Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information on the schedule. As the gentleman knows, we just passed a farm bill and I'm wondering how soon he might expect to move to go to conference on that bill. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I am glad to hear that we will go to conference as soon as possible so we can consider that important piece of legislation. As the gentleman knows, there are substantial differences between the House and the Senate, and the sooner we get that bill done and whole, I think the better we will be. You mentioned the Defense appropriations bill is coming to the floor. Does the gentleman expect that to be coming to the floor with an open rule? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Was that a ``yes''?

Mr. HOYER. Well, the good news is I don't have time to discuss that today, but perhaps at some time we will. Immigration. Obviously, the Senate, as the gentleman so well knows, has passed a major piece of legislation, passed it 68-32. That bill is, I believe, now with us. Can the gentleman tell us when we might be expecting immigration legislation on the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I'm pleased to hear that. Of course, former President George Bush said, as the gentleman knows, just a few days ago, that we have a problem. The laws governing the immigration system aren't working, the system is broken, and he urged us to pass a bill. The chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has said the same thing that I think the gentleman just said. We are very hopeful that we will bring a comprehensive, which we believe is absolutely essential, immigration bill to the floor and to realization so we can fix a broken system. And, yes, give a pathway to citizenship for those who meet the criteria that we would set forth. But I thank the gentleman for his comments; and if he would like to respond further, I'd yield. If not, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, beginning this week, literally hundreds of thousands of civilian workers are being furloughed at defense installations in Maryland's Fifth District, across the State, and around the country. That means as of Monday, more than 650,000 hardworking, middle class defense employees are being forced to take a 20 percent pay cut for the remainder of the fiscal year. It isn't because they are not doing their job well; they are. It isn't because they don't have enough work; they do. And it isn't because we don't need their talents, their experience, and their dedication to service; we need them more now than ever. These employees are being furloughed because Congress has failed. Congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way. In fact, we passed a budget through the House of Representatives; the United States Senate has passed a budget. But the House of Representatives, Republican leadership, refuses to go to conference, refuses to follow regular order for which they've called so frequently, refuses to try to bring a compromise agreement back to this floor. This Congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way. Instead, we now have the sequester--a senseless, stupid, irrational policy. It's a real shame, Mr. Speaker, that partisan politics is keeping some of our country's best and brightest from doing their jobs supporting our warfighters as they serve in Afghanistan and around the world. Last Tuesday, I met with some of the outstanding men and women who work in civilian defense jobs at Pax River Naval Air Station in my district. When you go to Pax River, you often see uniformed and civilian personnel sitting side by side, working to accomplish the same mission, serving with the same dedication, partners in making our government stronger and making our defense stronger, each complementing the work of the other. Now, as a result of these furloughs, one of them will get a 20 percent pay cut. One of them will be told to go home. One of them will be told you can't even volunteer to come back and get the job done. And the other will get one day a week of having to carry out the mission alone. At that meeting, I heard from members of the Pax River community who are deeply concerned about the effects of these furloughs on our military readiness, our ongoing missions, on Department morale, and on the local economy. They were concerned about themselves, but they were mainly concerned about the job that was going to be left undone, finished late, undermining our security. One person scheduled to be furloughed this Friday told me: I have a strong work ethic, and I want to get the job done, whether it's late nights and weekends. And I'm worried someone will come to me on a Thursday and I'll have to say, I can't get the job done until Monday. Because, Mr. Speaker, we are telling that person you can't come to work. Another employee who was there last Tuesday emailed me afterward about the upcoming furlough writing: There are many people in this organization who stretch themselves day after day, happily, to get the work done that needs to get done to support the Department of Defense and the warfighter. I will tell you, and so many Members on both sides of the aisle have met these folks, not these specific folks perhaps at Pax, but around this country who are dedicated, patriotic, hardworking, and want to make sure that their country is strong and that we serve our people. This one constituent continues: ``I've already started to see some of these same people giving less of themselves because they feel our Congressmen,'' that's meaning all of us, ``and our country no longer put value in what they do.'' We are undermining the morale of the American workers. We are undermining the ability of the American Government to be as effective with respect to national defense as it needs to be. Mr. Speaker, this sequester is harming morale and may lead skilled employees to leave for the private sector just when we need them most. The effects of the sequester extend beyond the gates of our installations and affect entire communities with local businesses standing to lose as a result of belt tightening by families experiencing furloughs. At the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, also in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, 97 percent of civilian personnel will be furloughed. That's more than 1,870 people. Mr. Speaker, there's no reason why our civilian