Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. The Republicans offered their bill. It was called ``Cut, Cap, and Balance.'' They voted on that bill before we ever got to sequester. In Cut, Cap, and Balance, your alternative, if you didn't reach your numbers, was sequester. Sequester was your policy. And in the CR that you had Mr. Rogers bring to the floor, which I voted against when it went from here to there, as did every Democrat, it said it was going to be subject to the sequester or nothing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, sequester starts with ``S.'' That stands for ``stupid.'' It is an irrational policy with no common sense attached to it, and it is a policy that we are headlong pursuing as a result of the actions of the majority in this House. It is a policy that the President of the United States opposes, it is a policy that the majority in the United States Senate opposes, and it is a policy that all of the Members of the Democratic Party in this House oppose. My friend on the floor here shakes his head, but he voted for a bill. It was called Cut, Cap, and Balance. And Cut, Cap, and Balance said we have a target, but if we don't meet it what happens? Sequester happens--sequester happens. The Republicans passed that through this House long before any deal was made not to default on our national debt, which included a provision for sequester so that we would achieve Speaker Boehner's objective articulated March of 2011 on Wall Street that we would cut dollar for dollar the increase in the debt. That's why we have a sequester. It starts with ``S.'' It is a stupid policy. It is a negative policy. It is a policy that is hurting America. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat of the Budget Committee, offered an amendment four times to replace the sequester and achieve the same savings. It was rejected, not once, not twice, not three times, but all four times by the Republican majority. They wouldn't even allow it to be made in order to be put on this floor to have a debate on and a vote. This transparent new leadership that we were supposed to have wouldn't even allow a vote on this issue. Now the Senate has passed a budget which the Republicans have been crying wolf about forever. The Senate passed a budget. It replaces sequester. It achieves the savings that we need to achieve over time. The Ryan budget was passed, which is tantamount to sequester. So now we're asking to go to conference, but we haven't gone to conference. This week has been a lost week. You've heard about a lost weekend. This week, this House has done practically nothing. Now we're going to take 2 days, today and tomorrow, to consider a bill about helium that could be passed in 10 minutes, which is noncontroversial and passed out of committee by a voice vote. Will we deal with sequester, which is causing America such grief right now? We will not. It is a shameful performance by the Congress of the United States. It is an irresponsible performance by the majority leadership of this House that we will not have the opportunity to replace this irrational, stupid, noncommonsense policy we call ``sequester.'' Some Republicans say, well, this is the President's policy. That's baloney. It's not true. It's a fraud. The President is against this policy. The Senate Democrats are against this policy, and House Democrats are against this policy. If I were the majority leader, as I once was, this policy would not have gone into effect, and I want the American people, Mr. Speaker, to know that. There were some who pretended, oh, it will have no effect. Well, it's having an effect on the flying public right now; and on the Food and Drug Administration, in overseeing food safety, it's going to have an effect. There are 70,000 children who qualify for Head Start who are not going to have a seat in Head Start. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we ought to be doing some real work this week, not putting bills on the floor and then taking them off the floor because, very frankly, the majority party can't get its act together. We're now having a helium bill on the floor for 2 days. We're not even going to vote on the helium bill today--we're going to vote on the rule--and at about 2:30 today, we're going to adjourn. My, my, my. What a hard workday. We're not dealing with the budget. We're not dealing with the budget conference. We're not dealing with getting this country on a fiscally sustainable path. We're not dealing with getting rid of the sequester. We're dealing with a noncontroversial helium bill that could pass in 10 minutes in this House. America, Mr. Speaker, is angry, and I don't blame them. I'm angry, too. America is disgusted with us. I don't blame them. I'm disgusted with us as well. I don't blame Mr. and Mrs. America for saying that Congress is not doing its work. They're right. We're not. We were sent here to serve the American people and our country and make it stronger, and we're not doing that. We're failing to come together and reach compromise and consensus for positive action in our country. How sad, Mr. Speaker. How sad for our country. How sad for our people. How sad for our families. There are good people on both sides of this aisle, but we're not coming together to do our duty for America. How sad.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 7 weeks on, Americans have already begun to feel the effects of the Republican policy of sequestration. Sequestration defies common sense and is irresponsible. It is happening because the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party is hell-bent on cutting spending, no matter what the consequences, no matter how irrationally it is done, and no matter how adverse the consequences of these cuts. These arbitrary, across-the-board cuts to Federal programs without regard to our priorities was never meant to be a solution, but rather, a deterrent to Congress failing to reach one. Since coming into effect on March 1, Americans are seeing why sequestration is not a policy we should follow or continue. This week, the FAA began furloughs for 47,000 employees. I've talked to the Secretary and I've talked to the Deputy Assistant Secretary. They do not have an option under the policies that this Congress has adopted. Thirteen thousand air traffic controllers are among those 47,000. Already, delays of up to 2 hours at major airports are disrupting travel, which impacts business and produces major headaches for American families trying to get to where they need to go. Some flights have been diverted because the air traffic control system is being overwhelmed with limited personnel. In addition to its effects on the FAA, sequestration is also placing a heavy burden on small business. According to an article in Politico on April 16--just a few days ago--small businesses are being hit the hardest by sequestration's cuts. The Small Business Administration is being forced to cut $16.7 million in loan subsidies; those are guarantees. That means $16.7 million in loans--capital--not available to small businesses. At the same time, the article goes on to report as many as 956,000 small business jobs could be at risk from sequestration as employers lay off their workers in anticipation of further cuts. We ought to abandon this stupid policy. Also at stake are critical research programs in medicine and science research that