Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his efforts as well. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we talked a lot about, correctly, creating certainty, alleviating uncertainty, alleviating angst among our people and among our economy. We have an opportunity to bring certainty to a large segment of the America that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. We have that ability because the United States Senate has acted on a bill which will allow us to do that. Even if we don't take their bill up, we could take a bill that Tim Walz has introduced. Congressman Walz has introduced a bill which will say to the 98 percent that we've talked about, You won't get a tax increase. I think that we have agreement on that. As the gentleman from Texas indicated, we have agreement on that. I think there's not anybody here--or very, very few at least, on either side of the aisle--who doesn't say that those who are making $250,000 or less as families or $200,000 as individuals, or less, shouldn't get a tax increase. Now, there are some who say that those above should not get a tax increase either. I understand that. But we have disagreement on that. The American people are frustrated by the fact that even that on which we have agreement we can't move. That's their frustration. They understand that we have policy differences, but they are hopeful that when, at least, we have agreement on an issue that we can move it. And if we did so, think of the confidence. Mr. Cole, former--had your job as the chairman of the Campaign Committee, said let's pass this. Let's give the middle class, the working people of America, a Christmas present, a sense of certainty, a sense of self-confidence, a sense of well-being. That will be good for our economy, but certainly good for them individually and as families as well. So I would urge my colleagues on the Republican side and my colleagues on the Democratic side, vote against the previous question. Now that's somewhat esoteric, Mr. Speaker. Those watching us say, What does that mean, voting against the previous question? What's the previous question? That's some sort of political jargon that they use in Washington. What it means is, if we vote against the previous question, we will then be empowered to bring forward the middle class tax cut bill and we'll put it on the floor, and Mr. Walz will be our leader on this because he's put it in the hopper.

Mr. HOYER. We'll put that on the floor, and every Member of this House, all 435 Members, will have the opportunity to say to the American people, Yes, on December 12, we're going to tell you that on January 1 your taxes will not go up. Give us that opportunity. Give us that opportunity to say ``yes'' to the American middle class. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes'' to certainty in our economy. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes,'' we agree on something, and aren't you proud of the fact that when we agree, your Congress can act? Let's say ``yes.'' Vote ``no'' on the previous question, and then vote ``yes'' for the middle class.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. It's never wrong to do the right thing twice.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader, for his favorite 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of the week to inquire of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for the early notice on next Friday. First, Mr. Leader, if I could, we have the ending as next Thursday. I want to clarify for Members so that they know: we will not be in session next Friday. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that information. I also want to congratulate the gentleman for providing for the week of the 17th. I know none of us want to do that, but I appreciate the majority's focus on the business that has not been done. I also appreciate the gentleman's focus on the fiscal cliff and for indicating that we need to resolve that prior to leaving the 112th Congress. I think those are both positive announcements. I applaud him for that. On the fiscal cliff--we discuss this all the time--but I want to inform the majority leader that there are now 175 signatures--we hope to have more, and we would obviously welcome people on your side of the aisle--on the discharge petition for the Walz bill, which mirrors the Senate bill, as the majority leader, I'm sure, knows, to ensure that no individual who makes $200,000 or less on net taxable income or that a family who makes $250,000 or less will see a tax increase on January 1. Hopefully, we will resolve the fiscal cliff and get an agreement. I again ask my friend: the Walz bill will be compliant with the rules and will not have a blue slip problem, obviously, and hopefully we could move that bill. Again, for the purposes of giving confidence to the 98 percent of our taxpayers who are making less than the sums put forward in the bill--$200,000 and $250,000--I understand and anticipate the gentleman's response that we are all concerned with growing the economy and creating jobs and that we don't want to dampen that dam; and we understand the gentleman's concern about small businesses, particularly those 3 percent of small businesses that make more than this and report it on a personal income basis. I would hope that we could give serious consideration to trying to act sooner than the end of the