Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, if I might, Mr. Leader, what happened, as I recall, was Mr. Nickles and Mrs. Clinton agreed on a bill that was then passed overwhelmingly by the Senate in response to our bill and sent here. In fact, some 2\1/2\ months later we adopted a very similar piece of legislation, but only after people had gone off for 4 weeks their extended benefits.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observation. We may differ on the nature of a crisis, but my belief is that every family that faces its unemployment extension benefits ending on May 31 for themselves believes that is a crisis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the chairman's appreciation of the vigorous debate and differences that are sometimes debated within the bosom of the Committee on Rules. I remember those same kinds of disputes when we were in the majority. I am aware of the fact, however, that sometimes those vigorous disputes as to what ought to be and ought not to be in the rule are sometimes resolved by leadership suggesting alternatives that then create consensus very quickly. It has been my experience in the past. So I am hopeful that the leadership will work its will on the creation of consensus to allow full consideration. We are being lighthearted in this effort, but I do not want anybody confused by the lightheartedness, that we feel very, very strongly about having full consideration of the alternatives that we offer, just as the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, felt so strongly about in 1991, in 1992, in 1993, and 1994 when we were in charge. And I would hope that the gentleman would pursue those concerns on behalf of the minority in our party as vigorously as he pursued them on behalf of the minorities of his party. To the majority leader, the DOD authorization bill will be on the floor, I understand, as the gentleman pointed out. Again, we have the same situation, as he knows. There are some extraordinarily controversial items included within this authorization bill. I might say to the leader some of these, as the gentleman knows, are issues which have been brought up within the last 30 days that make some of the most sweeping changes that have been made in the Civil Service System since its creation and exempt fully, when we include Homeland Security, one-half of the Federal employees from protections that they now enjoy under title 5, title 41 and other pieces of legislation passed by the House and the Senate. In addition to that, as the gentleman knows, there are some very substantial questions with reference to environmental statutes that are on the book and possible exemptions from certain statutory requirements dealing with endangered species, dealing with clean air, dealing with other items. Could the gentleman tell me the rule that is contemplated and whether or not amendments will be made in order, particularly those two items, and there may be multiple amendments, but whether or not there will be full consideration of those very controversial items? I will tell the gentleman, as he knows, I have consistently, since 1981, supported authorization bills and am a strong supporter of defense, and I have always supported appropriations bills, but at the same time the fact that something is included in a bill, if no opportunity is given to debate those items which may be controversial as opposed to those items which are ensuring the strength of our country and the capability of our Armed Forces and the quality of life for our personnel, we do not want to have to vote against those, clearly, and probably will not. But we do want the opportunity to debate these very controversial items and to provide alternatives.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. I understand that he cannot, with any preciseness, give us an answer. Is it, however, the intent that this bill will be conferenced, that there will be a full conference on this bill?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comment. I would only observe that we certainly on this side, whatever happens in the Senate, would hope and expect that regular order would be followed and that a conference would occur in which the minority, both in the Senate and the House, for that matter, would have an opportunity to make its observations and opinions clear on either alternative, or portions of each.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, I take it there are no other items for next week other than those which we have referenced?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the following week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for giving us that information. I know Members are pleased to hear about Friday, the 16th. Mr. Leader, the pension bill to which you referred, will this bill that is brought to the floor be a product of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or will it be a joint product of the Committee on Ways and Means and that committee?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Leader, as you know, there was great consternation and concern on our side of the aisle about how this massive tax bill was considered today, not only in terms of the fact that we did not get to offer a substitute but also in terms of the very abbreviated time that such a major piece, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) referred to it as the most important bill that we might consider during this session of the Congress, was given 1 hour of general debate. Given that, can you give any assurances that when the pension bill comes to the floor that we will be given an opportunity to offer a substitute and that sufficient time to discuss such a major piece of legislation will be allotted? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation that he would like to work with us in trying to get there. What impediments would you see to us having a substitute to the pension bill that is offered?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Leader, there has been a lot of discussion about the partial- birth abortion bill. It is not on the schedule for next week, as I understand it. Do you have any idea when this might come up? In particular, do you expect it to come up before the Memorial Day break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. With respect to Medicare prescription drugs, Mr. Leader, we are hearing that this bill may be coming to the floor very soon. Can you tell us when we might expect this bill on the floor and again will that be on the floor before the Memorial Day recess?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. There is another bill which I understand is pretty controversial but which is being worked on. I do not know whether the leader might inform us as to when we might expect to see this bill, and that is the forest management bill. Could you give us some information on where that bill stands at this point in time?

