Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Mr. Leader, I noticed that the budget conference report is not listed on the schedule next week. The gentleman and I talked about that last week. Can the gentleman tell us when the gentleman believes the budget conference will be appointed and when we might have that on the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. If I could raise one additional issue, it is my understanding that one of the reasons we have not appointed conferees and we have not gone to conference is the issue of the Medicaid cuts. I understand a substantial number of Members on your side have suggested that those cuts are not advisable. Obviously, the Senate did not include those cuts. Can the majority leader tell me at this point in time if there has been any resolution of this issue, as to where we might stand on those Medicaid cuts. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for that information. Again, I do not know the accuracy of the letter in terms of the numbers of people, but there seemed to be a fair number of people, there were over 40, on the letter which appeared to agree with the Senate's view, obviously a large number on this side who share that view as well. Perhaps we might have some discussions about reaching agreement on that issue at some point in time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker's comment. This is not a bipartisan bill. That does not mean that some Democrats will not vote for it, but none of the ranking members were involved in this policy, and they are not voting for it. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America needs an energy strategy that not only reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, but also strengthens our national security. As a bipartisan group of 26 national security officials, including Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's National Security Adviser, and Jim Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA Director, recently stated in a letter to President Bush: ``It should be a top national security priority of the United States to significantly reduce its consumption of foreign oil. The United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk to our homeland security and to our economic well-being.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Republican energy bill does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. In fact, at a time of record profits for the oil and gas industries, these traditional energy producers stand to reap 93 percent of the tax incentives in this bill, or $7.5 billion. Do we know who said they did not need it? The President of the United States, George W. Bush said that just a day ago. Renewable energy and conservation receive only 7 percent of the resources allotted in this bill. This bill is simply a rehash of the same policies and incentives that have made us more, not less, energy dependent. It would provide more than $22 billion to the oil and gas and other energy industries in tax breaks, direct spending, and authorizations. Does anybody who is paying $2.50 or $3 at the pump think that the energy companies are hurting for dollars? I think not. It would shift the costs of MTBE cleanup from manufacturers to the American taxpayers. I think most Americans do not think that is a good policy. Furthermore, the problem with it is, that is why we do not have an energy bill, because the majority leader demanded of the Senate that that be in there, and the Senate would not take it. It would weaken the Clean Air Act and, unbelievably, this Republican bill would actually increase gas prices by 3 cents per gallon, according to the Bush administration's own Energy Department. Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for gasoline. There is a reason that this energy bill is going nowhere fast. It is bad policy, and it fails to address the energy needs of this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for informing us of that schedule. Mr. Leader, tomorrow is a day on which the conference report on the budget is supposed to be adopted, as you well know. However, the House is yet to appoint conferees. When might we appoint conferees, given the fact that we are already behind schedule?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I think we both agree on that. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) wanted to say something, but I wanted to say you were right on the process. I was incorrect on the process. It was a separate vote on a separate package, and you are right that I and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others voted against it. It was not on these provisions as you know because a change was made, not in a partisan sense, according to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to explain his perception and recollection of the process.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, we obviously have a disagreement in the perceptions as to what the rule does and does not do. I think both you and I are very concerned about the reputation and integrity of this House. I think you share that view and I share that view. It is my suggestion that resolving this in a way that is bipartisan will be productive for the House. Mr. Hefley, the former chairman, I do not agree with Mr. Hefley on a lot of things, but I do agree with his perception of how we protect the integrity of the House. There may be people on my side of the aisle who agree with your perception and not mine. I understand that. The fact is, though, that it would be in the best interest of this House and this country for us to resolve these matters in a bipartisan way either through, as our leader has proposed, a commission to be a joint commission equally divided, as was the Livingston-Cardin commission, or, in the alternative, to consider H.R. 131. The leader is absolutely right, and I made that aside, as you recall. We did vote against the rules package, but we had agreed to the components, and there was no controversy about the ethics component in the rules package. There were other things with which we disagreed, obviously, but that was an agreement, and it was reached in a bipartisan fashion. This was not reached in a bipartisan fashion. And, yes, as both parties usually did, I can remember, it is getting more difficult to remember, but I can remember when we were in charge and your side used to vote unanimously against our rules package and we pretty much do the same because we have some disagreements. But there was agreement on the rules package as it related to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the reason for that is because both sides felt it to be very important.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I thank you for taking the time. I know you did not have to, and you have been considerate of this discussion because you and I know it is an important discussion. Because it is an important discussion, I would hope that we could move forward to try to get us off this impasse that we have for whatever reasons. And whatever is right or wrong, it needs to be resolved. There are two suggestions here of how to resolve it. There may be other ways to resolve it. But I would hope that in the coming days we could move towards, in a bipartisan fashion, move towards resolving this issue.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. HOYER. I will yield back to him.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the leader.

