraordinary leadership on this mission to Israel and to visit with the leadership of the Palestinian authority, Mr. Abbas, but also I want to thank him for his being here this evening. I had intended to be here throughout the course of this special order, but the scheduling was such that I could not be. I thank the distinguished chief deputy whip from Indiana for standing in. Mr. Speaker, no region of the world in my opinion holds out more promise and presents more peril than the Middle East. Our Nation's security is closely tied to the developments there, from our efforts in post-Hussein Iraq where 130,000 American troops are on the ground today, to our desire to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, to the continuing hunt for al Qaeda operatives, to the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian crisis. The United States, Mr. Speaker, has interests and allies throughout the region but we have only, in my opinion, one true friend there, the democratic state of Israel. As President Kennedy remarked 40 years ago, he said this, ``We will never turn our back on our steadfast friends in Israel whose alliance to the democratic way must be admired by all friends of freedom.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that a new generation of American leaders recognize the special relationship that has developed between our two nations and understand why a free and secure Israel is vital to America's national security. Indeed, developing a deeper understanding of the U.S.-Israel bond was the purpose of a congressional delegation trip to Israel that I was pleased to lead from August 2 to August 10. In all, Mr. Speaker, 29 House Democrats made this trip. That is the largest congressional delegation to visit Israel in its history. Our delegation included Representatives from every region of the United States, as well as the territory of Guam. More than one-third were serving their first year in Congress. Nearly one-third were women, and for many this was their first visit to Israel. This was my fourth trip to Israel as a Member of the House. I had been there before, and this was my sixth trip in all. We made this long journey to see and to learn. We traveled throughout Israel, and visited the Gaza Strip and West Bank as well. We were privileged to meet with Prime Minister Sharon and members of his cabinet; Labor Party chairman Peres, one of Israel's most distinguished statesman. We met also with Speaker Reuven Rivlin and members of the Knesset; and in addition to that, we met with the then- Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, who sadly, subsequently, resigned after being continually undermined by the purveyors of death and destruction in his authority. He led, I think, an effort for peace, but that effort was subverted by Arafat himself. We also, Mr. Speaker, were privileged to meet with representatives of the academic, religious, press, and medical communities. We saw firsthand the security challenges and realities that confront Israel and were left with several strong impressions. First, security is an absolute precondition for peace. The much- discussed security fence was regarded as a reasonable attempt by our delegation to reduce terrorist attacks, and events, frankly, subsequent to our trip have not altered that view. However, Mr. Speaker, the route of that fence is an issue and properly continues to be examined. Secondly, the dismantlement of the Palestinian terrorist organization, all of us believe, was essential if security was going to be effected, which is a precondition for peace, as I have said. Thirdly, we cannot ignore, we must not ignore morally, politically, or intellectually the plight of the Palestinian people whose cause has been undermined, in my opinion, by the tactics of terror, the incitement to hate and refusal to seek peace. Our trip, Mr. Speaker, occurred during a 7-week period of relative calm in that troubled part of the world; but that calm, as all of us know, was shattered on August 19, just a few days after we left, when a Hamas homicide bomber in Jerusalem murdered 22 people, including five Americans, and injured 130 others. Since then, Mr. Abbas, as I said, has resigned. He resigned on September 6. A homicide bomber killed 19 people in Haifa last Saturday, and Israel retaliated 14 hours later by striking suspected terrorist camps inside Syria on the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the continued, unconscionable violence by Palestinian terrorist organizations has left the President's so- called road map for peace in tatters. I might say that I remember a conversation we had with Mr. Abbas, the prime minister then of the Palestinian Authority. It was on a Monday that we met with him. We met with him in Gaza, and he made the observation that there were thousands of Palestinians on the beach in Gaza enjoying a Sunday afternoon. He had said they had not done that in a very long time because they, too, like the Israelis, are concerned about security. They understand that terrorist attacks bring retaliation. They understand that the violence that the Palestinian terrorists perpetrate begets violence committed against them. The two, in my opinion, are not analogous. One is the cause of the other. Mr. Speaker, we responded not only deep into the heart of Afghanistan when we thought that they were providing a haven and training ground for terrorists; we destroyed their government and replaced their government and drove them from the land. The Taliban, of course, is what I am talking about; but we know that if terrorism would stop, the chances for peace would escalate geometrically. The Palestinian side must know the basic precondition for