Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, lastly, the gentleman from Texas (Leader DeLay) had to leave early right after the votes last week, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I discussed that I am concerned, the gentleman is concerned, everybody is concerned and everybody is talking about it in the papers, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is still not staffed and unable to proceed. The gentleman has expressed concern that that is the case. We have expressed concern that that is the case. We believe, Mr. Leader, that under the rules the executive director and counsel need to be hired through agreement by both the Republican and Democratic members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. We believe that is what the rules says. The impediment it seems, frankly, is that the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is still focused on having his chief of staff, who may be an outstanding individual, no aspersions whatsoever on his character or his integrity in working on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but he has not been selected in a bipartisan fashion. Could the leader advise me, the Speaker indicated he thought he ought not to get involved, but we appear to have an impasse. It seems to me as one of the leaders, I would certainly be prepared to work with you, with the Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would, in trying to resolve this impasse so we could as an institution select bipartisan personnel that both sides could have confidence in that could then proceed to have an operating, effective Ethics Committee. I frankly hope we could do that. I think both of us and probably the entire institution is frustrated by the fact that we cannot get by this impasse. It is, however, from our perspective, as the gentleman knows, a very important issue because if both sides are going to have confidence in the impartiality of investigations, of Republicans or Democrats, it will be because both sides participated in and had confidence in those who were selected to, from a staff standpoint, proceed with those investigations. I would be glad to yield to my friend for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the leader and I have a different perspective on this. He is correct in that observation. First of all, let me say that clearly the leadership ought to stay out of any determinations or considerations or reference to complaints raised or under investigation or determination by the Ethics Committee. I agree with the leader on that. I do not agree with the leader on the fact that the leadership does not have a particular responsibility to ensure that the Ethics Committee is operating, is functioning, is performing the responsibilities of ensuring the public that we are maintaining the ethics of this institution and the democratic processes in a transparent and open and honest fashion. That is not any different, very frankly, than the leadership appointing the members of the Ethics Committee. It does not stay out of that. It appoints the members of the Ethics Committee on both sides of the aisle. It, in fact, removes members from the Ethics Committee. The problem has arisen here where for the first time since I can remember as a Member of this House, we have an impasse and a failure to, in a bipartisan fashion, agree on a single director. Mr. Leader, very frankly, I will tell you that the initial problem was raised and our perspective is that the rules were changed to provide for impasse, for gridlock, where five people could not agree to proceed with the investigation, and it would not proceed. I know we differ on that perspective, but that was our perspective. Frankly, for whatever reasons, we have now gone back to the rules that we believe provide for proceeding with investigations without providing for the possibility of partisan gridlock or partisan veto. If you had codirectors, which is what has been suggested, you have one director for the Republicans, one director for the Democrats, you provide indirectly what you have now abandoned in the rule change that you made in January and gone back to the old rule. The whole purpose of having one director, selected in a bipartisan fashion, I suggest to my friend, was to provide and to have a confidence level in proceeding in a way that would provide for an effective operation of the Ethics Committee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) regarding the schedule of the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, two additional issues: campaign finance legislation, or Pence-Wynn, and CAFTA. Can the leader give us any thoughts as to when those might be considered as it relates to the July 4 break?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what I understand the gentleman is saying is whatever is agreed to by those three will be how it is carried out?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there has now been some agreement as it relates to the ability of the national intelligence director to move personnel. That obviously was a problem we had. The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) did not feel that was appropriate. Apparently, there has been some discussion and that matter has been resolved. Would it be the gentleman's expectation there will be an amendment to the bill because that provision is still in the bill; or do you expect to have a provision in the rule itself which would be self-executing to remove the constraint from the intelligence authorization bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Flag constitutional amendment is on the calendar as well. Within the framework of the other bills, would that be left until Friday, or when will that be considered?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. If I may inquire, Mr. Leader, the Labor-Health bill was marked up yesterday, and the legislative branch bill was marked up as well. What days does the gentleman expect those bills to be on the floor?