Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman is going to reclaim his time--the gentleman asked me a question. Any money that we appropriate could go any place. It could go to a bad place. We don't want it to go to a bad place. And I don't think any of the 19 other nations want it to go to Hezbollah or other organizations that might be negative in the use of those funds as far as we're concerned. What we do want, however--and that's what Ronald Reagan was talking about, that's what George Bush was talking about, and that's what President Obama is talking about--we do want to see the international economy rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on it. That is why the G-20 made this determination. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Of course. We're all concerned about the fact that any money would go to those regimes. The fact of the matter is the IMF could have given to very bad regimes during the Reagan administration or the Bush administration. The reason the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration--and I might say, although I don't have a quote from the second Bush administration, the second Bush administration, as well, was a supporter of the IMF as the gentleman, perhaps, knows. The fact of the matter is the United States will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the IMF because we're a very significant contributor. It is a red herring, from my perspective, to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. Of course money could go somewhere.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The last time Iran got money from the United States of America was 1984. You recall who was President of the United States in 1984, I'm sure. That was the last time Iran got money from the United States-- excuse me, from the IMF. With respect to your second observation, the gentleman knows how the IMF works. The gentleman knows the United States is involved, as are the other countries, in overseeing the distribution of IMF funds. There is no intention--and there will be no action, certainly, that the United States would support--to give any assistance. I don't know whether they've talked to the IMF or not. The gentleman may have more information than I do.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman's premise is incorrect. None of us on this side think we ought to delay this bill. None of us. We believe that the troops need the funds, our President has asked for the funds, we're for passing those funds. Very frankly, in the Senate, as you know, they added a lot of extraneous matters. Some Republicans added extraneous matters that, very frankly, we're not happy about on this side of the aisle. Large sums of money which have nothing to do with the troops. They were added because those Members of the Senate, who happen to be very high-ranking Republicans, believe those matters are very important. Furthermore, let me say to the gentleman we just honored a President that you believe was a great President of the United States. We honored him yesterday with a statue. I know you'll be interested in some quotes from that President: ``I have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for IMF.'' Ronald Reagan, September 7, 1983. He went on to say in that same speech, ``The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system.'' He went on to say on July 14, ``The IMF has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign economic policy under Republican and Democratic administrations for nearly 40 years.'' That was, of course, in 1983. I suggest to the gentleman it has continued for the 26 years after that. And it remains, he said, a cornerstone of the foreign economic policy of this administration. Another President on September 25, 1990, said this: George Bush, President of the United States, ``The IMF and World Bank, given their central role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance.'' September 25, 1990, He went on to say, ``As we seek to extend and expand growth in the world economy, the debt problems faced by developing countries are central to the agenda of the IMF. The international community's strengthened approach to these problems has truly provided new hope for debtor nations.'' I would suggest to you, also, that 11 of the Members--which is to say approximately a little over 25 percent of the votes, Republican votes in the United States Senate--supported this legislation in this bill. So it came to us in a bipartisan fashion from the United States Senate. Our President has indicated that the United States of America will in fact participate with the other 19 leading industrial nations of this world in trying to lift out of the mire of economic distress some countries whose distress will impact our recovery as well. That is why I say to my friend no one, no one, no one wants to delay this bill. I would hope that we have the 368 votes that voted for this bill the first time it passed intact when it comes and be consistent with the principles enunciated by Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the 1990s.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you know, the Senate added the IMF funding to the bill. It is a loan guaranty. We expect the probability that there will be no out-of- pocket money for the United States, but there is a loan guaranty to the IMF. As you know, the G-20 met. Our President, obviously, participated in that meeting of the G-20 with 19 other leaders of major nations in the world, talking about how we can bring not only each individual country out of the recession but, in some cases, depression that some countries are in; that there was a need to invest sums in assisting particularly smaller, poorer countries to try to recover from the devastation that has occurred by, in some cases, the very sharp economic downturn of the larger, more prosperous countries. The G-20 agreed that they would come up with $500 billion. The United States, the wealthiest of the G-20 by far, has a 20 percent share of that. The President agreed that the United States would, with the G-20, meet its part of the obligation that had been agreed upon. The Senate included that. And the answer to the gentleman's question is, I fully expect that to be in the supplemental that we'll consider on the floor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and at 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. This transparency issue has apparently come up again. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and at noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, as is usual, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of the suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Representative Betty Sutton's bill, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009; H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2010 and 2011; and H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009. We will also expect to consider a conference report on H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriation bill. I was hoping to consider that tomorrow, but discussions between the Senate and the House have not been concluded. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely not. There is no belief, I think, of anybody in this House, I hope--and I certainly do not believe that in any way the Speaker has ever, nor would she ever compromise in any way the security of our country, the security of our troops, and the security of our people, period.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me pose to the gentleman a question: The CIA briefs you. You believe the information that you have received is inaccurate. But on your premise if you say I believe it is inaccurate, the solution you suggest is that you no longer get briefed. That is what confounds me. That is what I think is perverse reasoning and with which I do not agree. That is my answer. I think this discussion is not bearing fruit.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. No. The statements came from the CIA, apparently.