Mr. HOYER. Very briefly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just for 1 minute.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time and certainly yield to the leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank again the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks. We see it differently, Mr. Leader. What we have created is the ability of both sides to stop investigations in their tracks. Both sides. Our side, if we block up, and our five say you are not going to investigate Steny Hoyer, they can do it. Formerly they could not do that. And I believe your analogy is not apt, and I want to tell you why I think so, Mr. Leader. The investigation is the gathering of facts, not the charging, not the finding of involvement. We do not use the term ``guilt,'' but the finding of involvement. It is an investigation to gather the facts from which the decision-makers, whether it be a grand jury or a petit jury, whether it be a judge or whether it be a prosecutor who determines whether to bring an indictment. Once those decision-makers have the facts, they can then make a rational decision, we hope. What we have done, however, in changing the rules, which were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, is to allow either side to preclude the investigator from gathering the facts. That is as if we could preclude the police or the FBI or others from gathering facts that they would then, in turn, submit to a decision-maker, whether a grand jury to bring an indictment, a prosecutor to bring a charge, a petit jury to bring a conviction. I think that is inaccurate

Mr. HOYER. I certainly will yield to the leader, but before I do, do you see my point, Mr. Leader? Either one of us could protect ourselves. Either one of us, your side could protect yourselves by your five holding firm. Our side could protect ourselves by holding firm. That may protect us individually, but our position is it does not protect the institution, and that is what our concern is. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. No, sir. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Obviously he articulates reasons that he believes this bill is an important piece of legislation. In light of the fact that the Speaker has not yet decided who he wants to appoint as conferees, does the gentleman have any thought as to when we might contemplate having the conference committee meet and then, of course, the conference report on the floor? I ask that from two perspectives: one, as the representative of the party who would like to know what is going on, as I am sure the gentleman would as well; and, secondly as an appropriator. As the gentleman knows, until the conference committee report is adopted, it has the appropriations committees somewhat in limbo as it relates to allocations to the committees and then allowing us to make the 302(b) allocations. Mr. Speaker, I yield further to my friend in terms of what expectations he might have as to timing from this point to when we might adopt a budget, in light of the fact it is my understanding from the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that there is hope that we will start to mark up bills sometime in mid-May. I do not know whether the majority leader has the same understanding or not.

Mr. HOYER. I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation. My presumption is then, Mr. Chairman, before he leaves the floor, my presumption would be, for the Members of the House and also for the members of the Committee on Appropriations, that the Committee on Appropriations will proceed as if the House numbers were the numbers? Am I correct on that? I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, the business that the gentleman from Texas has set forth for next week is the energy business. Given the schedule the gentleman has just announced, would the gentleman expect the bill to be on the floor both Wednesday and Thursday?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader. Given the time that is allocated to this bill, I presume, as the Leader has apparently indicated, that it is the expectation of the Committee on Rules to have a full amendatory process. My expectation is you are not going to have a fully open rule but that you would have some modified open rule. Am I correct on that? I yield to the gentleman from Texas.