Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, the gentlelady from California would like me to yield, and I do so.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Runyan and Mr. Kissell and others, which seeks to ensure that our Nation's fire stations are adequately staffed and that firefighters have the tools they need to protect our communities safely and effectively. Specifically, this amendment will restore the successful FIRE and SAFER grant programs to last year's funding level of $337.5 million each. Independent observers have found that FIRE and SAFER work: an independent study from the U.S. Fire Administration found that grants like these are making our fire departments more prepared and better equipped to protect our communities. Cutting FIRE and SAFER makes it more difficult for our communities to recruit, train, and retain skilled firefighters. And, it makes it far more difficult for our departments to equip themselves with the up-to-date tools critical to protecting property and saving lives. I want to make clear that I am not pleased with the offset being used to restore this funding. However, I recognize that my colleagues were left with very few options, given the cuts made to the overall bill. I am hopeful that this will be addressed in conference with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, fund FIRE and SAFER at the Fiscal Year 2012 level, and protect these vital investments in public safety.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate an extraordinary team of young women from Maryland's fifth congressional district. The Northern High School Patriots won the 3A Maryland ``state softball finals on May 26, 2012. This is their fifth consecutive softball state championship and ninth softball championship overall. This incredible achievement was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition. After an undefeated season, the Patriots emerged victorious over Thomas Stone High School, Chopticon High School, Huntingtown High School, and Reservoir High School to ultimately meet Linganore High School in the state championship game at Robert E. Taylor Stadium at the University of Maryland. The Patriots prevailed, overcoming the Linganore Lancers with a final score of 10 0. This victory demonstrates that with determination, willpower, and discipline we can work to overcome any obstacle in the path of achieving success. The Northern High School Softball team has gone above and beyond expectations. The Patriots end their 2012 season not only with a state championship, but also a perfect record of 25 0. Additionally, Northern High School has become the first softball program in state history to win five consecutive state titles. Eighteen student-athletes contributed to this triumphant season, remaining focused and determined to continue the streak of Northern High School softball state championships. Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartiest congratulations to the members of the championship team--Jessie Clemons, Kierstie Schaefer, Jess Cummings, Sarah Bennett, Sam Gatton, Caroline Clarry, Marleigh Smith, Lindsey Schmeiser, Madison Marinaccio, Baylee Hutchinson, Erin Adams, Julie Keleti, Carleigh Ruleman, Kristina Lozupone, Kailin Case, Allison Garzone, Kayla Grantham, and Sabrina Beil--on their victory. And, I also want to applaud Head Coach Robert Earl Radford and his coaching staff--Devin Hall, Beth Radford, and Qyntia Parks-Lewis--for their dedication and commitment while guiding these talented student- athletes. Like all Southern Marylanders, I am very proud of these young women and I congratulate all of those involved in bringing home a state title. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this great accomplishment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Chopticon High School Marching Band on earning the title of United States Scholastic Band Association Group IIIA Maryland State Champions. ``The Showband of Southern Maryland'' from Morganza, Maryland, has earned this title for the past three consecutive years. This momentous victory was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition. After competing previously at three regional competitions, the band took first place at the State Championship, hosted by Towson University on October 15, 2011 with their performance titled ``The Heart of Madness.'' The band went on to compete and place fourth at the National Championship in Allentown, Pennsylvania. This victory demonstrates that with hard work, determination, and discipline, we can reach our goals. The band also received awards for best music, effect, visual, performance, and guard. Fifty-three musicians qualified for the performance, and they remained focused and determined to achieve their dream of victory at the statewide competition. I want to applaud the band's staff--Todd Burroughs, Christina Burroughs, Bobby Jones, Mark Lortz, Megan Howell, Briscoe Thompson, and Kevin Burroughs for their dedication and commitment to training these superb musicians. I also send my hardiest congratulations to the members of the marching band on their victory--Carrie Barrett, Alexis Badovski, Samantha Lockard, Breanna Thorne, Brendan Utt, Bailie Anthony, Elizabeth Barnes, William Husk, Kacey Roberts, Jennifer Russnogle, Paula Wills, Robert Konen, Chris Mitchell, Marlena Krauth, Jennifer Thalman, Sam Prettyman, Dakota Sparks, Josh Wetherald, Geoffrey Westbrook, Joey Coleman, Kelsie Gill, Philip Hayden, Garret Ordille, Matt Ordille, Megan Mosier, Nick Nelson, Ryan Nelson, Kelly Purdy, Jacob Thorne, Kayla Bean, Kolleen Dare, Jake Flowers, Jennafer Harris, Rachel Kaper, Kayla Morris, Taylor McQueeney, Nicole Sadecki, Hunter Sparks, Madison Bateman, Rachel Escolopio, Amber Griffith, Sabrina Hill, Danielle Hilton, Carly Keating, Hannah Kozlowski, Emily McKoy, Rachel Nussberger, Darby Powell, Layne Thompson, Melanie Thompson, Kristen Wetzel, Mackenize Wood, Meredith Wood, and Gina Zanelotti. I'm very proud of these young men and women, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing home the championship title. I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this significant accomplishment.