fuel American innovation and advance lifesaving treatments. They're at risk because of sequestration. Cuts to the National Institutes of Health are already leading to a reduction in research grants, including tens of millions of dollars that will halt innovative genomics and cancer research at some of America's top universities, including Harvard, Penn, and Johns Hopkins in my State. And the National Science Foundation will have to award 1,000 fewer grants this year to researchers who are helping keep America on top of technology and innovation. How irrational. This is a stupid, harmful, future-hurting, and America-undercutting policy. It must be changed. Sequestration is also reducing our military readiness and putting civilian defense employees at risk of being furloughed and, more to the point, putting at risk our own national security. Communities in my district across Maryland and throughout the country whose economies depend on a strong military are going to be hard hit. But the good news is there is an alternative. Congress has the power to end sequestration by reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits that can replace these irrational cuts. But to do so, Democrats and Republicans will have to work together in a bipartisan way. We ought to go to conference on the budget, adopt a fiscally responsible and balanced plan, and eliminate the sequester for this year and the 8 years to come. We offered an alternative to sequester four times in the last month, and four times we were not given the opportunity to have it voted upon on this floor. This was supposed to be open and transparent, and we would consider alternatives. We did not. But I believe we can do it. Our economy, our ability to create jobs, and the success of our country in the decade ahead is dependent on our jettisoning these irrational cuts we call sequestration. Too many jobs, lives, and livelihoods are at stake for Congress to engage in partisan games. As the weeks and months continue without turning sequestration off, its effects will only get worse. Let's act now. Let's act together. Let's act in a bipartisan way before our people and our businesses feel the full effects of this irrational and senseless sequestration policy. Let's work together to achieve the big, balanced solution the American people deserve from their Congress and that we owe to our country. I will submit an article for the Record written by our colleague, Representative David Price of North Carolina, entitled: ``Lawmakers' sequestration double-talk.'' [From the Charlotte Observer, Apr. 23, 2013] Lawmakers' Sequestration Double-Talk (By U.S. Rep. David E. Price) Double-talk is never in short supply in Washington. But as the axe of ``sequestration''--the across-the-board spending cuts triggered by Congress' failure to pass a long-term budget plan--begins to fall, self-contradiction and hypocrisy have reached heights unusual even for the Capitol. Indeed, many of the same Congress members who welcomed sequestration as a way to force the president to cut spending are now protesting loudly when their pet programs feel the pain. Members who voted for the package that Speaker John Boehner said included ``90 percent'' of what Republicans wanted now claim that sequestration does not need to hurt very much and accuse the president of imposing cuts for political effect. The reality is that sequestration was designed to cut both deeply and indiscriminately. Although it barely touches the two main deficit drivers--tax expenditures and entitlement spending--it was supposed to be sufficiently draconian and unacceptable to force action on those fronts, to compel agreement on a comprehensive budget plan along the lines of the 2010 Bowles- Simpson Commission proposal or the budget agreements that produced four years of surpluses under President Bill Clinton. Congress failed to produce such a plan, however, because Republicans refused to consider increasing revenues or closing special-interest loopholes. Today's Republicans value their anti-tax ideology far more than the defense cuts that were supposed to drive them to the bargaining table. As sequestration approached, more and more of them said, ``Bring it on.'' Now that the cuts are coming, members are scrambling, sometimes to apply Band-Aids, sometimes to insist that the president spare programs they favor. One day there is an outcry about reduced meat inspections, on another an insistence that tuition benefits for military personnel be restored, on another that air-traffic controllers be kept on duty in little-used airports. The latest uproar started two days ago. Federal Aviation Administration furloughs of air traffic controllers at large airports kicked in, delaying flights across the country--at Charlotte Douglas International Airport 31.2 percent of flights were delayed. My North Carolina colleague, Rep. Renee Ellmers, recently introduced a bill to reverse Medicare cuts for cancer treatment, calling the cuts an ``unintended consequence'' of sequestration. In fact, the 2 percent cuts were an intended and easily anticipated consequence of sequestration. Congress has now passed appropriations bills for the remainder of 2013, locking in place the sequestration spending levels. Scattered provisions mitigate specific sequestration impacts, but the result often is to shift the cuts to equally important areas that aren't in the news at the moment. Fort Bragg, adjacent to my district, now faces a furlough of civilian employees and a 34 percent cut in its operating budget. And sequestration comes on top of $1 trillion in cuts to domestic programs already adopted. Together, these cuts have driven major disease research off a cliff--fewer than 10 percent of proposals to fund heart disease, cancer and diabetes research are being funded--and slowed road and bridge construction to a snail's pace. I want to mitigate the harm as much as any member of Congress. But damage control is not a viable budget policy. Sequestration is a self-inflicted wound, unworthy of those who profess to govern. It is hypocritical and misleading, having imposed indiscriminate cuts on the administration, to pretend that the president can fix the problems with a flick of the wrist. The remedy lies in a comprehensive budget agreement that puts revenues and all categories of spending on the table. The president's budget reflects such an approach, going beyond the comfort zone of many of his political allies. A similar offer was spurned by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans in December, and sequestration ensued. It is a failure of historic proportions and it must be reversed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank Congresswoman Sewell for her leadership and for yielding this time, and I thank my good friend Spencer Bachus for his leadership as well, and I congratulate him and his family for the courage they showed at a time of great stress that this Gold Medal reflects. Mr. Speaker, the recognition for the victims of this terrible tragedy that befell our whole country on September 15, 1963, is absolutely appropriate, and it is an opportunity for us to say once again the respect we have for these young girls, the respect we have for their families. I say ``our whole country'' because a wound opened in the soul of America that day from a heinous act of racism and terror. Those who set a bomb inside the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church that Sunday did so because they believed in a Nation where not all are created equal, where not all are entitled to life and liberty. On that day, many Americans who had turned away with indifference could no longer look away. Since that day, we have forcefully declared to future generations that America will not be that Nation that looks away. In America, we strive to protect our children from hurt and harm no matter the color of their skin, their faith, their national origin. We hold fast to the values and memory of these four little girls who were killed that day, not the twisted, warped, hateful ideals of their killers.