Mr. HOYER. So in any event, your expectation would be we would pass, or consider it, by the Memorial Day break?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for the information.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I respect the gentleman. He and I served on the Committee on House Administration. The gentleman knows, however, full well, and the American public ought to know, that a motion to recommit, as the gentleman so well knows, is very restricted. And the gentleman knows we cannot offer our substitute under the rules because the Committee on Rules would not give us a waiver. So saying we have a motion to recommit, which we do, he knows full well that it restricts us in dealing with unemployment insurance, it restricts us in dealing with the sunsets that the Republicans have put on middle-class income workers. The gentleman knows that; am I correct?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We just heard a representation of what their bill is going to do. We ought to judge the credibility of those representations. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), October 24, 2001: ``This tax plan is the right medicine for our economy. It is the best way to put people back to work and create jobs.'' After we adopted his policy, we have lost 2.7 million jobs in America. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``The Democrats bring to the floor today a tax package that will cost jobs.'' He said that May 27, 1993. That program resulted in the creation of 22 million jobs over the next 8 years and the reduction of the deficit and the creation of 4 years of surplus for the first time in 80 years. President Bush said of his last tax bill in 2001: ``Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' We now have the largest budget deficit in the history of this country confronting us after the adoption of his plan; and we have just increased, through the House, it has not passed the Senate, $1 trillion in additional debt. That is a debt tax. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talks about the $45 that they are going to pay in taxes, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) does not talk about the additional thousands of dollars that they are going to have to pay on the debt that has been created and the interest that his kids will have to pay. Mr. Speaker, today this Republican leadership slams the door of democracy in this House in a style befitting a third-rate dictatorship. It utterly ignores the 140 million Americans who are represented by Democrats. While we preach the value and power of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere, the Republican majority is denying it right here in this House right now. The Republicans have not just refused to give the Democrats an opportunity to offer an alternative to this reckless, unaffordable, and unfair tax bill; they have breached their solemn obligation to let this House work its will, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in 1993 said that was wrong. I heard the quote so many times: ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the presidency; and they have corrupted this House with this rule and other rules like it. A closed rule, a gag rule. It does not allow debates, it does not allow alternatives, and it promotes a program that will further decimate the economy of this country and be extraordinarily unfair to middle-income taxpayers while advantaging some wealthy people, not all; and it will be bad for America. Reject this rule; reject this bill. Let us do fairness for our taxpayers and for America.

Mr. HOYER. Let us forget about the press releases.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Burch Oil Company, an excellent example of successful American entrepreneurship that has evolved to become a pillar of a local community. I am proud to recognize my good friends at Burch Oil Company who have been serving the citizens of Southern Maryland since 1928 and are celebrating their seventy-fifth anniversary this month. Whether it has been supplying the services of vital oil resources or helping to serve the community, the Burch Oil Company has built a solid reputation within the Southern Maryland community. Founded in May of 1928, by cousins S. Bernard Burch, Thaddeus Burch, and Thaddeus' son Joe Burch, the company quickly began to service the community's gasoline, motor oil, and, most important to the area at the time, kerosene needs. With the onset of the Great Depression many businesses failed, but Burch Oil was able to steadily grow. From the beginning of the company, the Burch family took an active role in the community. S. Bernard Burch served as the chairman for the Democratic State Central Committee and helped to establish the Mechanicsvllle Volunteer Fire Department. Even during the worst of times, such as the Great Storm of 1933, the company delivered kerosene by skiff to hard hit St. George Island. After S. Bernard Burch's death in May of 1944, a new era began with his son, F. Elliott Burch, Sr., who took over the reigns of the operation and guided the company through a period of steady growth for several decades until turning over the day-to-day duties to his two sons so he could devote more time to local politics. Serving as St. Mary's County Commissioner President from 1962 to 1970, F. Elliott, Sr. helped to steer St. Mary's County through a period of important community investments, during a time when local government was expanding to provide more services. Outstanding service and high quality products have been the hallmarks of the Burch Oil Company since its founding by S. Bernard Burch in 1928; and on its 75th Anniversary, four generations of the Burch family, with a fifth soon to come of age, help to guide the hardworking and dedicated employees that have helped to make this company successful. In addition to their business success, they have been an integral component in helping to build St. Mary's County through their selfless commitment and belief in also performing public service to give back to the community in which they live. Today Burch Oil Company is led by F. Elliott (Sonny) Burch, Jr. and his brother Donald (Buddy) Burch, who have set their own high standard for community involvement, supported by 300 plus employees who carry on that proud tradition. On behalf of the citizens of St. Mary's, Charles, and Calvert Counties, it is a great privilege to honor the Burch Oil Company for reaching the milestone of 75 years in serving the community of Southern Maryland. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting a great example of American enterprise at its best. This company has been successful by its community, but continues to plough back its dividends every day through its public service. Congratulations to members of the Burch family and their employees and we wish you another 75 years of quality and reliable service to our community.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today this House will vote on the Republicans' wildly irresponsible tax bill which fails to stimulate our economy or create jobs, explodes the budget deficit and the national debt, and robs Social Security and other key priorities of crucial funding. Our Republican friends continue to make wild claims about this tax bill, but the American people need to ask one very simple question: Do I trust Tom DeLay and the Republican majority who said that we would balance the budget, create jobs, and get the economy moving 2 years ago? Or do we trust an individual like Mr. Buffett, the largest investor, perhaps, in America, who recently said that cutting taxes on corporate dividends, an idea incorporated in the GOP bill, unfairly favors the wealthy and doubted that it would stimulate the economy? That is Warren Buffett. That is not one of us. Democrats strongly agree with him, however. We offered a plan that is fast-acting, fair and fiscally responsible, a plan that would create five times, over a million jobs, as this GOP bill does. Reject this failed policy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to come to the floor because I wanted to thank the gentlemen for the very kind comments that they had to say about my working on the Committee on House Administration. I know the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the former President of the Connecticut Senate, and I both had that honor having been selected by our colleagues to head our State Senates. He is more than a worthy successor and I am very proud of the work that he is doing on this committee and I want to congratulate him. The Committee on House Administration is uniquely an institutional committee that tries to provide the resources to Members, to staff so that we can serve our constituents better and so that staff will have an environment and the ability to serve well. I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut for his work. I know that the gentleman from Connecticut, like myself, has found the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, to be an extraordinarily positive leader in this House and one who wants to do things and do things right and does not care about the politics, does not care about partisanship, is extraordinarily easy to work with, and I want to again say how much I enjoyed working with him. If there is one downside to my ``promotion'' to the position of Democratic whip, it was that I left the Committee on House Administration on which I had served for I think approximately 14 years. And serving with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), when I look back on the congressional career, whenever it ends, I want the gentleman to know when I look back on my career, one of the highlights will be the opportunity to serve with the gentleman from Ohio, to serve this institution and, indeed, in the cosponsorship of the Help America Vote Act, to serve our country as well. I thank the gentleman for his kind words but, more than that, I want to thank him for his service to this institution and to this country. He does a great job. I know that the gentleman will enjoy and is enjoying working with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is also, like the gentleman from Ohio and like me, committed to making sure that we operate in a way that will bring credit not to Republicans, not to Democrats, but to the House of Representatives and facilitate the work on behalf of the American people. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his kind words and I thank the gentleman from Connecticut as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question of the rule on this Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This legislation before us today and the consideration tomorrow of the Republicans' irresponsible tax bill tell the American people everything they ever wanted to know about where the majority's priorities lie. And lest anyone be mistaken, their priorities do not lie with the workers and families who are suffering through the anxiety and stress of joblessness, with more than 10 million American workers now unemployed, with the loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush was inaugurated, and 500,000 in the last 3 months; and with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, its highest level since 1994, the majority would undercut local reemployment efforts and eliminate services for job-seeking veterans, dislocated workers, and the disabled. This Act was authorized 4 years ago after a lengthy bipartisan process. But today, today the majority turns it into a partisan vise that will squeeze America's jobless. It gives governors unlimited authority to divert funds from adult education, disability, and veterans' services. And we will, like Pontius Pilate, wring our hands and say it was not our responsibility, it was the governors' responsibility. And it fails to restore the $440 million in cuts imposed on job-training programs or protect against 265 million more in proposed cuts for fiscal 2004. Just imagine, just imagine, under Republican stewardship our economy has shed millions of jobs and at the same time the GOP is undermining job training programs. Republicans may call that compassion; Democrats call it indifference. Adding insult to injury, the big tent GOP seeks to change the original law to permit organizations that received Work Investment Act funds to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring, something that Dan Quayle said they should not do. I commend my colleagues who fought to restore the current law. Their amendment should have been made in order. Was there a lack of conviction that the allowing of discrimination in this bill was an appropriate policy and they could not hold their Members on their side of the aisle for such discrimination? Democrats believe this Congress must enact policies that jump-start our economy and create jobs, and redoubling our job-training efforts is a vital part of that. This bill simply gives the cold shoulder to millions of jobless Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question, to vote against the rule, and to vote against this bad bill.