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the question before this House today is not whether the United Nations should be reformed, but how the institution must be reformed. Virtually every Member of the House agrees with this proposition. If the U.N. is going to retain its credibility, it must implement meaningful reform in areas such as budgeting, oversight, and accountability, and certainly peacekeeping and human rights. We, of course, are not alone in this assessment. The administration agrees. The congressionally established Task Force on the United Nations, which just issued its report on reform this week, agrees. Even top officials of the United Nations agree that reform is needed, and Secretary General Kofi Annan has issued a broad reform agenda. It is well established, Mr. Chairman, that the U.N. suffers under poor management, low staff morale, and a lack of accountability and professional ethics. Even worse, the organization has been wracked by scandal; for example, revelations of corruption in the Food-for-Oil program in Iraq, and evidence that U.N. peacekeepers sexually abused women and children that they were sent to protect. However, administrative incompetence and even corruption pale in comparison to the United Nations's failure to act to prevent genocide, most recently in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and, yes, even as we speak in Darfur, Sudan. Let no one be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States' national security interests are served and strengthened by our active participation in international organizations, including the United Nations, but, Mr. Chairman, we must not flinch from asking, can an organization established to promote tolerance, human rights and the peaceful resolution of disputes long survive when its members cannot summon the will to stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, or to enforce resolutions adopted overwhelmingly to achieve international stability and security? The answer, I think, is self-evident. Specifically, I believe the U.N. ideal is undermined when members refuse to act against an international outlaw such as Saddam Hussein, who flagrantly flouts his obligations under countless Security Council resolutions. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are mired in a war in Iraq, where the United States is bearing the overwhelming burden to act against an international lawbreaker against whom the United Nations unanimously passed 17 resolutions in 12\1/2\ years saying that he was in violation of the obligations imposed upon him by the United Nations, and which they, in a united way, agreed he had not complied with. As I have stated before, the member states of the United Nations must respond to such defiance with more than mere words. They must respond with action. Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the motivation of Chairman Hyde's bill; however, I disagree with its method, an enforcement mechanism that would mandate a 50 percent cut in the United States contribution to the U.N. should the legislation's 39 proposed reforms not be implemented. As Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns of this administration told the Washington Post, this approach would undermine American credibility at the United Nations; it would undermine our, meaning the United States' effectiveness. In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Lantos is far superior. It maintains, Mr. Chairman, the link between achieving U.N. reforms and withholding a portion of the United States assessed dues; however, critically importantly, it gives the Secretary discretion to make such cuts, rather than mandating them. As an aside, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that as long as we are a member of the U.N., we have an obligation, a duty, it is in our interest, to pay our fair share. Importantly as well, the substitute provides the Secretary with a waiver to the requirement to veto all new peacekeeping missions or to expand existing missions. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be a significant mistake. The Republican bill provides no waiver. In effect, it would block the United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission, including involvement in a crisis like the one in Darfur, until peacekeeping reforms are completed. Very frankly, the victims of genocide cannot wait for a recalcitrant United Nations to accomplish those reforms until such time as we act to save lives, prevent dislocation, and maintain the safety and human rights of the inhabitants of some country. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this substitute directs the Secretary of State to withhold 10 percent of our contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget when the U.N. fails to suspend the membership and act against a member which is engaged in or acquiescing in genocide. Again, Mr. Chairman, none of us questions the necessity of U.N. reform. Reform is not optional, it is imperative. The underlying bill, however, is an unproductive and harmful response to real problems. The Democratic substitute, the substitute offered by the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), gives us our best opportunity to strengthen and revitalize the U.N., and I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way, on both sides of the aisle, liberals and conservatives, concerned about both the reform of the United Nations, but also the effective operation of an international organization, our best hope to maintain international law and order, to protect human rights and redeem the promises made when we created the organization we know as the United Nations. And I thank my friend for yielding the time, supporting this substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 163, honoring the Sigma Chi Fraternity on its 150th anniversary. Like hundreds of thousands of men across the country I am honored to be a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity. Although I was a Sigma Chi at the University of Maryland, I share a strong bond with my brothers across the country and around the world, including my fellow Sigma Chi men in Congress. We are connected by the shared tenants of our fraternal organization and we try to live our life by the ``Jordan Standard''--the Cornerstone of the Sigma Chi Fraternity. Sigma Chi played an important role in my personal development and provided me with relationships that will last a lifetime. These experiences are not unlike the experiences that millions of other men and women have had with their respective fraternities and sororities. Although sometimes ridiculed, the Greek system on the whole--without question--has made countless positive contributions to society. Many of our Nation's leaders, from those in business to those in public service, are members of fraternities or sororities, including our current President. The benefits to our communities from these individuals--whose first leadership and service experiences were often through their involvement with the Greek System--are immeasurable. Furthermore, beyond planting the seeds of leadership, fraternities and sororities compel their members to conduct themselves in accordance to the highest standards of honor, morality, and academic excellence. Since its inception in 1855 at Miami University in Oxford, OH, Sigma Chi has helped young boys develop into strong, well-rounded, Sigma Chi men. I am proud to be a part of this fine organization and I congratulate Sigma Chi on its 150th year anniversary. May its good deeds and reputation of excellence endure for the next 150 years. I ask my colleagues to join me and the other original cosponsors, Representatives Gerlach, Farr, Hyde, Oxley, Pickering, Schwarz, Shuster, and Skelton, in support of this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that if the gentleman from Missouri's motion prevails, that we will be unable to discuss the substance of the motion made by the minority leader?