Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I think that's a very good question. Let me tell you that we have asked. Mr. Blunt and I have discussed that. And we have asked the appropriate officials, bipartisan officials, of this House, under the rules, to give us the answer to that question and to have on paper the specific advice to every Member of the House so that we cannot have Members go out of here, put themselves at risk of violation of the rules, have clear advice and counsel as to what that is. Now, it is my belief, this is not an opinion given to me, but it is my belief that every Member of this House that receives information from sources unrelated to this hour are certainly free, as they are right now, to discuss that information. And the fact that it is discussed in the session would not adversely affect that right. I would be shocked and not in agreement with this unanimous consent if the case were otherwise.

Mr. HOYER. We are not surprised by that.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the issue that the gentleman needs to address himself to is why this is a privilege of the House. I suggest that the Speaker make sure he is talking to that point.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in this House on loving this institution. The issue, my friends, is not whether we have respect for one another. Too often, it is demonstrable on this floor that we don't. The issue is, Will the American people have respect for us? That is the issue. That is the critical issue that confronts us this evening. Not because any of us are pointing fingers at anybody else in this House. But unless you were sound asleep prior to the last election, unless you were living in another country in another land in another time, you know what the people thought about this, the people's House that we love. That, my friends, is why we are in the majority, because the people thought changes were necessary in this House. The people asked for change. They asked for accountability. There have been some things said on this House floor that are not accurate. Mr. Tiahrt said that Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, would make independent appointments to this. Mr. Capuano changed that as a result of the suggestions of these Members. It was a good change because it meant that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi are going to have to agree on six people. It has been said on this House just now that this replaces the Ethics Committee. It absolutely does not. Does it complement it? I think it does, but it does not replace it. Nor does it substitute its judgment for the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee can continue to operate as it does now and can initiate, it does not need to wait on this committee. It can initiate the defense of the ethics of this House, 435 of us elected by our neighbors and friends. We are all sad when one of us comes short of the expectations of our constituents, as we should, because we know only too well, those of us who have served for significant periods of time in the public's fear, that the acts of each of us is often attributed to the rest of us. There needs to be a confidence level among the American people in the people's House. How are they going to have that confidence? I suggest to you that it is my belief, as one who is not for many of the things that the so-called groups are for, who think that it is going to change, it will not change, many times, the substance of what we deal with. I happen to have come to the conclusion that this proposal that Mr. Capuano and others have made, and I regret the fact that this is not a bipartisan proposal. One of my best friends in life, not just that served here in this House, is Senator Ben Cardin. Many of you know how close he and I are. He and Bob Livingston worked on the last major ethics reform together and came together in a bipartisan fashion. I am one who works in a bipartisan fashion. Ask Bob Ney and the Help America Vote Act. Ask Steve Bartlett on the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe in operating that way. I wish this were a bipartisan product. If we had the vote on the Republican alternative, I would vote against it. Why would I vote against it? Because it has within its framework submitting to the Justice Department after 45 days a complaint that the Ethics Committee has not dealt with. I don't think that is appropriate for a violation of the rules. It should be within the bosom of this body. This proposal copies it there. This does not give subpoena power to people to go on fishing expeditions. It gives to six people, selected jointly by Mr. Boehner and Speaker Pelosi, who I hope and believe that they will agree upon people of very high integrity and good common sense. Because when they say, and somebody comes along and says in a press conference, Steny Hoyer has violated the rules, none of us can protect ourselves against that. That's the business we are in. We are all targets and we are all vulnerable. But it is my belief that this body will be composed of the kinds of people that I think Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Boehner will appoint, and not Members. I am a lawyer. I will tell you, the public is not too convinced that lawyers are good at self-regulation. Some of you are doctors. The public is not particularly convinced that doctors are good self- regulators, or CPAs or other professions. That's what we are talking about. We are talking about to the American public we do act properly, we do keep the faith. We are honest, and we are prepared to answer for our conduct and give confidence to you, the American people, that it is the people's House, not our House, the people's House. I suggest to you, my friends, that whatever can happen, whatever could happen, whatever scenario you fear can happen right now with the existing process, all this does, it adds a complementary body, hopefully, and I believe, of citizens of very high repute who will, in turn, be able to say to the American public, yes, this group of Americans is honest, hardworking, and serving you well. Are there, from time to time, exceptions? There are. But let us have the confidence to tell to the American people our conduct is, and we want it to be, above reproach, and we do not fear the oversight and accountability that this proposal suggests. I urge my colleagues, have confidence in those that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi will appoint. Have confidence in yourselves and in your colleagues, and let us this night give confidence to our constituents and the American people. Vote for this proposal.