defense workers should be kept from doing their job just because Congress hasn't done its job. As long as the sequester remains in effect, and as long as Republicans refuse to compromise on a balanced approach to deficits that can end it, I'll keep coming to this floor and remind them exactly what is at stake. And I continue to call on Speaker Boehner to end the unnecessary delay in appointing budget conferees, which would be a significant step toward beginning negotiations in earnest that could lead to a big and balanced compromise on deficits. We need to bring deficits down. We need to get our country on a fiscally sustainable path, but we need to do so in a rational way which does not undermine our national security, does not undermine the services being rendered to the people who are relying on them, and that does not send a message to our employees and those whom we need to recruit in the future that we are a good employer, we're a caring employer, we're an effective employer, and you ought to work for us, you ought to work for your country, for your fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, we need to go to conference. We need to get rid of the sequester. We need to put America on a rational path to fiscal responsibility and effectiveness.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania--Philadelphia, in particular. I had the great honor of serving as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus when Bill Gray was chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and I had the honor of succeeding Bill Gray as chairman of the Democratic Caucus when he became the whip, the Democratic whip of our caucus. Bill Gray was a very good friend of mine. I had the honor of serving with him, saw him as chairman of the Budget Committee, and all the roles that the gentleman from Philadelphia said. I will have further things to say later in the week. I want to thank the gentleman for rising to honor a historic American, first African American leader in our party; but much more than that, an extraordinary individual, as the gentleman from Philadelphia has pointed out. I join in a moment of silence in honor of our friend, a great American, a great Member of this body, and a great leader in his church and, as the gentleman has pointed out, United Negro College Fund, which gave so many opportunities to so many millions of young people in this country. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I know that I--before I get to my remarks--join all the House in saying thank you to your father and to the Greatest Generation, who not only fought the terrorists of their time but came home and built the greatest economy the world has ever seen and gave us all opportunities of our generation. I'm older than you are, but of our generation. So I thank you for your comments. I know that your father is extraordinarily proud of you and extraordinarily proud of the remarks you just made showing how proud you are of him. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the majority party is set to recess this House for a week, leaving in place their economy-stifling and irrational policy of sequester. We talked about the Greatest Generation. I fear that this generation is going to be the greediest generation, who are not going to leave our children the great economy that was left to us but will leave an economy that is limping because of the policies that we pursued and the debt that we have incurred. When sequester took effect 17 weeks ago, it was the culmination of an effort by the extreme wing of the majority party to impose severe and senseless cuts across the Federal Government without regard for the real consequences to our economy, our national security, and our most vulnerable citizens. Let me review just some of its many consequences. Head Start and title I: We will lose between 70,000 and 130,000 seats in Head Start for some of the most vulnerable children in America; 10,000 teachers' jobs will be at risk in title I to teach some of our most vulnerable children. Social Security Administration: Furloughs will cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims. Nutrition for vulnerable populations: Four million fewer Meals on Wheels for our seniors who rely on them for a daily nutritional meal. Housing: 125,000 housing vouchers, perhaps more, will be eliminated for people who need housing. Unemployment insurance: Emergency unemployment insurance past 26 weeks will be cut 11 percent for people who cannot find a job, in part because there has been no jobs legislation put on this floor since we've been here this year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honored to rise tonight to lead a Special Order which honors a great American, a great colleague, and a great legislator whose service to this country and to this institution have been unmatched. It is appropriate that we rise tonight--appropriate particularly in light of the action that was taken and has been discussed today on the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, let me observe tangentially that the gentleman from Texas said something about cramming something down somebody's throat-- the Voting Rights Act. I will remind my colleagues that it was passed 388-23 in this House and 98-0 in the Senate in 2006. Let me say we honor a man tonight who not only voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but has voted for every reauthorization of that act since that time. John Dingell came to Congress as a Member in 1955, winning a special election to fill the seat held by his father, John Dingell, Sr., who himself served from 1933-1955. John Dingell and his father have represented the people of southeastern Michigan in this House for eight decades. What an extraordinary testimony to the faith of their voters and the constancy and loyalty of their representation. But very frankly, ladies and gentlemen, John's story in Congress actually began earlier than 1955. It really began in 1938, which is to say John Dingell, a year before I was born, and I'm one of the older Members. He came here as a young House page. We don't have the pages anymore, but nearly all of us remember seeing the pages, wide-eyed, sitting along the desk up front, sitting in the back, listening to speeches and watching floor proceedings as they waited to carry messages. That was John Dingell three-quarters of a century ago. The House of Representatives