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, and I thank him for the work that he does with the Page Board. His leadership and faithfulness in this effort is very much appreciated, I know, by these young people but appreciated also by the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I always like to have this opportunity to thank you young people. You have had an extraordinary opportunity which millions and millions of those your age will never have. You have had an opportunity to see firsthand the operations of the people's House, the House that was established by our Founding Fathers to reflect, as they viewed it, the passions of the people from time to time. That is why we have 2-year elections. That is why the only way you can serve in the House of Representatives is to be elected. You cannot be appointed. You can be appointed to the U.S. Senate. You can be appointed Vice President of the United States, but you cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives. You have had an opportunity on a day-to-day basis to help us make sure that democracy works. You may not think of what you did as high falutin and it perhaps was not, but it was critical to the functioning of this House. I would ask you as you leave here to leave with a sense of responsibility, a sense of responsibility to convey to your classmates, to your friends in your neighborhood, to your future college classes, your future workers, coworkers, and your families and others and your fellow citizens your view of democracy as it is represented in this House. It is, of course, not perfect, because it is, obviously, human beings that participate in this, and as I know all of you know too well, we humans are not perfect. However, as Winston Churchill said, while it may not be perfect, it is better than all other forms of government that have been tried. And I have been here now, this is my 26th year. You were born during part of my fifth or sixth term in office. As president of the Maryland Senate, I had the opportunity to run the page program in Maryland, and I always hoped that they would go back and say, you know what, they care, they care about our country, they care about us. They disagree. There are deep divisions from time to time, but, for the most part, almost everyone is trying to represent what they believe to be the best interests of their country. Therefore, you will urge your fellow citizens to participate in the process, as hopefully you will as well. Having more knowledge than they, the more you participate, the better our democracy will be. So I thank you for your service, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Democratic Members of this House. There is no partisanship in the respect and affection that we have for all of you outstanding young people who make us proud of the generations that are coming and are confident that our country will be better for your future service and your service now. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for giving me this opportunity, and I thank him for his leadership of this page board. Good luck.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to submit for the Record the compelling statement of Linda Howard Garrett who gave the valedictory address at the Ann Arundel Community College Commencement Ceremony on May 26, 2005. Linda is a wonderful and inspiring example of someone who has the will and perseverance to make a brighter future for themselves and their family. Her determination and persistence to go back to school later in life shows that it is never too late to pursue the ``American Dream'' and succeed! I was proud to join Linda at Anne Arundel Community College's Commencement and am pleased to submit her address for the Record. Valedictory Address by Linda Howard Garrett ``Good evening, President Smith, Congressman Hoyer, Trustees, honored guests, faculty, staff, friends and families, classmates. If anyone had told me 2 years ago that I would be standing here tonight, I would have stared in disbelief. It was with great trepidation that I returned to school after 37 years, and I wasn't sure I would succeed, much less excel. And yet here I am--here we all are because of our hard work and dedication to a goal. Many people have asked me what motivated me to work so hard and to remain so dedicated, and as I began to think about that question, I realized there were several answers. It helped to know that I was enrolled in one of the premier paralegal studies programs in the country, and attending Ann Arundel--a shining star in the Nation's network of community colleges. Of course there was my family who inspired me by their unflagging support--especially my 14-year-old daughter who temporarily relinquished her self-proclaimed position as center of the universe and willingly assumed more responsibility at home because I had a test scheduled or a paper due. And the professors who gave so generously of their time and talents: Professors Kelly Koermer, Robyn Brown, Karen Cook, Mona Clark, Stanley Robbins, Susan Kilgard, Richard Faircloth, Sarah Glenn, Cathy Hayes, Sherry Hopkins, Wade Taylor. I could go on and on as I'm sure each of you could as you remember those dedicated teachers who were a profound influence on you. Sometimes it was a staff member--like Miss Ina in the Florestano student lounge my first year. Even though she wasn't officially scheduled to open until 8:30, she was there every morning at least an hour early, dispensing hot coffee and encouragement. Often, it was a classmate: the student older than I--in his seventies--still seeking knowledge and growth and intellectual stimulation. Or the 18-year-old who took the earliest classes available so she could hurry home to care for her ailing mother. And all of the amazing single parents juggling families and full-time jobs and still managing to attend every class, turning in every assignment on time. But perhaps the most compelling influence was a sense of history and an appreciation for what many Americans take for granted. I gained that appreciation while serving for 26 years with the U.S. Army. During that time I had the opportunity to travel all over the world--from the Far East to East Berlin. And the more I saw of the world, the more I came to value the freedoms and opportunities that are uniquely American. And at no time did I feel that appreciation more than during a visit to Ellis Island. Over a hundred years, ago, immigrants poured into this country seeking a better life. And they weren't satisfied to just be in America. They wanted to be Americans, and that meant that they had to learn a new language and a new history so they could pass a citizenship test. They sought out classes wherever they could find them--in church basements and elementary school classrooms and community halls. So when it seemed he too much effort for me to write another brief, or struggle to learn the arcane vocabulary of the law