peace is and must be the unconditional cessation of the campaign of terror and violence against Israel. Not only does it undermine the security of Israel, but it undermines the security of the Palestinian people as well. The United States, Mr. Speaker, stands ready, I believe this Congress stands ready, to work with other nations to obtain a better life for the Palestinian people; but this Nation will always be committed to Israel's survival, security and success as the haven and homeland for the Jewish people. No people on Earth perhaps has been more savaged through the centuries. My friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), will speak in just a minute. African Americans unfortunately and tragically fall in a similar condition. For us to allow any peoples, whether they be Jewish, African American or Palestinians, to be savaged in a world that calls itself civilized is unacceptable. We must call, therefore, we must urge, we must demand the cessation of the use of terrorism perpetrated against Israel, the United States, or any other nation. At the same time, we must seek justice, for without justice, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows so well, there will be no peace.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of coming to Congress in 1981. Some of my colleagues on the floor were here when I came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I came in the same class. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, was already here. Those who came after 1987 lost an extraordinary experience, and that experience was to serve in this House with one of America's great political leaders, so defined by Bob Dole. His name, of course, was Thomas P. O'Neill. He was a large man physically, but his heart was much larger, and his commitment to people even larger still. Those of us who came to the Congress at that time obviously met Tip, serving under Speaker O'Neill and with him. But shortly thereafter, we had an extraordinary privilege, and that privilege was to meet his partner. Mildred A. O'Neill, affectionately known to all of us as Millie, became, in many respects, at least for those who were young enough to consider her as such, as sort of the den mother of the Democratic House. She was a wonderful, warm, committed, devoted human being. She was the kind of human being that everybody would want to be born and have as their grandmother or their mother, period, because she was filled with love and caring for humankind. And my, how she loved our Speaker. And my, how our Speaker loved her. We talk about family values. It is easy to talk about family values, but I suggest that no one has lived family values any more than Tip O'Neill and Millie O'Neill. Millie O'Neill was born in 1914, the same year that my mother was born. My mother, unfortunately, passed away in 1975 at a too-young age. Millie O'Neill lived until just a day ago. She died at the age of 89, having seen extraordinary history in her State and in her country and, indeed, with her husband, had impacted on that history in a most positive way. When Tip O'Neill left the Congress, or shortly before, there was a poll taken in the South. And the two most popular figures in the United States, political figures at that time, were Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the South. Now, obviously, they disagreed on many issues. So what was the cause of that support and popularity? It was because they were both viewed as two men of principle and the courage of their convictions. People could disagree with either one, but there was that respect for their character that was reflected. Millie O'Neill was a critical component of the character of her husband. They had been married for over half a century. Tip in his book referenced how loyal, how important Millie was to his life, both at times of triumph and times of trial. Mr. Speaker, I count myself uniquely privileged to have come to Congress in time to know and become a friend of Mildred A. O'Neill. I believe she loved each and every one of us; and there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that each and every one of us loved her. Let me say that I was also advantaged because, on the other side of the aisle, there was a leader who shared the compassion and commitment to this institution that Tip had, and that was Bob Michel. Bob has a wonderful wife, Corrine. She is ill today, and I know that she, too, and Bob Michel will grieve for the loss of their friend. It was a time, frankly, I say to my colleagues, when Bob Michel and Tip O'Neill knew that they were friends, knew that they had different views; but both were committed to this institution, and their wives, Millie and Corrine, were fast and true friends as well. America has lost a great American, a great grandmother, a great mother, and a great supporter of this institution.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Further conference reports from the Committee on Appropriations. The Majority leader mentioned several conference reports that would come up next week or may come up next week. I would note that neither the Medicare prescription drug legislation nor the child tax credit legislation is on that list, but could Members be told which of those that were listed are most likely to come to the floor? I know we have had them on the list a number of times. Does the gentleman have any greater feel for which bills would be most likely to come to the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, rather than go back and forth on it at this point in time, I will be glad to ask Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel when the last meeting was that they were invited to.