has been part of his life, and he has been part of it, for 75 years. On December 8, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, 15-year-old John Dingell was in this Chamber as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stood at the rostrum and asked Congress to declare war against Japan, whose forces had just attacked Pearl Harbor on that day to which he referred as a ``day that will live in infamy.'' President Roosevelt spoke these words: With the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. Throughout his time in this House, as a page, as the son of a Congressman, as a Member himself, as a committee chairman, and as a leader on issues of national importance, John Dingell has taught us, who have served with him, that America's triumph is only inevitable if we bring to bear the unbounded determination of which President Roosevelt spoke. In John Dingell's record 57 years and 188 days as a Member of Congress, he has approached our greatest challenges with his own unrivaled determination. In every Congress, for half a century, he continued his father's work of introducing legislation to expand health care coverage to all Americans, even in the many years when no one thought it possible to do so. But John Dingell stuck with it. He stuck with it and eventually had the opportunity to help shape and vote for the Affordable Care Act, which will extend to millions and millions of Americans access to affordable, quality health care. Millions of Americans owe John Dingell a debt of gratitude for his faithfulness and the advocacy of their best interest. John, in fact, was presiding over this House when it enacted Medicare in 1965. I told you he voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but he presided over the adoption of Medicare. And he helped write the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the 1990 Clean Air Act, among many historic pieces of legislation that he has authored, fought for, and seen adopted. But John has done more in this Chamber than shepherd key legislation to passage. He has been an unwavering voice for the working families and small business owners not just of southeastern Michigan, but of all America. He has been a giant in promoting and preserving the great American automobile industry and the millions of jobs that rely on it. He has been a mentor and a friend to me and so many current and former Members of the House. My colleagues, John Dingell is a living link to an era when bipartisan compromise was a practiced reality, not just a slogan, not just something we say we're going to do, but something that was actually done. Members looked to John Dingell for his quick wit, his tenacious spirit, his extraordinary knowledge of legislation, and of the history of this House, and, yes, his warm heart. John loves this House and has always worked to preserve its collegiality and its good order. His unrivaled skill as a legislator is matched by his sense of decency, his integrity, and his devotion to country. And he has never lost that determination that was sparked as FDR called our Nation to arms and to service. John Dingell took up arms. He served in the United States Army from 1944-1946 as a second lieutenant who prepared to take part in the first wave of a planned invasion of Japan. Fortunately, that invasion did not occur; but John Dingell, as always, was ready, willing, and able. John Dingell, my colleagues, as all of you know, has served America and its people for most of his life. But it is not the length of his service that we honor alone. It is even more importantly the quality of his service, the depth of his commitment, and the strength of his character that we honor tonight, and John Dingell who we honor always. We are all better Representatives because of his example. I congratulate my friend on 75 years--75 years--in the House of Representatives, 57 of them as a Member. John Dingell has, with diligence, faithfulness, extraordinary skill and judgment, courage and fidelity to God and country, lived up to President Roosevelt's words. He has served with unbounded determination, and he has led a triumphant life. What an example for us all. A triumphant life not because he won every fight, but because he never gave up. He never was unfaithful to his oath of office. He was never unfaithful to his pledge to support working men and women and, yes, everybody in this country. My colleagues, John Dingell today is much like Tennyson's Ulysses who said: We are not now that strength which in old days moved heaven and Earth. That which we are, we are; on equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. John Dingell, he pledged to his people when first elected to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. And he has, indeed, done all of those. He has kept the faith, and we expect him to be keeping the faith for years to come, for that is the spirit of my friend, my colleague, a great legislator, a great American, John Dingell of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back so Mr. Barrow can have the remaining balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would ask him a couple of questions about bills that are not on the announcement. The gentleman and I had a colloquy last week about student loans, that there's no action on those on the calendar for next week, if I'm correct. Knowing, as we know, that student loan rates will double in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, and in light of our discussion last week, can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will be some action taken by us prior to the July 4 break? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Very frankly, I wasn't going to mention what happened on the floor today, but the gentleman has brought it up. The gentleman is correct; the committee passed out a bipartisan bill. A lot of Democrats voted for that bill. The problem, of course, is that 62 Republicans voted against the bill as it was amended, notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was adopted, which we think was a draconian amendment that would have hurt the poorest citizens in our country very badly. So we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. I will tell my friend, very frankly, you did the same thing--not you personally, but your side of the aisle did the same thing with respect to the Homeland Security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the Appropriations Committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted with your side voting overwhelmingly for it, knowing full well that our side could not support that. So I tell you, with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, I wasn't going to bring up what happened today. But what happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill--necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America--that many of us would have supported and you turned it into a partisan bill. Very frankly, 58 of the 62 Republicans who voted against your bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious-- we disagreed with the $20 billion cut. And you upped the--not you personally, but your side upped the ante. So I will tell you, my friend, we're prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion. Very frankly, with respect to the student loan bill, it was very close to the President's bill. And we would have supported it had it been even closer to the President's bill. What your bill does, as you know, puts those taking out a student loan at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in the future. The President suggested, yes, let's get a variable rate that reflects market rates, but then when you take out the loan, just like you do with your house loan, you know what your interest rate is going to be. So we have a difference on that. I think it's a good faith disagreement on that. But I will say to you that, yes, I have been concerned about the inability to take a bill reported out of the committee that is bipartisan in nature and not turn it into a partisan bill. That's what happened on this floor today. It was unfortunate, as I say, for farmers; it was unfortunate for consumers; and it was unfortunate for our country. If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I will yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. We clearly have a profound disagreement. When we were in the majority, we got no help on your side, Mr. Majority Leader--you remember that, zero, one, two, three, four--on programs that we felt very strongly about. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan agreement. The gentleman refers to regular order. Very frankly, the person who talks about regular order most is your Speaker. And you talk about regular order. We ought to pass a bill, and then we ought to go and have an agreement. Some 90 days ago, I believe, we passed a budget. At your insistence, the Senate passed a budget. Good for them. We have not gone to conference. You have not provided an opportunity to go to conference. You haven't appointed conferees. That's regular order. The gentleman wants it on one bill but apparently not all bills. I tell my friend we want regular order. We want to go to conference. We want to undo the breaking of an agreement that we made in the Budget Control Act, which said there would be a firewall between domestic and defense. You have eliminated that firewall. You have assumed sequester is in place. Sequester is bad for this country. You and I tend to agree on that, I think. But the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester--except the legislation you talked about passing in the last Congress, which is dead, gone and buried. Yes, we want regular order. The reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your Members rejected Mr. Lucas' plea--which I thought was a very eloquent plea--in which he said: I know some of you don't think there's enough reform in this bill, and some of you think there's too much reform. But Mr. Peterson and I brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the majority of Democrats and the majority of--I think all Republicans, maybe, on the committee; I'm not sure of that, Mr. Leader. But the fact of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill--just as Homeland Security was a bipartisan bill--and it was turned into a partisan bill. You respond that the Southland amendment was for reforms. That's exactly what Mr. Lucas was talking about. He was saying some people don't think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. Mr. Southerland thought we hadn't gone far enough. And 58 Republicans voted for Southerland and then turned around and voted against the bill, the very reforms you're talking about. So don't blame Democrats for the loss today. You didn't bring up the farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. Last year you didn't even bring it to the floor because your party couldn't come together supporting their chairman's bill. So that's where we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to bring up that bill at all. What happened, happened. Very frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. We produced 218 votes for almost everything we put on this floor. Don't blame Democrats for the failure to bring 218 Republicans to your bipartisan Lucas-supported and Peterson-supported piece of legislation on the floor. We believe that that loss, that partisanship on this bill, hurt farmers, hurt consumers, hurt our country. Let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it as it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. I think it would pass. Maybe not because of your votes. That's been your problem all along. Don't blame Democrats for the loss of that bill. Don't blame Democrats for being partisan. We knew about those amendments, Mr. Leader, just as you knew about them. You knew we were very much opposed to some of those amendments, notwithstanding the fact all the leadership, I believe--I haven't looked at the record--voted for those amendments just as they voted for the King amendment on Homeland Security. Yeah, you pushed my button. I'm prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I'm not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it's said, This is what we agree on-- meaning your side--so you better take it if we're going to have any agreement. That's not the way it works. It never worked that way in America. That's not what America is about. America is about expecting us to work together. This bill was reported out overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. It could have been passed on a very large bipartisan vote, and was precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor, most of which we did not support. You knew we did not--not only you. Your party knew that we did not