Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand from those last comments, then, the position still is, if we cannot do it permanently we will not do it temporarily.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the passing of one of my predecessors in representing the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland--Richard E. Lankford--who passed away at the age of 89 at his Easton home on September 22. Born in Wilmington, Delaware, on July 22, 1914, Dick Lankford was raised on St. Paul Street in Baltimore's Guilford neighborhood. He earned a political science degree from the University of Virginia in 1937 and then received his law degree from the University of Maryland in 1940. After being admitted to the Maryland Bar that same year, Dick practiced law in Annapolis, where later in life he worked as a tobacco and cattle farmer. However, his legal career was interrupted by World War Two, during which he served in the Navy as an intelligence officer in Europe. After the war, Dick worked on the campaign of Governor William Preston Lane, Jr., and then in 1948 he entered public life himself when he was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Maryland House of Delegates. He won the election to retain that seat in 1950, and four years later he won election to this House of Representatives, defeating the incumbent, Republican Frank Small, Jr. Congressman Lankford was re- elected four times to the House of Representatives, serving 10 years in Congress, before deciding to retire in 1964. Mr. Speaker, I vividly recall Congressman Lankford as my own Congressman when I was still completing my undergraduate studies at the University of Maryland in the early 60s. The old Fifth Congressional District, which I have been privileged to serve since 1981, then stretched all the way from South Baltimore to suburban Washington, and included industrial workers in the Curtis Bay area, tobacco farmers in Calvert County, Federal government employees in Prince George's County, and watermen in Charles County. It's a testament to Dick Lankford's ability that he successfully served constituents from such varied backgrounds and livelihoods. In Congress, Dick Lankford worked hard to secure pay raises and to improve working conditions for Federal employees. He also was an early advocate for cleaning up Maryland's rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as mass transit in the Baltimore-Washington areas. He also served with distinction on the Armed Services Committee. I want to extend my sincere condolences to Dick's wife, Edna, as well as his daughter, Sallie, of Massachusetts, and son, Richard Jr., of Millington. Dick Lankford was proud of his service in this House. He brought to his constituency and to our State energy and a commitment to his country that served all of them well. Today, we honor his service to the State of Maryland and these United States, and we affirm that it indeed will be remembered for many years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last month, our region was subjected to nature's unbridled wrath. And, despite the advances in technology that gave us fair warning that a storm of this magnitude was approaching, there was little anyone could do to escape the destruction Isabel left in her wake. The five counties I represent all suffered enormous damage, families were displaced and without power for days, homes and businesses were demolished, and our natural resources were destroyed by the strength of the winds and rain that accompanied this vicious hurricane. Our region responded quickly and directed the full force of its resources to assist residents and business owners with their recovery efforts. I am extremely grateful to our first responders, local and state officials, and disaster assistance teams from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), the Army Corps of Engineers, law enforcement officials and community volunteers who I saw throughout our communities when I visited parts of St. Mary's, Anne Arundel, and Calvert counties in the week following the storm. On Thursday, September 25 I joined Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, as well as my colleagues in the Maryland Congressional Delegation, to hear from representatives from several federal and State of Maryland agencies on relief efforts underway to help the citizens of Maryland and small businesses throughout the State. We were informed that the counties were completing their Preliminary Damage Assessments which would be submitted to MEMA and FEMA so that funds could be designated to assist with the clean-up and recovery. Thus far, Maryland has qualified for federal assistance with debris removal and emergency protective services. If the damage in other areas meets the threshold for disasters, Maryland could become eligible for more categories of federal assistance, including repair of roads and bridges, water control facilities, buildings and equipment, utilities and parks. Recovering from this storm will be a long process, and we all will face challenges along the way. I will continue to work with elected officials and residents throughout the 5th District of Maryland to provide any resources I can to help in this recovery process.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Members on our side of the aisle can hardly wait to hear what half-baked excuse our Republican colleagues will use this year for failing to complete our appropriations work on time. Remember last fall's favorite punching bag? Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats. As if the other body had anything to do with the Republican majority's refusal to even bring up eight of the 13 annual spending bills on this floor for a vote. We all know last year's little secret: The House GOP--so famously derided as the ``perfectionist caucus'' by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich--didn't have the votes on its side of the aisle to pass those bills. So, you pointed the finger of blame at the Senate. When we considered the first continuing resolution last year, the majority leader (Mr. Delay) said: ``The Democrat House leadership embraced the decision by the other body [the Senate] to proceed with no governing fiscal oversight called a budget. For any theoretical elective body, the decision to proceed forward without a governing budget would be foolhardy and grossly irresponsible.'' The chairman of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Istook, passed the buck with even more gusto: ``The law requires both houses to enact a budget. This body has done so. The other body still has not done it. No wonder we have gridlock and deadlock.'' But few could match the bluntness of my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston): ``There is a sinkhole on the Capitol, not over here, but over there [the Senate],'' said Mr. Kingston. ``Now, this sinkhole ate up the budget this year. So here we are forced to pass a continuing resolution because we cannot deal with some group that does not have a budget.'' Well, the last time I checked, my Republican friends, there was a Republican majority in this body, a Republican majority in the other body, and a Republican chief executive at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And while this house has passed all 13 spending bills, we have only adopted three conference reports. So what is your excuse this year? We all know the answer to that. It's your inability to compromise even with members of your own party. And it's an affliction that is not just holding up the appropriations process. It's also preventing us from passing an energy bill, from extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million working American families, and giving our seniors a real prescription drug benefit that is not designed to destroy Medicare. The GOP has no one to blame this year for this legislative failure but itself.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time, and I agree with everything he said; and I think the chairman agrees with most of what he said. Usually when we discuss these issues, almost invariably those of us on this side of the aisle rise and first say that we do not hold responsible our chairman for the policies that are being pursued. It is his responsibility, however, to practically try to carry out flawed policies. He does so with a great deal of skill, with eminent fairness and with grace for which all of us who serve on his committee are very thankful. But, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is operating in the context of the most fiscally irresponsible policy that any administration and majority has followed in the history of this country. I pause for emphasis. The children of America, the grandchildren of America are going to be called upon to pay the bill for this irresponsible policy. That is what the ranking member meant when he said that all of the dollars that are being requested to pursue a policy that I supported in Iraq will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. An irresponsible policy. An unrealistic policy. And I would recall for Members that just a few months ago, when we adopted that budget resolution, of which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke, we adopted it on a Thursday. No Democrats voted for it. Not one. We then, on the Tuesday following that Thursday, had a motion made by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and that motion simply said that we instructed the conference not to do what was in the budget; not to cut veterans by $1.5 billion; not to cut housing, which is in short supply for middle America; not to do many of the things that would have undercut education, health care, and the environment that were proposed in that budget. And I would further recall for Members, and unfortunately there are no press here, but I recall that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget (Mr. Nussle), sitting where the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations now sits, railed for about 29 minutes about how awful the motion to instruct was and how Members ought to vote against it. And then, lo and behold, the majority leader came to the floor, spoke quietly to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and the vote was called. Many Republicans rushed to the floor to vote against that motion to instruct, and, lo and behold, as the minutes went by, votes were changed. Lo and behold, as the minutes went by, the rhetoric of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) was forgotten quickly when the reality of the votes and the necessity to report at home the consequences of those votes was realized by our Republican friends on the majority side. So they changed their votes; or if they had not voted, voted for the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). How ironic. And now the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is confronted with another reality. Last year, we could not pass appropriation bills. Eight of them were passed not only after the fiscal year, but after the Congress had adjourned. Why? Because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was forced to operate within a context of a totally unrealistic budget. And what did the Republicans say? They said, oh, it is Mr. Daschle's fault. It is the Senate's fault. They have not adopted a budget. Well, now, they control the House, they control the Senate, they control the administration, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, on a good day, they control the Supreme Court. I thought that was a good line and, unfortunately, true at times as well. But the fact of the matter is they control it all. And the lamentation that they put forward last year, the excuse that they put forward last year, the rationalization they pursued last year is not available to them; not to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) but to the majority leadership. And so we are confronted with, yes, having passed our bills, and I might say some without a single Democratic vote. As a matter of fact, one of the largest bills, one of the most important bills for education of our children, for the health care of our families and citizens, not one Democrat voted for it. Not because we are not for education and health care, but because we knew that bill was an unrealistic bill. So we are confronted today with a resolution that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is required to put forward, and acting as he always does, responsibly, he must put forward, and which I am going to support, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support. It is the alternative we ought to pursue. I said the most fiscally irresponsible administration. Why? Because after we adopt this budget or these appropriation bills, which will spend a lesser and lesser percentage of the gross domestic product of our country on discretionary spending that we will make decisions about, we will have created over a $.5 trillion deficit in this single year, more debt than we incurred in the first 90 percent of the days of this Republic, and our children are going to pay the bill. How tragic. How irresponsible. We passed a bankruptcy bill in which we made it harder to declare bankruptcy, and each of us on the floor said we need to require personal responsibility of those who seek credit. If we applied that same criteria to this administration and to the Congress of the United States, we would fail. We are not exercising personal responsibility. In this instance, we must pass this resolution, and I will vote for it, but I lament the fact that it is passed in the context of the most irresponsible fiscal policy that I have ever seen and this country has ever seen, and which is disadvantaging our country and our ability to invest in the future.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. And I want to say that, although I would have agreed with the position of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) that it ought not to be shifted, I believe the gentleman is correct that he has tried to build in protections so that this program is not undermined. I appreciate those actions which I think certainly make this switch a more positive one than it otherwise would have been, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for another question, is the gentleman confident that having done that, that the fire grant program will not be adversely affected in terms of its focus on firefighting, firefighter safety, and emergency response capabilities?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's elaboration of what this bill does and what it does not do. I would say to the gentleman, I have a concern. As the gentleman knows, when someone who has been very much involved in the fire grant program, and focused on the fire service, not just as it relates to terrorism, but as it relates to safety in our neighborhoods and the safety of our firefighters and emergency medical response teams, am I correct that unlike the House-passed bill, we have now shifted from the fire administration, the fire grant program, into the Office of Domestic Preparedness?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I have had an opportunity to discuss this briefly with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and I would hope that the committee, having accepted the Senate's position, which I do not share, as I share the gentleman's view on this, will ensure that this committee program, not just for our response to terrorist activity, but in response to making sure that our firefighters and emergency medical response teams can be effective, that we can also keep them safe in the normal day-to-day, but risky, activities in which they undertake. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who does such an extraordinarily good job, not only on this bill, but on so many other issues, and I thank him for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for H.R. 2657, which responsibly meets the needs of the legislative body, the body designed by our Founders to make sure that our Federal Government works as our citizens want it to; and this bill provides for the resources to accomplish that objective. Let me also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in congratulating not only his staff, but Liz Dawson, who has done such an extraordinary job for the Committee on Appropriations, not only this subcommittee but other subcommittees as well, for the work that she does. Mr. Speaker, one matter that should concern every Member of this body is the fair treatment of the folks who work for us and with us, including temporary workers employed by the legislative branch. Section 133, Mr. Speaker, of the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2002, which became law on November 12, 2001, prohibits the Architect of the Capitol from employing temporary workers for long periods without providing eligibility for employee benefits. Notwithstanding that, this is not happening much to my dismay and the dismay of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member. The Architect has refused to implement section 133, despite the clearest of Congressional intention and the fact that the General Accounting Office has determined that section 133 provides the Architect with the authority to treat temporary workers fairly. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today's conference report includes language that strengthens section 133. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and particularly Liz Dawson for that objective. I strongly support this language. My expectation with this language is simple: That Mr. Hantman will finally appreciate that Congress meant what it said 2 years ago, when it instructed his office to fairly treat temporary workers. I thank the committee for its work and thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of informing the House for the following week and perhaps thereafter.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, is that on the issue of overtime pay for working Americans?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand. Reclaiming my time, there is another conference report that we have been talking about now for a couple of weeks, and that is the FAA conference report, the reauthorization, which the authorization I think expires on September 30, if I am correct. Can the gentleman tell the body and the Members the status of that conference report?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the leader is saying. On the appropriations conference reports, the gentleman mentioned a number of conference reports, Homeland Security and DOD and the DOD authorization. Is there a possibility that the legislative branch appropriation conference report could come to the floor next week as well or any other conference reports?