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to make the comment that the gentleman correctly congratulated the appropriations leadership on his side of the aisle. I also want to observe that on our side of the aisle there has been cooperation, and there's not been an effort to either delay or dissemble. That is why this process works. That's the way it should work. It hasn't always been that way, as the gentleman knows, but I'm pleased that it is working. I think that's best for our institution, and I think it's best for the country. So I'm pleased at that, as well. I tell my friend--and he knows this--according to the schedule I have, the House is scheduled to be in session a total of 28 days until the August break and 41 days from now until November. Of the 41 days available, 10 are 6:30 days in which we come in for an abbreviated evening session which usually takes a half hour to an hour to conclude after afternoon debate on suspension bills. With the limited time we have available, Mr. Leader, I am very concerned, as the gentleman knows, of the extraordinarily large number of very big fiscal questions that will be coming to roost at the end of this year. My view is that we need to address those. Hopefully, we will address them in a bipartisan way. If we do not address them, we will put the economy at continuing risk. The Bush tax cuts, as you know, expire as of December 31. The payroll tax cut expires December 31. The sustainable growth rate--which we affectionately refer to as the doc fix--the alternative minimum tax, and the debt limit all come to bear at the end of the year. In addition to that, the sequester--which I think all of us believe is not the appropriate way to go, but is the way we set up to force us to take action on a comprehensive, big, bold, balanced plan. Unfortunately, the supercommittee was unable to reach agreement on that. I wanted to say to my friend, the majority leader, I would hope that you would be urging all of us and I would join with you in that effort in urging all of us to be ready to make some tough decisions, but decisions which need to be made in order to stabilize our economy and stabilize the fiscal posture of the United States. I am hopeful that we can reach a credible and sustainable fiscal path for our country. The only way we are going to do that is if we work together in a bipartisan fashion. The gentleman and I were very successful in working on the Export-Import Bank legislation in a bipartisan fashion in which we got over 300 votes for on the House floor. The gentleman was unable to make the signing but it was signed this week, I think a very positive step forward. I appreciated the gentleman's work on that piece of legislation. I would like to urge the gentleman that because of the extraordinarily short number of days that we have left to meet, to focus on what I think is going to be what some people call a fiscal train wreck, some people call it a fiscal perfect storm, some people call it a fiscal perfect cliff. Whatever you call it, it clearly will have a great impact on not only the confidence that Americans have in this body and the Senate to work and to make effective plans for meeting that challenge, but also for getting our country on a fiscally sustainable path. I don't know whether the gentleman has any comments on that. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I was not trying to make political points or rhetoric in raising the issues that I did. I frankly think that it doesn't get us very far, I would suggest to the majority leader, and we need to get someplace. America expects us to get someplace. Many of your members have indicated that revenues need to be on the table. The gentleman knows that every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this says revenues need to be on the table. The same entitlements need to be on the table. Neither are easy to deal with, but they must be dealt with if we're going to be responsible stewards of this Nation's finances and this Nation's future. Political rhetoric is not going to get us there. We all want to help small business, and we believe we have helped small business very substantially. Frankly, if you get into the analysis, small businesses did very well during the Clinton administration under policies that were in place at that point in time. That aside, we need to deal with this, and I think a number of members on your side have, in fact, indicated that they understand that everything needs to be on the table, and that is what I think as well. I think both sides have things that they don't want to deal with, but Americans expect us to deal with tough things and make tough decisions on behalf of them, on behalf of their children and on behalf of their families. On small business and economic growth, this leads me to the highway bill. We continue to be very concerned, Mr. Majority Leader, that we have not reached agreement on the highway bill. The Senate was able to reach an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement on the highway bill, which is a jobs bill. I was disappointed, and I hope the gentleman was disappointed at the jobs numbers that came out today: 82,000 in the private sector, lost 13,000 in the public sector, net: 69,000 jobs. That does not get us to where we want to be after losing millions and millions of jobs in the previous administration and losing a substantial number of jobs in the administration before. Over the last 26 months, we have grown 4 million jobs, but the hole was very deep, and we're not out of it. If you don't have a job, you know we're not out of it. I would hope that we could at least, with certainly our side believing, that the highway bill is a jobs bill. Ray LaHood, as I pointed out in the past, a former leader in your party and chairman of a subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee, says that it's a jobs bill but unfortunately concludes that bill is not passing, he believes, for largely political reasons. I hope that's not the case and don't assert it to be the case. Do you have any idea what kind of progress we're making on the highway bill so that bill can come to the floor before the June 30 expiration of the highway authorization? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his observation. Clearly we don't want to have the authority for the highway bill to expire without action, but I will reiterate my offer to my friend, the majority leader, and say that given the bipartisan, the overwhelming bipartisan, support of the bill that came from the other party, that if we brought that bill to the floor, I would tell the gentleman that we will have the overwhelming, perhaps unanimous support, which would be 190 votes on our side of the aisle for that bill because we believe it is a jobs bill. We believe it will grow the economy, it will put people back to work. It will give confidence to the American people, as we did with the Export-Import Bank in my view, give confidence to the American people that we can come together and move forward through reaching agreement. Obviously, the Senate was able to do that. And they did it overwhelmingly, with over half of the Republican caucus voting for it in the Senate and three-quarters of the Senate voting for it. I would say to my friend, I think that would be a real shot in the arm for the economy. And I agree with the gentleman, certainty is important. Confidence building is important. And if we did that, in my view, and if you could bring half of your caucus to that vote, we would pass that bill overwhelmingly. And I think it would be a very positive step for the economy, very positive step for the confidence of the American people and our economy and put people back to work. I don't know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that further, but if he does, I will yield to him.

Mr. HOYER. Lastly, if I might, the student loan interest rate, as you know, will go up at the end of this month from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That will add substantially additional cost to literally millions of students, some thousand dollars of additional cost to most students at a time when we want to make higher education, so necessary for success in our country, available to as many people as we possibly can so we can be competitive worldwide and, from our perspective further, a Make it in America agenda of growing our economy and getting jobs for our people. I know that there was opposition to that reduction when it was originally on the floor in 2007. I know there was some opposition to it earlier this year. But I also know that I think both you and the Speaker have indicated now that they support that. We passed legislation on this floor which brought that down when there was, obviously, very substantial disagreement and controversy with reference to the funding source, given the preventive health fund that was used to fund the student aid. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he believes there's a possibility for us to reach agreement on how to do this? I know the Speaker said this was a ``phony'' fight, but it is a real fight and it will have real consequences if we don't resolve our differences. Can the gentleman comment on what he believes to be the possibility of reaching agreement with the Senate on the student loan bill?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Just for his information, I would be a very strong opponent of your first option, which continues to want to reduce the take-home pay of Federal employees. Federal employees, under the plans that you have passed through this House, will have already been asked to pay $105 billion in reduction in pay and benefits over 10 years. That's $10 billion per year you're suggesting that our employees have their net take-home pay reduced. In addition, the additional proposal in your reconciliation bill would add another $78 billion to that, $183 billion in total, or $18.3 billion per year reduction in pay and benefits for Federal employees. The gentleman, in his State, has a lot of those Federal employees. They happen to be civilian employees. I know the gentleman supported the pay raise for the military personnel, which I supported as well. The gentleman is aware that largely, through my tenure in the Congress, we've treated our civilian employees and our military employees with parity. I would hope that the gentleman would not think of continuing to go to the Federal employee, as we go to no other employees, and the gentleman is not interested in asking anybody else to participate more in paying for this in terms of revenues. But your side has been continuing to propose reducing the pay and benefits of the Federal employees. My view is, and I have said this publicly, that if we can reach a big, bold, balanced deal and it's balanced--but just going to one pocket, one group of people, who studies show, depending upon the level you're working at, many are not paid comparably to their private sector, some others are, is not a fair, balanced way to proceed. I would hope that that option would be not on the table. I know the administration put it on the table for a larger deal, but I'm going to urge that that not be an option. I know that I have talked to some of your side from your State who believe that's not an option that ought to be pursued. As a matter of fact, one of them voted against the MilCon bill yesterday because of a provision dealing with further reducing the net take-home pay for Federal employees. So I would hope that would not be an option, and I would hope that we can reach an option so we can contain the cost of college for young people, because that's not only good for them, it's good for the competitive stature of the United States of America. With respect to the reconciliation bill that you mentioned, you mentioned the fact that you were dealing with the deficit. In fact, as the gentleman knows, in terms of your health care provisions, they do not, within the next 20 years, get the Federal budget to balance in the Ryan budget. So although you deal with that in some respects, it doesn't get us to balance and therefore does not, in my opinion, give the confidence and certainty that the American economy needs and that American citizens need. I want to ask the gentleman, lastly, if he expects all 12 appropriations bills--I know we're going to do Energy and Water; we've now already done two of our bills--whether or not he expects all 12 appropriations bills to be on the floor, considered, and completed prior to the August break.