year and as soon as possible, frankly, on--as we call it--the middle class tax cut, the $250,000 and under. I yield to my friend to see whether or not, perhaps, the actions that have been taken this week have any bearing on his thoughts on whether we could schedule that bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation. He and I do share the view that we need to address both the revenue side and spending side of our budget. My view is, and I've said this on a regular basis, what we really have is not necessarily a taxing problem or a spending problem; we have a paying for problem. The actions we take, we ought to pay for them. We haven't done that through the years. Frankly, we haven't done it on both sides of the aisle. I don't want to get into that specific argument, but the fact is, if we pay for things, you don't create debt. And if you cut revenues and you cut spending, you don't create debt. If you cut revenues and don't cut spending, you create debt just as surely as if you spend money and buy things and don't pay for them. In either instance, you create debt, and we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. So I congratulate the gentleman--not the gentleman specifically, but I was pleased, and the gentleman and I would disagree on the specificity of the offer that was included or the suggestion that was included in your letter. For instance, the President has put forward, as you know, in his budget and in his further proposals, an extensive list of reductions in spending that he proposed. In addition, he has put forward very specific proposals vis-a-vis revenues. His most specific proposal, of course, has been widely debated and discussed, and there was a difference of opinion on whether or not we ought to cap the taxes on $250,000 and under families and $200,000 and under individuals. There was a very robust debate on that during the campaign. The voters voted, and that's a very specific proposal. In the $800 billion that you suggest in the letter that you jointly signed with the Speaker and others, there is a suggestion of $800 billion in revenues, which I believe is insufficient to get us to where we need to be. But having said that, it is certainly a good start, but it is not a good start if all it is is conceptual. The President, as I said, has made very specific proposals. He wants taxes on those making over $250,000 to go up. That produces a certain amount of revenue, somewhere in the neighborhood of the $800 billion of which you speak. The fact is, though, in your proposal, we don't have the specifics other than to know that you're focused on preferences or loopholes--describe them as you may--which would be a reduction. The gentleman knows the three largest of those is the health care, the mortgage interest, and the pension benefits that can be taken off your taxes. I don't know whether the gentleman suggests reducing those specifically, and I don't ask him to respond to that now, but I do tell my friend that if we don't have those specifics, as you have very specifically from the President, he also recommended capping deductions at 28 percent, a very specific revenue-generating proposal. He has also, as I said, agreed to very substantial spending cuts which he has outlined in his budget. And, as the gentleman also knows, we've cut a trillion dollars, give or take some billions of dollars, in expenditures pursuant to the debt limit extension of 2011. So we have addressed very substantial reductions in funding for 2011, for 2012, for 2013, and for out-years after that. So I would urge my friend, when he says he's given specifics, as far as I know, the letter essentially has five lines in it. The letter is longer than that, but five lines of spending and/or tax-cutting proposals, but they are all generic, not specific. And that is, I think, the problem we have in these negotiations, to the extent that they exist. Unfortunately, we're not doing as much as I think we ought to be doing. We don't have specifics, and, therefore, conceptually everybody can say, well, we want to get $800 billion. The President and, apparently, your letter agree on that. How you get there is the key. And if you don't have specifics--the President has offered specifics on how to get there. I would respectfully suggest you have not offered specifics other than we're going to deal with preference items. But they're very controversial: charitable deductions, very controversial; other deductions, controversial. We have to really get down to the nitty-gritty of, okay, how are you going to do it? I would urge the gentleman, in furtherance of what he and his party have already done, to perhaps be specific in how we get the $800 billion. The President has said how we get the $800 billion. I think that would be very helpful, and I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Obviously, we are coming here to meet and we're focused on the fiscal cliff, but there are other things that we could be, hopefully, resolving in the time that we have available to us between now and the end of the year, and I would hope that we would do that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I want to say two things. First of all, I want to clarify, and I think I did clarify, that $800 billion clearly is in your proposal. When I said the President agrees with that $800 billion, he agrees to getting to at least $800 billion. He