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. In response to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, let me read a statement from the President's veto message of March 8, 2008: ``My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program.'' He doesn't say that it will not be a part of the CIA program. He has very carefully worded, ``It is not part of the current program.'' That is why I tell my friend this legislation is relevant. That is why, in my opinion, his Presidential candidate, although he seems to have changed his mind, passed his own bill, which the President, of course, signed and then had a signing statement that he wasn't sure that he had to follow it, that torture was not the policy of the United States of America. I agree with that. It's not. It should not be. But we need to make a very clear statement that it is not. Why? Because the rest of the world is looking at us and wondering what are the values that this great Nation we respect so much values? Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the President could have made a clear, unequivocal statement that this great Nation does not and will not torture those in our custody. He should have signed this important intelligence authorization conference report into law. But instead, he vetoed it, because it requires all American intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Let us be clear: This veto was unfortunate and misguided. It threatens to further degrade America's moral standing as others have said, including Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State in this administration. It threatens to undermine our credibility in the international community and to expose our own military and intelligence personnel to the very same tactics and treatment. Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt, and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men, women, and children in an effort to advance their twisted, demented aims. We can, we will, and we must prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction and say that their ends justify whatever means they may use. During the current administration, we have seen the line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt, our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as well as the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is, and I quote, quaint. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The administration's advice that it got from counsel was that the Geneva Conventions against torture is, quote, quaint, close quote. I would suggest to you it is as relevant today as it was when it was signed. These incidents and others sully our great Nation's good reputation and allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred. Requiring all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogation is an attempt by this Congress, passed by majorities in both Houses, to repair the damage that has already been done. Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our values. Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq last May. I believe it has been quoted, but it bears repeating: ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.'' General Petraeus went on to say: ``Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. We must. However, we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote to override this unjustified and deeply misguided veto.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to follow my friend Mr. Murphy who just spoke, with whom I agree entirely. This will be a cost savings. I want to congratulate as well Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, one a Democrat and one a Republican. But this is not a partisan issue. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an issue of human beings. It is an issue of people that need help and have been denied it, people who are one of us, as Mr. Murphy so eloquently and correctly pointed out. I rise in strong support of this legislation. I strongly support this long overdue bipartisan legislation to end discrimination against patients seeking treatment for mental illness. Mr. Kennedy spoke of that discrimination. I want to commend Congressman Kennedy and my friend Congressman Ramstad. Congressman Ramstad is going to be leaving us, but he has been one of the best Members that has served in this body, who looks at issues on their merits, not on partisanship. We all ought to do that. This legislation, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, now has 274 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Under this bill, an insurer or group health plan must ensure that any financial requirements such as deductibles, copayments, coinsurance and out-of-pocket expenses which apply to mental health and addiction treatments are no more restrictive or costly than the financial requirements applied to comparable medical and surgical benefits that the plan confers. Why does it do that? It does it because in America we want healthy people; not physically healthy people or mentally healthy people, but people who are physically and mentally healthy, because obviously there is an extraordinary relationship between the two. Under this bill, we will accomplish that end. It also requires equity in treatment limits. This means that the treatment limits, such as the frequency of treatment, number of visits and days of coverage applied to mental health and addiction benefits, are no more restrictive than the treatment limits applied to comparable medical and surgical benefits. Why? Again, because we want to effect