Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. In that context, can I ask the distinguished Republican whip whether or not, if we find ourselves in that position, whether you believe your side of the aisle would be prepared to support a 30-day extension so that we would not get into that position that you're concerned about, that if something came to light that the administration and/or NSA and the intelligence community felt ought to warrant action, that they would then be able to request such action during that additional 30 days while we see if both bodies can act?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand his concern. Obviously what concerns me is the proposition, as the gentleman puts forward, that we make sure we have the authorization to intercept those communications which may pose a danger to the United States and to our people. I would hope and urge this administration if they know of any such targets, that they immediately request authorization under that, and they have another week essentially to do so. We believe those could be approved within, as some previous Justice Department official said, hours of application. So in the first instance, I would hope that they would make efforts to preclude the possibility that we would have targets that aren't authorized. Secondly, my concern is that the other body likes to put us in a position where it's take it or leave it; in other words, without discussion in terms of the very substantive important discussion on how we protect ourselves against terrorists and protect the Constitution. We think those are very important questions on both sides, not that they're either side, but we believe they can be consistent with one another, but we think we need the time to do so. That is why I pressed so hard, as the gentleman knows, to pass a FISA bill through this House. We passed a FISA bill through this House over a month ago. It was in November, so with clearly enough time to give the other body which had also considered a bill. And when we passed our bill, we already had bills out of the Intelligence Committee; and the Judiciary Committee bill, I'm not sure whether it was out of committee or not, but it had been considered in committee. So I think it's unfortunate that we've been put in this time frame, but I frankly, without deciding the question today on the floor, am very interested in pursuing this in the regular order to discuss between the two Houses whether or not we can reach a resolution on this immunity issue which I think is an important one, as well as reaching a resolution on what I think is a much improved process that the House passed and, very frankly, which I think the Senate bill also has made some improvements on in the Judiciary Committee. There are differences on that, whether the Senate Intelligence Committee is a preferable item, Senate Judiciary or some blend of those two, but they have not reached a resolution on that. So I hope I have conveyed to the gentleman that while I understand the concern, which I share, of getting this done, I was not happy in August. I voted against the bill in August as the gentleman knows. An overwhelming majority of this caucus voted against that legislation. However, many people voted for it, justifiably in the sense that we needed to get something done for the interim and set a time limit on it so that we would not be vulnerable if, in fact, we were. But we think the FISA court needs to be involved in these issues. So, again, what I'm trying to convey to you is these are very serious questions, and they need to be thoughtfully addressed, and I, for one, am very unenthusiastic about addressing these issues on the horn of hours to go before a bill expires. I urge the Senate not to do that to us, and we are about to find ourselves in that position. I'm not happy about it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished Republican whip. On Monday the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 5 p.m., and that evening we will receive the State of the Union address from the President. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 noon for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the close of business this week. In addition, we will consider H.R. 1528, a bill to designate the New England National Scenic Trail. The House will not be in session for the balance of the week in order to accommodate the Democratic Caucus Issues Conference. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have not talked to Senator Reid nor the Speaker about any commitment about bringing that bill up on Thursday. First of all, of course, next Thursday we won't be here, if they bring it up Thursday.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding. I thank Mr. Dingell for his indefatigable advocacy on behalf of children and on behalf of the health of all Americans. I thank my Republican colleagues, as well, for a large number of them supported this legislation when it passed the House. In fact, over 60 percent of this House voted for this legislation. Over 66 percent of the Senate voted for this legislation. We are just a percentage point short of overriding the President's veto. We are not going to override that veto today. That is unfortunate. It is not unfortunate for me. It is not unfortunate for the 434 of us who have a health insurance program, and we have the most accessible health care perhaps of any American. But it is very unfortunate for those parents who woke up this morning and prayed that their children didn't get sick and prayed that they didn't get sick because they don't have health insurance, and they are not sure that without health insurance they will have access. They will have access perhaps if their child gets very sick, gets very badly injured, because then they will take them to the emergency room and the emergency room will see them. There is not one of us, not a person in this Chamber, who would want their children, their grandchildren, or in my case, my great- granddaughter, in that predicament. Not one of us. The