Mr. HOYER. Their names have been mentioned but warrant re-mentioning: Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair--four of God's children, four beautiful assets of America. If you go down into the basement of the church, you see their pictures, you see the memorial--and your heart cries. They were brutally murdered while attending Sunday school, as the leader, Spencer Bachus, and as Terri Sewell have related. My colleagues, let us honor their lives and their faith in the face of the evil of segregation and prejudice and hate. Let us remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from the funeral of three of those four little girls. He said this: They have something to say to each of us in their death. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American Dream. That fight began with the Declaration of Independence: that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men--and, surely, Jefferson meant mankind, women as well--are endowed by God, not by the Constitution and not by our votes on this floor, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These four little girls had those robbed that day. Let us recommit ourselves. Let us recommit ourselves to that proposition and to unrelentingly and courageously ensure that that dream, that that promise is fulfilled for all of the little children of this Nation and for all the adults as well. Let us pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, and send a message that we will never, ever forget their memory.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in opposition to this rule and for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can substitute Mr. Connolly's bill for this bill, which will mean we will substitute something that will grow jobs from something that will waste time, not because those with preexisting conditions aren't worthy of our consideration--and, in fact, were considered in the Affordable Care Act and will have, as of January 2014, some real protections, not just high-risk protections, some real protections for them and their families. The previous speaker said ``this train wreck.'' This train wreck has already benefited millions of people: millions of seniors, millions of women, millions of people with preexisting conditions, millions of students, millions of young people who couldn't get insurance but can stay on their family's policy, millions of people who didn't have their benefits capped. Millions of people have already benefited. The Republican Party continues to oppose. They want to see this bill be a train wreck and are doing everything in their power to destroy the tracks, everything in their power to make sure it doesn't work, make sure that hundreds of millions--yes, hundreds of millions--of Americans won't be benefited by bringing down cost and making insurance available to millions of people. Just like the little boy who took the lives of his two parents complained to the court, ``Give me mercy because I'm an orphan,'' they are destroying the tracks that have been constructed to give Americans health care assurance. Now, let me say, if we vote against this previous question, we will have an opportunity to consider Mr. Connolly's bill. That bill will be consistent with the Make It In America agenda--job creation, not wasting time. We're going to do a bill on Thursday and Friday that we could do in 10 minutes--totally noncontroversial; it's about helium. We're going to take 2 days to do that bill; it could be done in 10 minutes. We are spinning our wheels, as the gentlelady suggested. One bill that will be something that we can do for America and jobs as part of the Make It In America agenda is H.R. 535, the Put America Back to Work Now Act, sponsored by my friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly). It would permanently extend the Build America Bonds program to help State and local governments leverage private capital to finance infrastructure projects--jobs.

Mr. HOYER. Build America Bonds have been strongly supported by mayors, city managers, county legislators, and State officials from both parties--a bipartisan support for this bill. At the local level, it is a bipartisan solution that we know works because these bonds were used effectively in 2009 and 2010 before they expired. When it comes to making investments in our Nation's infrastructure, we should be able to support local governments that want to attract manufacturing and invest in making their communities safer, cleaner, and more secure. By the way, if we create these jobs, the probability is these people who get these jobs will have health insurance and will be served, as the doctor would like, as I would like--hopefully. But let us not continue to waste time on a bill that we know has a deeply divided Republican Party--as we're going to see on this vote, I'm sure--and will not get through the Senate and will not be signed by the President. We're just wasting our time here--political messages. By the way, you've garbled your message pretty badly, as I understand from Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks. So vote against the previous question. Vote for building America and growing jobs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and influential career of Judith Frazier-Thompson as she retires after 45 years of Federal service, with 40 of them years spent at the Congressional Research Service. Judith was born and raised in Washington, D.C., and graduated from Eastern High School in 1967. While in high school, she began her service to the local government working part-time for the District of Columbia Recreation Department. While an undergraduate at Howard University, Judith worked part-time for the Library of Congress, variously as an order clerk, deck attendant and issue desk assistant. During that time she met and came to know the author Alex Haley, who frequently used the Library of Congress for research. After graduating from Howard University in 1973, she accepted a full-time position working for the Congressional Research Service, where she has worked ever since. Judith began pursuing a Masters Degree from the University of Maryland at College Park while rising through the ranks at the Library of Congress, where she was accepted into the CRS Crossover Program. During her tenure in the Congressional Research Service, Judith has worked closely with the House of Representatives, assisting Members and staff with all manner of tasks. She has worked on the Government and Law Team of the Congressional Research Division, helping various organizations perform research on such issues as voting rights, and campaign finance reform. Through her years of dedication, Judith has been recognized for her work with many awards, including numerous Library of Congress Special Achievement Awards, and a Congressional Research Employees Association Presidential Certificate of Merit. Judith plans to retire from her current position as a liaison between the CRS and the House of Representatives on May 3, 2013, and hopes to spend more time with her husband golfing and traveling. I am honored to pay tribute today to Judith Frazier-Thompson and her long and distinguished career in service to his great Nation. She will be greatly missed on Capitol Hill, and I join in wishing her the best in her retirement.