Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. With respect to the class action, the gentleman indicated, as I understand it, that that bill has passed the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

Mr. HOYER. It would be fair to assume, then, that certainly it is not going to be in the next 2 or 3 weeks? Yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that. And you answered my second question. The energy bill you had brought up in our previous colloquy, can you tell us where that might stand at this point this time?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, thank you for that. I understand we may receive the President's tsunami supplemental appropriations next week. Do you anticipate we may also receive the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental request as well?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, no one is suggesting unanimity. I understand that. We are suggesting, though, that we work together on this issue. And the mere fact that we have the ability to get a large number of votes for a bill is critically important. Your observation is correct in terms of numbers necessary to pass the constitutional amendment or to pass other legislation by two-thirds. It is obviously important. But it is equally important, it seems to me, and might facilitate passage of this through the entire Congress, not just through the House of Representatives, to have input from the leadership of both parties to try to come to grips with what I perceive not to be a partisan issue, but a difficult issue on which constitutional scholars have differed as to how we can do this, on which Members of this House on both sides of the aisle have differed. But we do not need to pursue it. I understand the gentleman's point. But I would hope that we could have significant discussions about this and hopefully come to agreement of the minds. Mr. Leader, we are not going to have a scheduling colloquy next week because it will be the Presidents' Day recess. But can you indicate what we may have on the floor the week that we return from the Presidents' Day recess?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I understand what you are saying in terms of the number of folks who voted for it. There were a very substantial number who voted for it. This is not a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. This is a practical judgment as to how constitutionally and appropriately within the framework of our democracy and representation that we frame or have legislation framed so that does reflect the interests of our democracy as well as the interest of ensuring continuity. From that perspective of not just having a number of votes for it, but having the leadership on both sides, I do not mean necessarily the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and myself, but the committee leadership on both sides, whether it is the Committee on Rules, Committee on the Judiciary or any other committee that might consider it somewhat in agreement.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the reason, Mr. Leader, I asked that question because of the very high respect I have for the gentleman's influence with that committee; and I thought, therefore, the gentleman might have some inkling as to what might be done. I say that somewhat jokingly, but I really do believe that if we are going to take the bill that the Senate sends over, bring it directly to the floor without committee consideration, that not only in a sense of fairness but in a sense of getting the input of the 125 to 130 million people that this side of the aisle represents, that we give us the opportunity to offer such amendments as we think to be appropriate with respect to that legislation. Mr. Leader, with respect to the continuity of Congress, this has been an issue we tried to deal with in the past. It is a very important issue with which we should deal. I know at times I have talked to the gentleman and the Speaker and particularly to my friend, the majority whip, with reference to having a bipartisan proposal so that both parties, on an issue of great magnitude to this institution in terms of continuity and how do we form a majority to take action, has this been to the gentleman's knowledge, and I do not have that knowledge. I have not talked to anybody on the Committee on Rules or any other committee out of which this might have come. Does the gentleman know whether or not we have bipartisan agreement with respect to the legislation the gentleman intends to put on the floor next week?

Mr. HOYER. As the leader knows, we have been for that process from time to time when there seemed to be agreement between the two Houses. Obviously, however, Mr. Leader, as the gentleman knows, what that does is it precludes Democrats from participating in committee consideration, offering amendments in committee to the subject legislation. My question to the gentleman is, in the event that that is done, would the gentleman bring that to the floor with an open rule that would allow amendments to be offered as Members see fit so that we could have some full consideration of that piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, I know in the past the gentleman has been very reluctant to simply take the Senate's work product, and I am somewhat shocked that the gentleman apparently suggests that process now. I do not know whether that is going to be a precedent for the future. But may I ask the gentleman, is it his contemplation that it would come directly to the floor and not go to committee for consideration?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for referencing the Committee on Ways and Means, but I certainly agree with him that having the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) work closely together, and perhaps their respective Chairs of the subcommittees that might deal with that work together, would be very, very useful to accomplishing an objective as opposed to simply passing a bill that then languishes in the Congress and never gets to the President. If, in fact, we consider that, and it sounds to me like we certainly do not have enough information to determine whether or not the week after next the energy bill might be on the floor, but if and when it comes to the floor, Mr. Leader, would you contemplate the possibility of having an open rule on that piece of legislation, given its importance and scope? I am happy to yield to the gentleman for a response, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I presume the gentleman is talking about merged at some later date. Obviously, the must-pass bill would not be available next week. Am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. So the gentleman is talking about merging it at some time in the future after passage?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, with respect to the energy bill, it is my understanding that there is some discussion that the energy bill may proceed not next week but the week following. Can you tell me whether that is a reasonable possibility, or probability?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, I might say that I think all of us understand the importance of energy legislation. All of us understand the necessity to become energy independent. I would suggest, in that framework, that I think personally that we can pass an energy bill. Obviously, there are some items that are in the energy bill or that are proposed for the energy bill that have significant opposition on one side of the aisle or the other. I would hope, Mr. Leader, if we could, in working with the various committee Chairs, and I suppose most primarily the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in this respect, to come to as bipartisan an agreement on the substance of that bill so that we could see it not just pass through the House of Representatives, which may be interesting in terms of the political claim that we passed it, but which does nothing for our energy independence, which is, I think, our objective. So I would hope that we could deal with this in as bipartisan a fashion as possible so that when we send it to the other body that we may have more success there, more success out of conference, and send a bill to the President that will facilitate both energy independence and the effective and efficient discovery, development, and delivery at retail to the consumer of energy options. I do not know whether you want to say anything.