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The other conference report, there are many others, but one that we are very interested in is the labor- health-education conference report. Does the leader have any insight as to when that might be considered on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I understand. I thank the gentleman. Would it be fair for Members to presume, absent further notice, that we will be meeting, as we have been meeting, on the Tuesday evening, Thursday night schedule? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want the gentleman to know as the representative of the original adopters of that extraordinary document who were then later pleased to welcome to our ranks those who serve under that Constitution our distinguished citizens from Texas and distinguished citizens that California. And I had the opportunity of hearing the majority leader speak today at a ceremony at the National Archives at which we unveiled the newly ensconced and protected charters of freedom, the Constitution of the United States preceded by the Declaration of Independence and followed closely by the Bill of Rights, those three extraordinary documents which stand as probably the most powerful statements of a free people and of liberty and justice and a government of laws and not of men. They will be preserved from the elements as they have been preserved from those who would undermine their principles and their reality. I want to congratulate the leader for his comments today at that ceremony.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time if that, as the gentleman posits, is the disagreement, then I would say to the leader that I think I can in the next 96 hours get my side of the aisle to agree with his side of the aisle to pass that as a permanent extension. The problem we have is not between our bodies on that issue as I said. I think my party would join. These are folks who make between $10- and $26,000 who are trying to support their children, put them into school, get them through and make them good citizens. We want to help that, my colleague wants to help that, but we are not doing it. We are not doing it because there is a disagreement between the two bodies. I think it is incorrect to characterize our side of the aisle as wanting this to expire. What we want to do is pass, and if there is disagreement between the bodies, we at least want to take one step, even if we cannot take five steps, because that one step will help those families. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman said, but when one really addresses this issue in a way that reflects I think an honest analysis of it, there is disagreement between the two bodies on the proposal we made in the House and the proposal that has been made in the Senate. There is, however, no disagreement, not a scintilla of difference, between the two houses on whether or not assistance ought to be given to these 6\1/2\ million people, families and 12 million children, 200,000 military families this year. The only issue is do we want to do it further and keep it. Very frankly, I would want to do it at least this year, and then I will fight to do it next year and the year after, and our side of the aisle will fight side by side with the gentleman trying to make that permanent, but because there is no disagreement on that issue but there is disagreement, as the gentleman points out, between our body and the other body on other issues included in the bill to which the gentleman refers, these 6\1/2\ million families are paying the price. What I am saying respectfully to the leader is that on the issue that I have brought up, there is no disagreement, as I understand it, with Republicans, with Democrats in the House or with Republicans or Democrats in the Senate, and because we have agreement on that, we ought to act, and I would urge the majority leader to seriously consider requesting that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we ought to protect our jurisdiction, we ought to initiate that bill but because we have agreement, I would hope we would do so. I would yield.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last question, and I know it would disappoint my colleague if I did not pursue this issue, but Senator Grassley in the other body was quoted as saying he expects the Democrats to keep the heat on on this issue, so we do not want to disappoint him either. I say that facetiously, but we really do care about the child tax credit. It appears that the conference is meeting. It appears that there is significant disagreement between the House and the Senate, but there appears that there is, in this limited area, that is, extending the child tax credit to those families who are making between $10- and $26,000, of which there are some 6\1/2\ million families, 12 million children affected by this and 200,000 military families, there appears to be agreement on this issue. One of the disagreements is apparently that there are some of us who are willing to make it permanent, but want to at least see it active this year, but one of the problems apparently that the gentleman expressed last week was if we cannot make it permanent, we apparently cannot do it. I would hope, because I think we could do it very quickly on this floor and would not take much time of the body, that the gentleman would bring to the floor the Senate bill, which has the child tax credit, and that we might pass that or, alternatively, simply do a limited bill, send it to the Senate, and they could take it off the desk and pass it, but in either event, it would facilitate getting to those 6\1/2\ million families the same kind of assistance that we have already given to others who have received a refund of the child tax credit. I know the gentleman anticipated that question. I know he has an answer.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, next to last issue I would bring up, I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want to make sure the Members understand, is it the gentleman's understanding, and is it his intention, that if we adopt a CR, is it next week that he thinks we may do that, that the date set in that CR for continuing funding would be until the 31st of October? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman thinks that may be on the floor next week?