support. So I'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there's nothing--nothing--to do on the budget conference that you wanted the Senate to pass a budget. They did. You have just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together. You're assuming, of course, that the Senate would have gone to conference. I hope they would have, and I think they would have, because I talked to the chair. She would have wanted to go to conference, assuming we got votes on the Republican side of the aisle. But we also wanted to go to conference in regular order on the budget to solve the stark differences between the two parties. That's the only way you are going to get from where we are to where you need to be, by having a conference and trying to come to an agreement. My own premise is, Mr. Leader, that you don't have a conference because there is nothing to which Patty Murray could agree, that Mr. Ryan could agree, that he could bring back to your caucus and get a majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. We are $91 billion apart. If we divide it in two and just said, ``Okay, we'll split the difference,'' you couldn't pass it on your side of the aisle, and I think you know that. I don't know that I have any more questions that would be particularly useful, but I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the Democrats for his inability, and the Republicans' inability, to give a majority vote to their own bill. Maybe the American people, he thinks, can be fooled. You're in charge of the House. You have 234 Members. Sixty-two of your Members voted against your bill. That's why it failed. We didn't whine, very frankly, when we were in charge, when I was the majority leader, about we didn't pass the bill. We got 218 votes for our bills, and it was pretty tough. We got zero from your side. You got 24 from our side to help you. Mr. Peterson stuck to his deal. Now, on the budget, you say we've got different philosophies. Yes, we do. Mr. Gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different philosophies in 1997 or '98. He was speaking to your side of the aisle. He was talking about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' He made an agreement with President Clinton, which to some degree was responsible for having balanced budgets, but your side thought it was not a good deal. Not all of your side. In a bipartisan vote, frankly, we passed the deal, the agreement, the compromise, that was reached between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton. A lot of your folks said, No, no. Our way or the highway. He gave a speech that he called the ``Perfectionist Caucus'' speech. That's what, in my view, I'm hearing on the budget. Yes, we have differences. The American people elected a Democratic President. They elected a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The only way America's board of directors and President will work is if we come together and compromise. The place to compromise under regular order is in a conference with our ideas and their ideas meeting in conference. The most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. But you're not going to conference. Your side will not appoint conferees. Your side will not move to go to conference. Patty Murray wants to go to conference. Senator Reid wants to go to conference. Your side over on the Senate won't go to conference, in my view, largely because they know you don't want to go to conference and they don't want to make a deal, they don't want to compromise on what their position is. We will take no blame for the failure of the FARRM Bill--none, zero. As much as you try to say it, you can't get away from the statistic. Sixty-two, otherwise known as 25 percent, of your party voted against a bill, which is why we didn't bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out in a bipartisan fashion. I know you are going to continue and your side is going to continue to blame us that you couldn't get the votes on your side for your bill because you took a bipartisan bill. That's what Mr. Lucas was saying--I thought he was very articulate, I thought he was compelling--in pleading with your side: Join us, join us. It doesn't go as far as you would like. And on reform, you talk about reform, and that's a good thing to talk about, like we're against reform. The Senate bill has reform in it, Mr. Leader. The Senate bill has reform in it. Now, it's not in terms of dollars cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. It has reform in it. What some of them want--what apparently your side wants--is your reform, not compromised reform. Mr. Lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and couched it as reform and said on the floor it may not be enough for some and it may be too much for others, but it is a compromise. He was right, but it was rejected by 25 percent of your party--they rejected the chairman--and that's why this bill failed. Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his work, and I thank Mr. Lucas for his work. We struggle in this Congress to try to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor. It's a shame. I've normally voted for the farm bill for a reason I will express here. First of all, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation. It sets Federal policy in a range of areas that deeply affect the lives of farmers, their communities, and consumers. But it also makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger, especially children. It's a shame that we could not consider the farm bill on its merits without undermining its credibility with what we clearly believe are not reforms and not the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. It's so simple to say that. I've heard that for all the time I've been here in Congress. Let's just cut out fraud, waste, and abuse. Everybody wants to cut out fraud, waste, and abuse; but cutting out assistance for hungry people is neither fraud, nor waste nor abuse. Well, it may be abuse. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP as it is called, protects over 46 million Americans who are at risk of going without sufficient food. Nearly half of those are children. Are there some reforms that are needed? Perhaps. And the Senate has made those reforms in a moderate, considered way. The average monthly benefit per participant last year according to the USDA was $133.41. I challenge any Member of this House to live on $133.41 for food. That's $4.45 a day. At a time when millions remain out of work struggling to support themselves and their family as they seek jobs, it would be irresponsible to make the kinds of cuts that are proposed in this bill. No one in the richest country on the face of the Earth should go hungry in this country. Yet that's exactly what this bill would do, slashing $20.