Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week, and also I was going to ask him, but he has already indicated, that he does not expect the scheduled week of meeting in October to occur. I thank him for that information. That would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half or a day and three- quarters remaining before the election. I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, there's been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done: We have not done the jobs bill that I've been urging us to consider. We have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and on which I think both sides agree. We have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are not in the middle class. The farm bill, I want to discuss that in a second. The farm bill. The Violence Against Women Act and the middle class tax cut have both passed the United States Senate. Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United States Senate. Obviously sequestration. And I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader. But in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that our party has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. That's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. A number of Republicans have signed on to that as you know. As a matter of fact, we understand your suggestion to some that they do sign--not you, personally, excuse me. But that there's been some suggestion they sign on to that as an indication of their support for the farm bill. The Senate passed a farm bill, 64-35, Mr. Leader. We are hoping that that bill can be brought to the floor next week. It's not on the calendar. But in light of the fact that 16 Republicans voted in favor of it in the Senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support. The Ag Committee here in this House reported out a bill 35-11. That bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor. We don't have much time left, as you've just announced. Even if we count Thursday as a full day and even if we count Friday as a full day of next week, we have essentially 2 days and then suspension votes on Wednesday night. Many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. We passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the Senate. In fact, the farm community, as I think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously, but in large number, opposes the drought bill that we passed, and the reason they oppose it is because-- and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, when you talked over the past years about certainty. The farmers are opposed to the drought bill that we passed in the House because it doesn't give them any certainty. They think a 5-year bill is preferable. They've seen two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass a bill, and they hope we would pass that. I would ask the gentleman, therefore, if there is any, I was going to ask for assurance, but if there is any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the House bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the Republican-chaired committee or the Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility that before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts many in the farm community, that we will consider that bill? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and I appreciate his comments. We do have agreement in the Senate on a farm bill; they voted for it with 64 votes--almost two-thirds of the Senate. We may not have agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the Republican-led committee, your committee, with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one of those have been brought to the floor? So we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on--yes, there were some Democrats that voted for the drought relief, particularly from farm country. I can understand their view. But the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill--not unanimously, but in significant part. So the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. Let me suggest to him that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business people agree on not having a tax increase. The gentleman is worried about those people who are making about $20,000 a month. Some of them don't feel well off, I understand that; but I'm worried about the people who are making $2,000 a month, very frankly. I'm worried about the people who are getting by and who are having trouble. We need to give them assurance. The gentleman just said that we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would tell the gentleman on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making, either individually under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure the gentleman that I will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. So I tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes, but I think he will produce many more than that. Because unless he says I'm wrong, I think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase, we have agreement--and that's just what the gentleman is talking about, where we have an agreement--we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, couple, $200,000, individual, should get a tax increase on January 1 of this year. We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it under the suspension calendar, in my opinion. We could send it to the Senate. They've already passed a bill. They've already passed a bill through the Senate which adopted that proposition. So we have the majority votes in the Senate, and I would hope we would have almost unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the fact that we agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, we're not going to move the bill. Now, I agree with the gentleman, if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on, I would hope we could move it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response--I don't think it answered my question. We understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more, or $10 million taxable income. We understand you don't want to do it. We don't agree on that. You're correct. But we do agree on the fact that 98 percent of Americans who make less than $200,000 individually, less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses ought not to get a tax increase on January 1. Very frankly, you didn't respond to me; I presume you agree with that. What you don't agree with is that, if we don't do it all on something we disagree with--that's what's causing gridlock in Congress. That's what's causing this Congress to be the least productive Congress in which I have served in 32 years. That's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That's why the farm bill hasn't been passed; that's why the Violence Against Women bill has not been passed; that's why the postal reform has not been passed; that's why middle class tax cuts have not been passed; because if you don't get it all, you don't want to do any of it. I say respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98 percent of Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or not those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. What the gentleman responded was, unless we're for 100 percent, we're not going to be for any. That's what I hear you saying. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I said we agreed on 98 percent. The gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98 percent. He brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. The farm bill, you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. Forget about what we think on this side. You reported out a farm bill. You reported out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months ago--I'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago--and you haven't brought it to the floor. It's not a question of whether we agree or not; your own bill you haven't brought to the floor. Now, in terms of the Violence Against Women Act, you knew that the Senate wouldn't do that and the President said he was going to veto it. You didn't sit down with the President to do it because you wanted to exclude some people. You wanted to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence in this country when all the experts say if you exclude people, we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. So I think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate, I would say with all due respect.

