Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the chairman of the committee. He is an extraordinary individual whom I have known for four decades. He will do an excellent job. We lament the loss, however, of the two individuals for whom this bill is named. I want to congratulate my good friend, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as well for her leadership, and I want to associate myself generally with the remarks of the previous speaker. And I think it is emblematic of the partnership that we have, not only with the administration, but on both sides of the aisle as it relates to this moral, as well as health, issue, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. Madam Chairman, 5 years ago, the United States made an unprecedented commitment to the people of the world who suffer from HIV and AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. We pledged $15 billion, and with that funding, we have provided life-saving drugs to almost a million and a half people. We facilitated care for over 2 million orphans and vulnerable children and provided mother-to-child transmission prevention services during more than 6 million pregnancies. We have played a very real role in helping to transform HIV from a death sentence to a manageable disease. And, Madam Chairman, as I said 5 years ago when we first passed this legislation, we must recognize that our Nation and each one of us has a moral obligation and a national security interest, as has been spoken of, in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis. Today, with this legislation, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, we build on and increase our commitment to stop the spread of HIV/ AIDS. Through this legislation, we make a $50 billion contribution to the fight to eradicate HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In addition to expanding our prior efforts, this carefully negotiated legislation will strengthen HIV-related healthcare delivery systems and increase health workforce capacities; foster stronger relationships between HIV/AIDS initiatives and other support programs, including those that promote better nutrition and education; allow HIV/AIDS testing and counseling to be provided in the United States bilateral family planning programs, and it finances prevention and treatment programs targeting women and girls. This bill, Madam Chairman, also eliminates an ineffective requirement: that one-third of PEPFAR prevention funds be spent on abstinence. Instead, we have directed the administration to create a balanced approach requiring behavioral change programs to receive 50 percent of the funds devoted to the prevention of sexual transmission of HIV, and in addition, we require the administration to report to Congress if programs in nations where the epidemic has become generalized do not adhere to this balanced approach. This legislation represents both commitment and compromise. It will not make everyone happy, but it does signal to the international community that the United States recognizes and accepts our moral obligation to act. Last year alone, 2.5 million people contracted HIV, roughly 6,800 people per day. Last year alone, 2.1 million people died of HIV. Global AIDS is a problem too large to fall prey to political sport. My very good friend, the late Chairman Lantos, noted 5 years ago that this health care crisis ruins families, communities, and indeed, whole nations, fueling violence and bloodshed across borders. And thus, it is a global challenge that demands a global humanitarian response with the United States in the lead. Madam Chairman, this is a very good bill. It builds on proven outcomes, and it deserves the support of the Members on both sides of the aisle. And again, I congratulate Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros- Lehtinen on their leadership on this effort.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. John Conyers is a distinguished leader of the civil rights movement, whose leadership and commitment and tenacity and steadfastness led to declaration of a holiday, a holy day in many respects, a day of recommitment when we remember the life, legacy, and teaching of Martin Luther King, Jr. I did not know Dr. King. I met him but didn't know him. But I have known John Conyers and I have known John Lewis, and I know them both and they are giants themselves. John Lewis, of course, is the sponsor of this resolution, who represents Atlanta, who came from Alabama, who marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge, confronted by troops who wanted to stop him from doing what is basic to the United States of America, the right of every citizen to express their view on how their government ought to be peopled and run, the right to vote. As a result of his courage, the leadership of Dr. King and John Conyers and so many others, we passed a Voting Rights Act. I am honored to stand with these two giants. I understand that Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the committee, helped bring this bill to the floor. I am of that generation that remembers the dark day in April of 1968, followed too closely by another dark day on June 6, just two-and-some- odd months later. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago this Friday, Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered. He was an American prophet. He called us to love justice, to love our brothers and sisters of every color, of every race, of every nationality, of every religion, of every gender. He spoke the truth, but on April 4, 1968, he was taken from us. But his lesson was not taken from us nor his example. In this flawed and fallen world, hate and rage and violence will have their day, but if we can find even a sliver of good in that crime, it must be this: Dr. King died on a balcony, an open place, a public place. Dr. King showed us, he proved with his own body, that a just cause is worth dying for, as our Founding Fathers had done, as frankly, in my religion, Jesus did. It is worth living for, too, he showed us. This resolution, even though I will vote for it wholeheartedly, even though I trust it will pass unanimously, even though it's offered by my good friend John Lewis, who ``toiled, and wrought, and thought'' with Dr. King, is just