or drag myself to one more early class, I would remember those immigrants who, after working backbreaking 12- , 14-, 16-hour days, went willingly, joyfully to class because they understood that every step toward that classroom brought them one step closer to realizing the American Dream. And when I remembered them, I could not dishonor their memory by turning in shoddy work or failing to fully embrace the opportunity their legacy provided because from those humble beginnings an entire system of adult education evolved. Single scattered classes became night school and then City College and junior college and finally the community college, as we know it today. And although at one time the classes at one of these local colleges was considered less prestigious than at the four year colleges, that is no longer true today. In response to a growing need, as community colleges' facilities and curricula expanded, so did their reputations. Today, while community colleges continue to serve those who, because of families and jobs, need to stay close to home, they also serve those who recognize that many community colleges provide specialized programs that rival those available at four-year universities. I hope that everyone of you as you go forward will also look back and remember that you are carrying the torch for all those educators and students whose commitment and vision made today's community college a reality. And I hope you will tell all of your friends and families and neighbors that the first step toward realizing the American dream begins with an education, and that a first-class, top-notch education is accessible in their backyards, right here at Ann Arundel Community College. I hope that you will never take for granted the history of freedom and opportunity that mad it possible for you to take that step. And I hope, as you go forward, that you will never miss the opportunity to say, with great pride, as I say tonight, I am a graduate of Ann Arundel Community College.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman is probably correct, and of course the resolution offered did not resolve the question. We understand that. But I think the gentleman is correct, it would not resolve it any more than the vote on the rules in January resolved the changing of the rules and the feeling that they were not appropriate to provide the context in which we could proceed. I know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) very honestly and sincerely, as I do, wants to see this matter resolved and see the committee move forward so it could become a matter of history and not a matter of current debate so we can focus on the important issues confronting this country. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the majority whip the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Lastly, we just had a vote on the privileged resolution that was offered by the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). That resolution, as you know, sought to try to move the ethics process forward so the Ethics Committee could do its work. Hopefully, all of us believe that it is very important that the Ethics Committee be able to undertake its work. I would hope that the majority would take steps to perhaps discuss in a bipartisan way the implementation of the existing rules which we believe, as you know, require a majority vote for the hiring of a staff director. That is the way it has always been. From our perspective, that is the way it was intended to be. So it would be a bipartisan or, better yet, nonpartisan handling of the responsibility of the Ethics Committee. I would hope that in the near term, next week and the days thereafter, that we would work together to try to get this moving forward. Because I think it is important to both sides of the aisle, it is important to the integrity of the House, and I think it is important to the American people.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I have no doubt about his sincerity in that desire. I would simply observe that had we had the opportunity to debate the privileged resolution, which really seeks to redress the House's positions, that perhaps we could have explored more broadly the differences that exist as they relate to the staffing of the committee. Both sides apparently believe that they are correct in their interpretation, but hopefully both sides want a bipartisan and not a partisan staff to proceed with its work. Unless the gentleman wanted to say something, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. First, if the distinguished whip knows, my presumption is, based upon the schedule that has been submitted, that the probability is we will not have votes on Friday next. Is that a reasonable assumption, do you think, for our Members to make?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman tell us, with respect to the appropriations bills, which day of the week, Tuesday and thereafter, you might expect each of the individual bills to come up in particular? Of course, the defense appropriations bill is of great interest to our Members.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip for the information. It may be helpful to know that I believe on our side of the aisle, we believe that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman's) agreement was appropriate in the sense that the flexibility be given to the National Intelligence Director to provide for the best possible personnel assignment with reference to maintaining our security and intelligence apparatus in the most effective mode would be correct, if that is of any help to the whip as he considers the support that that proposition may have on the floor. I realize there are those on his side of the aisle who have some concerns about it. I understand that the Secretary of Defense may have some concern about it. But I think, frankly, I would hope that a very substantial majority of the House would agree both with the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. The gentleman does not have to comment on that, but I thought that it might be useful information for him.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I note, Mr. Whip, that the intelligence authorization bill, which was schedule to be on the floor today, which had been pulled, is not on the schedule for next week. That obviously is a very important bill. And it is, I would say to my friend, as I understand it, a bill which has the agreement between the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. So it would seem to be a bipartisan agreement on the substance of the bill. Can the whip tell us when we might see that bill back? I am sure you agree it is a very important bill, providing for the work of the national intelligence director and providing to make sure that we can keep this country safe from terrorists, and I know that both sides are hopeful that it will come forward pretty quickly. Can the gentleman tell us when that might be on the floor?