Mr. HOYER. Which is not true? I said a number of things. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. We have a difference of opinion on whether or not they want to exclude people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and every woman Member, Republican, of the United States Senate voted for it. Every one. That was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be. But we also think there aren't people who were included who need to be, and that was the difference between the two bills. So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my characterization was absolutely accurate. But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we still haven't answered the question. We tend to want to talk about other things. Ninety-eight percent of Americans should not get a tax increase on January 1 who are making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a family. I think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, I haven't heard that we don't agree on that. But we agree on that, which means that there are 2 percent on which we do not agree, and that bill has not been brought to the floor, that passed the United States Senate, dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent of small businesses. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98 percent, and the President of the United States will sign that bill, the majority leader knows that, I know it and the American people know it. He will sign that bill. That bill has not moved, not because of the 98 percent, but because of the 2 percent. That's my contention, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98 percent. We ought to pass that bill. We ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. And the American people at least ought to have that on the floor. And, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt so that our children are not put deeply into debt; and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults; yes, we can have that debate. Bring the bill to the floor, and let us pass the Senate bill. And I would hope our Republican colleagues would join us and say, at least we're going to take care of the 98 percent, and then we'll argue about the 2 percent. We'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy, whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy. Very frankly, I tell my friend, the majority leader, I was here in 1993, and the gentleman was not, I believe. But I was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1\1/2\ percent, 1\3/4\ percent of the American taxpayers. Your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite, in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed. You're taking the same contention now, and that study took the same proposition. It was wrong then; it is wrong now. I would hope, very sincerely, that we could agree on that on which we agree, because we agree on 98 percent, and let that move and not hold it hostage to the 2 percent on which we do not agree. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53 percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It's a misleading figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not, in our opinion, small businesses at all. The gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53 percent of small businesses, because it is our contention that 97 percent of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97 percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal. If the gentleman thinks I'm incorrect, I'll be glad to hear that. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion that people I don't like. I would hope the gentleman would retract that. It has nothing to do with people we like or don't like.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is one. Every economist will tell you that; and certainly every businessperson will tell you that, large, medium or small. And none of us on this side of the aisle have used pejorative--I have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. That's not an issue at all. It is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps Members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt. We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican convention; we ought to take personal responsibility. And the gentleman continues to talk about job creation. We want job creation. We have a Make It in America agenda that, unfortunately, hasn't moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President that economists say would have created a million more jobs. It lays, still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this House--notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I have discussed that, moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions. I lament the fact when we talk about this again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98 percent, that we don't agree on the 97 percent. I think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it is because we do agree on it. He said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase. And by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the Republicans in this House and in the Senate and signed by George Bush. That's why those taxes are going up on January 1, because you sunsetted that tax increase. You didn't make it permanent. Why did you do that? For scoring purposes, because you knew that it would score great deficits. I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill Clinton won the election was because the economy was going downhill. That's the same reason Barack Obama won the election. And he talks about jobs. A policy that was unanimously opposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republican side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate created 22 million private sector jobs. We know something about creating private sector jobs. Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now, right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs. In 1993, you were demonstrably wrong. I don't mean you personally. Mr. Speaker, I'm simply referring to the Republican Party's position on that. They were demonstrably wrong--22 million new jobs. In '01 and '03, you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you're talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs. You lost jobs in the private sector over those 8 years, Mr. Leader-- I'm sure you know that--about 600,000 net. You lost 4 million jobs in 2008, in the last year of the Bush administration. You lost 818,000 jobs in the last month; 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the Bush administration and under these policies, which we apparently have to pass again, or we won't take care of the 98 percent of Americans who are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, and help our economy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this conversation--I understand that--but it is lamentable that this is another instance when we continue to talk about bills for message purposes that we know the President won't sign--that he said he won't sign--and that we know the Senate won't pass; and we allow those 98 percent of Americans to twist in the wind because we will not deal with the other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and discuss it and vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, apparently, will not see in the next 2\1/2\ days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts. I yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. I have one more subject I want to cover.

