Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I certainly hope that we are moving in a positive direction because we've been a long time getting to resolution of this matter. Next I would like to ask--you indicated that student loans may be on the calendar as well. Can the gentleman tell me what his expectation is on that, if he knows?

Mr. HOYER. Well, I'm hopeful that we can resolve this in a way that is agreeable to at least the majority of both Houses and to the President of the United States because if we don't, as the gentleman knows, we're going to increase interest rates by doubling them from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Today's college students are leaving with an average of $26,000 in debt. This would add another $1,000 of debt to those students, and right now, with students owing more than $1 trillion, placing more debt on their head. And I would urge us, therefore, to come to an agreement, come to an agreement that both sides could vote for. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the House bill that passed was a pay-for that Democrats didn't vote for here, and I think it was well known that the Senate would not agree to that, so I'm hopeful that we do reach an agreement that will provide for its passage. Now, let me ask the gentleman--we, of course, made the representation that we ought to be focused on jobs. We believe that's critically important, and we believe that ought to be the focus of this Congress. It's the focus of the American people. We went through, in years past, distractions. You say, with just some 30 full days left between now and the election, that you're going to bring up a resolution that came out of committee, as I understand, yesterday, without much time for consideration or deliberation, a very, very serious matter. Attorney General Holder, of course, has been involved in making sure that votes are not suppressed all over this country. He has, in my view, conducted himself in a way that brought credit to the Justice Department, to himself, and to this administration. I don't know--well, let me ask the gentleman. How long do you expect to spend on this motion? I don't think any of us have seen the final bill that's going to come to the floor or the resolution that's going to come to the floor suggesting that Mr. Holder be held in contempt. I don't think anybody outside of the committees has had an opportunity to consider this very weighty, important matter, very disruptive matter, if I would say, and distracting matter. What procedure does the gentleman suggest is going to be pursued next week on this matter? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. Which means that a matter of great weight is going to be brought to the floor within just a few days of being passed out of committee, with a relatively short period of time for either debate or for consideration. There is, of course, precedent, and the gentleman's correct. It is a privileged resolution, and I understand the rules under privileged resolutions. But I do understand that this is a matter that's going to require a very careful, judicious, if I can say, consideration. And to bring it up at a time when we ought to be focused on jobs, when you're trying to do two appropriations bills, when you're talking about the highway bill and we're talking about the student loan bill, and to treat it as somewhat of a suspension bill provision, with little time to really have it discussed with the seriousness that the subject matter requires, I would suggest to the gentleman that this is going to be not only a distraction, but an unfortunate taking our focus off of creating jobs here in America. I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. HOYER. Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman intend to go the Rules Committee to get a rule, or bring the privileged resolution directly to the floor? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. With respect to another piece of legislation, I would like to ask the gentleman about the Violence Against Women Act, which, again, the Senate passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and which we passed in a relatively partisan fashion over here, where the parties were split. Will the gentleman tell me whether or not he knows the status of that legislation and whether or not we expect to consider that anytime soon.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, we believe that the bill that passed the House on the Violence Against Women Act left out a lot of women. It reduced the scope that the Senate passed with, again, a bipartisan vote with, frankly, all the women on the Republican side of the aisle in the United States Senate voting for the Senate bill. We think the House bill restricted the coverage of that bill. It seems to me that we ought to be against violence against all women and other persons who may be subject to domestic violence. We would hope that that matter could be resolved, frankly, along the lines of making sure that all people are protected from domestic violence. Lastly, may I ask the gentleman what he expects the schedule for the balance of July to be. Again, I would reiterate, as the gentleman knows, we have very, very few days left, less than 30 full days between now and the election following this week. There are another 8 days that are 6:30 days, or some number, either 7 or 8 6:30 days, so we don't have very much time to deal with some of the pressing problems, including dealing with middle class tax cuts to make sure that working people in this country who are having a hard time making ends meet don't get an increase in their taxes on January 1. Will the gentleman tell me what he expects the schedule to be in the month of July.