Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, over a hundred years ago Republicans and Democrats came together to prevent and preclude and to eliminate a politicized patronage system that was sucking down the quality of public service. What the amendment says is that we will not return to that kind of a system. I agree with the gentleman. If your bill does not do that, this motion to recommit does not harm it. If there is a chance that it does, it precludes it and protects it against a politicized civil service system. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman is correct, it has been a bipartisan problem. We have been together. I look forward to succeeding this year, as we have in years past.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, when this proposal was originally made, I said if it is a proposal in lieu of ensuring proper pay for Federal employees, then I would oppose it, and I would oppose it vigorously. I do not think the administration is yet for parity. They did not offer parity. This Congress has repeatedly said they are for parity. In fact, the President's pay advisory committee says that civilians are further behind comparable private sector jobs than the military. In light of that, certainly we must adopt the premise that 4.1 percent pay raise will be adopted; but I say to my friend that if this is solely for the purposes of supplementation, then I think that it is not objectionable. But my concern is that they fund this, but not the pay raise.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman can say over and over and over again that he reaches out his hand in comity in seeking bipartisan participation. But no matter how often he says it, no matter how sincerely drips the lines from his mouth, the reality is starkly different. Yes, we reject a sham offer for a sham process, predetermined and not inclusive, a process that is leading to the injuring of our country, the undermining of our economy, the destruction of jobs. Those are the facts, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said earlier. The creation of gargantuan debt. And, yes, as the chairman knows but will not repeat, under Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, their budget request, forget about what Democrats did, their budget request requested more spending than the Congress gave them in those 12 years. This President has asked for more spending than we had last year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, not caveated, not if you mean this or that, as the chairman says. This motion instructs conferees on the tax bill to include the provisions on State aid as provided for in the Senate. Frankly, I know it galls many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, none more so I think than the chairman, that the States are now asking the Federal Government for help in weathering their worst fiscal crisis since World War II, caused in large part by the fiscal policies of this administration. Do we ignore the fact that many States are now considering massive layoffs in an effort to save money and balance their budgets? The chairman would say yes. Do we ignore the fact that States are now considering Draconian cuts to Medicaid and other vital services for our most vulnerable citizens? The chairman would say yes. Do we ignore the fact that at least one State, Kentucky, is even considering letting prison inmates out early to save money? Mr. Speaker, that puffed-up piety, that dripping sanctimony that so often laces the lectures on fiscal responsibility that our Republican friends are so fond of making would have far more credibility if the GOP actually practiced what it preached. But the party that turned record budget surpluses into record deficits, the party that squandered a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and the party that later today intends to vote for a $350 billion bill, it says, but everybody on this floor who is at all honest knows it is a trillion dollars, plunging us deeper into debt, demanding a record increase in the statutory debt limit should not be lecturing anyone on fiscal responsibility. This motion instructs conferees not to increase the deficit, which the CBO now projects will be well over $300 billion, and not to include language to raise the debt limit. Our Democratic alternative, of course, was paid for with offsets. The GOP bill is not. Ladies and gentlemen, if you care about your country, if you care about honesty with the American public, if you care about any personal responsibility that we have as Members of the Congress, you will vote for this motion to instruct and against this package that will harm our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Once again, once again, this Republican majority shows no compunction about turning even the most bipartisan legislation into a vehicle of divisive and unnecessary partisanship. The defense authorization traditionally unites Members on both sides of the aisle. I have always voted for it. The American people expect that. Our brave men and women in the service deserve no less. However, today the majority has purposefully loaded up this bill with extraneous and controversial provisions and forced the rule to deny our side of the aisle a fair opportunity to be heard. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the committee, who is now speaking to the Committee on Rules chairman, just spent 10 minutes explaining how reasonable the provisions of the bill are. But they do not have the courage of that representation to allow us to debate fully on the floor and present an alternative. My, my, my, how confident they must be of the reasonableness of their position. Again, the majority is trying to insulate sweeping policy changes from serious scrutiny by invoking the words ``national security,'' and casting anyone who raises questions as, at best, an impediment to national security and, at worst, unpatriotic. The further down that road we go, the less democratic we will become. Make no mistake, this bill contains many, many important provisions. It provides good pay, housing and training for our men and women in uniform, and funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I support that. Not only that, I have supported it for 23 years in this House. However, the addition of controversial measures that will gut the civil service system and harm the environment only subvert the democratic process and demean this House. This bill would exempt the Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even though both laws currently allow case-by-case exemptions. And here is the crucial point: the Pentagon has never before sought the exemptions that the majority would bestow today. Fairness. Fairness. The American people expect fairness, and it dictates that the majority make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order. It was not. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the dean of the House, the senior Member in this House of Representatives, yet the Committee on Rules refused to allow him to offer an amendment. That is unconscionable. Furthermore, the process by which the civil service reform measures have been rushed to this floor is nothing short of appalling. This proposal was conceived by a handful of the President's advisers. Without doubt, there are some problems in the Federal personnel system, reforms that I would support, but our military's stunning success in Iraq shows there is not a crisis. Mr. Speaker, we ought to consider this thoughtfully, and we ought to allow amendments to be offered on this floor which would provide for full debate. We are not doing that. Vote against this rule. Vote against the previous question.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think this is an important procedural issue. And I have a quote of yours in my pocket, but I am not going to take it out.