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for the information on the business for next week. I would observe that he and I cochaired, the honorary cochairs, with John Lewis, of course, the chair, our leader, along with Terri Sewell, Spencer Bachus, and Congresswoman Roby, a delegation to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to recognize the Voting Rights Act and the acts that led up to that. I thank the majority leader for bringing the gold medal bill to the floor, sponsored by Congresswoman Sewell, recognizing those four little girls who at the Birmingham church lost their lives to what could rightfully be referred to, I think, as a terrorist act, a bomb going off, with no specific objective in mind other than to kill people inside that church. The little girls were the closest to that explosion, and they lost their lives. And as the majority leader has pointed out, that event and the events that occurred in the square just across the street from the church led to this country living out its principles better than it had done to that date. But some lost their lives, these four little girls, and some gave dearly to accomplish that objective. So I thank the majority leader for facilitating that bill coming to the floor. Mr. Leader, I noted on the schedule, however, that there is no motion to go to conference on the budget. As the gentleman knows, the House has been requesting for some years now a budget, which the Senate has passed. That budget has now been sent to the House and it is ripe for us to go to conference. The gentleman, the Speaker, and others have been talking about regular order for some period of time. I agree with them. Regular order leads to better results. Regular order leads to an ability to sit down and try to come to compromises on where there are differences and to make progress. I would hope that we would follow regular order now that the Senate has acted. Speaker Boehner said, in January of this year, ``Regular order works best.'' I think he was absolutely right. There was a headline in Politico just a couple of days ago where it says, ``GOP Clamors for Regular Order.'' Speaker Boehner said on December 8, 2011, regarding a bill we had passed: The House has passed its bill. Now the Senate has passed its bill. And, you know, under the Constitution, when we have these disagreements, there could be a formal conference between the House and Senate to resolve our differences. You said that same year: We have committed and the Speaker has committed to make sure that our committees will go through regular order. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee on November 29, 2011, said: We're going to restore regular order. I think you were correct in all those instances, and I want to associate myself with those remarks. Now we have an opportunity for regular order, and we're going to be meeting next week, and then we'll be taking off a week. That is all time that a conference could be working to try to get us to an agreement so, frankly, we could not only have an agreement, which I think the country would welcome, but we could also, I think, substitute that agreement for the sequester, which is currently having and will have a very negative effect on our economy, on jobs, and on the confidence that Americans have that we're pursuing rational policies. The gentleman and I both have agreed that sequester is not a rational policy in that it deals with high-priority and low-priority items in very much the same way. So my question, Mr. Leader, is there a possibility--it's not on the calendar and you didn't announce it, but I would urge you that we go to conference, preferably the first day we're back after this weekend, so that we could get to work on trying to get to an agreement on one of the most pressing problems confronting this country, and that's getting ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to say I have a lot of respect, as the gentleman knows and I have expressed on this floor, for Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very able and dedicated and conscientious Member of this House. I have equal respect for and confidence in Senator Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. And while I'm appreciative of the fact they're having discussions, frankly, the American people need to have a transparent view of discussions that would occur in a conference committee. So not only would the chair of the House Budget Committee and the chair of the Senate Budget Committee--now, that implies, therefore, that in the Senate there are no Republicans participating in those discussions and in the House there are no Democrats participating in those discussions. In light of the fact that we have 315 million to 320 million people who are represented by both Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Leader, I think it would be very useful and would accelerate--not impede--the process of getting to an agreement so the American public could weigh in with their views as they saw a conference committee debating and discussing the alternatives between the Ryan budget and the Murray budget and, indeed, the President's budget. I've seen press reports that Mr. Ryan wants to have discussions and he wants to have parameters, but, frankly, you and I both know that if we wait to have Mr. Ryan and Ms. Murray agree, we're going to be probably waiting a long time. Senator Murray participated along with Jeb Hensarling in the supercommittee which met for many months and ultimately came to no conclusion. That's not good for the country; it's not good for our economy; and it's not good for jobs and growth. As I understand, Mr. Ryan has said he's having discussions with Senator Murray; but I would urge us to have the ability to go to conference, move to go to conference, appoint conferees, and pursue regular order. If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I yield to the gentleman; if not, I'll go on to another subject. Mr. Leader, I don't think it was on the announcement, but I do know there is discussion in your memorandum and you've been quoted about a debt ceiling, a debt prioritization piece of legislation that would be considered. I would hope, as I said last week, that we could deal with, in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, nonpolitical fashion, the protection of the creditworthiness of the United States of America and to the maintenance of America's credit rating. It was reduced for the first time in history when we had a debt cliff debate in 2011, and we were reduced by one point in the creditworthiness of our country. That was unfortunate, and I think it hurt our country. President Reagan said in 1986: Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates, et cetera, would skyrocket if we did that, and he was urging the then-Democratic Congress and Republicans to support an increase in the debt, which, as you know, was done. In addition, Keith Hennessey, who was George Bush's National Economic Council Director, said on January 14: Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess. That was Keith Hennessey, who was Bush's National Economic Council Director. Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary for President George Bush, said: Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political catastrophe. I suggest not only would it be a political catastrophe, with which I agree--and I presume he's referring to the Republican Party, as he's a member of the Republican Party--but also a disaster for our economy and not, I think, something that would be helpful in growing jobs and expanding confidence, which the gentleman has talked a lot about and with which I agree with him on. We need confidence. This constant utilization of the debt limit for political leverage, I think, is not in the best interest of our country or the people we represent, and I would hope that bill would not be brought to the floor but that we could together, in a bipartisan fashion, resolve that the debt limit will not be put in question by this Congress. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. If I can, there is some irony in the gentleman's response. We've been talking about two items: one, the going to conference on the budget, which does, in fact, deal with prospective spending, a prospective increase in debt or deficit, because we buy more or spend more or cut revenues more. The debt limit, as the gentleman so well knows, deals with what we've already done. It doesn't have anything to do with increasing what we're going to spend. The budget does that. Now, we're not dealing with the budget, but there is discussion about dealing with this prioritization. Frankly, we should have made that determination when we spent the money, and both sides have spent a lot of money. Our country is determined to spend a lot of money. Two wars cost us a lot of money we didn't pay for. I'm not going to go through the litany--the gentleman knows that litany--but it is somewhat ironic when we're not dealing with going to conference on the budget deficit, but we're talking about a prioritization of the debt that we've already incurred. I think the American public will understand that raising the debt limit is simply a recognition of what we've already done and that we're going to pay our bills--that we're not going to welch, that we're not going to default--that the most creditworthy, greatest Nation on the face of the Earth is going to pay for what it bought. So I would urge the gentleman to not do prioritization, but let's deal with raising the debt limit so we pay our bills, and let's go to conference so we can make sure that, in fact, we keep that debt from going higher and, in fact, decrease it through reforms that we can adopt in a budget conference. I would hope the gentleman would agree with that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Preliminary, however, to my remarks, I want to say I thank the previous speaker for his remarks, and I would hope that with the Senate's having passed a budget, our having passed a budget, and the President submitting a budget that we will now, hopefully as soon as this week, go to conference so that we might discuss the differences and get that budget to which the gentleman addressed himself. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful individual who has served our country in government service for many years and has spent the last four in overseeing our Federal workforce as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I am speaking of my dear friend John Berry, who retired last week as Director of the Office of Personnel Management. America, Mr. Speaker, is blessed with a Federal workforce composed of hardworking, talented, and dedicated men and women. Too often, however, their contributions are overlooked or are even denigrated by those who would use our Federal employees as an easy target to attack the institution of government. John Berry made it one of his central missions at OPM to stand up for Federal workers' achievements and remind the American people of the true value we get from recruiting and retaining the best public workforce in the world. He came to OPM with plenty of experience in fighting for Federal employees and their families. When he served for 10 years as my legislative director, John was instrumental in crafting the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act and in making sure Congress passed it into law. Mr. Speaker, that was a bipartisan law, and it was President George Bush I who signed that piece of legislation into law in 1990. In that undertaking and in many others, John Berry made a real difference for the more than 62,000 Federal workers and everyone else who calls my district home. Just as we look to our Federal workers to watch out for us, our Federal employees have looked to John to watch out for them--to make sure that they have a safe work environment, that their paychecks will arrive on time, and that the benefits they earn are the ones they receive. Under President Clinton, John served as deputy Assistant Secretary and acting Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement at the Treasury Department, overseeing the United States Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He later moved to the Interior Department where he was Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, essentially the manager of the Department of the Interior. Before coming to the Office of Personnel Management, John spent nearly a decade working on conservation as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Then, arguably, the job he perhaps enjoyed most was that of Director of the National Zoo. At the National Zoo, he was so successful at turning around a faltering institution that after he left they named a lion in his honor. John, indeed, was a lion--a lion on behalf of the Federal employees, a lion on behalf of good government, a lion on behalf of integrity. Those who know John can attest that he is not only a true leader and an effective manager but also an incredibly warm person with an unfailingly positive outlook. John Berry will be greatly missed by all who serve our country in its civilian workforce, and I wish John and his partner, Curtis, all the best as he begins the next phase in his career. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking John for his service, for his leadership, for his insights, for his inspiration, and for being an example to all of us of a positive, constructive, supportive, and successful career in Federal service. Mr. Speaker, our country has been the beneficiary of his character, integrity, and extraordinary ability. We wish him well in all that he will be doing. I'm sure it will be extraordinarily productive and of service to our country as he moves on from Federal service at the OPM to a new challenge and a new career.