Mr. HOYER. I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker, because there is a no more important issue that confronts us as a Congress or us as a people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence, not only to our own people, but to people around the world, that America has got its financial house in order. We need to do that. We can argue the specifics one way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we do have a difference. We had that difference in 1993, and we argued about it. We won that argument on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we lost on that argument, which is why we were in the deepest recession at the end of the last administration that this country has been in my lifetime, and I'm not one of the younger Members of this body. I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. The American people, I think, hope that as well, Mr. Speaker. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman. I presume he refers to the Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of course, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows that. The Ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of Medicare for people. The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the matter is--and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I wanted to talk about--we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. That is the single most important objective that this Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Perfectly? No. Would we all agree on every aspect? No, but it was a plan that said we have to have a balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal with entitlements; we had to deal with revenues, and we are now collecting 14.8 percent of revenues. That's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years. We have underpriced our product; and if we were a business, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. We have deep pockets, and we can keep borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO discipline that we had in the nineties that helped balance the budget 4 years in a row--the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing, or knowing that we are here, but that has been done. It was done because we paid for what we bought. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity--not in the next 2 days of this session before the election--but we are going to have a lame duck. We are going to have to come back here, and we are going to have to do some serious things. We need to as Americans--not as Democrats, not as Republicans--have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities. Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of that group from the House walked away from it--voted ``no'' and said, No, we will not agree. So it didn't get the 14 votes that it needed to be brought to this floor. I think that's a sad fact. That should have had a robust debate and perhaps a modification, but it was a plan that said to all Americans that we're all going to have to be in this together--a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility. The S&P downgraded us not because we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States of America for the first time in the lifetime of anybody I know--and perhaps in history--because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn't respond, Iraq, Iran. He didn't respond, terrorists. He didn't respond, other enemies around the world. He said the biggest security concern that he had--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in America. Mr. Speaker, we need to address it. My friend the majority leader, he and I have worked together on a number of things. We've worked on a number of things this session that we've passed in a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that he and I would both commit ourselves to, during the lame duck session, doing our responsibility to America and to our constituents in reaching a Bowles- Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of Six. Almost every economist who has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. If we simply have sold our souls to Grover Norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if we summon the courage and the will to solve this problem, we can do it. I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work together over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. If we do that, we could redeem this Congress' performance, and I hope we will do that. I don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment on that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I have a very short time, but I wanted to make that point that you kept buying mints; you just didn't keep paying. Madam Speaker, this bill is another instance of this Republican caucus walking away from its responsibility. The budget sequester was never intended to be a solution in and of itself. It was meant to be the blunt instrument to force compromise. Unfortunately, ``compromise'' is a dirty word around here in some quarters. To lay out conditions, as this bill does, requiring one side to concede before negotiations even begin--and while solving only part of the problem--disregards sequestration's fundamental purpose: to be equally unacceptable to both sides that it forces compromise. This bill, which I strongly oppose, essentially says, let's pretend. Let's pretend we don't have a deficit challenge. It says, let's pretend that we can solve our problems by cutting domestic spending alone. No rational human being believes that's the case. No cuts to Republicans' favored programs, no elimination of tax loopholes for oil companies or anybody else, no increases in revenue by asking the wealthiest to contribute a little more to setting our country on a sound path. We're collecting the lowest amount of revenues we've collected in 70 years in this country, and we haven't cut spending, and we increased spending in the last administration very substantially. By the way, a greater percentage than this administration has increased the deficits: 86 percent versus 41 percent. Check the figures. What we need, Madam Speaker, is pragmatism, principle, and serious governing. We need to be honest with the American people. Both bipartisan commissions that explored that issue concluded that the best solution is a balanced approach that addresses revenues, entitlements, and targeted cuts to domestic and defense spending. To achieve such a balanced solution, we need something that is sorely lacking in this House: courage, and a willingness to compromise, to come together, to reason together, and to make tough decisions together. Sequester is the direct result of Republican policies and is a part of the Republican strategy to cut spending. You keep saying, well, it's the Democrats. This is not a Democratic policy. It's an irrational policy, but it's in your bills and in your rules. Now, instead of working with Democrats to turn off the sequester, Republicans are trying to paint the sequester as a Democratic initiative. That is false, untrue.

