Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah who would like to address the Amber Alert System and events that have occurred in his district.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the information he has provided us, and I will have a number of questions.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and before the majority leader answers that question, I would say to him that I have had consultation with the Democratic minority leader; and the Democratic leader and myself, I would say on behalf of our side of the aisle, we would agree to a unanimous consent request today to bring the Senate bill, which as I understand is Senate Bill 121, which essentially is the base bill. I, frankly, do not interpose objections to that which the gentleman has outlined in his statement will be added to the bill. I do not necessarily find any one of those individual items objectionable; and as I understand, in the committee they were not particularly controversial. But we obviously could accelerate that. The gentleman is correct. We do want to go by regular order. Regular order is obviously seeking from both sides a unanimous consent to take some action, and I say to the gentleman that consistent with what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said, this side of the aisle would be prepared to give a unanimous consent agreement to passing that bill before we go home today.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the Bowie State University men's basketball team. On March 1, 2003, the Bowie State Bulldogs defeated Virginia Union to earn their first central intercollegiate athletic association men's title. In their first appearance in the CIAA tournament in 30 years of play, the Bulldogs were down 41-32 at half-time against a 14-time league champion. Nevertheless, the team rallied back for a neck-and-neck second half. The winning basket was a heartstopper and came with less than a minute to go, giving the Bulldogs a 72-71 victory. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the great accomplishment of the Bowie State University men's basketball team and wish them the best of luck in their upcoming NCAA Division II tournament.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and in an effort again to be helpful, I think that the majority leader is correct. Everybody wants this bill to pass, and the shame of it not passing today is, I am sure the gentleman shares, is that we somehow sent a message to our Armed Forces personnel arrayed across this globe, and particularly in the Middle East, at risk and they look to this capital and know full well that this bill is passed with over 400 votes and must be concluding to themselves that it was politics and political division that undermined the passage this day. So I know my colleague is working towards this objective. This is not a criticism of the gentleman, and it was an open session in the Committee on Ways and Means, and as my colleague recalls, I am sure, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a Republican, raised the issue that this was a real problem, in open session, in committee. So it was obviously on both sides of the aisle that we are concerned about the fact that we politicized an otherwise bipartisan, nonpartisan objective that we wanted to achieve, and I look forward to that coming back hopefully in the posture that it was in when we, 400 of us plus, came together to pass that legislation. So I would hope that can happen.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. I want to tell the gentleman I am of two minds on the fact that we have removed from floor consideration the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Of two minds because I think all of us agree that the underlying bill was a bill that we should have passed today, indeed yesterday or the day before yesterday. It is an Act that tells our service people that we are sending into harm's way that we want to make sure that we can limit the financial consequences of that service to country, as much as we possibly can. So I lament the fact that we have had that removed from the schedule. However, I say I am of two minds because I am pleased that it was removed because we added to that bill extraneous pieces of legislation, which in and of themselves individually may have been subject to worthy debate. There was some in there that I thought were not, but having said that, I would hope that when this bill is reported back that it can be presented in a form that all 435 of us can vote for, because 435 of us, in my opinion, are for it. So, as I say, I am of two minds. I am sorry that it is delayed, but I am sure that it will come back, hopefully soon, and that we can pass it in the form that all of us support it, and I would ask the gentleman, in that vein, does the gentleman know if this bill will be coming back next week?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. To press the point, I understand that my colleagues need to work on that and try to work out whatever problems existed, but in light of that, it is the gentleman's expectation he will be able to work out those problems next week so we can pass this bill in a form that will allow us to pass it with the overwhelming support that I think it has on this floor if it is the base bill? I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman very much for those comments.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader for purposes of inquiring about the calendar.