gentleman from Georgia who previously spoke talked about politics, and Mr. Barton I think has mentioned, I haven't heard all of the debate, but mentioned this was about politics. Well, I would agree; it is about politics. Everything we do on this floor is about politics, not necessarily partisan politics, but about public policy and the politics to achieve public policy and the philosophy underlying the achievement of that policy. You've heard me quote it before. You are probably tired of hearing me quote it. But I am going to quote it again. The President of the United States was seeking reelection in 2004. In the summer, late summer of 2004, he stood on the floor of the Republican Convention and said to all America, ``If I am reelected in a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' He was reelected. And in 2005, there was no aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance. And the Republicans were in charge of this House and of this Senate. There was no aggressive effort here, either. And in 2006, when the same leadership maintained, there was no aggressive effort to add millions of children consistent with the President's promise of 2004. But when we were elected and when we took over the leadership of this House and when Mr. Dingell took over leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rangel took over as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Mr. Stark took over the chairmanship of the Health Subcommittee, lo and behold, we pursued the President's objective. Now, that may be political. But it was certainly the politics promoted by the President. It was the objective that the President said was an important one. It was a promise he made to America's children and America's families. And so we passed a bill through this House with 45 Republicans, 43 on this particular bill, and in the Senate, two-thirds of the Senate, 18 Republican United States Senators, almost half of the Senate delegation on the Republican side of the aisle voted for this bill. And indeed, two of the senior Members, including the former chairman, Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, now the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and Senator Hatch, one of the senior Members of the United States Senate, both conservative Republicans, urged this President to sign this bill. Why? Because the facts that you are hearing on this side of the aisle are wrong, Mr. President. That's what Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley said. Actually, they didn't say the facts on this side of the aisle that are being cited, but the facts that the President was saying was the reason for his veto, said they were wrong. So, yes, we have another opportunity. And I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, as the majority leader who schedules business for this floor, this won't be your last opportunity this year to address this issue. Is that politics? Maybe. And if it is bad politics, the people will not support it. But you and I both know that nigh onto 70 percent of the American public believes this bill ought to be passed, notwithstanding the veto of the President of the United States. Why did they think that? Because they know that their neighbors, maybe themselves, are challenged by their children not being covered. They are working. They are trying to make it. But as the economy tanks, hopefully we can stem that fall. They're worried. Yes, this is about politics with a small ``p,'' about making public policy that helps our Americans who are working hard to make America a great country and expect their government to hear their cries for help. We spent some 24 meetings trying to address some of the questions that Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite raised. Mr. Barton was in a couple of those meetings. We didn't get there. We regret that we didn't get there. Frankly, I want to tell you that I have talked to some of the people in that room who wanted to get there and were disappointed that we didn't get there. You've talked to them, too, Mr. Barton, on your side of the aisle. We have an opportunity to stand up for the 4 million additional children who will be helped by this legislation if we override the President's veto. Let's give those children the health care they need, they want, and a great Nation ought to ensure.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 22, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished Republican whip for yielding. On Monday, the House will not be in session, in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, which was on January 15, but will be celebrated and honored on Monday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills, as is the normal course, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday, we will also take up the President's veto of the children's health insurance legislation. The House will not be in session on Thursday or Friday. The minority party is having its conference at that point in time, as we will have the following week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. As he and I have discussed and as he knows, I am disappointed that we are not in conference on the FISA bill. The Senate has not yet passed its version of the FISA bill. As you know, we passed the FISA bill in December. I think it was early December, as a matter of fact. And we understand that the legislation we passed last August has an expiration date of February 1 and that, therefore, we will either be acting under the old law, an extended law, or a revision that we might pass. The leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has talked about perhaps a 30- day extension. I have not talked to him about that personally, but I know that they are considering that. I also know that it is the Senate's intention to address this issue upon their return next week. As you know, they will be in most of the week next week, I think, so we will have to see probably the end of next week where the other body is so that we might better judge where we need to be.