Mr. HOYER. The Republican cut, cap and balance bill enforces its cuts and its caps. How? Through sequestration. That's what you voted for. After the agreement was reached on the Budget Control Act that put the sequester in place, Speaker Boehner said, ``I got 98 percent of what I wanted.'' Now our Republican colleagues are attempting to undo the sequester in a way that let's them off the hook politically but puts America at risk financially. Democrats have an alternative--Mr. Van Hollen just spoke of it--that would repeal the sequester for a year by asking that the wealthiest in our country, why, because they can help a little more, not because they're bad. God bless them. And by the way, we're most of those as well, folks. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle, who I know are as deeply concerned about our deficits and debt as I am, will join Democrats in defeating this bill and sending a message that only by working together can we find the solutions we need. America expects that of us.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I tell my friend from California whose dollar was at issue here, the gentleman from California, I will tell you with all due respect and affection, your party, over the last 10 years, took that dollar and they bought those mints; and they went to the six subsequent stores and they gave them a credit card for the next mints they bought. It's time to pay the bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first I want to, of course, associate myself with the remarks from Mr. Dreier and Mr. Price, who have done such terrific work on the spread of democracy, but also to lament the tragic loss of life and the courage displayed by our men and women in our Foreign Service who are deployed abroad to represent the United States, its democracy, and its principles. Madam Speaker, I regretfully rise, however, to talk about another unhappy subject. Our fiscal house is burning, and in Washington we continue to play and fiddle. We have another 8, perhaps 13, days left, or less than that. I don't know whether we're going to be here in October, but I do know that we're going to be here for a very short time--this week, frankly, doing message bills. The middle class tax cut which passed the Senate lays fallow somewhere, not brought to this floor, to assure that our middle class citizens would understand that they weren't going to get a tax increase on January 1, give them confidence, give our economy confidence, to help grow our economy. We have not assured our doctors that the payments for Medicare services to patients will in fact be available. We have not taken substantive action to set aside the sequester with a balanced plan. There will be a bill on sequester. That will be largely opposed on our side of the aisle because it does not provide for balance. It simply says set aside the sequester, which is the direct result of Republican policies. In fact, the Republicans have offered two bills on the floor which say that sequester is the option of choice if you don't meet certain numbers. They did that in their Cut, Cap and Balance bill, which was enforced how? Through sequestration. We understand that sequestration is an irrational act. Why is it an irrational act? Because it is as if you have a food budget and a movie budget at home and you have tight finances that week, that month, that year. You don't cut your food budget exactly the same as you cut your movie budget. You say, We're going to forego a movie and make sure we have healthy food on the table. That's what we ought to do. We ought to have a strategic way and a balanced way to get this deficit that is out of control and needs to be handled under control, and the best way to turn off the sequester is a balanced plan. But what we will see offered on this floor is not a balanced plan, but a plan which says, Do it our way or no way. Now, very frankly, that's been the history of this Congress. I've served in 16 Congresses. This is the least productive Congress in which I've served. Now, that view is shared by two scholars, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, who wrote in a book and wrote in an op-ed: We've been studying Washington politics in Congress for more than 40 years and never have we seen them--meaning the Congress of the United States--as dysfunctional. The American public share that view, of course, and our poll numbers reflect it; properly so. Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein go on: In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. They went on to say: The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of the political opposition and, therefore, unwilling to compromise. That's what our gridlock is caused by, an unwillingness to compromise. The Senate has passed a farm bill. The Senate has passed a farm bill which would help farmers threatened by drought. As a matter of fact, their own committee has reported out a farm bill, but that farm bill has not been brought to the floor because, apparently, the majority of Republicans aren't for a farm bill. So even their own bill is not brought to the floor, much less a bipartisan-passed farm bill in the United States Senate which could be passed and would get a significant number of Democratic votes--not because we believe it's exactly what we want, but because we believe it is a compromise that will work for America and America's farmers. Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, the American public ought to know that in the next few days we're not going to be doing much of anything; not on jobs for Americans, not on the fiscal cliff that confronts us, not on farm bills, not on the Violence Against Women Act, which also passed the United States Senate in a bipartisan, overwhelming fashion. No, we fiddle. We fiddle while the fiscal fires burn. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues--I don't think we're going to get anything done before November 6. I think it's going to be politics, politics as usual. The American public and America will suffer for that. But I think that's what's going to happen. But I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and Madam Speaker, I would urge the American people to demand of us that we not perceive the lame duck session as simply a time to further fiddle. It ought to be a time, my colleagues, when we act, we come together, we adopt a balanced, fair plan to get the fiscal house of America in order, to put ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path that is credible, that people believe in, so that the rating agencies, which are now talking about perhaps downgrading the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on Earth--why? Not because we don't have the resources to solve our fiscal problems but because they do not perceive that we have the political will and willingness to do so or the courage. My colleagues, Americans expect more of us. We ought to expect more of ourselves. We have an obligation, a responsibility. We swore an oath to protect and defend not only the Constitution but the welfare of this country. Putting our country on a fiscally sustainable path is absolutely essential. I don't think we're going to do it before November 6, but I would hope every one of us, every one of us who comes back here the second week in November, or the end of the second week of November, will pledge ourselves to work together, as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, not as conservatives, not as liberals or moderates, but as Americans, understanding that the only way every commission that's reported has said we're going to get our house in order is to come together and do so in a balanced way. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, that means making sure that we deal with revenues. We pay for what we buy. That's what revenues are about. We pay for what we buy. And then we deal with the spiraling cost of health care. Everybody's talked about that. We have to do it. President Clinton talked about that. Paul Ryan talks about that. We have to do it. But we can keep the guarantee of Medicare, we can keep the guarantee of Social Security in the process, while getting our fiscal house in order on the entitlement side. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we owe it to the American people. The American people expect us to act responsibly. We are fiddling while the fiscal house of America burns. Let us summon the courage, the judgment, and the personal responsibility each one of us has, that when we return here after the election and, hopefully, the politics are behind us, those 30-second, 60-second ads which misinterpret, misinform, and dissemble are behind us, and we say to all of our citizens who we represent, we are prepared to exercise the courage and judgment to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path that is credible. Not only will rating agencies believe in it, our citizens will believe in it, our businesses will believe in it, and the international community will as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank my friend, Congressman Lipinski, for taking on this Special Order. For someone who had been regaled, as I understand it, earlier, by his colleagues who know him best, before I came to the floor, this is a body in which you get to know people. You get to know their characters, their personalities, their civility, their effectiveness, their work ethic, their patriotism, their willingness to work with others. On all of those counts, all of his colleagues found Jerry Costello to be one of the best among them. Jerry Costello came to this Congress in the election of 1988. He has been my colleague for all of the years that he has served in this House. I was privileged to come just a few years before Jerry Costello. He was elected by the people of Illinois after an extraordinary career early in life, as a young man. He was not only attending to the court system of Illinois but also as the county executive, as the leader of one of the largest counties in Illinois. He was chosen because of his judgment, chosen because of his good sense, his common sense, chosen because of his effectiveness as a representative of the people. There has not been a day that has gone by that I have served with Jerry Costello that I did not have all of those affirmations affirmed here in this House. So I rise with my friend, Mr. Lipinski, to honor Jerry Costello. Now, we're going to have the opportunity to serve with Jerry Costello for another 3 months at least. Jerry Costello is very much alive. This is not a eulogy. Jerry Costello is someone who is still a young man for whom I see a very bright future. In whatever endeavor he chooses to pursue, he will be successful; and with whomever he works, they will be advantaged. In whatever he does, I know that we're all going to stay in close touch with Jerry Costello. The preceding speaker and Mr. Lipinski--and whose dad before him--now serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is a critical committee of the Congress of the United States, one of the most important in terms of growing jobs and expanding our economy because it invests in the infrastructure, which is the underpinning of a growing economy. My friend Mr. Lipinski has fought so hard for legislation to expand manufacturing--a Make It In America agenda item-- and has focused on making sure that we have had an infrastructure that has supported manufacturing, the distribution of goods and the transportation of goods to our shores to be sent abroad for purchase by our trading partners. Jerry Costello was part of the leadership of two of the major transportation bills that have passed this House in recent years, ensuring not only that Illinois received particular attention but that America received particular attention, every part of this America. The best traditions of a Congressman are, yes, in representing his district effectively, but also in understanding that his responsibility is to all of America. Jerry Costello has fulfilled that expectation with flying colors and great effectiveness. We are going to miss Jerry Costello. But I want to tell Jerry Costello--and I hope he's listening--that we have a few days left to go, and I'm going to look forward to working with him. I am hopeful that, in the lame duck session, we'll address one of the most vexing problems confronting this country, and that is getting ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. I expect Jerry Costello to be in the leadership of that effort as he has been in the leadership of so many efforts. Again, Congressman Lipinski, I want to thank you for your leadership, for your service, for your commitment to the same kinds of things that Jerry Costello has been committed to in building up this country and in making sure that average working men and women have had jobs and that we have expanded our economy by investing in our economy. So it is appropriate that you lead this Special Order on behalf of a kindred soul, Jerry Costello. You and he represent a real leadership on behalf of growth, jobs, and economic success in America. We thank Jerry Costello for his service, but we look forward to working with him in whatever capacity he chooses to follow in the years ahead.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to congratulate Dan Lipinski for authoring this legislation. It is one of the key pieces of our Make It in America agenda, which my distinguished friend from North Carolina has discussed. I also want to thank my dear and good friend, Mary Bono Mack, for her leadership on this effort. As the gentleman said, and I can adopt the remarks of the previous speaker, Mr. Kinzinger, we do need a manufacturing policy. We do need a manufacturing renaissance. And we do need a psychology that America is going to be number one and stay number one and create the kind of good- paying jobs for our people that manufacturing provides. Andrew Liveris, who's the chief CEO of Dow Chemical, wrote a book. The name of that book is ``Make It in America.'' Manufacture it in America. Grow it in America. Sell it here and sell it around the world. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Lipinski's bill, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. This passed out of committee unanimously 4 months ago. This bill is a key part of House Democrats' Make It in America plan to strengthen American manufacturing. But it's not a Democratic plan. It's not a Republican plan. It's an American plan. All of us can resoundingly support this and take ownership of a renaissance in manufacturing. For the past 2 years, our manufacturing sector was a bright spot in our economic recovery, seeing the first increase in manufacturing jobs since the nineties. But for the last 3 months that sector has begun to contract a little bit, a symptom of Congress' failure, in my opinion, to take serious action on legislation like Make It in America. And, yes, taxes and regulations. The gentleman was correct. That's why we need the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. This bill will bring the public and private sectors together with labor and other stakeholders to craft plans to develop comprehensive national manufacturing strategies in 2014 and 2018. Ladies and gentlemen, none of you doubt that our competitors across this globe are doing this. We are late to this ball game. But the good news is we are the most able, productive economy in the world, and we can compete with anybody. All we need is a good plan. Other nations around the globe have strategies to increase the manufacturing to keep America competitive. It is imperative that we have a plan as well. Not to pick winners and losers, but to create the environment of which the gentleman spoke just before me about an environment that allows manufacturing to grow. I want to thank, again, the ranking member for his very compelling statement that he made. The Obama administration focused on revitalizing the manufacturing sector, and Representative Lipinski's bill ensures that the U.S. Government will continue to pursue policies that bolster manufacturing and add jobs. I want to commend Representative Lipinski for his leadership on this issue, as well as Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Butterfield, whom I've already referenced, and other Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also want to commend those Republican leaders on the Commerce Committee, and Mr. Manzullo, who is sitting here, my dear friend, who heads up the Small Business Committee, is focused on growing