Mr. HOYER. I don't want to interrupt, other than to clarify. As I understand the two options, one was the option of making additional--in the letter I read. Maybe I'm incorrect. If you can correct me.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I want to say to the gentleman that I disagree that there is no plan. Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, did in fact have a plan, presented that plan, and it was voted on on the floor of the House. It did not prevail, but that is a plan which, frankly, was a more balanced plan from our perspective. Obviously, the House did not agree with that. But it is a more balanced plan that would have reached balance in fact more quickly, I believe, than the Ryan plan. So we do have a plan. We presented that plan. We offered it on the House floor. I voted for that plan. The overwhelming majority of the party on this side of the aisle voted for that plan. So there is a plan, so I think the gentleman is not correct in saying that we haven't offered a plan. We have; the plan has not passed, the gentleman is absolutely correct on that. The Senate and the House have not agreed on a plan. I'm not sure that they will be able to agree on a plan. I think that's unfortunate, but perhaps we can agree on the appropriations bills. We are hopeful that the appropriations bills will be agreed upon consistent with the agreement that we thought we had at the funding levels of $1.047 trillion for discretionary spending. The bills that have been offered are closer to that number than I think we will find as later bills come, we don't know that, but that is the speculation. The Senate has agreed that we ought to mark up to that figure, but we haven't marked up to that figure in the appropriations bills. But if we complete the appropriations bills, as the gentleman says he wants to do, I think it would be good to do. Is it the gentleman's perspective that we will mark to $1.047 trillion or $1.028 trillion? That's a $19 billion difference, a substantial difference, we understand that. In the Senate, the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to mark to the higher number. Can the gentleman comment on whether or not at the end of the day we'll be able to get agreement on the agreement that we thought we had in the Budget Control Act?

Mr. HOYER. I don't have a rebuttal to that, so I will yield back my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding, the acting ranking member of the Rules Committee right now, who is a distinguished Member of this body. I rise in deep disappointment at the treatment he was accorded last night. It was unworthy of this body, unworthy of the Rules Committee, and unworthy of the character and integrity of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am pleased that there has been an apology for that, but I did not want it to go unmentioned. This body is better than that; although, at times, it is not. We ought to all lament the fact when it is not. Madam Speaker, the rule to consider this bill is not only unfair but inconsistent with the majority's stated goal of having an open process. I will quote the Speaker in just a couple of minutes. My friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has put forward a bipartisan amendment--and I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina, my Republican colleague, and I hope all Americans, Madam Speaker, notice the courage and conviction that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has. He was sponsoring an amendment with the gentleman from Massachusetts, and they don't always agree. But as the gentleman from North Carolina said: There is no more important issue that confronts a country than sending its young men and women in harm's way at the point of the spear. Yes, it is to defeat terrorism and to keep America safe, but the decision to do that and the ongoing discussion, particularly after a decade, is certainly something the American people would expect, a full-blown debate and airing of our continuing to keep our young people and not-so-young people in harm's way. It is certainly germane to this bill as it concerns our military operations in Afghanistan. Mr. McGovern's amendment and Mr. Jones' amendment would reaffirm the strategy laid out by the President and agreed to by the Afghan President to transition security responsibility to Afghan forces so our troops can come home. Today, Al Qaeda has been forced out of Afghanistan and the Taliban is severely weakened, objectives that I supported. Afghan forces are taking responsibility for more and more of their country's security, and we're making strong gains thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of our troops whom we honor. With tens of thousands of Americans still deployed in combat, one of our highest priorities in this year's Defense authorization act must be to make sure they have a strategy to complete their mission and return home safely. We owe that to them. We owe that to their parents, their wives, their brothers, their sisters, their nieces, their nephews, and to all their neighbors. Our men and women in uniform have performed everything asked of them with courage, distinction, and professionalism. We've asked many of them to return for tour of duty after tour of duty to one of the world's most deadly war zones, and we owe it to all of them to have a carefully conceived strategy. Mr. McGovern's amendment would not tie the President's hands and would help place us in the strongest possible position to combat terrorism around the world.