Mr. HOYER. That was a meeting with the President. I agree with the gentleman. It was not a conference meeting, however. It may have been a meeting with the President. We hope that we will proceed. The FAA conference report, we were told that that was going to be on the floor last week and this week. We understood that we would consider it this week. The rule was not brought up. Can the gentleman illuminate for the Members where that bill stands? I know the previous week we could not find the papers, as I recall. This week we understand the papers have been found, but we did not move ahead on that. Can the Majority Leader tell us why we have not proceeded on that and what he perceives to be the future of the FAA reauthorization bill?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, very seriously I want to tell the gentleman that any implication that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has fought for Medicare and health care legislation longer, harder, than any member on this floor from either party, and whose father preceded him in that fight, is somehow not interested in passing a bill is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman made a mistake if that is his premise. I want to advise him, respectfully, that he is wrong. I also believe that Mr. Berry and Mr. Rangel are extraordinarily interested in passing a bill. Now, their perspective may be different. As far as we know, there have been no conference meetings in the sense of the conferees getting together and discussing differences and trying to iron those differences out in the last 2 months.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information because I know we need to move ahead on that authorization. If the gentleman could answer the question, however, we understand there seems to be a disagreement. However, the House passed a provision that directed that there be no privatization of the air traffic controllers. The Senate passed a provision providing that there should be no privatization of air traffic controllers. But we understand there is a difference in the conference on this issue. Can you explain to me, Mr. Leader, when the House took a position on behalf of insuring on the continued public nature of the air traffic controllers and the Senate took the same position, why there might be a difference on that issue?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his candor on that. Each of us finds ourselves in that position from time to time. I would urge the gentleman, however, because both Houses have taken the same position on that very critical issue, in my opinion, to the security of our Nation, if you might urge the conferees at least to take that item on which apparently the House and Senate both acted in concert off the table, it might facilitate the movement of the conference.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader for the information.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is saying about standing with the American families, but the American families, at least the 6 and a half million and 12 million children that we talked about and the 200,000 military families, are not getting relief because, as I understand it, they cannot get permanent relief. I would suggest to the Majority Leader that we passed a major tax bill that expires in 2010. So by its definition, therefore, it was temporary in nature, and, notwithstanding that fact, we passed it. I would urge the majority to apply the same logic to the child tax credit, to those families making less than $26,000 in our society, most in need of help, very frankly, as opposed to those of us who are doing much better and some, of course, doing much, much better than we are doing but we are doing well. So I would urge the gentleman to look at that. With respect to the Medicare conference, we have heard some information on this side that the President and some of the majority conferees have reached an agreement that there is going to be an effort to reach agreement by October 17 in the conference. Is that information accurate?