Mr. HOYER. Every time you don't like my answer, frankly, Mr. Cantor, you reclaim your time. I regret that.

Mr. HOYER. I continue to be confounded. I presume and hope, and the Speaker hopes, I'm sure, and everybody who receives information from the intelligence community believes and hopes that it is accurate and is as good an assessment and as honest an assessment as can be given. Everyone hopes that. Mr. Hoekstra, who is on the floor, hopes that. Mr. Reyes, who is the chairman of the committee, hopes that. I hope it when I am briefed. I am sure you do as well when you are briefed. But if it's not, I don't hold myself culpable, you culpable, Mr. Hoekstra culpable or Mr. Reyes culpable. So I continue to be confused that your focus is on the Speaker, not on the quality of the information.

Mr. HOYER. I will repeat, we have a mechanism to do exactly what the gentleman suggests, finding out whether the truth has been told with respect to the briefings. Obviously there are differences of opinion. The gentleman knows that Senator Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that he was not briefed on the issues in question. He is a former governor of Florida, a respected Member of the United States Senate, mentioned for the presidency of the United States, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, as I have great respect for the Speaker. There is a mechanism that is in place, that is available; and I would certainly hope, very frankly, that the committee is, in fact, pursuing the facts as they perceive them to be necessary to be disclosed. So there is a mechanism in place. I hope that mechanism is being pursued. But it does not relate to the Speaker. The gentleman wants to focus on the Speaker, in my opinion, for partisan reasons.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I am proud to support this bill to strengthen America's families. Strong families are the cornerstone of our Nation's future. They enhance children's well-being, improve their self-esteem, and significantly increase the odds that they will succeed in school and grow up to be good parents themselves. And study after study shows that a strong predictor of child well-being is the degree to which a parent and child bond in the first months after birth. The more constant and nurturing that bond is in the early months of life, the better off that child will be in the years to come. One of the most important things Congress did to help parents and children strengthen that bond was to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993. It was the first bill signed by President Clinton. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can care for a newborn or adopted baby, or help a loved one recover from illness, or get better themselves--without the worry that, when they return, their job will be gone. The FMLA has been an outstanding success. But it has not been enough. Because the FMLA does not entitle anyone to receive an income while on leave, far too many people with the right to leave are unable to take it. They rush back to the workplace after giving birth, or send their sick children to school, or leave their ailing parents at home to somehow make it through the day--because there is no other option. In fact, when it comes to the failure to guarantee paid maternity leave, America stands virtually alone in the world. It's time to realize that a right to paid leave, especially for new parents, is more than a family matter--it is a public good that means healthier families, more productive children, and, in the end, a stronger economy for all of us. Today, we have a valuable chance to establish that right for some of our most dedicated public servants: Federal employees. Currently, the Federal Government does not provide them with paid parental leave. This bill would change that--providing four weeks of paid leave to Federal employees for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has the opportunity to set a valuable and lasting example for a responsible leave policy. lt is time for America to catch up with the rest of the world, and this bill is a vital step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce may have until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 5, to file its report to accompany H.R. 2454.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we will not have a closing colloquy, obviously, because we are going on a break. We end what was, from the perspective of many, agree or disagree, a very productive period. As we face now this Memorial Day break, I want to thank all the Members. I think we have done a lot of work over the last 5 months. I think it has been a very humane schedule. I hope all of you believe that, as well, that we have pretty much done it in a time frame. That is the good news. The bad news is we are going to be moving into June and July. I want to put all of you on notice, as I have told many Members, that I expect June and July to be very busy months with much work and authorization bills coming out of committees, and I also expect for us to do the appropriation bills during the months of June and July. The reason I rise is to say, as you know, that most Fridays in June and July, with the Fourth of July break, of course, being the exception, most Fridays will be days that my expectation is we will be doing work. This Friday was a day that we were going to work, but we won't be doing work. The supplemental is not able to be considered at this point in time. The other thing that I wanted to rise and tell all Members is that we have gotten into a syndrome. Many of you on both sides of the aisle have talked to me about this. And I agree with you. I count myself in this, so I'm not pointing fingers at anybody exclusively. But frankly, all of us have gotten into a syndrome that when the bells ring, we watch how many have voted rather than how much time is left. That obviously is not thoughtful to those who do come here to vote within the time frame available. And very importantly, to the extent that the votes drag out, we have our committees in session with hearings that have taken a break. Chairman Frank and a number of other Members have talked to me about it. We leave secretaries of departments and other very busy and important witnesses, and all of our witnesses are treated without courtesy. That is not a good thing for any of us to do. So I say when we come back--and we've tried this before and it's very difficult, but Members obviously don't get there on time, and some of you are going to be angry with me on both sides of the aisle, but I'm going to try to work with our presiding officers so that we keep to a much shorter period of time. We have been averaging 25, 26 minutes; and I would hope that all of us would cooperate with one another as a courtesy to each of us, our witnesses, and the work of this House. I hope you have a wonderful Memorial Day break. Come back ready to report on time. Thank you very much. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on the table.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Representative Maloney, who sponsored the House companion of this bill, and who has a tireless advocate of credit card reform. If this recession has brought home to us one important truth, it is the danger of debt. Americans from homeowners to bankers took on risks and debts they could not afford, and the result was a crisis that touched every one of us. I don't think the lesson is one we will soon forget. But nearly as harmful are those who take advantage of our debt--and in that category, unfortunately, go many of America's credit card companies. No one doubts that credit cards have become an essential part of our consumer economy; no one doubts that millions of Americans use their credit cards responsibly every day, and pay their bills every month. But even for those responsible cardholders, credit card policies have often been incomprehensible and exploitative. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act takes important steps to bring those harmful policies under control, ensuring that responsible cardholders are treated fairly. Among its provisions, this bill prevents arbitrary and unfair rate increases, which, under current policies, can kick in even for cardholders who pay their balances in full. It bans exorbitant and unnecessary fees, including fees charged just for paying your bill. It prohibits card companies from charging interest on debt that is paid on time, a practice known as double-cycle billing. And it insists that card companies disclose their policies clearly and openly to cardholders, and notify them when those policies have changed. This bill goes a long way toward removing a persistent source of unfairness in the lives of many Americans. Debt is a part of any economy--but it must be treated responsibly, and it must be guarded from exploitation. That is what this bill accomplishes, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I have no idea of that. I don't have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. I certainly hope that's not the case. I don't draw that conclusion. What I say to the gentleman, once again, is that to a degree, that is a distraction. It is not irrelevant, but it is a distraction from the central point. I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done. The truth commission I think has a responsibility--or whatever we call a commission that would look at this issue--not so much for what was done but to ensure that what we do going forward is legal, consistent with our values, consistent with our morals, and consistent, as the gentleman points out, with protecting our Nation and our people. In my view, we have a responsibility to do all of those. In my view, we can do all of those. They are not inconsistent with one another. And that is what I think we ought to be looking at as we look at what happened so that what happens in the future--because certainly this Nation is going to be under threat now and in the future. I think it's very important. I frankly think that upholding our values is consistent with also protecting our security.

