Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader. Now, Mr. Leader, one of the things I was very concerned about in hearing the schedule, it has now been just short of 7 days that we passed the child tax credit legislation that many of us have expressed real concern about. We went to conference that same day, as the gentleman knows. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the conference is meeting? Can the gentleman tell me whether we expect to consider a conference report so that prior to July the 6.5 million families and the 12 million children that were left out when it came out of conference might be helped? Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is either the conference proceeding or whether or not there is any expectation that we will take a conference report up on the floor next week prior to going home for the July 4th break? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, we understand that, but everybody on this floor, every Member, perhaps not the American public, but every Member knows that the majority, when it needs a waiver of the rules to present something on the floor that it wants to present, waives those rules. So when I said something that the minority wants to offer, I meant that, very frankly, if the democratic process is going to operate openly and effectively so that there can be different alternatives considered, alternatives that we believe are appropriate, as well as, obviously, the majority can present the alternatives it deems to be appropriate. Clearly, if one fashions a bill so that the alternative we believe is appropriate is not consistent with those rules and will not give us a waiver, you effectively have precluded us from offering that substitute or those amendments. I mentioned the substitute, but I also would hope that there would be a willingness to make in order numerous amendments from the minority side of the House. As I have pointed out, Mr. Leader, we represent approximately 140 million Americans on this side; you represent approximately 150 million Americans. That is pretty close. The Americans who sent us here obviously would want to see their alternatives considered by the full House. And if they are rejected, so be it. But I would urge the leader, particularly on a bill as important as this, as controversial as this, having such ramifications to 40 million Americans on Medicare, that you would be, you and the Speaker and the whip on your side, would urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules to be as broad in their approval of alternatives as they could be. I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is on the floor. I carry around with me, as he knows, quotes. I do not know how many people carry around quotes of the gentleman from California, but I carry around quotes of the gentleman from California in my pocket. From time to time I bring them out. He made the point as a minority Member that a Member ought to be given the ability to offer alternatives; and if they lose, they lose. But in a democratic institution that prides itself on being the people's House, all of the people's representatives ought to be given an option to offer their alternatives.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As we all know, the Committee on Rules is the least representative committee in terms of distribution of numbers, and that was true when we were in charge, so I understand that. It is not a criticism. That is the way the Committee on Rules is run. It is an agent, if you will, of the majority. It is how the majority runs the House. We are not deluded on our side, anymore than you were when you were in the minority, deluded to the fact that you would be able to make an impact in committee. So very frankly, taking under consideration seriously our request is interesting and we are appreciative that you will take it under consideration. But more basically than that, the gentleman has sole authority to do it. You can do it any way you want. We understand that. But our expectation is that on a bill of this magnitude and importance, that we will be allowed not only to offer a substitute, but amendments. I will tell the gentleman that we understand the strictures of the Republican budget and, by the way, our budget, both of which have close numbers, we had $528 billion and I think you had $5 billion in terms of a number of items in your budget. But the fact is, we understand those strictures. And if those are the only strictures which we are confronted with, we will work within those restraints.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I think we have made our point. I do hope that the chairman, although we may differ on intents, but in any event, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct, nobody has introduced something like that. Nobody has been so bold as to introduce a specific proposal, although many have been bold enough to discuss that objective and result, I say to my friend from California. Some have been that bold to discuss that result, if not introducing such a bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules. On the appropriation bills, again, this is a concern that we have, because we have heard some discussions, Mr. Leader, about having restrained rules for appropriations. As the gentleman knows, more often than not, when we were in the majority, we brought many appropriation bills to the floor without a rule. As the gentleman knows, under the rules, appropriation bills do not need a rule. Can the gentleman tell me what the majority contemplates for appropriation bills as they come to the floor and the rules that they may be coming to the floor under?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Beware, working men and women of America. The Republicans from Washington are in town and they are here to help you. Beware. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends may think they are burying the estate tax today but they actually are burying our children under a mountain of debt. They see a problem. We Democrats see a problem. We solve a problem without burying our children under a mountain of debt. The GOP bill would create a fiscal Frankenstein that would haunt this Nation for decades to come. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this bill will cost $162 billion. The young people of America are going to pick up that bill. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities projects that its costs will explode to more than $800 billion in the decade after that. So if you are about 15, watch out. Our Nation will run a record budget deficit of more than $400 billion this year. At the same time the Republican majority has acceded to the largest increase in the debt limit in American history, $950 billion- plus in 1 year, which was what the deficit was in its entirety in 1980. So what does the GOP propose today? Legislation that would drive us even deeper into debt. For whom? For three-tenths of 1 percent of the decedents in America. 99.7 percent of the decedents in America who owe estate tax would be exempted under our option without blowing a hole in the deficit. The fact is repealing the estate tax would only benefit the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the estates in America. Think of that. For three-tenths we are going to blow a continuing hole in the deficit. Let us remember, it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who called for an inheritance tax in 1906 saying, and I want to quote this Republican President. ``There is every reason why . . . the national government should impose a graduated inheritance tax.'' Teddy Roosevelt himself, a man of great means, explained: ``The prime object should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.'' Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest people in the world, agrees totally with that. The bill has nothing to do with tax fairness or stimulating the economy. It has everything to do with paying homage to the GOP's reckless tax cut theology and misplaced priorities. Today, the GOP genuflects at the tax cut alter, but the rest of us ought to be the ones saying a prayer. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative. We talk about personal responsibility. Be personally responsible today.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Washington State, what we hear over here is enmity, enmity towards the common wheel. I do not mean towards government, I mean towards us coming together as a people to invest in America, to invest in our children, to leave no child behind, to make sure our environment is clean, to make sure that we have the resources to invest in national defense. Now, those of you who go to work every day and work for a living and get a salary check and have deductions from that salary check, to help your government have a national defense, have the programs for education and health care and NIH research to make our society better, hear me now. Those of you who work every day, let me tell you what the objective of this provision is. First, we are going to exempt three-tenths of a percent; not exempt 99.7 which the Pomeroy bill does, and it speaks to those small farmers and those small business people who have grown America, who we want to exempt. We are for that. But what it does not do is add gargantuan amounts to the debt and then, let me tell my colleagues what this does. I have $100 million that I inherited from my dad, hooray for me. I will never, ever pay taxes again under the Republican program. Never, unless it happens to be a sales tax or an excise tax. I will not pay income tax, because this is inherited dollars, and I will have it invested in corporate or savings accounts, and the Republicans want to exempt both dividends from taxation and interest on savings from taxation. So I will never pay taxes again. And, by the way, they also want to exempt capital gains. Now, if you get most of your income from capital gains, or you get most of your income from dividends, or you get most of your income from interest, you may be for this. But if, however, you are like the overwhelming majority of Americans who get up every day, play by the rules, work hard, and get a salary check, this undermines you, your children, and your families. Vote for the Pomeroy substitute.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas Stone High School in Charles County Maryland, for its ranking among the nation's top 700 most demanding public schools as reported in Newsweek. I would like to commend Thomas Stone High School on incorporating a curriculum that challenges and advances the abilities of all students who attend this public school. The 2003 Challenge Index rated each school by analyzing the number of advanced placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by students in the high school and the number of graduating seniors from that school in a given year. Those schools who received a rating of 1.0, which meant that the number of students graduating was less than the number of tests given, were considered above average and included in the index. Based on this ratings scale, Thomas Stone High School achieved the ranking of 364th in schools across the nation who met this 1.0 rating. The Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB), a European based program, are courses students can take which have a more challenging curriculum and prepare the students for their endeavors at the collegiate level. In addition to this, these exams also allow the individual students to earn college credit depending on the score they receive on the exam. Thomas Stone High School includes 1916 students with 392 of those graduating this year. Out of those 392 students graduating, the school expects 72 percent to attend a college or university. To aid students in continuing their education the school estimates that nearly 4.2 million dollars has been spent on scholarships. Students are allowed to participate in nineteen Advanced Placement courses, as well as scholar's courses and the JROTC. Thomas Stone High School has a student who sits on the State Board of Education as well as the County Board of Education. The school has Board Certified teachers and the Principal, Mr. Heath Morrison, was named the Maryland Association of Student Council's Principal of the Year. It is easy to see how such remarkable students can thrive at Thomas Stone High School. The faculty and staff, along with the students, are responsible for this honor. Principal Heath Morrison as well as the five Vice Principals: Janice Johnson, Ellen Linton, Curry Werkheiser, Wendell Martin, and Frazier Nelson all helped to encourage the students to strive for and achieve their goals. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Stone High School has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to its entire student body by offering numerous courses that provoke the minds of each and every student. I would like to congratulate Thomas Stone High School on achieving such an honor and wish the faculty, staff, and students continued success in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Patuxent High School in Calvert County, Maryland for its ranking among the Nation's top 700 most demanding public schools as reported by Newsweek. I would like to commend Patuxent High School on incorporating a curriculum that challenges and advances the abilities of all students who attend this public school. The Challenge Index rated each school by analyzing the number of advanced placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by students in the high school and the number graduating from that school in a given year. Those schools that received a rating of 1.0, which meant that the number of students graduating was less than the number of tests given, were considered above average and included in the index. Based on this ratings scale, Patuxent High School achieved the ranking of 697th of schools across the Nation who met this 1.0 rating. The Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB), a European based program, are courses students can take which have a challenging curriculum and prepare the students for their endeavors at the collegiate level. In addition, these exams allow the individual students to earn college credits depending on what score they receive on the exam. In 2003 the Patuxent High School student body numbered 1775 students with a senior class of 371. It offers fifteen AP courses as well as numerous honors courses that challenge their students. This year twenty-seven percent of the graduating class will attend a four-year college or university with forty percent attending a two-year college. In 2001, Patuxent High School was honored for receiving the top average SAT scores in Calvert County. Principal Robert F. Dredger along with the four Vice Principals: Nancy Highsmith, Steve King, Christian Hodge, and Robert Lawrence, have established an environment that motivates and challenges each and every student. Without the hard work of the administration, staff, and students this honor could not have been obtained. Mr. Speaker, Patuxent High School has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to its entire student body by offering numerous courses that provoke the minds of each and every student. I would like to congratulate Patuxent High School on achieving such an honor and wish the faculty, staff, and students continued success in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The IRS Accountability Act, can you tell us what day we might consider that bill and under what type of rule?

Mr. HOYER. Do you know which would come first, the associated health plans or the State tax?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and I hope that we will be able to get a substitute and such amendments as we might deem to be appropriate to be considered by the full House. On the State tax bill, can you tell us when we might consider that bill and also the status of any rule?

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I do not know about everybody else, but of course had the gentleman who complained made the vote, we would have had one more vote on our side, as the gentleman indicated.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is almost an avalanche of support for the position of this side, and some enlightened souls on your side of the aisle, and so perhaps we ought to conclude before we have such an overwhelming majority that there will be no alternative but to follow those instructions.

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

Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman have any information as to whether or not the minority would be allowed a substitute to that bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would simply say from our side of the aisle, and I know I speak for the leader and myself, in light of the fact that the House has urged the conference committee to report out the Senate bill, and in light of the fact that the Senate passed it 94-2, it would seem to be a relatively easy matter if the conferees followed the instructions of the House to pass the Senate bill. I believe the Senate would probably concur in that judgment, and we could have a bill out of here perhaps as early as next week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, I am, because it will be a moot point, because there will not be enough room in the Chamber to make the display.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talked about averages. Beware of averages. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) gets $100,000 tax cut and I get a zero tax cut, that means the two of us got a $50,000 average tax cut. Beware of Republicans quoting average tax cuts. The GOP's intransigence is on full display with the self-executing rule on this legislation to allow low-income working American families to benefit from the increase in the child tax credit. Let there be no mistake: With this rule, the GOP leadership wants to send this legislation into conference committee where it hopes to tie up the bill and watch it die a slow death. Two days ago, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) unveiled the House GOP's fiscally irresponsible version of this bill, he had the audacity to say, ``We are not in the business of politics, but rather policy.'' Well, I ask, is the United States Senate playing politics with this issue? That body passed a responsible bipartisan bill, 94 Senators voting for it, giving relief to 12 million children and 6.5 million families. I ask, is the President of the United States playing politics when he said he would sign the