jobs in America. I also want to thank Chairman Upton and I have already thanked Chairman Bono Mack, but she is my good friend so I'll thank her again, for their work to make sure this bill came to the floor with bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee reported this bill in June with a bipartisan vote. I am sure it will receive a bipartisan vote tonight. I will tell you there is no place in America you can go--not the most conservative district, not the most liberal district, not the most Republican district or the most Democratic district. And you could talk about make it in America, and you'll get heads nodding in agreement. This is not an issue of philosophy. It's a pragmatic issue of growing our economy, creating the kinds of jobs that our people need, jobs that pay well, give them good benefits, and a bright future for them, their families, and their children. So I commend both the Republican and Democratic side for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor and urge its unanimous adoption by this Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the one-year anniversary of the International Food Safety Training Laboratory (IFSTL) at the University of Maryland. This ground-breaking public-private-academic partnership puts to work government, university and private industry resources to expand the capacity of food safety scientists globally. The global food trade has soared over the past two decades. Increasing public demand for international foods has resulted in global food exports exceeding $1 trillion per year. With changing regulations and technologies coupled with shrinking budgets from tough economic conditions, assuring food safety has become a growing challenge. We know how important it is for our food supply to be 100% safe. Americans need confidence that the food they provide their families is free of contamination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a big job to do, and the recent Food Safety Modernization Act will help them protect our food supply. But even with the added protections afforded by this law, the FDA still can't respond to the hundreds of requests from foreign governments to train their officials on U.S. regulatory standards and requirements. And the best way to ensure food safety is make sure the food is safe before it reaches our borders. The IFSTL greatly assists the FDA by training food safety scientists from around the world on the best food safety practices. They learn how to better detect food borne contamination and what they have to do to meet U.S. regulatory standards. This training will enable governments and food manufacturers to more easily detect contaminated food at farms, ports and manufacturing plants and it will increase compliance with food regulations. Over time, this will make food safer when it reaches our tables. The IFSTL also creates permanent channels of communication between food regulators and producers from around the world, allowing them to work together to identify and resolve food safety challenges. This supports trade between countries and enables food safety standards to rise across the board. I am proud to join IFSTL in celebrating their first of many anniversaries. I thank them for their work and commend their partners that have helped: the University of Maryland, the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the FDA, and Waters Corporation. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are now at some point in time going to conclude 4 weeks in session with little to show for it. Over the past month, the Republican do-nothing Congress has continued its relentless pursuit of message over substance. Not only have they failed to address job creation or deficit reduction in any serious way, they have also refused to work with us to pass bills that the Senate approved with bipartisan support: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act--critically important to women and to families; postal reform--absolutely essential; a farm bill. Their approach has been confrontation, unfortunately, not compromise. As a result, House Republicans have been unable to govern. This week, in the most brazen abandonment of responsibility we've seen yet, Republicans chose to adjourn for the summer, which we prevented, without a middle class tax cut extension signed into law. We ought not to adjourn, ladies and gentlemen of this House, until we pass a middle class tax cut.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the adjournment resolution has arrived from the Senate, and I just want to advise not only my Members but all Members that there will be a vote following the next vote, which was scheduled to be the last vote, but because the adjournment resolution is now here, I want to advise my Members and obviously other Members as well. I've talked to Mr. Cantor, the leader, who has been helpful on this effort as well, that there will be another vote following this vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this week's middle class tax cut debate is unfortunately an unnecessary sequel to December's fight over extending payroll tax cuts. Republicans campaigned on a pledge to seek bipartisan solutions to our pressing challenges, but when faced with a bipartisan agreement in December of last year, they chose to walk away. Unfortunately, they appear ready to do so again. When it comes to extending tax cuts to the middle class, Democrats and Republicans agree; both believe we ought to do so. So we have agreement. That agreement has been reflected in a Senate-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, as you know. So with millions faced with the uncertainty of whether their taxes will go up next year, why haven't we acted? This should be an easy vote for an overwhelming majority of Members to say, Let's extend these tax cuts we agree on, and then debate what we don't agree on. It should be easy. But the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are continuing to do what they do so often, have done best this Congress--obstruct, delay, and walk away. In December, by holding hostage an extension of the payroll tax cuts for 98 percent of our taxpayers, Republicans walked away from the middle class. They walked away from their responsibility to seek compromise on job creation and economic recovery. They walked away from negotiations over deficit reduction, setting up the dangerous sequester that now looms at the end of the year. The sequester exists because Republicans pursued a policy of placing the Nation's debt at risk. Today, sadly, they are walking away from the middle class and working families once more, demanding their way or nothing on tax cuts. No tax cuts for the middle class, they insist, without an additional tax break for the upper 2 percent of income earners. In other words, we agree on 98 percent. We don't agree on 2 percent. Rather than doing that which we agree upon for 98 percent of the American taxpayers, we will hold them hostage until we get agreement on the 2 percent. Of course if we agree on the 2 percent, it will add a trillion dollars over 10 years, if followed for 10 years, to our deficit and debt. Republicans' plan of tax cuts for the wealthy hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. Under President Reagan and both Presidents Bush, deficits climbed. Democrats want to return to the successful policies we had under President Clinton, when we had the most successful economy, 4 years of balanced budgets, and 4 years in which we did not increase the national debt. I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we've had many opportunities to work together this year to address our challenges, but each time our Republican colleagues have walked away. In doing so, they broke a central promise in their pledge to America-- that is, the promise to let the majority work its will. We could have extended the payroll tax cuts without a fight. We could have found a big and balanced solution to deficits. And we could be voting today on a tax cut extension for 100 percent of Americans who make up to $200,000. Or, if they're a couple, $250,000. But in each case, Mr. Speaker, Republicans moved not towards the center but to the right to placate the extreme wing within their party. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Representative Richard Hanna of New York, a Republican, said this about his party in Congress: I have to say that I am frustrated by how much we--I mean the Republican Party--are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment of history. The gentleman from New York went on to say: We render ourselves incapable of governing when all we do is take severe sides. If all people do is go down there and join a team, and the team is invested in winning and you have something similar to the shirts and the skins, there's not a lot of value there. Congressman Hanna in this instance is right. Republicans have been unable to govern. Again and again, this Republican House has received compromise bills from the Senate but has been incapable of agreeing to legislation or passing a version that could become law. That was true on transportation. It's true on the farm bill, and it's true on Violence Against Women. And it's true on this tax bill. Examples include, as I've said, Violence Against Women and the farm bill, postal reform, the highway bill, FAA reauthorization, and many others. Instead of focusing on winning politically, they ought to be concerned about governing effectively. They could learn much from our outstanding Olympic athletes. In team sports like soccer and basketball, athletes who normally compete against each other at home have come together as one team, Team USA. They've won gold; they've been successful. We could be as well if we came together as Team USA. Those athletes may harbor rivalries most of the time. They may not be used to working together. And they all know that when the cauldron is extinguished, they'll once again wear different colors. But right now in London, they're all wearing red, white, and blue, and they've set their differences aside to achieve victory together. We ought to follow their example. Republicans ought to follow their example. We have a chance today to be one team and make possible what we agree ought to happen. Again, we agree on 98 percent of the proposal. Let's agree on that, and agree to debate that on which we don't agree. So I say to my Republican friends, stop walking away from the middle class and start working with us to get things done on their behalf. Let me quote someone I don't usually quote, Newt Gingrich, when he was Speaker of this House when we were considering a compromise that he and President Clinton had agreed to, and so many of his Republicans colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, opposed Newt Gingrich's efforts. He said: I would say for just a minute, if I might, to my friends who were asking for a `no' vote, the `perfectionist caucus.' He concluded his remarks in urging them to vote for a compromise agreement: So the question is: Can we craft a bill which is a win for the American people because it is a win for the President and a win for the Congress? Because if we cannot find a way to have all three winning, we do not have a bill worthy of being passed. The President has indicated he will not sign the Republican bill, and the Senate won't pass the Republican bill. But again, my friends, Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have agreement on 98 percent, and we are hung up because we don't have agreement on the other 2 percent. Speaker Gingrich went on: Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their own world where they are petty dictators, could write a perfect bill. And he concluded: In a free society, we have to have give and take. We have to be able to work. Mr. Speaker, Americans must lament the fact that they see their Representatives agreeing on 98 percent of a proposition and will not pass it. They will not pass it because the perfectionist caucus has promised in many respects to one individual American we will not raise taxes ever. We won't pay for what we buy, even if we think it's important. Mr. Speaker, both parties have an opportunity today to stand up and reflect agreement and do something positive for the American people, do something positive for the American economy, do something positive to grow jobs in America. Do something that will give certainty and confidence to the overwhelming majority of Americans, who will say that Congress can work. It can, as families understand they must do every day, reach compromise, come together, reason with one another and give and take, as Speaker Gingrich said. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we reflect the best in us today, not the worst, not the confrontational inclination, but the inclination to come together, to make America better and to make sure that the American people, who are working hard every day, don't see a tax increase on January 1 as a result of a ``perfectionist caucus'' unwilling to compromise, unwilling to pass an already-passed Senate bill that will give 98 percent of Americans confidence that they will not receive any tax increase on January 1. What a good thing that would be for America, for the American people, and for the American economy. Let's work together. America expects us to do that, and that's what we ought to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. First, I want to rise and thank Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her continuing leadership and focus on this important issue, as she does on so many other issues as well. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from California and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman. His leadership on this issue in Congress is second to none, and I commend him for his work. This is a bill I expect will pass with overwhelming support in both parties and for good reason. Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. America's policy, as President Obama has stated, is prevention, not containment. We have many tools at our disposal to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons technology. While President Obama is keeping all options on the table, the best diplomatic tool we have to deter Iran is the sanctions regime his administration has expanded along with our allies in Europe and elsewhere. These sanctions have already had a significant effect, and Iran continues to face the prospect of severe economic repercussions if they fail to abandon their nuclear weapons plan. President Obama deserves credit for his tough stances. The new sanctions this legislation would impose target entities conducting business with Iran's insurance, energy, and shipping sectors. As a result of prohibitions on repatriating oil revenues, these sanctions would deny Iran 80 percent of its hard currency earnings. Iran's banking sector, including its central bank, is already sanctioned, a result of the Iranian Government's financial support for terrorism in the region and around the world. There is no better evidence why this bill is so important than the fact that 2 weeks ago, a terrorist attack in Bulgaria killed six innocent civilians, five of them vacationing Israelis. There have been numerous press reports linking Iran to that attack. As long as Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, call for the destruction of Israel, and provide arms to terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, it will face the consequences in the form of sanctions, isolation, and the continuing reality of the option of military action.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The United States continues to stand strongly with our ally Israel. And I am proud to have led an effort earlier this year with the majority leader to strengthen U.S.