Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Majority Leader, could you advise the House of when your expectation is that the medical malpractice legislation would be coming to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purposes of asking the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And if he thinks the press will be dispositive of that issue, I will take that to heart. Mr. Leader, could you also tell me the status of the Partial Birth Abortion Bill that we had understood would be considered early, perhaps as early as next week? And there was some discussion about it this week, but now we hear there may be an intent to wait on the other body's acting on this and sending it to the House. Can you bring us up to date on what the plans are on this? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, the first question I have, Mr. Leader, am I correct that the two tax bills that you refer to as Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections and Social Security Protection Act are essentially technical in nature?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that observation, and unfortunately I think I agree with him. But very frankly, Mr. Leader, if we could get maybe a little advice prior to the mark being laid on the table, it would be helpful for us to fairly consider the chairman's mark.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. One additional question, Mr. Leader, with reference to the budget. Has the majority made a determination yet as to whether or not it will be a 5-year or a 10-year budget projection?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Secondly, could the majority leader tell me when he expects the budget resolution to be scheduled for the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Porter who bravely served as a private in the Maryland Militia during the War of 1812 and was killed in the line of duty. The War of 1812 should be remembered and revered for its final and permanent confirmation of American Independence. Mr. Porter served in the Maryland Militia as a member of the 33rd Regiment and served under Captain Benjamin Massey in the Battle of Bladensburg, also known as ``the battle to protect the heart of America.'' The Maryland Militia served at a moment's notice with great enthusiasm, demonstrating the honor and dignity with which they believed came from defending their country and serving this patriotic duty. The British had three reasons for attacking the Chesapeake Region during the Battle of Bladensburg: to burn Washington, D.C. in order to avenge America's burning of York in Canada; to destroy Baltimore to prevent future naval attacks; and to draw American troops away from the Canadian front. Despite these interests, the Maryland Militia was able to aid their country by defending both Washington and Baltimore and allowed troops to remain on the Canadian front. John Porter fought valiantly during this battle, and was one of many members of the Maryland Militia who gave their lives in defense of their country. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the sacrifice and service of Mr. Porter to both the state of Maryland and to our great nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, risk and danger are constant companions of progress. And last Saturday morning, we were reminded again that progress at times inflicts a painful price. Fate has called the brave crew members of the Space Shuttle Columbia home, and, here on Earth, we maintain our faith that they have now begun a far better journey--one of our Creator's design. Words are small comfort today to those closest to this tragedy, the families and friends of Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark and Illan Ramon. A grateful Nation mourns their loss and honors their courage and sacrifice. We also offer heartfelt condolences to those left behind, especially the twelve children who have lost a mother or father. We pray that time, and a recognition of this great mission, provide some comfort and help to heal this wound. The history of America is marked not only by sacrifice in the service of others, but by a yearning to explore, to discover, to progress . . . from the first permanent settlers in the new world at Jamestown . . . to the expedition of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark . . . to the Wright Brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk . . . to Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon a mere 66 years later. The crew of the Columbia now joins that pantheon of American heroes who had the courage to dream, as well as the willingness to turn their vision into reality. Although they traveled millions of miles in space, they sought answers to the questions that lie closest to the human heart. The most fitting tribute that we can pay to their legacy is to fulfill this solemn pledge: We will continue the work that you have advanced. And we will do so with the realization that it is our responsibility to determine the cause of this tragedy and to minimize the risk to those engaged in the exploration of space and the unknown. Our Nation has always risen to a challenge and overcome adversity through perseverance. That is a measure of our greatness. And, today, that is the calling that our national character commands us to undertake and continue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We are not here by mistake. We are not here because we could not get our work done. As a matter of fact, the month of September I think this House worked less than any September that I have been in this House in the last 21 years. We are here because the Republicans did not want to put their bills on the floor and have their Members vote for it. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. We did not have 1 minute of consideration on a $130 billion-plus bill, not 1 minute of consideration in subcommittee. Not 1 minute of consideration in the full committee. Not 1 minute of debate and consideration on the floor of this House. Yet, behind me is a bill of over 3,000 pages. It was written last night. Not all of it; it is cumulative. But it was not finished until early this morning. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to pass a CR. Why are we going to pass a CR? Because as President Reagan also said, we needed time for OMB to read the bill. So we are going to have a CR so that the President can read this bill. But there is no time for the 435 Members of this body elected by 280 million Americans, no time for us to read this time. No time for us to digest what is in this bill. No time to have amendments on this floor so that we can strike egregious environmental provisions put in in the dark of night. No time to bring to this House the considered judgment that the Founding Fathers thought the people's House would give to legislation. Luckily, Mr. Speaker, we are not all held to our comments that we might make. Some have made an analogy to making sausage. We defame the sausage industry in that analogy. I want to join my colleague in saying that this is not the responsibility of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said that. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the fairest, most open, most democratic Chairs in this House and, indeed, under whom I have served during my tenure. It is not the responsibility of the majority party in the Committee on Appropriations. If it were their choice, they would have brought bills to the floor, bills that they felt were responsible, and we would have considered them. I will lament the fact that there are 54 Members of this House, all representing over 600,000 people, 30 million people, who have not had 1 minute to consider this legislation, because they were not here last year. So we consider a bill. I am going to vote for this bill. I am going to vote for this bill because it has some very good things in it. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, some of this money comes way too late. First responders, homeland security, frontline defense, Customs agents, FBI technology and capability have all been shortchanged for the last 5 months since the beginning of this fiscal year. That is not, in my opinion, being on high alert, on red-orange or whatever color now confronts us. I am going to vote for this bill because this bill will, in fact, fund some of the critical things that America needs. NIH research has been on hold for the last 5 months. Extramural grants have not been given. But this is the worst process I have seen an appropriation bill put to in my 22 years in this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, today the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives dropped their guard and a little bit of a charade, in my opinion. This hard-hearted welfare reform bill literally mocks the increasing number of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and it forces cash-strapped States to swallow a huge unfunded mandate. This bill barks, Get a job, but it turns a blind eye to the most obvious question facing any job seeker today: Where? When Democrats and Republicans came together in 1996 and pursuant to President Clinton's campaign in 1992 when he said he wanted to see welfare end as we knew it, we came together in a bipartisan fashion; and he signed that bill, ending welfare as we knew it. This Nation was enjoying the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in 50 years. Twenty-two million new jobs were created during the '90s. I voted for the welfare reform 7 years ago because I strongly support the principle that a person has to earn what they receive, and if they receive assistance, they have a responsibility to pursue the ability to work and support themselves and their children; but oh, how circumstances have changed, Mr. Chairman. Today our economy is stagnating. It is in the worst hiring slump in nearly 20 years. More than 8 million jobless Americans are looking for work, and more than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Yet this GOP bill blithely ignores reality. It would impose unrealistic work requirements on recipients, even forcing mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number of hours they are required to work each week to 40. At the same time, it utterly fails to provide the funding that is needed to back up these new work requirements. Where was the passion to get away from unfunded mandates that I heard so much about in the early '90s before the Republicans took control? The bill passes the buck to the States, which will be forced to spend an estimated $11 billion over the next 5 years to implement the new rules. How do we expect the States to pay for this unfunded mandate? They were forced to address a $49 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 2003, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures face a minimum $68.5 billion shortfall in 2004. Mr. Chairman, on its own merits this bill is bad enough; but when considered in the context of the failed economic policies of this administration, it is oblivious to the realities confronting our people and our States. The Republican proposal cracks down on the single mom who the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, referred to as a hero. This bill cracks down on that single mom who is trying her best to work and still take care of her kids. At the same time it supports a plan that would give the top 1 percent of America's taxpayers over a $25,000 tax cut. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the commitment to leave no child behind in that? I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote for the Democratic substitute which increases work expectations but also assists the States in accomplishing that objective. It would impose tough, but fair, work requirements. It would increase mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion over 5 years. It speaks to the bipartisan agreement that we had, expecting work but also expecting us to help those who cannot find work, who cannot work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is very kind, and I thank him for his remarks; but more than that, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues of vital concern to human rights internationally. I also want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman. He himself is a giant in standing up for human rights. He and I have traveled overseas and participated in the Helsinki process together, he chairing delegations on which I had the honor of serving with him. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California, for bringing this very important resolution to the House floor. It is, I believe, a moral imperative and a matter of principle that this House speak as one today. The selection on January 20 of Libya, a gross, and I have heard that word used a number of times, and in our own lexicon of law ``gross'' means beyond the pale, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism to ironically chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is, in my opinion, an affront to basic decency and it demeans the United Nations itself. Absurd, grotesque, tragic. Those are just a few of the words that have been used to describe Libya's election to this post. Our State Department includes Libya on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Amnesty International has documented Libya's extrajudicial execution of government opponents and torture of political detainees. Human Rights Watch has called Libya's human rights record over the last three decades appalling. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights, which claims to stand for free elections, free expression and fair trials, will now be chaired by a Nation that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that itself refuses, refuses to admit U.N. human rights investigators. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and they harbored for years and years the perpetrators of that act; responsible for the 1986 bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin that killed two U.S. servicemen; and for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger. The selection of Libya to head the Commission on Human Rights undermines the credibility, integrity, and relevance of the United Nations. We must not, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we must not countenance or ignore or rationalize the dangerous, illegal and destabilizing behavior by criminals and nations whose rogue status endangers international security and stability. The only bright spot in this otherwise outrageous, dismal act is that it may, it just may spur the international community to closely scrutinize Libya's human rights record and force serious thinking about reforming the Commission and the way of selecting the Commission. I urge our government, Mr. Speaker, to work to accomplish both of those ends. I believe this resolution is an important step in focusing our attention on this egregious act of irresponsibility by the United Nations and by its member states, and I urge my colleagues to support unanimously this very important resolution. Again, I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, and my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding me this time and for their leadership in this effort.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Edward D. Casey on his retirement from the Capital-Gazette Newspapers, and his election to the Maryland press association's hall of fame. I would also like to thank him for his years of service to our community. For 30 years, Mr. Casey has been the editorial voice of the Capital. In March when he is officially inducted, he will join 35 other outstanding newspaper men and women who have been similarly honored over the years by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association. Mr. Casey is respected throughout Maryland for being a pioneer and effective advocate for the freedom of information project, especially during his service as president of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association. Prior to joining the Capital, Mr. Casey was editor of the Daily Advance in Dover, NJ for six years. He began working in newspapers as a sports editor in 1957 at the Binghamton Press in New York. He also worked as a sports editor for the Endicott Bulletin in New York and managing editor of the Binghamton Sun-Bulletin. I congratulate Mr. Casey in his retirement, and I wish him every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was considered the chairman will recall a waiver was given because of the budget objections that might lie. Would the chairman contemplate a similar waiver being offered?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for that information with reference to how it is going to be considered. As the gentleman, as the leader will recall, and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Rules will recall, when last considered, the Democrats, the minority, was given a substitute, and a waiver was given with respect to that substitute as well. We would hope that that would be repeated again this year. Again, notwithstanding the accelerated consideration, clearly we would hope that we would be able to offer, with an appropriate waiver, an alternative to the proposal that emanates from the Committee on Rules. Could the leader tell me whether that is the intention?

Mr. HOYER. The staff clearly is overwhelmed because they are trying to move ahead, covering 11 appropriation bills, in a short period of time. I appreciate the gentleman's observation that there is going to be an attempt made to give the Members sufficient time when the report is issued, when the conference report is issued from the committee, to at least have 24 hours to review it and come to grips with what is in it. Because, again, the process has been one in which we have not had many of the bills, as the gentleman knows, on the floor for consideration in the House in the first instance, much less the conference reports, while the Senate, obviously, had a fuller debate on most of the pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again, I would like to ask him about the Welfare Reform Reauthorization Act which he indicates may be on the floor next Thursday. If it comes on the floor next Thursday, can the gentleman tell me how whether it is going to go to committee, to the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration, or whether it will go directly to the Committee on Rules and be reported out by the Committee on Rules?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Appropriations is now very upset with the gentleman for that recommendation.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, and as I said last week, because of the process we are pursuing Members are not as knowledgeable, perhaps, as they otherwise would be on exactly what is going on. Can the majority leader inform me as to how much time he would expect to give Members, A, to review the conference report, and then to have consideration of it on the floor, and what procedures might be available to them on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. I would ask the distinguished majority leader, when does he expect the conferees will complete their work on the omnibus? Does the gentleman have any idea? I notice the gentleman says, ``if it is available.'' Does the gentleman have any information on when it may be available and completed?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time just briefly, Mr. Leader, we do not have time to debate that issue; but I will yield back to the gentleman.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as some know, I was one of those who voted for the welfare reform bill.

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

Mr. HOYER. I believe that we have made great strides. I believe that there are, obviously, different times that confront us at this point in time; but I think, given where we are, that both sides may still be pretty much in the same position they were in last time. I would, without asking further questions, urge my friends on the majority side to provide for that full and open debate and not allow a technicality which would result from a lack of waiver to preclude a substantive alternative to be debated on this floor and the different perspectives that Members might have being aired. I think that is good for the American public, I think it is good for the House of Representatives, and I think it is good for the final product. I would hope that would be done. We certainly anticipated the gentleman's announcement, and we will be offering a substitute in a timely fashion on Tuesday next, as I understand the chairman will announce.