Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Yes, it will undoubtedly be a lame duck session, I tell the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. To proceed with whatever legislation we decide ought to be considered, realizing we won't be sworn in until January as the majority party.

Mr. HOYER. We will be happy when we get back here on the 13th.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, one option, of course, is the Republican Members from the House of Representatives that are participating in these meetings indicate to our Senate colleagues that they are not prepared to proceed unless there are Members of the minority party present in those meetings to discuss issues of critical importance to literally millions of people in this country.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I meant that seriously on the Horse Protection Act. I am sure it is an important piece of legislation, but we are very concerned and continue to be concerned, many, many Members on your side of the aisle continue to be concerned, about the 9 years that have transpired since we adjusted the minimum wage, no cost of living attached to it, and we are very hopeful that the majority leader and your side of the aisle will see fit to bring that forward. We hope that you will bring it forward in a fashion that will not dilute the attention and focus on the workers, and by that I say attaching it to a tax bill or some other piece of legislation. We would hope that that would be a clean vote on the floor, and we think the majority of this House are for it. We think it is a very, very important piece of legislation, and we ask you to very seriously consider bringing it up next week if possible, but as early in September as possible. September 29 has been put in the press as the target date at least. You mentioned one of the pieces of legislation that might be on in September. Can you tell me how definitive or definite a date that September 29 may be for the possible adjournment prior to the election? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. That is going to be the date?