words on paper, unless we match it with the resolve of our lives. That is what Dr. King wanted us to do. Our conduct, our actions, are the only honors we have worth giving. These words on paper take on value when, and only when, they spur us toward what Dr. King called ``a committed life.'' After the autopsy, which showed that his 39-year-old body held the strained and tired heart of an elderly man; after two brown mules pulled his casket in a wooden cart through the streets of Atlanta; after tens of thousands assembled to put him to rest, Dr. King spoke at his own funeral. The loudspeakers played a tape of one of his old sermons, and these were the words that echoed through the Ebenezer Baptist Church. ``I don't want a long funeral. I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.'' We can say all of it, with truth, about Martin Luther King, Jr., a great American, a great leader, a great man and, yes, a citizen revered, respected, and honored by the world, for he saw himself not just as an American, proud though he was of this Nation's promise, but also he saw himself as a part of all mankind. May we do our best to live by his example as we remember the sad day when his body was taken from us, but they could not take his lessons.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I want to commend Paul Facchina, Sr., for his outstanding contributions to the natural heritage of the State of Maryland. Mr. Facchina has made his name as one of Maryland's leading businessmen--but I suspect that he will be remembered just as much for his wonderful generosity. He has left our State a gift whose value cannot be measured in dollars: the gift of open, unspoiled land. Most recently, Mr. Facchina made headlines with his donation of 179 acres in St. Mary's County to the Maryland Environmental Trust. No doubt, he could have sold development rights on that land for a significant profit. But by placing it under a conservation easement, he ensured that it will remain pristine and largely undeveloped. Wetlands and woods will stand in place of housing tracts. And our State's environmental health will benefit: By including vital waterfront land in his grant, Mr. Facchina contributed to our efforts to clean up and preserve the endangered Chesapeake Bay. At the same time, the grant strengthens one of southern Maryland's most valuable economic resources, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. By protecting the buffer surrounding the Navy base, Mr. Facchina's donation helps ensure that the Naval Air Station will remain open and viable, creating jobs in St. Mary's County and driving the local economy. In cases like this one, conservation often proves to be good business. So I thank Paul Facchina, not only for his most recent gift, but for a long and proud legacy of giving that includes an historic plantation, headwater streams of the St. Mary's River, and the forest habitats of Maryland birds. In all, his family has entrusted more than 2,100 acres to the environmental care of our State. When Maryland residents enjoy that open land, and all of its benefits, I hope they will remember whom to thank. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the excellent work of the Maryland Environmental Trust, which will take care of that land as part of its more than 112,000 acres. Since 1967, the Trust has worked to help keep our State beautiful, and to help landowners preserve their piece of it. For more than four decades, landowners have relied on the Trust to watch over the legacies they leave, and I'm sure that they will be able to do so for decades to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I want to recognize and thank one of my constituents, Frank W. Wilkes of Clinton, Maryland, for his outstanding service to the United States Congress, the Members who serve here, and the entire Capitol Hill community over the last two decades. I also want to thank and acknowledge his family--his beautiful wife of 30 years, Paulette, and his sons, Trevor and his wife Delania, and Frank W. Wilkes III. After 20 years of service with the Capitol Police, Officer Wilkes retired recently and will move into a new phase in his life. For most of his last years of service, Officer Wilkes served as the officer on duty at the Senate Day Care Center, a position replete with responsibility and challenge. However, what his resume does not capture is the fact that the children there adore their friend, ``Officer Frank.'' In turn, Frank has been a wonderful presence at the day care center, watching and ensuring that the children go about their day safely and securely. It's my understanding that he plans to come back and read to them on a monthly basis as part of his ``retirement'' plans. Let me say, too, that I have heard from more than one resident in the neighborhood that Officer Wilkes will be sorely missed; that he was quite popular with the surrounding residents who trusted his judgment, respected his extraordinary common sense, and enjoyed his presence. During his 20 years with the Capitol Police, Officer Wilkes served a key role in protecting Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and visiting dignitaries. In fact, Frank was awarded a Certificate of Commendation for apprehending and subduing a suspect who was attempting to physically assault then-Vice President Dan Quayle. Prior to joining the Capitol Police force, Officer Wilkes served for 9 years in the United States Air Force. Among other things, he was an administrative executive support manager, and served as liaison between the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to ensure the proper exchange of critical, time-urgent information. Madam Speaker, those of us who enjoy the protection of the Capitol Police force--Members of Congress, government officials, and the general public who visit the Capitol complex--take their presence and their professionalism for granted far too often. The truth is, we owe our Capitol Police officers--people like Frank Wilkes--a real debt of gratitude for doing such an important, oftentimes complicated job with great dedication and commitment. Thus, today, I again want to thank Frank for his two decades of service to the Capitol Police and our Nation, and to wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important