Mr. HOYER. When you indicate we reached bipartisan agreement, what we reached bipartisan agreement on was, obviously, that the bill, as you point out, had many important provisions, not only the pay that you refer to, the wounded warriors, treatment of veterans medically, as well as meeting our defense needs, all of which we did have an agreement on and we passed that bill. There was bipartisan agreement that if we were going to pass that bill with all those important provisions in it, that it was necessary to consider the matter that the President was opposed to separately and apart, and take it out, which was done. But certainly all of the Members on my side did not believe that the President's veto was appropriate. So I don't want to mislead anybody that there was a bipartisan agreement that his veto was appropriate in that sense and that there was a consensus on that. There was disagreement on that.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, I share the gentleman's view, and my expectation is that the authorization bill we passed yesterday will be passed by the Senate as was passed here. Because, as you know, the only thing we did was modify, consistent with an agreement with the administration and the Senate, the provision that the administration vetoed the bill on. So my expectation is it will pass whole. Now, as the gentleman observes, there is an interest I think perhaps on both sides of the aisle in considering the provision that was modified and essentially a part of it taken out of the bill. There is interest in considering that bill. That has been discussed with Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Skelton and the committee are looking at that. I believe, and I don't have confirmation of that, that there were Members who have talked to me who are in fact introducing a bill to speak to that particular point. I say ``I believe'' because, again, I don't have confirmation that that bill has been introduced, but I know that there were Members very focused on that, very concerned. As you know, this provision dealt with the ability of some of our former soldiers, in particular marines, injured by, tortured by the Saddam Hussein regime and being compensated for that to which they had been subjected. I know there is a lot of concern about making sure that litigants who have gotten judgments have an opportunity to execute on those judgments. The President was concerned about that. So I think the short answer to your question is it either has been introduced, or going to be introduced maybe next week. Mr. Skelton has indicated that he will look at that.

Mr. HOYER. If my friend will yield.

Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's point, but as the gentleman well knows, there are opposing views to that point. But certainly now, as the gentleman observed, is not the time to debate it. I think the answer to your question is that it may well be before us again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with tomorrow.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 4, 2007, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 110th Congress, except that pursuant to House Resolution 915, the date of May 12, 2008, shall be used in lieu of May 14, 2007.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of a dear friend of mine, Judge Ernest Loveless, and to offer my condolences to his family on his passing. In the State of Maryland, few judges commanded more respect than Judge Loveless. First appointed to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 1960, Judge Loveless rose to the position of Chief judge in 1976. Serving on the bench until his retirement in 1992, Judge Loveless left behind a legacy of fair rulings and a more effective and efficient court. During his 32 years on the 7th Circuit, Judge Loveless became known for his management skills. As the populations of Prince George's County and southern Maryland grew in the 1970s, Judge Loveless recognized the need to update the court's systems to better enable it to handle the increased caseload. He succeeded in installing new computer systems, and he made other necessary changes to help the 7th Circuit keep pace with the changing times. Known across our State as an expert on juvenile law, Judge Loveless presided over thousands of adoption cases, even adopting two children of his own. He had the foresight to hire a resident psychologist to assist with family law matters, a valuable asset to the court and the cases it handles. On a personal note, I believe it was clear to all who knew him that serving others was a deeply held value for Judge Loveless. Before becoming a judge, he served our Nation proudly in the Navy during World War II, and he then went on to serve the people of Maryland in the House of Delegates from 1954 to 1960. He was active in several civic organizations in Clinton, MD, and he continued to contribute to the community throughout his life. Madam Speaker, Judge Loveless was a good and honest man who lived an honorable life, and he will long be remembered in southern Maryland and Prince George's County for his devotion, his knowledge of the law, and his fairness. I join countless Marylanders whose lives were touched by Judge Loveless in sending my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman. What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO. We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and 20 percent increases in revenues. What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23 million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in charge for 6 years. Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America, I don't mean people making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 million a year, but people making $500 million a year, don't have to pay their fair share. That is what this is about. That is what we have been forced to on this day on this floor and in the other body. Because what is happening is what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and most powerful in America are protected on this floor from paying their fair share. This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which is what PAYGO is all about. My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all your watch. And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6 trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye because your economic program is a failed policy. And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is 5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt, piled on debt. The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy. So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was intended to hit. So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit, that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15 percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, what we do tonight I will not support if we do it. I have a lot of people who live in my district who will be confronted with the alternative minimum tax. I don't want them confronted by the alternative minimum tax. But if we are going to continue to buy, if we are going to do what we will do later tonight, part of the $196.4 billion that you're spending of the legacy of those children that I just mentioned of mine, which you are not going to pay for, and you said this enterprise will cost $60 billion. This administration has been a failed administration economically and a failed administration fiscally. But you continue to pursue these policies, and we are forced today to recognize that we don't have the votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, we reaffirmed with many of you voting for it in 2007, and which you abandoned in 2001. And deep deficits and now economic recession facing us is the result. I don't urge my colleagues to vote for this bill as I usually do when we bring something to the floor. This is on suspension not because we believe, in my opinion, many of us, that this is good policy, but because we are faced with two stark alternatives: A President who will veto paying for things that we buy, a President who will veto this bill if it is paid for, responsible fiscal policy; and a Senate that will not vote with us and, frankly, House Republicans who won't vote for this. But we can pass it here, as we did twice. Twice we have passed this fix, and we have paid for it. This is a sad day for America. It is a sad day for my three grandchildren and my great granddaughter, 13 months of age, on whom we will pile an additional $80 billion of debt with this vote tonight if it passes. So $50-some-odd billion and then the interest to follow, she will have to pay that. We ought to pay our bills. We talk about personal responsibility. We ought to have the personal responsibility in this generation to pay for what we buy. I regret this day and this bill. Madam Speaker, I believe that every single Member of this body--on both sides of the aisle--agrees that we must protect middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share. The question that divides us is this: Will we enact a fiscally responsible 1-year patch to the AMT that prevents 23 million Americans from paying more in Federal income taxes under the AMT than they otherwise would pay under our standard tax system? Or, will we take the easy route, the politically expedient route, the fiscally irresponsible route, and enact an unpaid-for, 1-year patch that tacks another $50 billion--yes, $50 billion--onto the deficit and debt, and immorally forces our children and grandchildren to pay our bills? For months, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill have fought to do the right thing--to enact a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is paid for by, among other things, closing a tax loophole that permits many of the wealthiest people in our Nation from denominating their income as ``capital gains,'' and thereby allowing them to pay the 15-percent capital gains tax rate rather than the higher marginal income tax rate. Time after time after time, House and Senate Republicans rejected our ``pay-fors,'' and demanded that we take the fiscally irresponsible route--and enact an AMT patch that adds $50 billion to the national debt. Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50 billion to the deficit and debt. No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility. Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics that is demonstrably false. The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays for itself.'' And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase.'' The facts, however, show otherwise: In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the national debt. As my good friend, Congressman Tanner of Tennessee, recently pointed out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907 per minute. This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.'' And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the debt. Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course. Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker, who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.'' Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in the 1990s. Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax that must be permanently reformed. And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his budgets. However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for the House of Representatives; it's a historic day for the Dean of the House; it's a historic day for the leadership of this House; and it will be, I think, viewed as a very important day for America and our energy independence and for our effort to keep our environment sustainable. I want to thank and congratulate the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I said this when we last considered the bill on this floor; no Member of this body has focused more on energy and energy policy, energy independence, throughout the years than has the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell. Save for his singular focus on ensuring the health of all Americans and their availability of affordable health care, quality health care, his focus on energy and energy independence and efficient use of energy has been unmatched, and I congratulate him for that. As he said when this bill passed out of the House, it wasn't the perfect bill. There are many of us in this House who would have hoped that the Senate would not have removed some of the items that were in this bill when it came from the House. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this landmark bipartisan legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act, represents a vital turning point for our Nation and a historic accomplishment for this Congress. Today, we set a new direction for this country in the area of energy policy. Our Nation's energy policy is inextricably linked to our national security, our economic security, and our environmental well- being. And, I have long believed that we must summon our national will, resources and ingenuity to make significant gains in technology, conservation, vehicle efficiency, and the use of alternative fuels in order to end our reliance on foreign oil and other important sources of energy. To that extent, this bill was and remains a vital national security interest. With this legislation, we will move toward real energy independence that results in a stronger economy, more jobs, and healthier communities. The Chairs and ranking members that worked tirelessly to produce this bill are also to be congratulated. Under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, as I have said, this bill includes historic fuel economy, renewable fuels, and energy efficiency provisions. The increase in the fuel efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is the first in a generation, and is supported by environmentalists and the automobile industry, in no small part because of the work of Chairman Dingell. Furthermore, it will result in $22 billion in net annual consumer savings by 2020 and reduce greenhouse gases in an amount equal to taking off the road 28 million of today's average cars and trucks. Among other things, this bill will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in the production and infrastructure needed to deploy homegrown biofuels. It provides incentives for plug-in hybrid cars. And it includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses at least $300 billion through 2030. Let no one be mistaken, this bill, while comprehensive, does not represent the totality of our energy policy. There is still much more to do, and we will be about that business. For example, we should take up legislation to establish a renewable portfolio standard and extend the production tax credit, and do so promptly. We also should continue to work across the aisle and with the Senate to reach further consensus on issues such as the use of renewables, the development of new technologies, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions. Mr. Speaker, when we started this session, we started it on a historic note and swore in the first woman Speaker in the history of America, in the history of this House of over 200 years. As she was sworn in, we had literally scores of children who surrounded the Speaker. And she intoned that this would be the ``children's Congress,'' it would be the ``children's Congress,'' and it would look to the future, not the past. And this bill looks to the future of energy use, of energy efficiency, of energy security, and of the health of this tiny globe on which all of us survive and hopefully thrive. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a historic turning point in America's energy policy. And I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for our children, for our future, for our security, vote for this historic piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering one of the most important human rights measures we have dealt with all year--a bill related to the world's worst ongoing humanitarian disaster, the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. This measure is about changing direction, showing the world that the United States will not stand idly by--as the international community shamefully did in Rwanda in 1994. This measure is inspired by the apartheid-era legislation that this Congress proudly initiated, which helped bring about the end of one of the most cruel, racist, violent regimes in modern history. Next year marks the fifth anniversary of the genocide in Darfur. That is five years of raping and pillaging, of displacement of millions of innocent men, women and children. Today, the question that we must ask ourselves as Americans, and as human beings, is this: Will we respond with apathy or with action to stop this ongoing tragedy? I submit that there can be only one answer: We--and by ``we'' I mean the international community-- cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the Darfurians' suffering and plight. Today's measure--the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007--is a call to action. It authorizes states, local governments and universities to divest from companies doing business in the military, power production, oil-related, or mineral extraction industries in partnership with the government of Sudan. Further, it provides safe harbor to mutual funds and pension plans choosing to divest their assets in such companies. And finally, it prohibits the federal government from entering into new federal contracts with these offending companies. No longer will Americans have to worry that their tax dollars are going to companies that support the inhumane regime in Khartoum. The bill we will pass today and send to the President is just one piece of a multi-faceted effort to address the crisis in Darfur. This solution must include not only full and speedy implementation of the United Nations/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force, but also international support for a single, unified peacemaking process. I have been extremely disappointed in both the rebel leaders and government officials who continue to choose violence over peace and have declined to participate in peace talks. However, we must continue to push for progress toward a ceasefire and a viable political solution for this ravaged land. Finally, and equally importantly, a solution in Darfur must include a sustained and secure role for the courageous humanitarian workers, who risk their lives daily because they are so committed to alleviating the suffering of their fellow human beings. I want to express my sincere gratitude to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a leader in this Congress on the issue of Darfur, who traveled with me to Darfur in April, and who sponsored the original Darfur Divestment measure, H.R. 180--which I was so pleased to cosponsor and which passed the House 418 to 1. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.