Mr. HOYER. I do not want to speculate on which side God is on the Medicare prescription drug bill. I have my own perspective, however, I will tell my colleagues. The gentleman indicated that there are a number of meetings going on of conferees discussing this. And lamentably I want to tell the leader that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) are not aware of any meetings that have occurred involving, at least, them; and they are conferees. If we are going to be able to pass this legislation, in my opinion, it will be necessary for us to proceed in a bipartisan way. Could the gentleman comment on the fact that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have not been in any of these meetings to which he has referred?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the majority leader. I appreciate the information the gentleman has given us. Essentially, we will be meeting Tuesday night and Wednesday next week. The gentleman did not mention the Iraq supplemental, I do not believe. I would like to know because, obviously, that is a matter of great concern to every Member of this body and to the American people, when the gentleman expects to consider that supplemental appropriation on the floor. And additionally, can the gentleman assure Members that we are going to have a full consideration and fair process to consider this bill on the floor, a process that will allow a full debate so that Members will have the ability to address all of their concerns? They may well want to support it, but I think the Congress and the American people want to know exactly what we are doing. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Is it the gentleman's expectation now that the bill as reported from the Committee on Rules to the floor will be subject to amendment?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let us be crystal clear about what this House is doing today. We are making a medical judgment. That ought to be of deep concern to every American who believes that the Federal Government has no business injecting itself into the middle of the doctor-patient relationship. If we pass this partial-birth abortion conference report, elected representatives of the people of the United States, not the medical community, not doctors, not trained persons, will be telling every American woman that she cannot obtain certain medical procedures that are currently legal and available to her. If that does not trouble you, this should: this conference report is patently unconstitutional. The proponents of this conference report are literally trying to paper over Supreme Court precedent in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court's decision 3 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart. This conference report deliberately excludes an exception for cases in which a woman's health is in jeopardy. Instead, the proponents of this conference report have added dozens of pages of congressional findings that conclude that the prescribed abortion procedure is never medically necessary. The distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) quoted Justice Thomas in saying that that would not work and could not work. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that anyone here believes that abortion is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy; no one believes that. I think without question that this belief is even stronger when an abortion is obtained in the later stages of pregnancy. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, this legislation, and I have said it before and I will say it again, would not prevent one abortion. This legislation will not prevent one abortion, not one. Why? Because it leaves in place other procedures. That is because, while it claims to ban a specific medical procedure performed in the most tragic of circumstances, it leaves other means of terminating a pregnancy in place. To that extent, this legislation is without effect. I would challenge any proponent of this legislation to tell me why it prohibits the termination of a pregnancy. I understand the proponents say it prohibits a procedure, but there will be not one proponent because it will not be medically justifiable to say so, that it precludes the termination of a pregnancy at any stage. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this House has again missed an important opportunity to seize what common ground exists in this difficult issue. The bipartisan Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act, which failed on this floor, which I co-sponsored this year, addresses the heart of the matter: the termination of pregnancy in the late stages of pregnancy. That legislation would have precluded all late-term abortions by any method except to save the life or protect the health of the mother. It is clear that the conference report before us is nothing but a veiled attempt to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Roe versus Wade. It will fail. It will fail in the courts. How else can one explain the conferee's decision to strip out the Senate language reaffirming Roe? I hope my colleagues reject this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what the gentleman from Wisconsin has just said, the 1.3 million people are protected by the gentleman's motion, and they will be advantaged; but the millions of people who will be disadvantaged by the proposal of the Department of Labor will be protected by the gentleman's motion. That is the issue. Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, our economy has lost more than 3 million jobs, including 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. President Bush has the worst job creation record of any President since Herbert Hoover, and with a new unemployment figure out tomorrow, the Department of Labor reported today that jobless claims rose last week to nearly 400,000 Americans. The fact is working families have borne the brunt of the Republican Party's failed economic policies. The poverty rating increased last year for the second consecutive year. The ranks of the uninsured swelled by 2.4 million. The median household income plunged for the third straight year under this administration. While millionaires reaped an average tax cut of $93,000 from the GOP's tax bill this year, this Republican Congress has failed to extend the child tax credit to families earning less than $26,000, 6.5 million families, 12 million children and 200,000 military personnel. Now, as if to add insult to injury, the GOP is pushing new regulations that would strip more than eight million people from their eligibility for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act on which they rely to support their families, pay college tuition for their kids, pay their mortgage payment and car payment. The Secretary of Labor claims that businesses are lobbying for that change, and listen to this, ``not because they are getting any particular benefit but because they just want clarity.'' Give me a break. ``Firms that represent employers can hardly contain their glee,'' according to the Washington Post. Hewitt Associates, a human resources consultant, said ``Employees previously accustomed to earning, in some cases significant amounts of overtime pay, would suddenly lose that opportunity,'' under the Department of Labor's proposal. And the law firm that represents clients who will be advantaged by this bill said, ``Thankfully, virtually all of these changes should ultimately be beneficial to employers.'' I am for benefiting employers, but I am not for not benefiting employees. Mr. Speaker, this Democratic motion instructs conferees to accept the Senate-passed provision to block the Bush administration's proposed rule changes that adversely affect employees while keeping those that do. Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that profanity was out of order on this floor; doing things that are profane ought to be as well.