the health of the individuals we are serving. It is important to note that this bill only applies to insurers and group health plans that provide mental health benefits. That is, it does not require plans that do not currently offer mental health benefits to do so. It simply says, if you provide mental health benefits, do so equitably and fairly and equally. That is why Patrick Kennedy referred to this as a civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill. It also exempts businesses with 50 or fewer employees and businesses that experience an overall premium increase of 2 percent or more in the first year and 1 percent in subsequent years. We believe that perhaps will not happen, but it provides for it. Research has shown that there has been no significant cost increase attributable to the parity requirement in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which has made parity coverage for mental health care available to more than 8\1/2\ million Federal employees for 8 years. So we have had experience at this. This is not a radical departure. This is, however, the provision of equal treatment. Furthermore, this bill's enforcement mechanisms are real, permitting the IRS to enforce and levy fines and penalties on plans for disallowing employers from deducting health care costs as an expense. The two offsets in this bill were included in the Children's Health and Medical Protection Act, or the CHAMP Act, which passed the House last August. The first increases the rebate or discount that drug companies are required to provide State Medicaid programs for drugs provided for Medicaid beneficiaries. The second prohibits physicians from referring patients to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest, with the ability to grandfather existing physician-owned hospitals. It is telling, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is supported by, among others, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association. On the steps of the Capitol in a press conference with the Speaker, with Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad, as well as David Wellstone, I said that the United Negro College Fund has a wonderful phrase that it uses, and that phrase is that ``a mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' That is so very accurate. And if a mind is a terrible thing to waste, it is a terrible thing not to treat, as we would treat the broken arm or the diabetes or any other physical ailment. This bill makes America healthier. This bill will save money. This bill makes good sense, morally and economically. Support this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. I've had discussions recently with Secretary Gutierrez, with Ambassador Schwab and others, and Secretary Paulson, who have also discussed this issue with me and I know with you and with many others. This is an issue of importance. We think the discussions are ongoing. Hopefully, they will result in some fruitful resolution. That has not been the case at this point in time. We did have, as you well know, a very significant interface with the administration last year in which I think a very positive result in terms of workers' rights and environmental concerns were addressed by us and by the administration. Unfortunately, we have not moved forward from that point on the other three agreements that were pending at that time, but I think that we will continue to have those discussions, hopefully positive and hopefully have some result.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, this bill was passed in the Senate a little over 2 weeks ago. Since that time we have had an extensive number of meetings, discussions. I'm hopeful, as you know, to have discussions with the whip, with the distinguished Republican whip, my friend, on this issue as well. I think both of us are going to be here tomorrow. We'll take that time perhaps to do that. As I said, and I've said repeatedly, I think every Member of this House wants to pass legislation which will facilitate the interception of particularly foreign-to-foreign communications which may pose a danger to this country. All of us are aware of the fact that technological changes have resulted in some questions being raised because of the fact that we have many of the communications coming through the United States. I frankly think, as the gentleman knows, there is really not a great deal of controversy or difference between the two Houses or between our two sides of the aisle on this issue. There's some differences, but they're not major differences. I think they can be addressed. There are major differences with respect to the second title of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill which comes from the Senate which deals with retroactive immunity, which has nothing about prospective security but is obviously important for us to consider. We're also working on that as well, but I will tell the gentleman that we don't have agreement. But, as I said, I'm very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week. I do not expect it to be, as the gentleman asked, the same bill that passed the House.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. As the gentleman knows, both the RESTORE Act, which passed this House, and the Senate bill both are similar in giving prospective immunity to telecoms that voluntarily or pursuant to order cooperate with us in accomplishing that objective. We believe, of course, that FISA was established so that a court review on process would be appropriate to ensure, in fact, that the collection of information is on foreign-to-foreign. We well understand that, as the DNI has indicated, prospectively you may not know so you need authorization. Our bill provides for that. The Senate bill provides for that. I really don't believe that is a major contention of the bill. That's prospectively. A major contention is, which we believe has nothing to do with security, on what has been done, and, frankly, I'm not sure we know exactly what has been done. As you know, I've taken the opportunity to be up in the intelligence room, in the secure room, and go through the papers that have been provided. My own view is they're not dispositive of the issue; but irrespective of that, we're working on title II as well, and I look forward to having discussions on that with you as well.