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I adopt the remarks that were made by Ms. Norton. The delinquency rate of Federal employees is far below what it is for other employees on a general level throughout this country. I adopt the gentlelady's remarks that, yes, this is April 15, and my own staff has said, oh, I had to pay this, that, or the other. The implication here is that we brought a bill dealing with Federal employees this day. Why? Because Federal employees are very easy to target. For people who don't like government: Well, the Federal employees, look at what they're doing. You're having to pay your taxes today before those deadbeat Federal employees. That's the message here. Now, if this were a problem that you really wanted to deal with, it wouldn't have to be April 15. It could have been February 15 or it could be June 15. But, no, that's not the message here. The message is that somehow Federal employees need to be targeted. I understand they work for us, and so they're easy to get at. And we are getting at them almost every week. We're furloughing them. We're suggesting they pay more, that they're not paying enough for retirement. We are suggesting that somehow they're less than stellar employees. But before I conclude, let me take a second look at this. We had a tragic event happen in Boston today, and the President was quick to call Governor Deval Patrick and say we're going to send some Federal employees from the FBI, the ATF, and other agencies to make sure that we look at this and protect America. We extend our sympathies, of course, to all the victims and their families.

Mr. HOYER. We express our sympathies to all of them, and we recognize that they have some employees in Boston and around this country at the municipal and State level, and, yes, at the Federal level, who are going to try to respond and make sure America is safe. Let's send a message to those Federal employees, because they're our employees, that we respect them, their contribution. Let us not bring a bill to the floor--by the way, the gentleman is correct that it passed here not with my vote last year, because I thought it was a message that was incorrect. I thought that there were processes in place today which allow us to act against those, yes, who are tax delinquents. But very frankly, this is not a discussion today about huge tax delinquents, huge tax frauds, people who are not paying taxes to this country in which they're being so successful. So, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we send our regrets to those who have been the subject of a terrorist act, whether it was a domestic terrorist, a foreign terrorist, but a terrorist act this day. Secondly, we say to those Federal employees who time after time, week after week, month after month are being disparaged by their board of directors, that we understand the quality of their service and contribution. And, yes, we understand there are some who don't do what they ought to do, and we demand that they do so, but this is not the way to do it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend 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 that information. I want to share his view that the cybersecurity legislation is critically important legislation. I know that there are still continuing differences with reference to the protection of individual citizens' privacy on this legislation, but I also know, as the gentleman has indicated, the critical nature of providing access and exchange of information so that we can protect Americans, protect our country, and protect our intellectual property and commercial property. So I would hope and expect that we would be working together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we can reach consensus so that we can see a bill signed. I want to say that I know that both you and I are pleased that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger have been working so closely together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish this objective. Mr. Leader, I hope you've noticed that earlier this week I gave a speech with reference to Make It In America. In that speech, I want you to know, if you missed it, I mentioned the jobs bill. I made a little fun of the jobs bill, as you recall, when you put it on the floor, but we all voted for it because it was a good bill. We put together five or six bills that had bipartisan support as they passed the House and Senate. We put them together, the President signed that bill, they were a step forward, they were part of our Make It In America agenda on our side and your jobs expansion, growth expansion on your side. What I said in my speech on Make it in America, which refers to manufacturing in America, growing things in America, selling them here and around the world, and doing what Americans are hopeful that we are focused on, and that is creating jobs, in that speech, Mr. Leader, I said that we needed to focus on four particular priorities. Number one, adopting and pursuing a national manufacturing strategy. As I'm sure you know, Mr. Leader, last Congress we passed the Lipinski bill, which came out of committee in a bipartisan fashion and passed this House in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, it did not pass the Senate. You and I both know that if you're going to win, if you're going to succeed, you're going to have to have a plan to do so. This speaks to the coming together of business, labor, entrepreneurs, investors, as well as government, in terms of the partnership that we can play in ensuring that we are making things in America and that goods around the world have on them ``Made in America.'' Secondly, we want to promote U.S. exports. You and I, Mr. Leader, have worked on that. We worked on that in a bipartisan fashion. This was another part of what we call Make It In America, the Export-Import Act. Your staff and my staff worked very diligently together to get that done, and we passed it in a bipartisan fashion. The third part of the Make It In America agenda focus would be encouraging manufacturers to bring jobs home. I think we have, Mr. Leader, an excellent opportunity, given the context of where we find ourselves, where salaries are going up overseas, where it is more expensive now to ship goods back to the United States because of transportation costs, the largest market in the world. And, fourthly, as the gentleman knows, while there have been some differences, the President has expressed, you've expressed, I've expressed, our need to expand our energy supply, and particularly as we see the natural gas technology advancing, that the United States of America is going to be one of the least expensive energy venues in the world and have one of the best supplies in the world, which perhaps no one would have predicted 20 years ago but is a fact, all of which ought to go to helping us reinvigorate, expand manufacturing, and create middle class jobs, paying good wages and providing good benefits. Lastly, we want to ensure that we invest. And I notice the gentleman sent out a memo to your Members. I don't think we purloined a copy, but we did get a copy. You talked about investing and making sure that the quality of life and jobs were available for working Americans. We need to make sure that we invest, as you pointed out, as we believe strongly, in education and infrastructure and innovation, to make sure that we have the training necessary for people to be able to perform the jobs that are going to be required in the growing economy and the global marketplace. I say all that, Mr. Leader, to suggest that I would like to sit down with you so that we can talk together about how we mutually can