Mr. HOYER. I am not going to regurgitate it, in terms of fairness. But what my colleague is saying is that the dean of the House comes to your committee and wants to offer an amendment, and your committee responds, no, Dean, you have served here 40-plus years, but we know better than you do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have been working 23 years on civil service. I was very pleased to hear the observations of the gentleman, who has had 5 months experience here dealing with this issue. I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee. The only reason to rush this to judgment is because they are unwilling to debate it fully and to have it open for amendment fully. If they had the courage of the gentleman from Ohio's assertions, they would not fear having this fully considered and debated. That is not the case though, I tell my friend. Mr. Chairman, I hope we have an amendment. I hope we are able to discuss it fully, at which time we will be able to discuss his thoughts, as the gentleman indicated, which gives some rhetorical tip of the hat to those protections. But they ultimately will be in the discretion of the Secretary and the management at the Pentagon, not of the Congress or the President. I would hope that the gentleman would review more closely his assertions and that perhaps we could discuss them at greater length at some time in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I wanted time for that comment to resonate in the body, but I appreciate the observation, even though it stretches my credulity. The debt limit, Mr. Leader, do you expect we will have an opportunity to have a full and open debate on this matter?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. If the leader knows, is that debt limit extension still $894 billion? Does the gentlemen know?

Mr. HOYER. The last item I would inquire about, Mr. Leader, is the unemployment compensation extension. As the gentleman knows by the efforts that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) have been making, this is of great concern to us. Does the leader have any expectation that the unemployment compensation extension will be on the floor next week?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the leader, on this side of the aisle regular order is a concept which we support, but it will not be of help to people if we do not act, and by May 31, you indicate 6 million, I am saying 3 million. I am not sure whether it is Federal-State, about a million are at risk on the State program, or maybe 2 million on State and 1 million on Federal. There is a total of 3 million at risk. I tell the leader that it is my understanding in each of the recessions in the early 1980s and in 1990, we extended the existing program's coverage for substantially more weeks than we have done in this recession. With 6 million people unemployed, with jobs difficult to find for those 6 million people, and, as the gentleman knows, under the program you cannot receive benefits unless you are, in fact, looking for a job, I would say that it would be appropriate for us to do this in the regular order. Of course, a suspension bill is in the regular order. As a matter of fact, we are going to do a number of suspension bills next week. The leader pointed out correctly that we passed unemployment extension through the House last year in the fall on a largely, not largely, but a large bipartisan vote, so I think that could be done. But I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observations. I certainly agree with him that in the long term the best solution is the creation of an economy that creates sufficient jobs for all Americans who are seeking jobs. My friend knows that there are 6 million Americans who are unemployed at this point in time, the highest unemployment we have had in approximately a decade. It is nice to say that if we pass those bills, we will create new jobs, but the people who lose their unemployment at the end of this month and who will not have sufficient funds to pay their mortgages, to purchase groceries for their families, are going to have little solace because we are going to pass some bill that will create some jobs sometime down the road. But I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Does the gentleman want to make an additional comment?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and yield to the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his information with respect to our schedule for next week, and when we go in, and the fact that we expect certainly to meet on Friday or perhaps late on Friday. With respect to the forest bill, Mr. Speaker, what type of rule does the gentleman anticipate? It is my understanding that an unlimited number of amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, and I would hope they would be made in order. I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules on the floor. Obviously we are hopeful that we will have our opportunity to offer our alternatives to this bill. There are obviously some controversial items in it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for that assurance, and again would reiterate that I am presuming that those assurances go to the two particular items, as well as other items that clearly are in this bill. I thank the gentleman for his assurance. Mr. Leader, you mentioned the tax bill, the jobs opportunity bill, that passed this House and which Senate is now considering, as I understand it. Assuming the Senate passes that piece of legislation today or tomorrow--I see the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on the floor--when is it your expectation that they will go to conference on this bill? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear that they are considering the options, but considering the options and approving the options appear to be two different things.