Mr. HOYER. If I might comment on that, as you know, from our perspective, this is one of the problems. This is a very serious, important bill. It's critical to the defense of our country. I want to see that facilitated. I think every Member on both sides of the aisle wants to see that facilitated, but there are serious issues. There are serious constitutional issues involved here. That's why FISA was passed in 1978, very frankly, as a result of an administration that intercepted communications here domestically. You will recall that, I know, and a great concern about that. FISA was adopted by the Congress and signed by the President in an attempt to try to ensure that those kinds of things that happened in the early 1970s were not repeated by the intelligence community. So these are serious issues. Unfortunately, the Senate which had our bill for 2\1/2\ months and had spent a lot of time considering a bill long before we passed our bill did not send us a bill until, as I said, about 14 days ago, and we have since that time, notwithstanding the fact we were on break, staff and Members have been working on that. As you know, we have invited the other side of the aisle, ranking members, to participate in that. Some have chosen not to, but we are hopeful that we can move ahead on this, and we hope there is room for positive resolution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican Whip. On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday there will be no votes in the House. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. In addition, we hope to consider legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There may well be other legislation as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Hal Bruno--an individual that most of you will know best for his 50-year career as a professional journalist whose integrity and trust earned him the respect and approbation of his peers and politicians alike. Today, however, I'd like to recognize another, perhaps lesser known, side of Hal--his more than 30-year commitment to the men and women of the fire service. Recently, Hal Bruno announced that he was stepping down as Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the organization established by the Congress to honor our fallen heroes and assist their families and coworkers. It was with deep regret that the board of directors accepted his resignation. Since 1993, Hal has served with distinction on the board of directors, the last seven as chairman. For Hal and his lovely wife, Meg, the Foundation is that ray of light that has guided family members of fallen firefighters through their dark journeys. When a firefighter falls in the line of duty, Hal likens it to losing a family member. Long after the death, Hal has always been there to provide comfort and assistance to the family members, no matter how long it takes for them to regain their strength and move ahead with their lives. The Foundation and the fire service, itself, are fortunate to have had a leader with such compassion and dedication as my friend, Hal Bruno. Always humble, Hal has always been one to credit the professional staff of the Foundation for the positive impact the Foundation has made on the people it serves--family members of our fallen heroes. But Hal, through his leadership, inspiration and selfless dedication--set the course of the Foundation in a new direction, resulting in a tremendous growth of the Foundation's programs during his years as chairman. Those of us involved with the fire service are pleased to hear that he will continue to serve as an active member of the board of directors. To both Hal and Meg Bruno, I extend my personal thanks and the thanks and gratitude of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, for their dedication to our first responders, and, especially, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. I ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to Hal and congratulating him upon his retirement and a job well done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and the Republican Leader Mr. Boehner to congratulate the Congressional Management Foundation on its 30th anniversary. CMF has had a widespread and positive impact on this institution, and we are proud to applaud its efforts over the decades in applying its motto, ``Good government through good management.'' Founded in 1977, the Congressional Management Foundation is a non- profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to serving the Members of the House and Senate, as well as the institutional offices of the Congress, through staff management training, office facilitation services, publications on best practices, and technology research. The idea for CMF was born out of the rapid growth of congressional offices in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Offices no longer were comprised of a single Member with a few support staff. Citizens had come to rely on Congress for a vast array of constituent services and expected rapid responses to questions and opinions on pending legislation. Tom Bedell came to Washington to work in Congress in the 1970's to work for his father, Congressman Berkley Bedell from Iowa. He saw that, while Members of Congress could be brilliant legislators and great communicators, they were often overwhelmed by the management challenges of running up to four offices and a staff of twenty. Along with Dr. Len Hirsch, an organizational development consultant, Tom founded CMF and they began offering programs on enhancing efficiencies in office budgeting, managing constituent correspondence, and hiring staff. Working with staff organizations such as the House Chiefs of Staff Association, CMF expanded its programs in the 1980's and 1990's, training hundreds of senior managers on everything from how to perform high quality personnel reviews to how to conduct difficult