move forward on what, as I say, we call a Make It In America agenda, but a jobs agenda, a growing the American economy agenda. I know you've been focused on that, we're focused on that. I'm hopeful we can do that, I think it will be positive for our country, and I think Americans will feel good about it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that. Following on his observation, clearly what he says is we need to focus on priorities. I think he's absolutely right on that. I think one of the sad things is we have passed a fiscal posture in this country presently that does not focus on priorities, unfortunately, and that's called sequester, which, in effect, looks across the board at cutting both the highest priorities and the lowest priorities in similar ways. I would hope that we could obviate the sequester. I think it's bad for the country, I think it's bad for our future, I think it's bad for the growth in our economy. I would hope that we could also work on that. And towards that end I would say, Mr. Leader, you have talked about, and, in fact, we passed legislation that was designed to encourage and to require the passage of a budget by the Senate. The Senate has now passed a budget, we have passed a budget, the President has now presented a budget, so that we have three alternatives on the table now. I would hope that as soon as the Senate passes its bill to us, which I expect to be shortly, that we would go to conference in pursuance of an agreement which will give us a fiscally sustainable path for this country, give us confidence in this country that Congress can work, that the Nation's board of directors can work, in coming to a balanced compromise with respect to how we move forward with the finances of America. Now that we have, as I say, a Senate-passed budget, a House- passed budget, a budget presented by the President of the United States, obviously, there are things that each person in the country can disagree with and agree with presumably on each one of those budgets. I would hope that we would be going to conference as soon as possible so that we could address this critically important objective. I ask the gentleman if he has any information with respect to the intention to go to conference as soon as we receive the Senate bill, which, as I say, I think will be shortly. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I would simply observe--and he knows this as well as I do--that there will be an agreement on things that he perhaps does not agree with and there will be things in the agreement that perhaps I will not agree with. The secret, in my view, of getting agreement is going to be to have a comprehensive agreement that accomplishes the objective of bringing our finances to a fiscally sustainable path that's credible and believed by not only the economy, by investors, by the American people, but also by the international community. We've talked a lot about confidence, as I've indicated, in the past. You've talked a lot about confidence in the past. I think we all agree that our economy needs confidence to grow as robustly as we want it to create the kinds of jobs we want. Toward that end, can the gentleman tell me what plans we have at this point in time for the debt limit extension? I know there's some discussion of bringing a bill to the floor which will deal with that issue. Can the gentleman perhaps elaborate on what the plans are with respect to the debt limit that confronts us that will hit sometime around May 19? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I certainly agree that defaulting on the debt is an extraordinarily irresponsible thing to do, and, in fact, we shouldn't do it. In fact, we shouldn't use it as a leverage point, in my view, to pretend that somehow going over the debt limit without extension is an acceptable political leverage point for either side. Both sides have sort of blamed the other for the deficits as we've confronted these debt limits. We've never come close, except in August of 2011, to defaulting, which was the first time, as the gentleman knows, when we were downgraded by 1 point by S&P. That's an irresponsible policy. I agree with the gentleman. Let me say that the advantage of a conference on this issue will be that transparently the American public will see the debate. The gentleman indicates a 10-year objective of balancing the budget without revenues. I personally believe that's impossible. I've said on this floor that if there were no Democrats in the Congress of the United States, either in the Senate or the House, that, frankly, your side of the aisle could not pass either the appropriation bills or the revenue bills or tax cuts that are suggested in Mr. Ryan's budget, which would accomplish your objective. I think we'll never know that, which is, I think, a happy circumstance on your side that that will never be put to the test. Having said that, I would hope that we could get to a place where we say the debt limit is not going to be subject to political maneuvering. Furthermore, let me say that the bill that we've been hearing about-- in The Wall Street Journal there was an article that appeared just yesterday, I think: Fitch Ratings, a credit-rating firm, said Tuesday it wasn't clear whether the Treasury legally could prioritize bond payments over other government obligations. And it went on to say: If it did so, Fitch added, it was very likely the firm would downgrade its AAA rating of the U.S. debt. In other words, even if we say we're going to pay the debts or, as some people have said, even if we say we're going to pay the Chinese first and not invest in those things such as basic biomedical research--to which the gentleman referred, and I share his view of that being a priority of our country--and cut those as we pay the Chinese or other creditor nations back for what we borrowed, that would not be in the best interest of the United States. I would say that in both instances, either pretending that we're going to go over the debt limit and avoid it by simply paying the debt first and then cutting other things in some sort of order, neither of those policies is consistent, I think, with our responsibilities as Members of Congress. I will tell you that we will do it on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Leader. I use a very simple example for my constituents. You go to Macy's. You take out your Macy's credit card and you buy $200 worth of goods. You go home. Next week, you and your wife are sitting around the table or you and your husband are sitting around the table, and you say, You know, we're really in debt too much. We're going to limit it to $100. So Macy's sends you the bill for 200 bucks. You send them back a check for $100 and say, Sorry, we have a debt limit of $100. Macy's writes you back and says, We're sorry, too. We're not going to give you any additional credit and we're going to sue you. That's our debt limit. The debt limit, you and I both know, is not realistic. It's much more a political and demagoguing way of dealing with one another and dealing with the finances of this country. I would hope that you and the Speaker--both of whom I know have said not extending the debt limit is not a viable or a responsible option. I would hope that we could make that clear, that we're not going to do that and, in a bipartisan way, extend it, and perhaps extend it early enough so that it doesn't become even an item of consideration by any of the rating agencies or the international community. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The way to do that plan of how to amortize our debt and invest in the priorities of this country--education, innovation, infrastructure, other basic biomedical research to which the gentleman referred--is to have a budget. That's the plan that the gentleman refers to. The way to get to a budget is to go to conference and come to an agreement. However, I will tell my friend what the problem we've had is: reaching compromise, and it's going to be necessary to compromise. As the gentleman observed and as I know, we have very substantial differences, but if the differences continue to create gridlock and no action, those children of which you spoke and I speak are going to suffer, so I would hope that we could move forward. The President's budget, I will tell the gentleman and as he probably knows, has about an almost 3-1 ratio between cuts and additional revenues, which is essentially, approximately, what most on the bipartisan commission--some have been 2-1, some 2.5-1--have recommended. I know the gentleman disagrees with that ratio, but it is certainly the President's view, which I share, that he has made a very positive proposal whether you agree with it or not, and a number of your Members have observed that it's a useful document. Given that context, hopefully, we can go to conference. Hopefully, we can come to agreement. Hopefully, we can see compromise reached, and hopefully put our country on the fiscally sustainable path that it needs to be. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rev. Roderick McClanahan, and the dedication of the First Missionary Baptist Church's newest house of worship. For over 20 years the Reverend has served as Pastor of the First Missionary Baptist Church, and has lead this congregation in the Building project which resulted in this church. Rev. McClanahan was born in Louisiana where he received a calling from God at a young age, preaching his first sermon on September 4, 1984, and eventually becoming ordained at the New Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church, under the leadership of Rev. Willie Minor, on September 21, 1985. He was brought to Maryland shortly thereafter, and has officially served as pastor of the First Missionary Baptist Church since March of 1990. The First Missionary Baptist Church has a rich history in Maryland. The church was started as a Prayer Band in October of 1945 by Martha Hickenbotom, as a way of giving the African Americans of Lexington Park a place of worship. Service was initially held in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Lester Colson, but as the congregation grew, so did their need for space. For a brief time the Prayer Band made their home in the then USO Building, until on April 19, 1947, at the suggestion of Brother Ivory Moore, then the prayer leader for the Prayer Band, they purchased the first acre of land the church calls home today. Since then, through segregation and beyond, the church has continued to grow and faithfully serve the African American community of Southern Maryland. It is truly my honor to pay tribute today to Rev. Roderick McClanahan, and the First Missionary Baptist Church, a shining beacon for all of Southern Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate an extraordinary team of young men from Maryland's Fifth Congressional District. The Bowie State University Bulldogs won the CIAA Men's Basketball Championship on March 2, 2013. This is their second conference championship in team history and second NCAA Tournament berth in three seasons. This incredible achievement was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition. Once in tournament play, the Bulldogs emerged victorious over Chowan University, Lincoln University, and Winston Salem State University to ultimately meet Livingston College in the conference championship game at Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Bulldogs prevailed, overcoming the Livingston Blue Bears with a final score of 85-74. This victory demonstrates that with determination, willpower, and discipline we can work to overcome any obstacle in the path of achieving success. After entering the tournament as a fourth seed, the Bowie State Men's Basketball team has gone above and beyond expectations. The Bulldogs end their 2013 season not only with a conference championship, but also a berth into the NCAA Division II Tournament. Fifteen student-athletes contributed to this triumphant season, remaining focused and determined to continue the success of Bowie State Men's Basketball. Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartiest congratulations to the members of the championship team--Julian Williams, Ray Gatling, Trawn Rogers, Cameron Knox, Dameatric Scott, Najee White, Tyrone Lawson, Jr., Carlos Smith, Byron Westmorland, Justin Beck, Bryan Wilson, Julian Harrell, David Golladay, Joel Clemmons, and Branden Doughty--on their victory. And, I also want to applaud Head Coach Darrell Brooks and his coaching staff--Larry Stewart, Sedric Baker, Darius Wilson, and Delmar Carey-- for their dedication and commitment while guiding these talented student-athletes. Like all Marylanders, I am very proud of these young men and I congratulate all of those involved in bringing home a conference title. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this great accomplishment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate MedStar St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown, Maryland, for being named one of the Nation's 100 Top Hospitals by Truven Health Analytics. This honor comes as St. Mary's concludes celebrations marking its centennial year, having been established in 1912 to provide quality medical care to families in rural St. Mary's County. Over the years, as the County's communities have grown, so too have its medical needs, and St. Mary's Hospital has become a full-service hospital with ninety-five beds and state-of-the-art facilities. St. Mary's Hospital provides surrounding communities with inpatient, outpatient, and emergency services with a reputation for compassionate care and excellence in performance. It's no wonder to those of us familiar with St. Mary's Hospital that it has achieved the distinction this year as one of the hundred best hospitals in America. Last August, St. Mary's Hospital received an $84,335 grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Rural Health Network Development Planning Grant Program. This grant is supporting the development of a Community Health Center Planning Network to meet the needs of underserved areas in rural St. Mary's County. Improving access to affordable care for those living in Maryland's Fifth District remains one of my highest priorities. I was proud to have helped St. Mary's Hospital secure the grant, and I look forward to continuing to work with its administrators and staff to ensure it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mission of providing quality care in our communities. I join in thanking all the doctors, nurses, administrators, support staff, and emergency responders who have made St. Mary's Hospital the success it is today. After a century of service to Southern Maryland, St. Mary's is surely headed for many more years of excellence.