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would hope on that bill, because of its great importance to the security of the Nation and to all of our consumers of energy, which is to say all of us, that we would have as broad a consideration of it as possible so that we could get everybody's ideas put on the floor, voted up or down, and move the bill with as big a consensus as we can accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the schedule. With reference to the Real ID bill, Mr. Leader, can you tell us at this point in time the type of rule that that will be considered under; and, in particular, what amendments, not necessarily specific amendments, but whether amendments will be allowed, motions to recommit, and items of that nature.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and his leadership. We had the opportunity to travel recently to Iraq, to Amman, and to Israel. Both Israel and Iraq have now passed through two very historic elections. I had the opportunity of speaking about the Palestinian election just recently. Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have differences over our Nation's military action in Iraq, I supported the effort and will support the funding to accomplish the objectives. But I have made valid criticisms, as others have, of the administration's administration or execution of the policy. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us are united today, hopefully, in saluting the courageous Iraqi people who turned out to vote on Sunday. I know that every Member of the body commends the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform whose patriotism and professionalism made this important day possible. We must hope that 50 years from now a future generation of Iraqis can look back at this election, this event, as a turning point in the history of their nation and as a victory for freedom over tyranny, for democracy over despotism. After toiling under the boot of Saddam Hussein for decades and weathering a vicious terrorist insurgency over the last 2 years, the Iraqi people said no, no to intimidation, and yes to the most basic democratic right, the right to vote. Sunday's election, Mr. Speaker, in which millions of Iraqis cast ballots, is a stunning repudiation of those who despise freedom and democracy. Zarkawi, that criminal leader of terrorist activity and insurgency in Iraq, said it accurately for the terrorists: They despise democracy. They despise freedom. They fear the decisions of free people. That is why they tried to intimidate the Iraqi people. Having lived under the totalitarian Saddam Hussein regime all these years, however, the Iraqi people know that the insurgents offer nothing but further repression and violence. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting the out-of- country voting station in New Carrollton, Maryland, and watched as many of these Iraqis Diaspora cast their votes freely for the first time in their lives. The joy and pride on their faces and in their hearts had to move everyone with whom they spoke. It was a moving moment, it was an historic moment, and it was a poignant reminder to all of us that our rights, while God-given, must never be taken for granted; a reminder that the cost of protecting those freedoms is sometimes high, and we must honor those with the courage and commitment even for others across the sea to protect those rights in the realization that democracies and free people are safer for us here at home than the tyrannies that have prevailed in history. Without question, Mr. Speaker, there are difficult days ahead. The truly hard work that remains in establishing a viable, stable democracy that is capable of maintaining internal order in Iraq is not finished by far. But today, today at least, Mr. Speaker, let us celebrate the courage of the Iraqi people and express our gratitude and pride in the bravery of our Armed Forces, our men and women in uniform who made that day possible.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join my colleagues and friend, the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who I presume has already spoken, in urging Members on both sides of the aisle in supporting this important bipartisan resolution that we have offered. Over the last half century, the Members of this body have seldom had occasion to commend those on the Palestinian side whose cause, in my opinion, was hijacked by a leadership that preached death and destruction rather than reconciliation and peace. But today we would be remiss if we did not do so. Three weeks ago on January 9 an estimated 70 percent of the 1.1 million registered Palestinian voters turned out to cast their ballots in an election that was declared fair by most international observers. This strong turnout, in my judgment, not only reflects the universal appeal of democracy but also the human heart's yearning for freedom and self-determination. This resolution commends the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair election and congratulates the new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, who has previously disavowed terrorist activity and recently earned the praise of Israel for deploying more Palestinian security forces in Gaza to try to halt rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens. Among other provisions, this resolution urges the new Palestinian leadership to advance democratic ideals by reforming its political structure, advancing human rights and ending corruption. It strongly condemns terrorism and urges President Abbas to immediately take steps to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, to bring terrorists to justice, and to end the incitement of hatred in the Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and other institutions. It restates our Nation's strong commitment to and support, unwavering support, for the State of Israel. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the election of President Abbas is an important opportunity and could prove to be an historical turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has made repeated overtures over its history in an effort to speak peace, and, today, it continues to move forward with its withdrawal plan in the Gaza strip. Tragically, over the past 5 decades its efforts were consistently rebuffed by the Arafat-led Palestinian leadership. Without question, there are great challenges ahead, but the election of President Abbas hopefully marks a new day, a day in which the Palestinian leadership becomes a serious, committed partner, a partner for peace in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a giant in the area of human rights and supporting democratic efforts throughout the world, for his leadership, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her unending efforts, in concert with the rest of us, to ensure that this Nation stands by Israel but stands with those in the Palestinian population who reach out for peace and partnership and a better tomorrow for all of the people of that troubled area of the world, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the additional time.