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that, clearly, when you look at the Congress to which he referred in terms of its productivity in the 2007 and 2008 years, we think the productivity was very much higher. I won't go through the litany of those figures; but I think, if the majority leader reviews them, he will see in terms of the productivity of the Congress that we moved America much further forward. Having said that, I want to say that we hope that we will continue to focus on jobs. I know I share the gentleman's view--and I think all of us share the view--that we want to have reasonable regulations that help grow the economy, not impede its growth. We're for that. We may have a difference of opinion on what that does when we think of deregulating the protection of our environment, when we think of deregulating the safety of our financial markets. When we took the referee off the field, it had an extraordinarily negative impact on this country and on every taxpayer in this country and on every business in this country. It was not useful. It was not helpful. I think we have a difference of opinion on whether or not we want to make sure there is a level playing field, a fair playing field, for all the participants in our economy--both businesses and consumers. Clearly, there was an effort that was being made to undermine the ability of the CFTC to fully oversee what was a market that went out of control. As a result, there were dire consequences to our country and its fiscal status. So I am hopeful that we don't pursue a regulatory agenda, which is an agenda with the net result of taking the referee off the field. I don't think the American public wants that, and I don't really think that that's reasonable. Further, I think they think we really need to be focused on things that will immediately grow this economy. The highway bill would have done that. Unfortunately, that highway bill has stayed in limbo for too long a time. I am hopeful that we can move it. Unless the gentleman has something further to say, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say to the gentleman, the items that he mentioned--some of which we may agree on, some of which we may not agree on--frankly, could have been included in the bill that the House could have reported out of committee and brought to the floor. That didn't happen. What we did was, with the inability to pass a bill that came out of your committee on the floor of the House, we then repaired to what was essentially a shell of a bill to go to conference. The problem that I have with the gentleman's statement is I hope that the statement that ``we may be getting there'' is correct.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4348.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on my motion to instruct.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Tomorrow will mark, as I said a little earlier, 100 days since the United States Senate approved its bipartisan compromise highway bill in the United States Senate. There were 74 Senators who voted for that. Essentially half of the Republican Conference in the United States Senate voted for that bill. There has been a bill in the House committee. That bill has languished in the House committee for many, many months--in fact, for about 4 months after the Speaker said he wanted to bring it to the floor. It has not come to the floor, apparently, because the Republican Party is divided on that bill, and they don't have the votes for that bill. That measure passed the Senate 74-22, and it would have been, by the way, 75-22 had Frank Lautenberg been there. He made that statement on the floor. That's three-quarters of the Senate, with the support of 22 Senate Republicans. Americans are wishing that we would come together, reason together, and act together to give certainty to them, to the economy, and to their country. Unfortunately, the House bill that was passed was effectively a bill simply to go to conference. I know my friend--and he is my friend--Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania will say that in the article that was written, that it was simply ``that House bill'' to which he was referring. I take him at his word that he was referring to that. But very frankly, others have said that there were items in the bill in committee that were critically important to them that ought to be in the conference committee report, and obviously the Senate would not agree to those. This bill, to which I refer and which this motion to instruct refers, is supported by chambers of commerce in cities and counties across this Nation. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation in the great tradition of transportation bills passed since the Eisenhower era. The gentleman who is managing the time on the Republican side, his father was a great proponent of infrastructure investment, a great leader in this Congress on infrastructure, and, in fact, participated--every time that I think he brought a bill out as ranking member, it was passed in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to that point at this point of time. Instead of taking up that bill, the Senate bill, and allowing us to have a vote on it here in the House--in my opinion, if the Republican leadership let its Members vote free of influence by the leadership, that bill would have the majority of votes on this House floor. Speaker Boehner has said he wants this House to work its will. In my point of view, in my estimation, that bill has a majority support on the floor of this House. It would have, I think, every Democratic vote, just as the Export-Import Bank had every vote on our side of the aisle. That's