[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12589-12590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, 
the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's 
schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 
postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
legislative business.
  On Friday, as is our custom, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the end of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, we will consider H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security 
Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through 
Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 out of the Small Business Committee, and 
House amendments to S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act 
of 2009.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us which 
days he expects the House to consider the bills that he has just 
announced, and I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that question.
  We are not sure exactly which days which bill will be considered, but 
I think they will probably be considered in the order that they are 
listed. But whether they will be Wednesday and Thursday or Wednesday, 
Thursday, and Friday, I'm not exactly sure. The suspension bills will 
probably be considered most of Tuesday. I might also say, as the 
gentleman knows, there are a number of bills pending that may come from 
conference, and we will address those bills when and if they do come 
back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, the House 
will break for Memorial Day recess at the end of next week, and since 
we will not have another colloquy before that recess, I wonder if the 
majority leader could outline what he expects the House to consider 
during the 4 weeks that we are in session in June.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First let me say to all Members that I advise them to advise their 
schedulers not to schedule Fridays in June or July. We're off, 
obviously, for a week in July for the July 4 work period, but other 
than that, I would urge all Members to make sure their schedulers 
understand that we may well be here late into afternoons on each and 
every one of the Fridays. Now, why? First of all, we're going to 
consider the Defense Authorization bill and the State Department 
Authorization bills. But in addition to that, we will be considering 
the appropriation bills.
  It is my hope and objective--and Mr. Whip, you and I have briefly 
talked and we are going to talk again about the scheduling of these 
bills--to pass all of the appropriations bills, as Senator Inouye has 
indicated he would like to do as well, pass all the appropriations 
bills, individually, through the Senate and through the House so that 
we might conference those bills and have them on the floor in the 
regular order. Those, obviously, 12 bills will take up much of those 2 
months.
  In addition to that, of course, the committees are considering major 
pieces of legislation dealing with energy independence and global 
warming, as well as health care. Now, we do not know whether or not 
they might be ready for the floor or when they might be ready for the 
floor, but Members ought to know that those are bills that are clearly 
on our radar screen to be put on the agenda when they are ready.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And as he has 
indicated, the cap-and-trade bill and health care reform are items that 
he indicated may or may not be considered in June, but perhaps during 
the 2-month period of June and July. But, Madam Speaker, the gentleman 
did not mention the Panama Trade Agreement or Card Check, and I was 
wondering if the gentleman, the majority leader, could tell us his 
expectations as to whether the House will be considering those measures 
over the next 4 weeks after the Memorial Day recess.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I think that, with respect to both those bills, obviously 
the Senate is discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and whether or 
not they are going to be moving ahead on that. We hope they will. We 
believe this is a very important and good piece of legislation, but we 
also know that there are discussions in the Senate with respect to the 
various provisions of that bill.

                              {time}  1630

  This House, as the gentleman knows, passed that bill pretty handily 
through the House last year, in the last Congress. So we are hopeful 
that the Senate will take action and the bill will be in a form that 
will be effected.
  With respect to the Panama Canal Treaty, that has not been submitted 
by the administration yet, and we will have to wait to see when they 
will submit that bill. I do know, as you know, that Mr. Kirk has 
indicated that the administration has discussed the possibility of 
submitting that trade agreement.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I further say to the gentleman, the majority leader, 
that we've had a discussion on the floor today about the potential 
transfer and release of terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay. 
There's also been significant debate on the interrogation of these 
terrorist suspects, including the potential for congressional hearings 
and possible legislation.
  I say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, the Speaker of the House has 
signaled her intent to create a truth commission to investigate CIA 
interrogation tactics. I was wondering, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman 
could tell us the status of that truth commission and when we might 
expect such a commission to be formed and perhaps produce legislation 
that would

[[Page 12590]]