conversations with their staff and their bosses. With the help of CMF's strategic planning services, scores of Members of Congress have clarified their goals, enhanced their effectiveness at serving constituents and improved staff morale. CMF strives to help congressional offices get off on the right foot even before the swearing-in ceremony. In 1984, CMF wrote the first edition of Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide. This book, which is revised for every Congress and distributed within days of the election, is now a staple for freshmen Members and veterans alike. They also produced a companion, Frontline Management: A Guide for Running Congressional District/State Offices. Additionally, for 20 years CMF has been offering an orientation program to introduce new senior staff to the basics of hiring staff, creating a budget and setting up an office while their bosses are struggling to learn the nuances of parliamentary procedure and committee assignments. CMF was also the first organization to create salary and employment studies for Capitol Hill, providing Members and senior managers with useful benchmarks to aid in the office budgeting process. In the last few years CMF has been an invaluable resource as Congress has adopted new technology to respond to the dramatic increase in communications and citizen advocacy as a result of the Internet. It partnered with distinguished universities, such as George Washington University, Harvard University, Ohio State University and the University of California-Riverside, to offer guidance on how to design congressional Web sites and be more responsive to constituents online. Their Gold Mouse Awards for superior Web sites have become coveted commodities on Capitol Hill. Also in the last few years CMF has helped respond to a House request for perhaps one of its most important projects in its 30-year history: helping to design a 10-year information technology roadmap for the House of Representatives. Thanks in part to CMF, Congress has a more professionalized workforce with better morale and performance. And the American people get a better government when our democratic institutions are more efficient and effective. We thank all of the current and past supporters, leaders, and staff of the Congressional Management Foundation who believe in the Congress and the people who work here, and who feel that we truly can achieve ``good government through good management.'' We congratulate them on 3 decades of outstanding service to the Congress and the Nation. And we wish them success in the decades to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I was not planning to speak, but the previous speaker has done what this administration did a little earlier today and has been doing over the days. We call it fear-mongering, trying to stampede this Congress into doing something that is contrary to our oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States as well as defend our Nation from those who would harm our citizens and our country. The gentleman's assertion that the intelligence community is not able to intercept communications to protect our country is not true. Anybody who heard his words and was concerned by his representations ought to be disabused of the fact of the accuracy of his assertions. In fact, the administration said that in a letter, a six-page letter, and within hours sent out an e-mail saying, No, we're wrong. Telephone companies are cooperating with us. We are able to intercept communications. But what he also did not mention is that we passed a bill 2\1/2\ months ago, now 3 months ago, which would have provided the full authority the administration needed to continue doing what they needed to do. Without exception. Secondly, what he failed to say is that when the Senate failed to act for those 3 months, it was because the Republican Party in the Senate precluded that bill from moving forward. But he didn't represent that. And then they sent us the bill 2 days before a break was to be scheduled. That was considered, in my opinion, to try to preclude any further discussion on the issue. They believed they could do that by then appealing to the concerns, rightful concerns, of the American public that we continued to do everything necessary to keep them safe. That's the commitment of all 435 Members of this House. It's my commitment. I speak on behalf of my party, as majority leader of my party, with respect to that issue. Every Member wants to ensure. What he did not tell you, however, was because we only had some 48 hours of session, because we wanted to give it consideration, and because the normal process is to have a conference between the two Houses if there are differences as there are between the two pieces of legislation, we said to all of the Republicans and to all of the Democrats, let us extend by 21 days the Protect America Act so that there is no question. What the gentleman from Georgia did not tell you is that every Republican person voted against that extension. They voted against the extension, and then when it did not pass, they said, Oh, America is at risk. It is like the child who killed both his parents and said, Have pity on me. I'm an orphan. They refused to pass the very legislation which would have kept the act that they say is necessary in full effect. The good news is that we have a statute on the books called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which provides the administration with every authority it needs, but what it requires the administration to do is come to the FISA Court and get approval. There is no backlog in that court. Not a second's backlog in that court. And administration officials have said we would not miss a beat in terms of our interception of communications. Administration officials have said that within minutes approval could be granted, and under the FISA Act, the administration can act and then get approval after the fact. So I'm not sure what the generals were talking about. What the gentleman from Georgia did not mention as well is that we have been working every day since we left session on trying to reach a compromise so that we could move forward on this bill. We had a meeting this day to do that very thing, a meeting which was bipartisan. We had the administration involved. We are hopeful that we can reach agreement. So I want to assure the American public that the leadership of this House is going to do everything in our power to ensure that we protect this Nation and our people and to defeat those who fashion themselves to be radical Islamic jihadist terrorists and ensure that they will be stopped, they will be caught, and that we will prevail in this war on terrorism.