Mr. HOYER. November 13. There are all sorts of things I could say about post-election.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come; and at this time, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. The choices before the Members of this House today are clear and straightforward. Will the Members of the Republican majority choose to stand with George W. Bush, who just minutes ago vetoed this legislation, ironically the very first veto of his Presidency, and, as a result, impede medical research into diseases that afflict millions of Americans? Or will the Members of this Republican majority choose to stand with more than 70 percent of the American people; the most respected members of America's medical research community; and 238 Members of this House and 63 United States Senators, including, of course, majority leader Bill Frist, all of whom support embryonic stem cell research? There is little question, Mr. Speaker, about the utility of such research. Scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, believe that embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatments and cures for diabetes; Parkinson's; Alzheimer's; multiple sclerosis; cancer; and, as the gentleman from Rhode Island indicated, the rehabilitation of nerves. Dr. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, chosen by George Bush, has stated: ``Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding and treatment of disease.'' The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations stated last week in a letter that ``only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward.'' Senate Majority Leader Frist, a heart surgeon, has stated, ``Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise that adult stem cells cannot provide.'' Nor is there doubt about the need for more stem cell lines, since the lines designated by President Bush in 2001 have proven much less useful than hoped. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases, has stated, ``Our institute believes that embryonic stem cell research could be advanced by the availability of additional cell lines. We may be limiting our ability to achieve the full range of potential therapeutic application of embryonic stem cells by restricting research to a relatively small number of lines currently available.'' This legislation seeks to do just what Dr. Fauci says ought to be done. Mr. Speaker, the Castle-DeGette bill quite simply would authorize Federal funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded. That would otherwise be discarded. That seems to me to be critical to every Member's decision. Equally important, the bill would allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research only if strict ethical guidelines are followed. We do not pursue this irresponsibly. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important votes that Members will cast in this Congress, and it will be long remembered by the American people. I implore my colleagues, vote to advance ethical embryonic stem cell research, not impede it. Vote to override the President's misguided veto, which will be looked upon years from now as a momentary victory for ideology over medical research and progress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that, unfortunately, there wasn't as much bipartisan drafting of this resolution as I would have hoped. Hopefully there is no one in this Chamber who does not empathize with those who want peace, those who work for peace, those who are caught in the environment of hate, those who are caught in the environment of attacks on innocent people, those who are harboring in their midst those who attack a nation because of the religion and ethnicity of their population. All of us have empathy for innocent people caught in the grip of terror and terrorism. But all of us also ought to have the expectation that those people would exorcise from their societies those who undermine peace, security and safety, and the Lebanese people have not done that. They have either not done it because they are incapable of doing it, or they have not done it, as too often I hear verbalized, I tell my friend, because of their sympathy for Hezbollah. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution condemning the recent terrorist attacks against our Nation's staunchest democratic ally in the Middle East and supporting Israel's inherent right for self- defense, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution as well. Israel is absolutely justified in undertaking the defense of its territory and its people. As the Israeli columnist Ari Shavit recently wrote, Israel's actions are ``not a war of occupation, but rather a war of defense. Not a settlements war, but rather a green line war. A war over the validity of an international border that was drawn, defined and recognized by the United Nations.'' No one should be mistaken: The actions taken by Israel over the last 8 days have been a direct response to the premeditated, unprovoked attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations which are underwritten and encouraged by their sponsors, Syria and Iran. Palestinian militants, including members of Hamas, dug a tunnel 300 yards inside of Israel territory. And when, on June 25th, militants emerged from that tunnel, they killed two Israeli soldiers, wounded three and kidnapped one. Then last Wednesday, July 12, Hezbollah terrorists crossed Israel's internationally recognized northern border, and in a brazen daylight attack killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two. Another five Israeli soldiers were killed by Hezbollah terrorists when they tried to retrieve the bodies of their fallen comrades. Mr. Speaker, these premeditated, unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel are indefensible. One can only imagine the American response if a terrorist group attacked and killed American citizens from just across our border. It also must be noted that Israel has exercised great restraint over the last year, during which Palestinian militants, as has been referenced on this floor, have launched over 1,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel and Hezbollah has launched four separate attacks on Israel. While I am convinced that Israel is using every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties, it is clear that the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah purposely, purposely, staged their actions from within civilian communities, thereby putting civilians at grave risk. Furthermore, while Israel makes every effort to minimize civilian casualties, it is clear that the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately attempt to maximize such casualties by indiscriminately firing rockets upon Israeli population centers. Mr. Speaker, as a first step towards restoring calm, it is absolutely imperative that Israel's soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon be returned unconditionally and unharmed and that indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah cease immediately. It is also long past the time for the international community to facilitate the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559. If that U.N. resolution had been carried out, there would be no innocent citizens on either side being killed this day. The tragedy of our international community is the United Nations talks a much better game than it ever plays. That resolution, which was adopted in September of 2004, calls for the Lebanese army to control southern Lebanon's border, and for all militias, including Hezbollah, to be disabled and disbanded. So long as the international community fails to ensure the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, I believe Israel as a sovereign nation with an inherent right of self-defense has every right to strike armed terrorists which seek her destruction. Disarming and disbanding terrorist organizations is essential to Middle East peace. We empathize, we sympathize, we have deep concern for those caught in this web of violence and terror, but that will not rationalize nor will it excuse the lack of action to exorcise those terrorists from the body politic of the Middle East. Until that happens, innocent civilians will ever be at risk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for yielding. I am glad that I got here in a timely fashion. I join with my colleagues in supporting House Resolution 911 expressing our deep sympathy to the people of India in the aftermath of last week's horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai and strongly condemning these reprehensible and cowardly acts. I want to commend my colleagues, Representatives Joe Crowley and Joe Wilson, for sponsoring this resolution. On July 11, during the height of the evening rush hour, a series of coordinated explosions shook the heavily traveled commuter rail lines in Mumbai. I am sure that has already been discussed. 207 people were severely injured and killed. Hundreds more were injured less severely. It is my understanding that this represents the deadliest terrorist bombing since the attacks of September 11 of 2001. Mr. Speaker, in recent years relations between United States and India have improved dramatically. There was a period of time during the Cold War when we did not have good relations, but now the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy are forging a partnership and friendship that I think will redound to the benefit of not only the peoples of India and the peoples of the United States, but, indeed, the peoples of the international community. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, India pledged its full cooperation and offered the use of all its military bases for counterterrorism efforts. That was their offer to us. Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss suffered by our friends in India and offer our prayers to those who have lost loved ones and those injured in those heinous attacks. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. Quite obviously this will be a bipartisan effort on behalf of us all. Too few times we act in a bipartisan fashion, but certainly the respect that we have for our democratic friends in India, the respect we have for their history of bringing together almost 1 billion people and soon over 1 billion people together in a democracy and forging a free and open society is one that we can all respect and admire and certainly support. When friends like those sustain great injury, we share with them a sadness and empathy, and we wish them the best, and we let them know that we will be there for them as they have been there for us. I thank Mr. Leach for yielding his time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The gentleman who just spoke previously on the other side of the aisle was wrong, and he misstates the position of the Democrat Party. Indeed, he misstates the need for this bill. There is no court case that is pending that has shunted this aside, of articulation of ``under God.'' In fact, the Supreme Court said the litigant did not have standing. Madam Speaker, I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase ``one Nation under God'' is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the United States District Court in Sacramento, in September of 2005, holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. I want the gentleman to hear me. I believe the decision was wrong. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, 383 people on the floor of this House, overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans, said it was wrong. The gentleman may recall that resolution. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. In fact, the Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the district court's decision. For political reasons, the other side of the aisle does not want to allow the judicial procedure to continue as our Founding Fathers perceived it to be in the best interests of our Nation, a Nation of laws. Yet today with this radical court-stripping bill, our Republican friends completely overreact to this lone district court decision, which I believe is clearly likely to be overturned. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds. If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. Let us be clear. This bill is unnecessary and, I believe, probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, degrade our independent Federal judiciary, which, by the way, is a pattern of the majority party that is constantly wanting to undermine the judiciary. It is an end run. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the House should not be spending its time today addressing a single Federal court decision that should be overturned on appeal. My goodness, how many bills we would have to have to disagree with every court opinion that comes down. What we should be doing, Madam Speaker, is taking up legislation providing a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage, which has stood at $5.15 per hour since 1997, the longest period of time that we have not raised the minimum wage since Ronald Reagan and George Bush were President of the United States, in which case it was a longer period of time. An estimated 6.6 million, indeed some estimate as many as 18 million people, are impacted by the minimum wage. Yes, we are raising this issue now because it is the right thing to do whenever you do it, in whatever forum you do it, at whatever time you do it. It is time that we take people working in America every day, playing by the rules, take them out of poverty. Let's do it now. Give us this opportunity. Give them a chance.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If it were Wednesday, are you going to try to keep the other two bills that would come over from the Senate with that bill? Are you going to try to do all three of them at the same time, or is that not necessarily the case? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Leader, for that information. Tuesday is the marriage amendment. Would it be fair to believe that these, they are listed relatively in chronological order, therefore, the pledge protection bill would come on Wednesday probably, and then Oman on Thursday probably?