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and putting 2 million of our fellow Americans at risk. Feed the hungry; clothe the naked; give shelter to the homeless-- that's not a political policy. That's a moral policy. Our faiths teach us that. While we've cut millions in funding in this bill, this Congress has done nothing to advance legislation that will help create jobs or opportunities to help expand our middle class. While it's important that Congress provide certainty to the agricultural community, which I support, this unbalanced bill takes the wrong approach on these cuts to SNAP.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I'm disappointed. This ought to be a bipartisan bill. Mr. Peterson wants it to be a bipartisan bill and many of our people and, as a matter of fact, a majority of our people supported it in committee. I think the chairman wants it to be a bipartisan bill. I understand he has to deal within the framework of his caucus like every chairman has to do on either side of the aisle. I understand that. But it is a shame. A bill that ought to be bringing us together for people who provide this country with food and fiber and, indeed, provide a lot of the world with food and fiber, that we have put this almost poison pill--I don't know whether it's going to be a poison pill--but almost poison pill in it, I regret that. It's not worthy of our country. It's not worthy of the morals of this Nation. But I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for their efforts to try to bring us together. Whether they've done so or not, we'll have to see.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Mr. Gerald E. Bennett for over 43 years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives. Jerry is retiring this week as Chief Logistics Officer of Logistics and Support, with more than four decades of House experience. He first started working for the House of Representatives in 1969 as part of a summer employment program under the Office of the Doorkeeper. From folding Member mailings to distributing paychecks, he provided a number of important services. Over the years, he moved up the ranks, holding positions as a Maintenance Supervisor, Assistant Deputy Director, Manager, and Director of Logistics. He then served as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer and Assets, Furnishings, and Logistics Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, before becoming the Chief Logistics Officer of Logistics and Support. Throughout his career, Jerry's thoughtfulness and positive attitude has earned him the respect and confidence of countless employees. It is not unusual to see Jerry lending a listening ear or providing sound guidance to an employee. His caring and encouraging nature is valued by this institution and its employees. Jerry has often said that he always felt a powerful sense of purpose and a role in something deeply important. His commitment to public service extends into his community, where he serves as a deacon in his church, uses his vacation to chaperone youth trips, and donates his time to coaching soccer. His devotion to faith and family is recognizable to all who have had the privilege to know Jerry and work beside him. He attributes much of his success to his wife, Karen, his children, and his eight grandchildren, who have always been fully supportive of his career. Jerry once claimed: ``I don't come to work to work. I love what I do.'' On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I congratulate Jerry on his retirement and thank him for his dedication and outstanding contributions to the institution. I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend the majority leader, Mr. Cantor from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his kindness. The American public must be thinking Geminis are, indeed, schizophrenic. I thank my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his good wishes. I thank him for the information. If I can ask him a question initially about the farm bill, which has obviously been very controversial in the past, still remains controversial in many ways, and I'm wondering, in light of the fact that the Senate passed a farm bill in a pretty bipartisan way, 66- 27, with 18 Republicans voting in favor, but I know the Speaker has observed the divisions within the Republican Conference, and obviously there are some divisions within our caucus as well, and I'm wondering whether or not in fact the gentleman is confident that we will get to completion and a vote on the farm bill next week. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. As the gentleman knows, on our side of the aisle, there is very significant concern about the status of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and I would hope that as a rule is considered on that bill, I don't know whether the gentleman knows at this point in time, that we would have an opportunity to have a significant number of amendments on that bill to reflect the House working its will, as the Speaker has so often observed, and I yield to my friend for whatever information he may have. I know that the rule has not been written, and I don't know whether he has any insights on how much flexibility there will be on the rule. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that and look forward to that because I know on both sides of the aisle, this is a bill that has strong feelings among different perspectives on this bill and with respect to different subjects. And so I think as open a rule process and debate process as is possible will be helpful to the final product. I would hope that we can follow that. Mr. Leader, you mentioned the Unborn Pain bill. I understand and I have some information that says that the text of that bill coming out of committee may be modified in the Rules Committee. Is the gentleman aware of that? And if so, is the gentleman aware of what textual change there may be from the bill that was reported out of the committee? I yield to my friend.