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is absolutely correct. There are eight suspension bills, the Andean today, and we will do the balance of seven tomorrow. I believe it will be a relatively early day.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to recognize motions for suspension of the rules tomorrow as though clause 1 of rule XV were in place. In other words, I'm asking for authority to have a suspension calendar tomorrow. Absent the unanimous consent, we would simply go to the Rules Committee and get a rule to do that.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I will tell you, Members have expressed great concern that they didn't know about the proposals that were being made. My suggestion on both sides of the aisle is that we listen to these proposals as carefully as you are going to want to discuss them in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, we have been considering for a number of years now the question of how we ensure that we have ethical conduct in this body, but more importantly, how we give confidence to the American people that we are handling their business in a fashion which they can trust and be proud of. It is a difficult effort. We had scheduled for tomorrow a rule which would have established a process of access and oversight that many believe would be an improvement. The committee that was set up was chaired by Mr. Capuano, and Mr. Smith, Lamar Smith, was his ranking member or cochair. Mr. Smith just an hour ago or so, or 2 hours ago, brought a new proposal, which we had not seen, to the Rules Committee. We have asked Mr. Capuano about that proposal. He has indicated that he wants an opportunity to review it because he had not seen it before. In light of that, I have had discussions with the other side of the aisle with reference to a procedure in which we would not consider the rule that was proposed, the rules change that was proposed, tomorrow. We do expect to consider it soon, but not tomorrow. Tomorrow, and I will be asking at the end of this for unanimous consent, I have discussed with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt doing the seven suspension bills. There are eight suspension bills scheduled for today. One of them is the Andean bill, which I think is not of any controversy, the 10-month extension on that bill. I will be asking for unanimous consent, therefore, for tomorrow to be a suspension day. This will give Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith the opportunity to discuss a new proposal which has been put on the table just this afternoon, and they will discuss that. I know that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, have had discussions. I presume those discussions will continue. So my expectation is tomorrow, after the unanimous consent, we will conclude this bill. We will then have no further business. We will have the Andean suspension bill. After the conclusion of the Andean suspension bill, we will have no further business for today that Members would be voting on. And then we would, tomorrow, consider the seven suspension bills, and my presumption is it will be a relatively early day tomorrow, Thursday.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there are few Members on this floor whom I respect more than the gentleman who has just spoken. Jim McCrery from Louisiana is going to be a loss to this House and to our country. He is a thoughtful, fair, and considerate legislator. He represents his State well. He has represented this House well. And I congratulate him for his service. But people of goodwill can disagree, and I want to make an observation on this punitive measure. In 2004, the Republicans passed a tax bill. Historically, manufacturers had gotten a tax break to incentivize keeping jobs here and trying to grow jobs in America. The oil companies were not included in that law, as the gentleman knows so well, but the Republicans added oil companies into the category of manufacturers. Now they are being taken out. So he says we added them in and now it would be unfair to take them out. They weren't in originally; we are taking them out. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation is an explicit recognition that our great Nation must make critical investments today in the development of clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency; energy investments that will strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security for generations to come. I appreciated Mr. McCrery's observation that part of this bill was a good bill. He disagrees with other parts. That's understandable. But we must simply begin to break our addiction to fossil fuels, not because the oil companies are bad. They're not. They produce a product that's absolutely essential and they create jobs, good-paying jobs. So this is not about trying to take it out on the oil companies, but it is to say that fossil fuels are a wasting resource. That is to say, we're going to use it up, it's going to go away, and we need to look to alternatives. This morning's headline in the New York Times states that the harsh reality is ``Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget.'' The fact is the nationwide average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.14 this week, an increase of 19 cents in just the last 14 days. Some energy experts fear gas prices could hit $4 a gallon by this spring. Diesel prices are hitting new records daily, and oil hit a record high of $100.88 a barrel on Tuesday. This, again, is not about the bad oil