Mr. HOYER. On the veto override, you expect H.R. 810 to pass the Senate and then be vetoed and come back to us at that point in time, which would be either Thursday or Friday, depending upon how quickly we were doing our business?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. He anticipated my question, but I noted in the paper that there are some 25 or 25-plus Members on your side of the aisle who have written suggesting that we bring this to the floor. I would think if that is the case that we do have a majority, I would think, who would be for bringing this to the floor and, quite probably, a majority who might vote for a minimum-wage bill, assuming it comes to the floor as a minimum-wage bill. Mr. Leader, I am very hopeful that that can happen, and it would be wonderful if it could happen before we left here for the August break. But I hear you saying that is still under discussion, and, hopefully, the result will be a positive one from the perspective of having an up- or-down vote on the minimum wage. I thank the gentleman for that information. Lastly, Mr. Leader, the pension conference, you and I are very concerned about it. Literally millions of people are very concerned about it. But it still languishes in the conference committee. Can you give us any update on where the pension conference is and what expectations there might be for the pension bill to come to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. And I appreciate what you are saying about Friday. That will be dependent upon how quickly we get the work that is before us done. I understand that. Mr. Leader, we have had some discussions, and we still have pending, as you know, one appropriation bill, the Labor-Health bill which is pending. It has, as you know, attached to it an amendment adopted in a bipartisan fashion on the minimum wage, taking the minimum wage to $7.25 in three increments. Can you tell me the status of the Labor-Health bill? I know it is not on the calendar, but can you tell me its status? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Then we might pass those earlier in the week?

Mr. HOYER. So if you were trying to keep the three bills relatively together at the White House, is that what I am hearing you say?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I hope that is the case. And perhaps I will privately discuss with you whom these consultations have been with because on my side of the aisle, they have not talked to me yet. But I thank the gentleman, and I will talk to him privately.

Mr. HOYER. Hope springs eternal. Let's hope the bill is not eternally, however, in the conference committee. Mr. Leader, if I could comment as well, you and I had a discussion and I had a discussion with your predecessor on this issue as well and with Mr. Blunt, when he was acting in the capacity you now have, with reference to the bipartisan inclusion of conferees in the decision- making process as to what the pension bill is going to be. In our experience in dealing with you when you were chairman of the committee, you did that. We appreciated that. We think it was the right thing to do. And, frankly, we think it manifested itself in some good products. But, Mr. Leader, I must tell you that the minority members and the ranking member have not been included, in the information I have, in the conferences or deliberations that have been going on with reference to the pension bill. In light of the fact, as you point out, it is a complicated bill, a difficult bill, we think that would be useful certainly for us; but very frankly, we think it would be appropriate for the process itself. I yield to my friend in hopes that he will, as he indicated he would, try to prevail on those powers that be to effect that happening, as he indicated he thought ought to happen. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I would be pleased to yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to the four amendments which I perceive to be weakening. In particular, I want to commend Congressman Watt, Congressman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the committee and, of course, the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for the extraordinary work that they have done to come together on a bipartisan piece of legislation, reauthorizing key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Let me add, too, the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus and the Pacific Caucus deserve our thanks for their instrumental work on this bill and on these issues. This legislation is a recognition that our democratic system is not perfect. While our Nation has made tremendous strides in its ongoing quest to guarantee the ideals of our Constitution, the specter of discrimination still haunts us and our people. And thus, we, the Members of this Congress, have a special responsibility today to be vigilant in perfecting and protecting the most fundamental expression of equality in any democracy, the right to vote. We must never forget our rights, though God-given, have been hard won. Brave American citizens have been subjected to intimidation, violence and, yes, even death, to secure the rights that are theirs under the Constitution. Our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, is a living testament to that bravery. Forty-one years ago, John and his fellow marchers were brutally attacked when they simply tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on their way to Montgomery to register to do what every American believes is a birthright, to vote. The Declaration of Independence says that ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' That is what it says. This legislation is about making it so. The people who walked across the Edmund Pettus bridge and in millions of places and had the courage to challenge rank injustice in their peaceful actions still inspire us today. Our Nation did the right thing 41 years ago. It is important for us to do the right thing today. I urge my colleagues, vote for the underlying bipartisan bill and against those amendments which were offered, which will weaken our commitment. We must keep faith with the promise and requirements of our Constitution. We must reauthorize these key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.