thinks we need more. I agree with the President; we need more. When the gentleman says the problem is wasteful spending, I disagree with the gentleman very substantially on that. The problem is not wasteful spending; the problem is spending. Whether it's not wasteful or not, if it's good spending, we need to pay for it. Now, where the gentleman and I have a very substantial disagreement, I know, is that when the gentleman and his party voted to reduce revenues by over $2 trillion, they didn't reduce spending by $2 trillion. As I said at the outset, inevitably, if you reduce revenues by $2 trillion and you up spending, which is what happened, frankly, as all of us know from 2001 to 2008, and particularly 2001 to 2006, if you up spending and reduce revenues, inevitably you have debt, just as if you buy stuff and don't pay for it, you have debt. So whether you reduce revenues or don't pay for what you buy, the result is exactly the same--debt. So that's why I say paying for is the problem. The gentleman and I have a very substantive disagreement on whether or not you ought to have to pay for tax cuts. You have to pay for it one way or the other. You're either going to pay for it by having additional debt on which you'll pay substantial interest, or you'll pay for it by reducing programs. It's not wasteful spending. I'd like to get rid of all wasteful spending. But I suggest to the gentleman, and he knows the figures as well as I do because we've been through a lot of meetings together on this, the issue is not wasteful spending. The issue is we've decided to buy things, a lot of which I think we ought to be buying, including Social Security, including Medicare, including investment in education, including investment in infrastructure, including investment in innovation to grow our economy, which, in turn, will help our deficit situation as the economy grows, without raising any taxes. But the fact of the matter is, I know the gentleman has historically not felt that tax cuts ought to be paid for, either by cutting spending, which didn't occur, or by offsetting revenues. So I want to make it clear the President does not agree with the $800 billion level because he doesn't think the math works. I share the President's view. The math doesn't work. And ultimately, in my opinion, the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70 percent debt to GDP ratio, which most economists, or a little less than that, say is sustainable and will have us on a sustainable path. If we all agreed on the objective and then, Mr. Majority Leader, simply made the math work to get there in a way that we could agree on, I think America would be advantaged, I think the economy would be advantaged, and we would see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000s. I'll be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, we have a fundamental disagreement because the gentleman continues to want to focus on spending. I think that's right that we focus on spending. But again, debt is not caused by spending; it is caused by buying things that you don't pay for, or it's caused by cutting revenues that you don't offset either by cuts in spending, by cutting revenues. That's what causes debt. It's not buying things that causes debt. It's not paying for things. The discipline, I will tell my friend, in the system for the American public is, if they want things, for us having the honesty to say, okay, if you want a tax cut or you want a strong defense, it costs money, both of them cost money. And if you're willing to pay for it, we will do that. If you're not willing to pay for it, we ought not to do it. That's not been our practice, unfortunately, and we dropped the PAYGO requirement, as the gentleman knows, in 2001, actually 2003 legally. De facto, we dropped it in 2001, because we had substantial tax cuts without paying for them. We waived that requirement, and I think that, frankly, got us into the problem we have on either side of the aisle, whether it's spending or revenue reductions. I don't think the President's changed his position. I think the positions have changed. Mr. Bowles indicated that. Others have indicated that. The situation has changed its dynamic in the sense that it's not the situation we were confronting in 2011. But this is an important discussion because it really requires us to come to make a commonsense, math decision, not an ideological decision driven by debate about spending or taxes, but on how we have a budget that is a sustainable budget for our kids and for our grandkids and for our country over the long term. And I think that's what this discussion ought to be about. And if it is, I think we can get this challenge resolved, and Americans and America will say finally, finally, those representatives we've sent to Washington have sat down together with one another and made sense. Again, I want to say to the gentleman, I can't read it either, and you certainly can't read it from there. But you can see that, perhaps, the five lines here, and then the very long lines the President has proposed in terms of cuts and revenues. I think if you're expecting the President to come and say, well, we can get your $800 billion this way, that way and the other way, he's not going to do that because he's not going to negotiate with himself. On the other hand, if you come to us and say specifically this is how we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the charitable deduction. This is how we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the mortgage deduction, that's something we can discuss. But if we don't have specifics on what you're going to do, but just a conclusionary ``we're going to get 800 billion,'' then it's hard to negotiate because we don't know what the negotiation parameters are. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. We agree.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has indicated there is other business that needs to be done. Let me briefly address those. The farm bill, obviously, continues to be not resolved, not addressed. The Senate passed a bill, as the gentleman so well knows, 64-35, two-thirds of the Senate voting for it. We would be hopeful that that Senate bill could be put on the floor. I've talked to Chairwoman Stabenow. She and her ranking member worked very hard on that. I know our committee's reported out a bill 35-11, but that has not come to the floor. That was passed out almost 6 months ago, 5 months ago. So I would hope that the farm bill could be moved. I know I'm going to be talking to some of my ag community today. They're very hopeful that a--not a stopgap but a farm bill of a sufficient length--and I think they would opt--I don't want to speak for them before I meet with them--but for the Senate bill, we need to pass that. Milk prices, as you know, will spike dramatically on January 1 if we don't pass the farm bill. Also, on the Violence Against Women Act, I know last week we had the sponsor in the chair. I didn't know that. I thank the gentleman for reminding me. But the Violence Against Women Act has been passed by this House and by the Senate. I would urge the majority to get us to conference on that. Rather than go through why I think the Senate bill's a good bill and you think the House bill's a good bill, the way to resolve that is to go to conference. I would urge the gentleman to go to conference on the Violence Against Women Act. I believe the President is going to come down in very short order with some preliminary numbers on the supplemental. I think I'm going to New York tomorrow to spend time with some of our Members there and see the devastation that has occurred. The gentleman, I know, is very aware of that as well. We need to do a supplemental, so we need to have time to do that. And lastly, although we haven't discussed it very often--it's not a very sexy issue, postal reform, again, is another issue that we're talking about balancing. The postal department has not been able to balance its budget, as we know. Part of it is dealing with the retirement programs that they're funding. But I'm wondering if the gentleman has any thoughts on any one of those four bills. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the former majority leader--I guess he still is the majority leader--the newly elected majority leader for the next Congress and congratulate him on his election.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate his observation with reference to a number of pieces of legislation that are pending, and as he mentions in his comments, the fiscal cliff, of course, is a concern, not only to us, but to the entire country. The negotiations, as the majority leader points out, are ongoing and hopefully will bear fruit--and hopefully will bear fruit in the short term. Mr. Leader, there are, however, some steps that we could take, I think, that would alleviate some of the concerns and apprehensions that do exist in the country. As you know, we've discussed before, the middle class tax cut, that is, the under $250,000 that has been the object of discussion in the election and continues to be the object of discussion here. I'm wondering whether or not, given some of the comments that have been made, I know, by Mr. Tom Cole, your former chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, and others, as well as the President's comments, that I don't see scheduled but would urge consideration, Mr. Leader, of the Senate-passed bill which will assure 98 percent of Americans that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. I don't see that on your list, and I'm wondering if the majority leader could comment on whether it is possible for us to take up that Senate bill to give assurance to the 98 percent of the people who will be affected by that bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker. I would just observe that the Senate bill that I was referring to doesn't raise taxes on anybody. In fact, what it does is ensures that no taxes will be raised on 98 percent of Americans. It doesn't refer to the other 2 percent, as I understand the bill. It simply precludes taxes from being increased pursuant to the Republican-passed bills which sunsetted the tax rates that currently exist for those 98 percent of the people. From that standpoint, I think the bill that I have been referring to, Madam Speaker, and I think the majority leader probably knows this, does not refer to those over $250,000, which is what I presume he's referring to. I might also observe, as it relates to his response, Madam Speaker, a quote of Bill Kristol's, who I think the majority leader probably knows pretty well and who obviously is a very strong proponent of policies put forward by the majority leader's party, said: ``It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,'' he