Senate bill and urged us to pass it? And the Democratic Caucus on this side of the aisle, every one of whom is prepared to vote for the bill that the President says he will sign that will give immediate relief to 12 million children and 6.5 million working families. So we all know who is really playing politics on this issue. And it is not Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and President Bush who support the immediate passage of the Senate bill. It is the House Republicans who have proposed an irresponsible, $82 billion bill that is not paid for, that would drive us even deeper into debt and possibly prevent low-income working families from receiving this benefit. I have said on this floor before, when you did not allow us to offer a substitute, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. I have said on this floor before when you did not allow us to offer amendments, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. Now, you not only do not allow us to offer a substitute, you do not allow us to offer amendments, you do not even have the courage to put your own bill on the floor. The public probably does not understand that. This is a rule. Not the bill. We are not debating the bill. And, as a matter of fact, the committee whose jurisdiction has this bill is not even on the floor and they have not spoken on this bill. The leadership of the committee has not come forward and said that it is good bill. They have handled it on a procedural matter. Why? To muzzle us and to muzzle their folks who they do not rely on to vote on the substance of this bill, but hope and pray they will get enough of their people on the procedural end of this bill to carry the day. That is unfortunate. Eighty-two billion dollars of deficit that Americans are going to have to pay for, my children are going to have to pay for, my grandchildren are going to have to pay for; and we do not even have the courage to put the bill on the floor, but this rule ruse is what we are confronted with. Vote no on the previous question. Vote no on the bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would make a parliamentary observation. If we keep raising the debt as fast as we are raising it----

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this substitute and reiterate what the distinguished gentleman from Texas said. Obviously, adversely affecting pending cases, in my opinion, is extraordinarily bad policy and precedent that we should not follow. Have we done it from time to time? We have. Have I opposed it? I have. I think that is not the way we ought to go. Now, I think that legislation in this area is appropriate. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) I think has offered an appropriate substitute. Are there abuses in our system of civil justice specifically regarding class action lawsuits? I want to tell the gentleman that I believe there are, and we need to write legislation that addresses and remedies those problems. However, the bill offered on the floor today, if not amended, in my opinion, does not do that. Instead, its provisions would apply to pending class actions, making it more difficult for shareholders, retirees, and former employees frankly to hold companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen accountable for their alleged wrongdoing. We ought not to, because of our desire to protect those cases, therefore not address other corporate citizens who are responsible and who are doing a good job and who want to be ought to be subject, obviously, to suits, but ought to be subject to suits that are legitimate. The addition of this retroactivity provision is a major change. Let me stress that, Mr. Chairman. This is a major change from the class action bill considered in the last Congress. I do not know who it is in there to protect. I do not know who came forward and said we need protection; it is not a question of reform in the future, but we need protection. We have seen a few reports of that, from people who want protection. Maybe that is what that retroactivity is for. As matter of fact, invariably in my plus-30 years of service in legislative bodies, when retroactive provisions are included in the bill, invariably it is there to protect somebody. And it is very bad policy. Congress should not be changing the rules that govern this resolution of civil disputes in midstream. Furthermore, this legislation would give defendants in class actions vast new opportunities to delay cases for 2 years or more and stay discovery during the same period. Again, these rule changes would apply retroactively to pending cases. H.R. 1115 also would force our Federal courts to handle State class actions, in addition to their large caseload and judicial vacancy rate. Thus, it is not surprising, I tell my colleagues, that both Federal and State judges oppose this measure. In fact, the Federal Judicial Conference, which is headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, recently wrote a letter in which it ``strongly cautions Congress to uphold principles of federalism and to not increase the workload of the already overburdened Federal courts.'' In sharp contrast to this overreaching GOP bill, Democrats have offered legislation that, among other things, would base attorneys' fees on the amount redeemed by class members rather than the amount of the settlement. I think that is appropriate. I understand the concerns of corporate leaders when they say the attorneys get all the money, and the aggrieved parties get a piece of paper saying that they may get something prospectively if they buy another product. That is a legitimate concern. This substitute speaks to it. Our bill would require courts to determine that a class action settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. That is a protection against specious suits and those who would misuse the system. This substitute would bar litigants from sealing court records and documents under protective orders unless a court finds that it is necessary to protect a trade or business secret and it is in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this substitute and then support its passage. We need reform. This is the appropriate step for us to take.