Mr. HOYER. I certainly think that an open process would be followed. But let me say to the gentleman, as I have said in the press, and he may have read it, much has been said about who knew what, when and where. Very frankly, my view is what the substance of this issue is what was done, why was it done, and was it done consistent with the law. There is much opinion that it was a violation of the law and a violation of international law. That is the issue that this country needs to look at. That is the issue that this country needs to examine so that going forward, this country makes a determination as to what is lawful conduct. In fact, of course, the former President of the United States made it very clear and enunciated, this country does not torture. The problem with that representation, as the gentleman clearly knows, is that many legal experts have indicated that, in fact, torture occurred. So from that perspective, I would tell my friend that what ought to happen is we ought to look at the substance of whether, who knew what, when, why is a distraction. That is my view, I will tell my friend. It is a beating on the table. What we really need to do is find the facts of what was done, what was the rationale for doing it, was it legal; if it was not legal, why did we pursue it; and was it consistent with our international obligations. And as so many generals have indicated, do we want to subject our own people to such conduct when and if they may be in custody by a foreign power or terrorist? So I say to my friend that I understand the beating on the table, if you will. But from my own personal perspective, that's not the issue on either side of the aisle, who knew what or when they knew it. What is the issue is what was done. That is my presumption of what a commission would do. I presume as well that committees of this Congress may be interested in that.

Mr. HOYER. There has been discussion of such a commission. I have supported such a commission. The Speaker has discussed it as well, as the gentleman correctly points out. At this point in time, however, there has been no action taken on the creation of such commission. So at this point in time, I certainly wouldn't anticipate when and if legislation might come to the floor. I would not be surprised if committees of Congress, however, did, in fact, take cognizance of both of the issues the gentleman raises, and there might possibly be legislation from committees. The commission is under active consideration.

Mr. HOYER. I think that, with respect to both those bills, obviously the Senate is discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and whether or not they are going to be moving ahead on that. We hope they will. We believe this is a very important and good piece of legislation, but we also know that there are discussions in the Senate with respect to the various provisions of that bill. This House, as the gentleman knows, passed that bill pretty handily through the House last year, in the last Congress. So we are hopeful that the Senate will take action and the bill will be in a form that will be effected. With respect to the Panama Canal Treaty, that has not been submitted by the administration yet, and we will have to wait to see when they will submit that bill. I do know, as you know, that Mr. Kirk has indicated that the administration has discussed the possibility of submitting that trade agreement.