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I do not want to prolong this too much. I want to say with all sincerity, I share the gentleman's view of Mr. Pitts. I have worked with him over a long period of time. I have extraordinary respect and affection and regard for Bob Michel, for whom he worked effectively and for a long time. I want to tell the gentleman, as sincerely as I can say on this floor, caring about this institution, frankly, if Billy Pitts is making the determination of what he thinks is fair or not fair, from his perspective from a long time in the minority, as to what the minority's rights ought to be in terms of offering alternatives on this floor, of having time to debate on this floor, of having individual amendments considered, I will tell the gentleman that I am confident that it will be done fairly. But I will also tell the gentleman with equal sincerity that I have had my staff do an analysis from 1995 to date; and there has been, from 1995 to 2002, an almost straight-line reduction in the alternatives in bills allowed to the minority as we consider major pieces of legislation. I do not think that is good for our country, I do not think it is good for this institution, and it is not good for the comity between our two parties. The gentleman from Texas and I have had an opportunity to work closely together on many items of great concern to this institution. We have worked well together. The gentleman and I have very serious disagreements on issues, but we do not have disagreements on the fact that this institution ought to operate as effectively as possible on behalf of our country. We share that in common, and I know we will continue to share that in common. But I really sincerely urge the gentleman, as the leader of his party on this floor and working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and Mr. Pitts, to say to the American public and to this institution that we are prepared to debate these matters, we are prepared to debate these matters fully and fairly and give options to the minority party. I will say to my friend there was some discussion in our party. We had one motion, as the gentleman knows, to adjourn, and there was some discussion that we ought to make many more motions and have disruption. We did not do that. But I will tell my friend that there is great concern on this side of the aisle that if we do not have a fair and open system to consider legislation that we will not be as cooperative as we otherwise would like to be, and so that the American public can be best served. On the budget, Mr. Leader, if I can, when do we expect the budget to be on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his comments. I am aware of the fact that the Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily advantaged by the addition of a new chief staffer on that committee who will, I think, add greatly to the consideration of that committee of alternatives. Mr. Pitts is a man that I have found to be fair and knowledgeable with respect to this House. He is as well an individual who was involved when the Republicans were in the minority of lamenting the fact that we did not give fair and full opportunity of loyal opposition to offer alternative proposals, and I would hope that we would reverse, frankly, the practice that has gone from 1995 to date where increasingly we have reduced the opportunity of the minority party to offer alternatives, either in the nature of substitutes or in amendments to the base bill. I say that very seriously because I think that my colleagues were frankly correct when they were in the minority, making the proposition that that would improve legislation, and we ought to vote it up or down. If it was good when the gentleman was in the minority, presumably that same principle is good when they are in the majority. We are tested somewhat when the shoe shifts from foot to foot to see where we want to put that foot I suppose, but I would hope that on this bill, which is a controversial bill, a bill, that is, we believe has great consequence for patients, for doctors, for hospitals, we want to make sure that our people have the best medical service available to them and that our doctors and that our hospitals and that our patients have the ability to work with one another to effect that. We have some ideas on that. We have some ideas how that can be effected, and we are hopeful, respectfully, and we would urge that the Committee on Rules give us a full and fair opportunity to present our alternative ideas if we have them. If we do not have them when we support your proposals, then fine, but if we have alternative ideas, we would urge on legislation of such great consequence to the American public that we fully debate options and ways and means of solving the problems that we are addressing.

Mr. HOYER. I will be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I suppose whether it was a bipartisan bill or not is in the eye of the definer, I suppose, and notwithstanding that, I would hope, again, it would come back in a form that all of us could vote for it and it would not be extraneous matters. Those extraneous matters may well have merit, but why argue them on their merit or demerit, and we ought not to hold hostage our men and women in the Armed Forces, in harm's way, families disrupted by being called to service. We ought not to say to them anything but that we are prepared to act together, we are prepared to act quickly and we are prepared to make sure that, to the extent we can, we will diminish the financial burden that their service to our country requires. On the medical malpractice bill that the gentleman indicates will be on the floor next week, on today's major piece of legislation which we have been discussing, the Committee on Rules denied two of our ranking members' ability to offer key amendments, and we are very concerned about that. Can the leader inform me if he knows what kind of rule there will be for the medical malpractice bill, what he anticipates will be in order?

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. One additional question, which this is sort of a follow-up on what I have just discussed. In the past, as the gentleman knows, we have had a number of substitutes which have been offered. Our Congressional Black Caucus has offered substitutes, our Blue Dog Caucus has offered substitutes, and I know the gentleman will be happy to hear that it is fully my expectation that the minority on the Committee on the Budget will have a Democratic alternative. I noted that the gentleman urges us to do that; and he and I share that view, and we are going to do that. But will we be allowed, Mr. Leader, to offer those substitutes as we have in the past as well as offer amendments that are requested? I realize the gentleman cannot answer to all the amendments, because I do not know what amendments will be asked for; but will there be consideration of valid amendments that have broad-based support?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer; and reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman if he expects the President's tax proposal, or the majority's tax proposal, to be included within the budget document. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, would I be correct that the soonest that would be done would be the week after next?