said on Fox News Sunday. ``It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer.'' Now, we know the President of the United States, I want to tell my friend, the majority leader, has said he is not going to sign a bill. He disagrees with your conclusion, I disagree with your conclusion, and that's what democracy is about. The President of the United States has been reelected. The President of the United States has made it very clear he will not sign a bill that reduces the tax obligations of those over $250,000 in the coming year. He's not going to sign that bill so that we can hold hostage the 98 percent. He believes, like you, that 98 percent of Americans ought not to receive a tax increase because it would, from his perspective, dampen economic growth in this country. Now, we have disagreement on the $250,000 and above, which is a legitimate disagreement. We can debate it on the floor, we can vote on it on the floor, and every American can see where everybody stands. We believe that 60 percent of Americans or more agree with the President and with our proposition. But to say that we're not going to do something for the 98 percent because we don't want something to happen to the 2 percent--which, by the way, is not in that bill. But the gentleman's correct, nor are they included in that bill, the 2 percent. But I would urge my friend, we're having trouble getting to an agreement. I think that's unfortunate. I think the gentleman, the majority leader, and I both want to get to an agreement. We don't want to go over that fiscal cliff; that will be bad for the economy. We both, I think, believe--I hope--that we need to have a balanced agreement so that we will not go over that cliff. That would be bad for the country, bad for the American people, bad for the growth of our economy. We don't want to do that. The gentleman, in my view, does not want to do that. One way we can give some confidence, which is very important to the growth of the economy, is to assure, as Tom Cole, your former chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, said just the other day in, I believe, your whip meeting, that he believes that this ought to be done; we ought to give those 98 percent assurances. So I tell my friend that we can debate the other part of it, we can vote on the other part of it and the prevailing side will obviously win, but I don't think there's disagreement on the 98 percent. I think we agree on that. As I said before the election and I say after the election, we ought to move forward on that because that is something on which I think you and I can agree, on which Republicans and Democrats in this House can agree, something which the Senate has already agreed to. And while there was not a bipartisan vote on passage, there was a bipartisan vote to let that bill come to the floor. It's the only way it moved ahead, on a bipartisan vote. I would hope that we can at least do that so that we can give at least that on which we agree the opportunity to move forward. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I don't know that I'm making myself clear: The Senate bill raises taxes on nobody. Nobody. The Senate bill simply says, for those making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a couple, they will not receive a tax increase. My friend, the majority leader, keeps responding that we're not in agreement on the over $250,000.

Mr. HOYER. I'll be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, again, the gentleman says that I'm technically correct. I presume that means I'm correct. The bill that I'm asking to be brought to this floor to pass will not raise anybody's taxes. What the gentleman is saying is that, unless we deal with the 2 percent, the 98 percent are going to be held hostage until such time as we deal with the 2 percent. Now, the problem with that, in a democracy, we have a disagreement on that. As a matter of fact, it was pretty clear to the American public that there was a very significant and unclouded, not confusing, difference between the two candidates for President on the very issue to which the gentleman speaks, and the American public voted. And the President of the United States, who said, ``No, I don't agree with that,'' won the election. He won the election. And he is saying, I'm not going to sign the bill on the $250,000 or above. Now, my problem, Mr. Leader, is I understand your conclusion is that if you pass the 98 percent, that you won't have a bargaining chip with which to press your point on the over $250,000, or over $200,000 individually as you correctly observe. I understand that. But, frankly, the bargaining chip is somewhat illusory in that the President said absolutely he will not sign that. Why? Because he wants to bring down the deficit. He wants to and has agreed to--and we've agreed to--over $1.7 trillion in spending cuts already for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and for the next decade--or at least until 2022. We've already agreed to that. You pressed that, you were successful. We agreed on many of those. Some we didn't agree on, but you had the votes we needed to reach an agreement and we reached an agreement. So we cut almost $2 trillion of spending already. You're correct: we need to assure the fact that we pay for what we buy, and if we don't want to pay for it, my view is we shouldn't buy it. Frankly, that