companies. What this is about is America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and on oil generally. Either it's going away or we will be in the grasp of OPEC, of nations who are not particularly friendly to us: Venezuela; Saudi Arabia sometimes, sometimes not; Iraq; Iran; other oil-producing states that can go away in a second. We are vulnerable, and we need to look to alternatives. That's what this bill seeks to do. To be clear, this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices. But it is a vital step forward and may bring down gas prices 3 years from now or 10 years from now or 15 years from now. This bill is nothing less than a critical investment in the low carbon economy of the future that will result in the creation of millions of new jobs. It extends the production tax credit for wind, geothermal, and other renewables to 2011 and renews the investment tax credit for individual homeowners and businesses to maintain incentives for solar energy through the end of 2016. Without the prompt extension of these tax credits, renewable energy project work stoppages could cost 116,000 jobs at a time when we're trying to stimulate the economy. Furthermore, this bill will spur the commercialization of the next generation of automobiles by establishing a $4,000 credit for the purchase of a plug-in hybrid. Tax credits, tax incentives, are to get something that you need and might not otherwise get unless you get an incentive. I'm going to speak to that with reference to the oil companies in just a second. It will encourage investments in cleaner fuels, creating economic incentives to invest in biofuels, including biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. And it will close the so-called ``Hummer'' tax loophole, which encourages taxpayers to buy gas-guzzling SUVs. That makes no sense. In addition, this legislation will create incentives for the construction of energy-efficient buildings and the retrofitting of existing homes, which will reduce pollution and energy use. Finally, the energy conservation bonds included in this bill will spur investments in efficiency, create jobs, and reduce carbon emissions. I would think all of those objectives are objectives that this House, in a bipartisan way, would seek to achieve. Now, in keeping with this Democratic majority's commitment to fiscal responsibility, this legislation will not add to the deficit. I will tell you that your previous bills dealing with tax incentives could not make that comment. Rather, the tax incentives contained in the bill are offset by repealing $18 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies over the next 10 years that otherwise will be enjoyed by the largest oil and gas companies in America. Mr. McCrery referenced a discussion about that. Last year alone, the five largest oil companies had a combined profit of $123 billion. God bless them. But it only provokes this question: Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product? I'm a big proponent of the free market system. Supply and demand works. The demand for oil is high. The prices reflect that demand, and they are the highest they have been in history. They don't need any incentive to look for new product. The incentive is the free market system which is buying their product for the highest prices they have ever sold it. So it is foolish to ask the taxpayers to not only pay those high prices at the pump but also to pay additional taxes because the oil companies aren't paying the same kind of level of taxes that they are. Last year alone, as I said, they made the highest profits they have made. The answer, of course, to my question, do they need incentives to get new product? They do not. They do not. There is not an oil company executive in the world who's going to say let's not look for new oil when their product is getting the highest prices they have gotten in history. Even President Bush, and I want all my Republican friends to hear this. There aren't very many of them on the floor. There aren't very many Democrats on the floor. But I hope they are watching on television. President Bush, a former oil company executive, said in 2005, and I want you to hear this quote, George Bush, President of the United States, former oil executive, 2005: ``I will tell you, with $55 a barrel oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' I'm sure all of you got that. At $55 a barrel, the President of the United States said we don't need incentives for the companies to explore. Prices now are almost 100 percent above that dollar figure which the President of the United States said would obviate the need for incentives. With the price of a barrel of oil hovering around $100, do we really believe that this incentive is justified? The President of the United States said no. Hopefully, this Congress today will say no. This legislation is a thoughtful effort to set our Nation's energy priorities and thereby strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security. Last year when we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, the President and Senate Republicans removed a package of economic incentives, including the extension of tax credits for wind and solar energy and biofuels. We must move towards those alternatives. With this bill, we continue the fight for this critical aspect of our energy policy. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very important piece of legislation, and I thank the Republican colleagues on the committee as well for working on this product. We may have differences, but this is a critical issue for the future of our country and for generations yet to come. Vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, so it's more important to delay it than to adopt it now?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady. Would the gentlelady agree to a unanimous consent request to make your amendment a forthwith amendment so that it could be voted upon? My presumption is the gentlelady wants the amendment adopted, the gentlelady believes the majority of the House is for it. Would the gentlelady agree to such a unanimous consent?