why it passed overwhelmingly, not withstanding Republican opposition. The caucus on the other side of the aisle, in my opinion, remains divided over how to proceed. House Republicans have, once again, turned an opportunity to invest in job creation into a partisan exercise in saying ``no'' to any legislation that might strengthen our recovery and lower our unemployment rate. I'm not unmindful, and I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania will observe, that apparently there has been some progress made. The progress that has been made is unknown to the Democratic side of this aisle. Neither the ranking member knows what progress has been made, nor the ranking member of the subcommittee knows what progress has been made. But we're going to be told, apparently, there is some progress that has been made. I hope that's the case. But, very frankly, if that progress is not made, we ought to pass the Senate bill. When presented with a real chance to lead, frankly, Republicans in my view too often have walked away. Whether it was keeping government going on continuing resolutions, whether it was on making sure that the most reliable and creditworthy Nation in the world did not default on its debt, whether it was on passing an Export-Import Bank to make sure that we created jobs and were competitive in this country, too often our Republican friends have decided not to go there. Republicans are unwilling to act on must-pass bills, and in several cases played a dangerous game by holding bills hostage. As I said, this includes the debt limit crisis last summer and the debate over extending the middle class payroll tax last December. Over and over again, our Republican colleagues have proven themselves to be the ``Walk-Away Caucus.'' This Congress has been in session for only 60 days so far this year. Between now and the election, we're scheduled to be in session for 38 days, but only 30 of those are full work days. Between now and the election--that's 4 months from now. Thirty days between today--June 21--and the election in November. With one wasted opportunity after another, they've earned the 112th a place in history as truly another ``Do-Nothing Congress,'' a phrase made famous by Harry Truman. Mr. Speaker, my motion is simple. It instructs the House conferees to agree to the Senate's version that is based on bipartisanship and doing what's right for our economy. What does that bill mean? The Senate bill leverages Federal funding to protect 1.9 million jobs. Why is that important? Because we lost 28,000 construction jobs last month alone. Why? Because we failed to pass this bill. In addition to the 1.9 million jobs that this bill would provide, it would provide another 1 million jobs as we expand transportation opportunities. In my home State of Maryland, nearly 29,000 jobs are supported by Federal transportation investments. Those are jobs of families who are paying taxes, sending their kids to school, buying groceries, buying goods and services, and supporting our economy. In Speaker Boehner's home State of Ohio, over 55,000 jobs are supported by this bill. And in Virginia, Republican leader Cantor's home State, almost 40,000 jobs are on the line. That highway funding expires July 1, just a few days from now. For the sake of all these workers, for the sake of all these families who rely on these jobs, and for the sake of all those workers and families who would be advantaged by the passage of this bill and the jobs that it will create--not only save, but create--in Maryland and Ohio, in Virginia--my colleague Mr. Moran is here--and across our country, let's pass this bill. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, let's pass a transportation bill that isn't simply another short-term extension. Such extensions provide no certainty to the businesses that rely on sound infrastructure to move goods to market. Let's pass the long-term reauthorization we need that will help put our economy back in drive--not in neutral and not in reverse. Don't take my word for it why this is so important and so urgent. Listen to President Ronald Reagan, who said in 1982--and I'm sure, frankly, the gentleman's dad would have supported these statements: The time has come to preserve what past Americans spent so much time and effort to create, and that means a nationwide conservation effort in the best sense of the word. America can't afford throwaway roads or disposable transit systems. Ladies and gentlemen, it's not too late for this Do-Nothing Congress to make a U-turn and get back to work. It's not too late to heed President Reagan's wise words. It's not too late to provide our businesses with the certainty they're asking for. I urge my Republican friends to start working with Democrats to make the investments we need to grow jobs and strengthen our competitiveness before it's too late. Frankly, that's what the American people expect. Let's for once not disappoint them. Let's pass this motion, and work together to move this country forward. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. But if we ``may be'' getting there, we're getting there because we've constantly done motions like this to get us to the issue. We are talking about some 2-plus million jobs. That's why the Chamber of Commerce is involved. That's why counties, States, and local municipalities are involved, saying, Come to an agreement. Very frankly, the bill that we passed here had some things that didn't relate to transportation. What the gentleman has mentioned are items that dealt with transportation. Your bill, as you well know, had items in it which were clearly not acceptable to the President of the United States because they were unrelated to transportation.

Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. The gentleman hasn't mentioned any of those. I am pleased that he hasn't mentioned those. I hope that the House Republicans have now decided that's not going to be the litmus test for whether or not we create jobs and save jobs in the transportation field and give certainty to contractors and to public entities. At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of this institution. I am a supporter, as Mr. Shuster pointed out, of regular order. I do believe that the House has a right and a duty and a responsibility to maintain its positions--when it can get to a position. Let me reiterate so the American people understand. Speaker Boehner said that the highway bill was very important to him. He wanted to see it reported out. The committee acted on a bill and never brought it to the floor. I pause so the American people can understand, the House has been unable to take a position. Now my friend will say, oh, no, we did pass a bill, and that's correct. Admittedly, however, from everybody's perspective, it was not a full bill; it was a shell bill. It was a shell bill to go to conference. Did it have some provisions in there? Yes, it did. It had Keystone in there, which was clearly unacceptable to the President in the form that it was offered and unacceptable to the Senate in the form that it was offered. Very frankly, my friend from Pennsylvania talks about his dad, who I know is very much alive and was a very good Member of this body. I will say that we did pass some extensions, all on a bipartisan fashion, as you well know. All on a bipartisan fashion. This was not done in a bipartisan fashion. We could have forged a bill that would have had overwhelming support in this House, in my opinion. The Republican side of the aisle chose not to do that. And I've got a hunch that my friend sitting in the chair, Mr. Shuster, regrets that. He doesn't have to say anything about that, but I just have a hunch he regrets that. I regret it. I regret that we are not able to come together and reason together, but we take hard-line positions that if you don't agree with me, it's my way or no highway. That's regrettable. The American people know it's regrettable. And I want to tell my friend from Pennsylvania, if it weren't 100 days ago, as of tomorrow, that a bipartisan--overwhelmingly bipartisan--bill was passed, and if this House had been able to pass a real highway bill, but we didn't have that opportunity. That bill was not brought to the floor. The gentleman knows that bill was not brought to the floor. It still languishes in his committee. Or perhaps it's been reported out and may be sitting someplace else. The fact of the matter is that this motion is designed to say to 1.9 million people who may lose their job if we don't pass a bill next Friday, in a Congress that has been mired in confrontation and unwilling to compromise, and another million people who will have job opportunities if that bill passes, it is to say, let us act. And we have a vehicle on which to act, a vehicle that enjoyed the support of all Democrats and half of the Republican Conference in the United States Senate, a bill that had agreement between Senator Boxer from California, correctly I think described as a liberal Democrat from the State of California, and Jim Inhofe, correctly described I believe as a conservative Republican from Oklahoma. They came together. They reached agreement. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is probably absolutely correct; it's not a perfect bill. I don't know that I've ever voted for a perfect bill on the floor of this House, at least one that I thought was perfect. That's the nature of this body, that we come together and we compromise and everybody doesn't get what they want because maybe their region or their people or their businesses or their consumers don't see it the same way mine do. We compromise. But the Senate bill, while it may not be perfect, enjoyed broad bipartisan compromise and support. Therefore, I think it is our best opportunity, because we've shown in this House that we have, for the last 6 months, been unable to come to agreement, and the Republican majority in this House has been unable to agree among itself to bring a full bill to the floor. So, Mr. Speaker, that does not give much confidence not only to my side of the aisle but to those contractors, those construction workers, those States, those counties, those municipalities who know that they have to address the transportation challenges of their areas. It doesn't give them much confidence, and I've heard a lot about building confidence. I believe that if we passed the Senate bill, we would create those jobs, retain the 1.9 million jobs, and give confidence to our economy and grow jobs. I hope that's what the other side wants to do. They talk a lot about it. And if the economy improved, of course, the administration might be advantaged as well. I hope that's not a consideration of anybody who considers these pieces of legislation. America expects us to come together and reach agreement. The Senate has done that. On this side of the Capitol, we have not. We ought to do it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4348. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Hoyer moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to recede from disagreement to the amendment of the Senate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The second bill, which we considered yesterday, would impose a radical policy on our border areas that would undermine security coordination and bring polluting industries to some of our most pristine parks and historic sites, even though our border enforcement officials have said such legislation is unnecessary. That's what we worked on yesterday. Not jobs, not student loans, not transportation, but a piece of legislation that they said wasn't necessary. These are not what Congress ought to be focusing on this week or next week. Let's turn our attention to our most pressing issues--student loans, construction jobs, keeping middle class taxes low, and reducing deficits--instead of wasting the American people's time on partisan bills that won't solve any of our real problems. Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that either in the next 24 hours or in the next 9 days we will, in fact, pass a jobs bill that will create jobs, and everybody knows that that's the highway bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, and I would have come up here just for that introduction. I thank him so much. I am pleased to follow my friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor. I'm going to have some remarks. But before I get to those remarks, I want to give you some statistics that I know you'll find very interesting. I want you to take them to heart. The Energy Information Administration reports that oil production from Federal lands and waters was higher the first 3 years of the Obama administration than the last 3 years of President Bush's administration. In addition, oil imports are at the lowest they have been since 1997. In 2011, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level in 8 years, increasing by an estimated 110,000 barrels per day over 2010 levels to 5.59 million barrels per day. We now produce more than 50 percent of the crude oil we use domestically. The U.S., by the way, has 1,971 rigs in operation. The rest of the world has 1,471. The U.S. natural gas production is record breaking. In 2011, 28.5 million cubic feet. In 1973, which was the previous record, it was 24 million cubic feet. But hear this: In 2005, during the Bush administration, it was 5 million less. Net imports as a share of total consumption has declined from 2005, where it was 60 percent in the Bush administration, to 2011, where it is 47 percent. The administration has announced that the 2012 2017 5-year leasing plan will open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. The U.S. production for Federal lands on shore is similar to and has surpassed the Bush administration. In 2005, it was 649 million barrels; in 2010, it was 739 million barrels, otherwise known as almost 100 million more barrels. Ladies and gentlemen, we understand that we need to produce and use energy in America. Mr. Chairman, we should be working, however, together to find real solutions to meet our pressing challenges. We ought to pass a long-term highway bill to create thousands of construction jobs. We ought to address the looming deadline when student loan interest rates are set to go up on July 1. We ought to get to work on taxes so we can keep low rates in place for middle class families. And we ought to get serious about comprehensive deficit reduction before we find ourselves on the edge of a fiscal cliff this year. Instead, Mr. Chairman, once again, we have a solution looking for a problem. Our Republican friends have called up two bills on the floor this week that make this very clear. While gas prices have thankfully retreated, the first bill would enact an extreme drill-only energy strategy that won't lower gasoline prices. That bill is notable for what it doesn't do: invest in diverse energy sources that create jobs, reduce our oil dependence, and enhance energy security; nor does it make our Nation a global leader in energy technology.

Mr. HOYER. The Senate has passed a highway bill in a bipartisan fashion with half of the Republicans in the United States Senate voting for it, and with a very conservative Republican ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and a very liberal chairwoman, Barbara Boxer, who came together and had the ability to compromise and come to agreement. I tell my friends on the Republican side, that's what the American people want us to do. If we do that, it will raise the confidence of our people, of our business community, of our country. That will be the best thing we can do for our country, to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as the United States Senate did, and act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, some of the most pressing legislative items were nowhere to be found on the floor this week. We had an opportunity to make headway on critical legislation. Unfortunately, the leadership provided no action, not solutions, not action, only obstruction and delay. First, student loan interest rates will double on July 1 if we do nothing, and we have done nothing. Secondly, after losing 28,000 construction jobs last month, Congress still has not passed a highway bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate passed a bill with 75 percent of its Members in support, half of the Republican Conference in support, but it's nowhere on this floor as construction jobs languish and people look for work. Speaker Boehner is now saying we might have to wait until November, even though it would create thousands of construction jobs. It seems to be ``my way or no highway.'' Third, we're headed for a fiscal cliff if Congress can't achieve a serious deficit reduction this year, and we've seen appropriations bills this week that break the budget agreement. This has been another wasted week by a do-nothing Congress, and we're about to begin a weeklong recess once again. Congress could do better. Congress must do better. Americans expect Congress to do better. It ought to take action now, not delay until it's too late.