day for our country, for the House of Representatives, and for the American people. An important day because we focus on the protection that we owe to our people and to our country, not only from terrorists but from those who would undermine the Constitution of the United States. Let me just briefly put in context where we are today some 7 years and 2 months after the start of this administration. From 2001 to 2006, the President of the United States did not veto a single bill. Why did he not veto a single bill? Because the Congress would not send him a bill that he did not want sent to him. It was a complacent, complicit Congress. And as a result of that complacency of the representatives of the American people, the administration came to believe that it could do anything it wanted without oversight or accountability. And because of that, when we were put at risk by 9/11, the administration's response, perhaps led by the Vice President, was that we do not need to follow the law. There was a law in place. It's still in place. It still provides for the protection of the American people. It's called the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. But as too often has been the case in this administration, they chose not to follow the law. They chose, instead, to follow their own predilections. And that's why we are here today. In addition to that, we were in a condition where technology had changed. The administration was absolutely correct on that point. And both the Intelligence Committee in the Senate and the Intelligence Committee in the House knew they had to respond to that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoekstra and Ms. Harman, as the chairman and ranking member, and Mr. Goss prior to that, knew that we had to move towards that. That is now a result of the legislation we see before us. My good friend and distinguished colleague, the former attorney general of the State of California who's been in this body for some years. He was here, then he went back to California. He read from the letter of the attorneys general. One of them was Maryland. I talked to him yesterday. Sometimes people put letters in front of us that are not accurate and we don't check all of the facts. I presume that the other attorneys general that were presented with this letter are in the same position. Let me read from this letter: ``Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that arose when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on February 16, 2008.'' Hopefully, everybody in this body knows that information is inaccurate. Senator Rockefeller started to draft his legislation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, long before February of 2008, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, long before that ever happened. That information is inaccurate. I don't hold the attorneys general personally responsible for that inaccuracy. But I will tell you, my own attorney general, a signatory on this letter, had been misinformed. That's unfortunate. I presume by the association, the overwhelming majority of these attorneys general are Republicans, but I don't think it was a partisan letter, per se, but it is shocking to me that an attorney general of a State in this country would say, ``whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe.'' There have been those down through history who, when we have been at risk, have said whatever action we take is justified, and the Constitution has suffered in that process. We have a responsibility to do both, not just one. The attorneys general in their letter also said this: ``Intelligence officials must obtain FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected terrorists in overseas countries.'' That is categorically false. I do not believe that any one of the attorneys general that signed this letter believed it to be false, but it is wrong. They are misinformed. We have an opportunity today to move this process forward to protect America and protect our Constitution. Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, a committee from the Senate, passed a bipartisan bill. And I am so interested to hear all of the Members on the Republican side talk about how a Senate, bipartisan- passed bill ought to pass this House. My, my, my. If Congressman DeLay were here now, he would turn over in his seat. His premise was the Senate doggone well ought to pass House bills and not ask any questions. That was his position. He had no intent to pass, no matter how bipartisan a Senate bill was, Tom DeLay had no use for talking to Senate Republicans about what he ought to pass. And by the way, if the President said pass it, if it was the Patients' Bill of Rights that he didn't want and it passed the Senate and the House, it didn't pass out of the conference committee because the President didn't want it. And by the way, on the prescription drug bill that a large number of your caucus was against, you passed anyway. It took you 3 hours to vote it, but you passed it. And so many of your Members came kicking and screaming to the final result and lament that vote this very day, and all of you on that side of the aisle know it. Not all of you, but a large number. Our responsibility is not to take a Senate bill or a House bill at face value. It is to exercise our best judgment to serve the American people as best we can. I will close with this: Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, strong proponent of the bipartisan bill, said this on March 11, 2008, just a few days ago: ``Today's House proposal reflects progress in bringing the two bills together, and it is a step in the right direction.'' He concluded his statement by saying this: ``As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, the Senate, and the White House can support.'' Ladies and gentlemen of this House, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and they gave to the President of the United States a role in the legislative process. We have an opportunity today to serve the protection of our country, the interception of communications dangerous to our people, and to uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Let us take that opportunity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. In 1983.