-Israel military and intelligence relations. I urge all of my colleagues to unite behind this bill, just as we did behind that one. A nuclear-armed Iran is not an option for the Middle East, for the international community, and for the United States.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Designed to fail. That's what this bill is. It is designed to fail. Very frankly, you made sure that it was going to fail when you passed the amendment that added the reform bill and this bill together. Designed to fail. How sad. I don't think you want to raise taxes on anybody. I understand that. I'll accept that premise. What we ought to do is to make sure, in the agreement that we have with the Senate and the House, that at least the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 have no increase in their taxes. At least we ought to do that. America knows we have agreement on that. They're wondering why, when you have agreement, you don't take that agreement and give the assurance and certainty to 98 percent of the American working people that they won't have an increase in their taxes so that they'll have the confidence that they'll have that money in their pockets to, perhaps, purchase that refrigerator that they need or that oven that they need or perhaps a new car or so that they can help their kids go to college. Why don't we give them that confidence, I say to my friends. Mr. Speaker, I wish we would do so. Today, we could embrace the agreement that the Senate has come to and tell the 98 percent, ``You're safe.'' In addition to that, by rejecting this bill, we will reject taking money out of 25 million people's pockets that they rely on to support themselves and their children. That's what the Senate bill does. It protects the wealthiest in America while telling some of the poorest in America, the least well- off in America, you're going to pay more, you're going to get less. How perverse. How undermining of our economy. How undermining of the confidence of our people. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we're better than this. Newt Gingrich talked some years ago in 1998 about the ``Perfectionist Caucus.'' Mr. Speaker, he said embrace agreement. He was agreeing with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich at that point in time on a budget which adopted PAYGO one more time, which is one of the reasons why we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. The House Ways and Means bill leaves 98 percent of our people at risk, while our bill gives 100 percent of the people a tax cut. Let us reject the House bill. Let us adopt the substitute. Let us send it to the Senate and make it law. The President will sign it, and it can become law and give confidence and help to those 98 percent of Americans. This Republican proposal, is not the straight-forward tax cut extension middle-class families and small business owners are asking for. Instead it extends tax cuts to even the highest incomes, a plan already rejected by the Senate and which the President has said he would veto. Moving forward with this legislation will only prolong the uncertainty the American people have asked us to end. What we ought to do--before the August district work period--is pass the extension where we have agreement--for earnings under $250,000, which is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans. Ninety eight percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses will see no change to their taxes. Let's pass what we agree on now and afterward debate what we disagree on. Instead, we've seen Republicans insist on an all or nothing approach, which has held middle-class tax relief hostage to tax cuts for the top 2 percent. Now, they are doing so once again, with a rule on this bill that makes it harder for us to reach an agreement to prevent a tax hike on the middle class. This is not the regular order or open process Speaker Boehner and Republicans campaigned on and pledged to uphold in this House. At the same time, this bill would impose an average tax hike of $1,000 on 25 million working families by allowing the expanded Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to expire while eliminating the American Opportunity Tax Credit. That lies in stark contrast to the $160,000 tax cut this bill would deliver to the average millionaire, according to the National Economic Council. Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill, and I call on Republicans to work with us to pass the tax cut extension for the middle class on which we all agree.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend ORBIS International, an organization that has been an outstanding member of the global community for 30 years. I am proud to recognize its invaluable service and contributions to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world. ORBIS International is a U.S.-based global health organization dedicated to saving sight and eliminating avoidable blindness in developing countries. Created in 1982, ORBIS has conducted over 1,000 programs in 88 countries, trained over 288,000 healthcare professionals and touched the lives of 18 million children and adults. Today, we celebrate ORBIS International's 30 years of commitment to preserving and restoring sight by strengthening the capacity of local institutions in developing nations in their efforts to prevent and treat blindness. The story of ORBIS International is a remarkable one. A grant from USAID and funds from private donors enabled ORBIS to begin its mission by successfully converting a plane into a fully functional teaching eye hospital, and in 1982 it flew to Panama on its first training mission. Today, the world's only Flying Eye Hospital visits 6-8 nations each year conducting programs, training medical personnel, and providing eye care services. ORBIS is more than a Flying Eye Hospital with permanent programs and regional offices in the countries that have the highest prevalence of avoidable blindness. ORBIS has conducted more than 900 capacity building programs in its 30-year history. These capacity building programs were conducted through its six country and regional-based offices, the Flying Eye Hospital, and ORBIS' in-country, hospital-based training sessions. In addition to treating a number of diseases of the eye that can cause blindness, ORBIS is also working in Africa to eliminate trachoma, one of the seven Neglected Tropical Diseases. Trachoma, an infectious disease found predominantly in developing countries, starts as an infection and progresses to corneal scarring. ORBIS International teaches surgical techniques and treatment for trachoma in Ethiopia and other developing countries. Blindness has profound human and socioeconomic consequences. The costs of lost productivity and of rehabilitation and education of the blind constitute a significant economic burden for the individual, the family and society. Investments in avoidable blindness and visual impairment offer not only economic and social returns in global health, but they dramatically improve the quality of life of individuals and families. ORBIS International is a trusted partner in the global coalition of organizations fighting preventable blindness. ORBIS programs and partnerships provide the skills, infrastructure and on-going support to build the capacity and skills necessary to sustain care at a local level. As a founding member of Vision 2020: The Right to Sight, a campaign led by the World Health Organization and other leading blindness prevention organizations to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020, ORBIS is dedicated to working in partnership to create a world free of needless blindness. I am honored to join ORBIS International in celebrating its 30 year commitment toward achieving its goal of a world in which no one is needlessly blind, and where quality eye care is available to everyone. I want to thank ORBIS International for the lives it has touched and its leadership in providing valuable health and training services across the globe.