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the twenty-fifth Patuxent River Wade-In, begun by former Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler in 1988. This year's wade-in will take place on June 10 at Jefferson Patterson Park in St. Leonard. We rely on a multitude of measurements to take stock of our economic health, such as the Industrial Production Index, the Consumer Price Index, and the S&P 500 index. However, to take stock of the health of the Patuxent River--and, indeed, of our stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay--there is no index more important than Bernie's annual ``Sneaker Index.'' Bernie's sneakers have now been the leading non- scientific measure of the river's health for a quarter century. Each year, in order to gauge the health and water quality of the Patuxent River, Bernie has waded into its water to measure its clarity, stopping at the point at which he can no longer see his sneakers. As a young man, he recalled being able to see them clearly when the water was already up to his chest--through as much as sixty inches of river water. When Bernie first waded in the river to measure in 1988, he could only get as far as his shins, recording only eight inches of water before his sneakers disappeared beneath the polluted waters. In 2011, Bernie measured this level at 31.25 inches--slightly lower than the previous year and much lower than the over 42 inch record in 2004. This is a sign that we still have much work to do. I have had the honor of joining him, along with other Maryland elected officials, at the banks of the Patuxent for many years at this annual event. Throughout his career, Bernie has done much to draw attention to the health of the river and the Chesapeake Bay into which it flows. The Patuxent is the Chesapeake's only tributary to flow entirely through our State, and Marylanders feel a special responsibility to protect it for future generations. Let us continue to follow in Bernie Fowler's footsteps and heed his call to conserve and protect the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay, and let us leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner and clearer Patuxent and Chesapeake to enjoy and treasure.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, all of us through our lives meet people, particularly when we were young--and I'm sure this happened to people who were with leaders of our country. Thomas Jefferson, a young man, I'm sure there were people who met Thomas Jefferson when he was 25 and they said to themselves, boy, this guy's really got his head in the clouds. And then he became one of the great people of democracies in our world. When I was 23 years of age, in 1962, I was working for a United States Senator whose name was Daniel Brewster from our State of Maryland. That summer, he hired as an intern a young woman--younger than me, but about my age--close--and we had the opportunity to get to know one another. We sat approximately 12 feet from one another as a young college graduate and a young law school student. That was 1962. Through the years, I stayed in Maryland, and that young woman got married and moved to California. Just a few years later, I came to the Congress of the United States, and 6 years later she came to the Congress of the United States, after having been the chairman of her party in the largest State in the Union, having been very much involved with the United States Senate, having been a leader in our country, not as a Member of Congress, but in her role as a significant party leader and a member of the Democratic National Committee. When Sala Burton died, herself a member of a distinguished political family, this young woman ran for Congress of the United States. Her father had served in the Congress of the United States, been a member of the Appropriations Committee, been mayor of Baltimore city, and been the father of a mayor of Baltimore city. How proud he would be of this young daughter he raised at his knee, not, frankly, as somewhat caricatured as a San Francisco, but as a Baltimore City pol--I say that with great affection--who knew how to put neighborhoods together, who knew how to take care of citizens in that city. That's where she learned her politics. As Thomas Jefferson had people who attacked him bitterly, she has had the same. We all have that in this game that we participate in that we care deeply about. That young woman that I first worked with in 1962 became the highest-ranking woman in the history of our country in our government. And now we note--some celebrate, others note--her attaining of a quarter of a century of service in this body. And all of us will be able to tell our grandchildren. I have my grandchildren now. Maybe I'll have more, but I have a number of them now, and a number of them are young women, and I tell them how proud they can be of the leadership and the trail that has been blazed by this extraordinary woman. I've talked to a number of you on the Republican side of the aisle, my good friend Roy Blunt, and he says to me, he said, Boy, that woman has a spine of steel. And that she does. Those of us who have dealt with her know that she's one of the strongest leaders any of us have served with, whether you agree with her or don't agree with her. So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to note this anniversary of 25 years of service of Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi, from the State of Maryland, the very proud State of Maryland, to have a daughter like Nancy, and a State that is proud of its citizen servant, Nancy Pelosi. Ladies and gentlemen, I now have the great honor of yielding to my friend. He's of a different party, but we're both Americans. We both love this institution, and he is now, himself, not quite as historic a figure because there have been many men who have been Speaker of the House of Representatives, but my friend, John Boehner, Speaker of the House.