Mr. HOYER. My presumption is, and I think that's accurate because of my discussions with the Republican whip, the discussion will be with reference to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. HOYER. The reason I stand is because again I want to explain. The information, I don't know the information, but the information that Mr. Blunt has clearly is within the bosom of the Intelligence Committee, and I don't know, but I presume the Judiciary Committee has had access to it under the President's order. What has not been done is that information has not been shared with the Members. It's not a question of the sharing with the Intelligence Committee. I understand the gentleman's concern. What Mr. Blunt is simply saying is he wants to share with the Members. He cannot share it in open session. I don't know what the information is, but, again, as I expressed to my friend, and I would hope that we would understand that at some point in time, we need to accord to one another the credibility. Particularly I would hope that he would accord to me, as the leader, credibility, and as I accord to him credibility on his assertion that this is something he wants to share with the Members, some of whom would not have had access. They may have had access to it, but they haven't heard it. That is all I think he's saying. And in that context, we have come to this agreement which we think, as I say, focuses and serves the concerns that you have legitimately raised and focuses our efforts.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is reading from the rule and he is a very bright, good friend; and I am sure he read the rule accurately. So my presumption is that he is accurate.

Mr. HOYER. There are a lot of hypotheticals, a, I believe the gentleman is correct, there is a high bar. I will tell you that as everybody in this House knows, Mr. Blunt and I are friends. I have great respect for Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt came to me, without denigrating any other Member, he is a leader of his party and I accord him the respect of making the judgment that in fact he is going to meet that high bar. I have not interrogated him any more than I would want him to interrogate me on that issue. I take him at his word as a Member. Now, the consequence of not meeting that high bar is only that Members will say that a request was made that was not justified. I think that is the consequence. There is certainly no consequence in the rules. And, first of all, we would, I suppose, as a body have to judge, a, what the bar was and whether you met it. In any event, I think the gentleman understands the answer to my question. I respect him as the leader of his party. He has made this request, and we are trying to honor it, I might say, in a way that most fashions it so that it will be as focused and as helpful as can be.

Mr. HOYER. I think every Member will in fact say based upon the information they have, as I will say and as you will say, some of that information is held close. Some is not. And we will make our decisions based upon the information we have. So I think the gentlelady is absolutely correct.

Mr. HOYER. I think the fact of attending the session is not secret. The answer is ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to go further than I am absolutely confident on the response to this. However, let me say that I believe that all the information that Members need to debate this bill tomorrow is currently in their possession and will be elicited in public debate. The minority whip does not believe that. He believes there is additional information. I think Members, I would not want to leave the impression with any of our Members that somebody had information that they believed was very important to the security of our country that they were precluded from giving to Members. That is why we pursued this objective. As I say, the rules provide for that. But in terms of the debate, my suggestion is, I think, particularly the gentlewoman who serves so ably on the Judiciary Committee has all the information, and she has some information she knows she can't speak of because she has received briefings as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But I believe there will be no constraints. However, the constraint I think is you would not say, out of a secret session, and none of us should say out of a secret session, that X, Y and Z was said in a secret session, or that I got this information from a secret session. And if you did not have that information but for being in that session, my advice would be not to tell that information. But my view has been this has been a very wide, public debate; and I don't have any problems debating this vigorously tomorrow, as I intend to do because I think the bill is a good bill and protects both our intelligence ability and our Constitution. So I will not feel constrained at all. But I will not say I will not tell information that I received in this secret session because I don't think I am going to need to at all.