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for those comments. I will be more specific so the leader understands what I am talking about. In October of last year, as the gentleman recalls, we were hopeful that we would extend unemployment insurance in our last day in session in October and take up a Senate bill which was passed in a bipartisan, overwhelming fashion. We did not do that, as the gentleman recalls, notwithstanding the fact we gave our unanimous consent to that action. As a result of not doing that, 800,000 Americans went off unemployment insurance on December 28 of last year. The President, of course, observed that he thought that was unfortunate, and he was for us extending it. However, that was not done, as the gentleman recalls, either until the last week in January or to the first week in February, I think it was probably the last week in January, which meant from December 28 through late January people who were unable to find jobs were not included in an extended unemployment insurance position. Therefore, they had no income coming in to their families, at least from their perspective. That is what we are concerned about. I would reiterate, Mr. Leader, it is our view that there are some 3 million people at risk. It was 800,000 last October. We believe it is 3 million people under State programs and Federal programs that are at risk if we do not extend unemployment insurance, as we did in the 1990 recession, as we did in 1982. In fact, we extended it in both those instances beyond that which we had already. It was those programs which I was referring to, Mr. Leader. I yield for any comments the gentleman may wish to make.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much. Every time I walk by that, I think of John Rousselot. Remember how John used to come over to this and preach at us? He came over to this rostrum. Those of you who were here with John Rousselot, I tell that story only because John Rousselot, I came to the Congress having the most negative view of John Rousselot of any Member of the Congress. That was where I was coming from. I over time got to think he was one of my most delightful colleagues. I say that in starting because unfortunately, as I have said in years past, this Congress has become more partisan, I think, than when you were here, less collegial than when many of you were here, and in many respects less positive than when many of you were here. Not all of you, because some of you have left pretty recently and know of what I speak. I am so proud to be here and refer to my Democratic Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It is so good to be here with Tom Foley. What a wonderful contribution he made to this institution through the years, and the person that I would have voted for for Speaker. We only had about 197, I think, at the point, but I pledged to Ray LaHood that if he could get 21 of his colleagues that I would try to line up 197 of my colleagues to vote for Bob Michel for Speaker. Bob, it is good to be here with you, Mr. Leader. What a great American you are and what respect everybody who served with you has for you. And for all of you who served here and made this institution what it is for the American people, the people's House, on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, myself and all of the folks on our side of the aisle; but I know that I speak, and Speaker Hastert was here, Speaker Hastert, I want to tell you, is a partisan Republican, a conservative Republican; but he is a collegial leader of this House in terms of reaching out to many of us on this side of the aisle. We are going to have disagreements, but he is a good and decent leader of this House. You would be proud of him serving here, I think. Maybe it is just, Mr. Leader, because he comes from Illinois. Maybe that is it. But in any event, you would be proud, I think, of his leadership of this House. America is facing some very substantial challenges. We present Members need all the wisdom that we can garner from all of you who have served so well, selected by your neighbors and friends to serve in the people's House, how proud of us they are, the fact that the only way you get here is having your friends and neighbors repose in you trust and confidence to come here and to represent them in a way that will better their community, their States and their country. We are challenged. We are challenged from abroad. We are challenged internally by our economy. Together I think we do better. We are struggling to get together in this House and in this Congress; but having said that, I think that you can be very helpful in that regard. I am always pleased to come here and to participate in welcoming you back to the Congress of the United States, to your House, the people's House. What a privilege and honor it is to have served here and what a privilege and honor it is to serve here and what a brotherhood and sisterhood we create. Marjorie Holt and I served together and represented our State. We became very, very good friends and remain good friends to this day. Helen Bentley, another low-key, soft, unretiring Republican colleague of mine, is an extraordinarily good friend of mine. Senator Beall sits back there, another Member of the other side of the aisle. I think, as the partisanship fades as former Members, you become good friends. Connie Morella is here as well. Dan Miller is there with her. Connie, it is good to have you back here. Connie herself, as collegial a Member as we have had in this body, who is now thinking herself, yeah, what did you do about it? I understand. It is a tough partisan business, but she is a wonderful person. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to welcome all of you back, to thank you for what you have done and what you are doing for our country. God bless you. Thank you very much.