come to the House floor to be voted upon.
  Mr. HOYER. There has been discussion of such a commission. I have 
supported such a commission. The Speaker has discussed it as well, as 
the gentleman correctly points out. At this point in time, however, 
there has been no action taken on the creation of such commission.
  So at this point in time, I certainly wouldn't anticipate when and if 
legislation might come to the floor. I would not be surprised if 
committees of Congress, however, did, in fact, take cognizance of both 
of the issues the gentleman raises, and there might possibly be 
legislation from committees. The commission is under active 
consideration.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to the majority leader that there is a 
concern on this side of the aisle to make sure that any investigation, 
if there is a creation of a truth commission, as the Speaker has 
indicated she would like to see, that there be a process by which a 
clear discussion, if you will, revelation as to whether Members of 
Congress, which Members of Congress and maybe the Speaker herself was 
briefed on the process, on the interrogation tactic of waterboarding 
and would ask the gentleman, is it his intention that if such a 
commission were to be formed that type of open process would be 
followed?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I certainly think that an open process would be followed.
  But let me say to the gentleman, as I have said in the press, and he 
may have read it, much has been said about who knew what, when and 
where. Very frankly, my view is what the substance of this issue is 
what was done, why was it done, and was it done consistent with the 
law.
  There is much opinion that it was a violation of the law and a 
violation of international law. That is the issue that this country 
needs to look at. That is the issue that this country needs to examine 
so that going forward, this country makes a determination as to what is 
lawful conduct.
  In fact, of course, the former President of the United States made it 
very clear and enunciated, this country does not torture. The problem 
with that representation, as the gentleman clearly knows, is that many 
legal experts have indicated that, in fact, torture occurred. So from 
that perspective, I would tell my friend that what ought to happen is 
we ought to look at the substance of whether, who knew what, when, why 
is a distraction. That is my view, I will tell my friend. It is a 
beating on the table.
  What we really need to do is find the facts of what was done, what 
was the rationale for doing it, was it legal; if it was not legal, why 
did we pursue it; and was it consistent with our international 
obligations. And as so many generals have indicated, do we want to 
subject our own people to such conduct when and if they may be in 
custody by a foreign power or terrorist?
  So I say to my friend that I understand the beating on the table, if 
you will. But from my own personal perspective, that's not the issue on 
either side of the aisle, who knew what or when they knew it. What is 
the issue is what was done. That is my presumption of what a commission 
would do. I presume as well that committees of this Congress may be 
interested in that.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I think there is certainly a concern to ensure that all laws have 
been followed. Certainly our primary concern is to make sure that we 
are protecting Americans in everything we do. And given the growing 
threat globally, the terrorist threat that we face, all of us share in 
that end.
  But I would say to the gentleman that somehow there have been 
statements made by the Speaker and others indicating a certain 
preconceived bias, like a belief that perhaps the CIA or others have 
somehow misled us.
  I do think the gentleman is correct in saying that we need to focus 
on what kind of practices occurred, but I also think that in an ongoing 
manner, to ensure compliance with the law, we need to understand if 
there is some type of preconceived bias, as was indicated in some of 
the public statements that may have been made today. And I do think 
that the gentleman would agree, openness and an indication of a 
predisposition prior to the revelation now of who knew what when may be 
somehow shaping the bias in these discussions.
  I share with the gentleman the notion, we need to follow the law. But 
if there is somehow a belief--and I'd ask the gentleman whether he 
shares this belief--that somehow the CIA or others have intentionally 
misled this body, because that seems to be some concern that has been 
raised today.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I have no idea of that. I don't have a belief of that 
nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. I 
certainly hope that's not the case. I don't draw that conclusion.
  What I say to the gentleman, once again, is that to a degree, that is 
a distraction. It is not irrelevant, but it is a distraction from the 
central point. I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much 
discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done.
  The truth commission I think has a responsibility--or whatever we 
call a commission that would look at this issue--not so much for what 
was done but to ensure that what we do going forward is legal, 
consistent with our values, consistent with our morals, and consistent, 
as the gentleman points out, with protecting our Nation and our people.
  In my view, we have a responsibility to do all of those. In my view, 
we can do all of those. They are not inconsistent with one another. And 
that is what I think we ought to be looking at as we look at what 
happened so that what happens in the future--because certainly this 
Nation is going to be under threat now and in the future. I think it's 
very important. I frankly think that upholding our values is consistent 
with also protecting our security.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I remain concerned. And I think it is shared by my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle that if it is the intent of the Speaker and the 
majority leader to pursue a truth commission surrounding the 
investigation of terrorists and the interrogation tactics employed, 
that we do know what interaction this body had, the Members of this 
body and its committees had, in the oversight of the tactics that were 
employed. Because if we are all concerned about following the law, 
which we should be first and foremost here, and if there was 
acquiescence, if there was knowledge on the part of this body, but yet 
now allegations made suggesting that certain tactics were used and were 
against the law, that raises serious questions about the ability for 
this body going forward to properly exercise its oversight authority so 
we do uphold the law.
  That would be our concern over here, Madam Speaker, that we make sure 
that there is a full vetting of what transpired so that we don't repeat 
the type of mistakes perhaps or we don't repeat the omission of action, 
if you will, on the part of this body.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________