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. For my part, I believe I will be fully engaged on this piece of legislation, on its merits, what it does to facilitate the interception of communications which may prove dangerous to our country and at the same time protect our Constitution. I don't think I am going to be constrained in any way. Now, what I will be constrained on saying is that, obviously, I have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go to the committee to review information in the bosom of the committee and to make conclusions on that. I will not discuss that specific information, but there is, most of the information that I have, having done that, is from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, other news magazines, from articles that I have read. I frankly think that no Member is going to have to be confused about debating the merits or the demerits of the issue that will be before us tomorrow based upon this secret session. Now, the gentleman, as I say, has made a request that he has information that he wants to discuss which he believes ought not to be discussed in public. I think everybody, not in public in the sense of depriving the American people from the information, but information that we need to hold close so that it is not used by those who would cause us harm, without speculating as to what that information may be. I frankly think that every Member will be able to make that judgment. But, more than that, we have discussed this, and we hope to have, and I forget who it was who was mentioned, very appropriately, we hope being prepared now is directive from a nonpartisan source of security people. This is, after all, a rule of the House that is being pursued. It could be pursued by motion, but it's being pursued by unanimous consent. Doing so, we believe, sets the parameters more appropriately.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my good friend for yielding. What I think the whip is saying, the Whip came to me earlier today, said he wanted to discuss information which the Intelligence Committee has, which the broad reach of the Members do not have, but he did not want to, he did not feel he could discuss that in open session. The rules provide for the whip to make a motion to do that. That will then be a relatively lengthy process. The whip and I discussed this on his representation that he had information that he felt, in good conscience, he could not divulge, not because it's not in the bosom of the Intelligence Committees or, frankly, maybe the Judiciary Committee, which has been cleared, but because he felt it was information that was not releasable. What we have done is reached an agreement that makes it very clear that there are very short parameters for this discussion and debate. I want to say that I, generally, have not been here as long as Mr. Obey, but my experience on these kinds of sessions, whether they are briefings, has been the same as his. I have rarely learned something that I couldn't read in U.S. News & World Report or Time the day before or the day after. But having said that, we have tried to reach an agreement with the minority that would facilitate the receiving of information which many Members, not the Intelligence members or the Judiciary members, but many Members have not had available to them and could not be discussed in open session. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is absolutely correct on that observation.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. If the gentlewoman will yield, I believe the gentlewoman is reserving her right to object and wanted to speak on the issue.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. HOYER. The gentlewoman has the floor.

Mr. HOYER. If I could continue, there are some in this body who have, because of their membership on particular committees, been able to see information in secret which other Members of this body have not seen. As the distinguished gentleman from California observed, there are still limitations notwithstanding this secret session. We have a room that allows people to receive information in secret. They are not necessarily transacting business; although, the Intelligence Committee obviously on both Houses does, in fact, conduct its business in secret in that they vote in secret on some legislation. All this contemplates is the offering and receiving of information that the minority has represented they believe they want to give to the Members that they ought not to give in open session. The matter that we are considering obviously is a very important, critical matter. There are substantial, as you know, differences. You and I agree on most of those. We perhaps disagree with others. It was the Speaker's and my view after discussing with Mr. Conyers and Mr. Reyes that to deny that would give Members the impression that somehow we did not believe they ought to have that information. Now, I don't know what the information is, as I have said. But having said that, we certainly do not contemplate any business being done. Now, the fact that a Member may say something that is not secret, I would presume things are going to be said in there that are not secret. The gentleman from Ohio raised some excellent points. I share the concern of the gentleman from Texas and the concerns. But I also understand this is a serious matter. We believe in public we will debate tomorrow a serious proposal as to how to serve our intelligence interests and our constitutional responsibilities. So I am hopeful that we will not object to this, although I think the concerns raised are absolutely legitimate, very serious, worthwhile concerns, and as the gentleman from Texas observes, which is why this is done so very infrequently. I have only been a participant in the 1983 session. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But that is my take on what is going to transpire.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I agree with him, and the reason for that, of course, is while you cut revenues, you didn't cut spending when you were in charge.

Mr. HOYER. I am reclaiming my time. The tears, the crocodile tears that flow from the eyes of the ranking member of the Budget Committee about this awful thing that we called ``congressional investments.'' It is so sad that for 6 years they were unable to discipline themselves. And by the way, last year, they were unable to discipline themselves. And guess what? This year they wanted a moratorium for 6 months.