principle applies, in my opinion, to tax expenditures as well as to buying stuff because it all reduces your ability to pay for what you're buying. So I tell my friend, it's not that I'm technically correct; I'm correct. The bill that I'm asking you to pass will simply give to the 98 percent of American taxpayers the assurance that their taxes will not go up on January 1. If we don't pass it, they won't have that assurance. Their confidence level will not be good. The stock market will be concerned. And, yes, we'll have to deal with the other 2 percent. That is clearly going to be a part of the discussion, and hopefully there will be an agreement. But my presumption is the reason the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, made that comment just a few days ago--and it's not like he's a backbencher. He is the former chairman of your Republican Campaign Committee--he said, We ought to do this. We ought to get it off the agenda so we give those people confidence. He called it a Christmas present to the 98 percent. I think it's a judgment that our economy will be better off if we do it. I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Let me move on, if I can, because there are a couple of other issues. I know the gentleman indicated that you didn't include one. I think you did include the farm bill. Could you tell me what you think of the status of the farm bill? Again, we have an issue where the farm bill passed 64-35 in the Senate; 16 Republicans voted for it. And very frankly, the farm bill in this House passed out of your committee 35-11 on a bipartisan vote. That's not been brought to the floor. Could the gentleman tell me what he thinks is going to happen to the farm bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response; and I am hopeful that we can, in fact, proceed on that for the farmers of America. Obviously if we don't pass something by December 31, on January 1 prices for the Federal Government will go up very dramatically, as the gentleman knows; and it will have an impact on spending. And I know the gentleman and I are both concerned about that. The next to last issue--just two more issues, if I can, Mr. Leader. As you know, we've talked about the Violence Against Women Act. We've passed a bill through this House that was passed essentially on a partisan basis. They passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate, Violence Against Women. And domestic violence is an epidemic, in some respects, in this country. I am hopeful that we might consider taking up the Senate bill again because it got passed on such an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis in the Senate. I would suggest to the gentleman that it may well pass on a bipartisan basis here as well. The problem, as you know, from my perspective and from our side, with the House bill is that you exclude a number of people. The problem with excluding people--for instance, undocumented immigrants from being able to come forward and having a sense of safety and security in doing so-- is that the abuser of the undocumented immigrant, left unaccountable, may well be the abuser of a citizen or a child in this country, either as a citizen or here illegally; and, therefore, we think there ought to be broader coverage. Apparently, the Senate shares that view. As you know, every Republican woman and Democratic woman voted for that bill in the Senate. Does the gentleman have any idea whether we could either go to conference on that bill or whether or not we might bring the Senate bill up for passage? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Speaker for her leadership on this issue. But I thank the gentleman for his assurance that he's focused on this and is going to work on it. I look forward to working with him on this bill, which I think is a very important bill for us to get passed before we leave here. Lastly, obviously all of us know that Hurricane Sandy visited extraordinary damage on a large portion of the Northeast. I come from Maryland, and we were not very substantially damaged; but obviously New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, in particular, were. Can the gentleman tell me--I know the administration has not come down with a number. That number, I presume, is going to be well north of $50 billion. In terms of the estimates that are being made, this is one of the five most damaging storms to hit the coast of the United States of America. I am wondering whether or not the gentleman might have in mind doing some interim figure in the next 3 weeks, before Christmas, substantially below what we know is going to be the ultimate figure. And then would the gentleman tell me whether or not, if we could do that, whether or not the gentleman would require that it be offset. And I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Lastly, let me ask you: Mr. Nadler has a resolution. I'm not sure if Mr. Grimm and Mr. King are on the resolution, but I presume they're on the resolution as well. It's a bipartisan resolution expressing condolences to those who were devastated not only in terms of property but some, of course, lost family members and life, whether or not that resolution might be brought to the floor so that this House can express its regrets and condolences and sympathy with those who were so devastated.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentlelady yield?