Mr. HOYER. I understand that everybody may not agree on Mr. McGovern's formulation, but that's what this body is for: to debate these issues of great importance to the people and resolve them in a democratic way. I'm sorely disappointed that this amendment was not made in order. If it had, I would have voted for it. In September, Speaker Boehner, himself, said something significant. Madam Speaker, it's important what the Speaker said, and I agree with what the Speaker said. He said this: I have no fear in allowing the House to work its will . . . I've long believed in it, and I continue to believe in it. Madam Speaker, the actions of the Rules Committee last night were inconsistent with that conviction. Let the House work its will. Let's have a vote on this amendment. Let us send a message to our troops that we have an exit strategy in Afghanistan, that we'll see them safely home with their mission accomplished.

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank Representative McGovern for his leadership on this issue, commend Ranking Member Adam Smith of the Armed Services Committee for his work on this amendment, and I congratulate Mr. Jones for his courage and for his vision. While you may disagree, you ought not to shut down alternative opinions.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I continue to be disappointed at how Republicans are approaching deficit reduction. Every day, we hear Republicans talking about the need for painful cuts to get our deficits in order. However, time and again, Republicans appear unwilling to exercise fiscal discipline when it affects something they like. First, the sequester is set to impose difficult and arbitrary spending cuts across both defense and domestic programs unless we replace its deficit savings before the end of the year. Yet, Republicans seek to find these savings only by cutting domestic programs like Social Service Block Grants, food stamps, and preventive health care services. And second, we reached an agreement last August on spending levels, which Republicans have now broken. This Republican defense bill authorizes $8 billion more than the agreed-upon level. At the same time, Republicans are drastically cutting domestic programs. This amendment returns defense spending to the level agreed upon in the Budget Control Act. It does so without weakening our military or denying our troops the tools they need to succeed in their mission. This should be something Republicans and Democrats ought to see eye to eye on, because we previously agreed to it in August. Democrats want to provide our troops with every tool they need to carry out their mission and keep Americans safe. The arbitrary cuts of the sequester will make doing so much more difficult. That's why we need a solution that balances defense and non-defense spending cuts and includes revenues--a big, bold, and balanced approach. This, Mr. Chair, is the opposite of a balanced approach, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and send a strong message that we must approach deficit reduction with the seriousness it deserves. I commend Representative Barbara Lee, Financial Services Ranking Member Barney Frank, Representative Lynn Woolsey, and Representative Earl Blumenauer for their work on this amendment and for standing up for the agreement the parties reached last August.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. This version is opposed, as I said, by hundreds of groups representing victims, advocates, faith-based organizations, as well as law enforcement. Now, almost every one of us, every one of us--or most, I imagine--has had some personal experience with this. In our own families, ourselves, as lawyers, as doctors, as neighbors, as friends, as fellow church members, we all know the cost of this violence. Let us come together and act together. This should not be a vehicle for partisan confrontation. Instead, we should adopt the Senate's bipartisan version and ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to prevent domestic violence and provide victims with the assistance they need. Let us vote ``no'' on this legislation, and then let us move forward in a bipartisan, constructive, overwhelmingly supported fashion like our colleagues in the United States Senate did in a bipartisan way.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished ranking member from Michigan who has been such an extraordinary fighter for the rights of all people in our country, and I rise in opposition to this bill. I would say, as an aside, the last speaker talked about Native Americans. The National Congress of American Indians of course says this matter does nothing to address the crux of the issue--the lack of local authority to handle misdemeanor-level domestic and dating violence when the perpetrator is non-Indian. It goes on to oppose this legislation. I rise in sadness, Madam Speaker. I was the cosponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. We passed a bipartisan bill that has helped law enforcement significantly reduce domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. While great progress has been made, unfortunately one in three American women still experience violence by a partner, stalking, or sexual assault. That's why this bill is a perfect example of why we need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. I will tell my friends the Senate did this. Why is it that we have to choose disunity and confrontation over consensus? I don't know why that is, particularly on an issue of this great importance to the American people. The Senate came together, 68 of them--two-thirds of the United States Senate, Republicans and Democrats, overwhelmingly supported this. Every woman in the United States Senate supported the Senate bill--everyone, Republican women and Democratic women, who know firsthand the crisis that confronts our communities. However, this version was reported by the Judiciary Committee with no bipartisan support--and indeed bipartisan opposition. Why do we have to do that? We could have come together. We should have come together. The Senate came together. There is no reason we can't, other than to make our points on a partisan basis. This bill is weaker than existing law, it is regressive, and it sends the wrong message about our values. The Senate's version extends new protections to Native Americans and to all who are targeted, regardless of sexual orientation. Isn't that our value, to protect every individual? ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all individuals are endowed by their Creator.'' Shouldn't we protect all individuals, not exclude some? Not only does the House version fail to include those protections, it also makes it harder for law enforcement to encourage immigrant victims to come forward to seek help and justice. I met with over 30 members of the law enforcement community on Monday. We sat around and we talked about, generally, gang violence, but we talked about VAWA. We talked about the ability of people to come forward and make complaints, feel comfortable in doing that, and enhance the ability to get domestic defenders out of the cycle of violence against domestic partners or others. They all agreed that we ought to make it easier, not harder. We make it harder in this bill. This is not the right way to go. This version is opposed by hundreds of groups. I've got a list here. I'm not going to read it. Leader Pelosi submitted it for the Record. Hundreds of groups are opposed to this legislation, including the American Bar Association, and are urging a ``no'' vote. I'm going to vote ``no'' on this, and I hope all my colleagues do as well so that we can adopt a bill that has overwhelming bipartisan support and the support of these groups. Why do we confront these groups and say: Nope, you're wrong, we know better; we know better; you've worked on this for years and decades, but we're going to go our own way?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on March 31 my state of Maryland lost a giant in the realm of higher education. Dr. Thomas E. Florestano, who served for fifteen years as President of Anne Arundel Community College, sadly passed away at age 79. The son of Italian immigrants, Tom was born in Annapolis and graduated from St. Mary's High School in 1952. He matriculated into the University of Maryland but paused his studies to serve in the U.S. Army as a military police officer in Korea and West Germany. Honorably discharged as a sergeant four years later, Tom returned to the University and earned a bachelor's degree in education in 1958. While an undergraduate, Tom met his future wife of 52 years, Patricia Sherer. Together, they dedicated their careers to improving access to higher education for Maryland students, with Patricia teaching at the University of Baltimore and currently serving as chairwoman of the Board of Regents for the University System of Maryland. After graduating, Tom worked as an education advisor at the Army Education Center in Fort Meade. Two years later, he joined the University of Maryland as assistant dean of student life and director of student activities. During this period, Tom earned his master's degree in education and later obtained his Ph.D., both from the University of Maryland. Tom turned his attention to community college administration in 1970, when he took a job as dean of evening and community education and summer school at Prince George's Community College. After nine years there, Tom was appointed President of Anne Arundel Community College. He took over during a time when the college was facing significant challenges, including tensions between faculty and administration as well as declining enrollment and budget shortfalls. Tom oversaw a program of revitalization that tripled enrollment, instituted new degree programs, expanded the campus, and turned deficits into sound finances by the time he retired in 1994. The legacy of his leadership of Anne Arundel Community College has been its transformation into the third-largest community college in Maryland. Even more so, Tom put the ``community'' back in ``community college.'' All of us who knew Tom recognized him as one who looked at a challenge and saw an opportunity and who looked at a student and saw a future. Those futures were what he worked so hard to make possible for thousands of Maryland students. Tom will be greatly missed by the Maryland education community and by all of us who called him a friend. I join in celebrating his life and offering my condolences to Patricia, their son Tom Jr., daughter Leslie, son-in-law Kevin, and their extended family.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I doubt there is a single member of this House or the Senate who has never set foot inside the Monocle on D Street. Just steps from the Capitol, the Monocle has been a political institution as much as it has been a warm and welcoming restaurant. Its tables have long been set with a spirit of friendship that transcends party; they have been host to meetings and discussions on nearly every issue of national importance. The Monocle has been a place of agreement, often at times when disagreement divided us in this House. It was Constantine Valanos who brought that warm and inviting place to Capitol Hill and to all who serve here. Many of us knew Connie well. Connie made a point of knowing and remembering all of us who set foot in his restaurant, even if just once in a while. Sadly, Connie passed away last month at age 93. Constantine George Valanos was born into a family of Greek immigrants in Albany, New York, as the First World War was drawing to a close. He grew up here in Washington, D.C., and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Following his discharge, Connie attended the George Washington University and pursued a career in accounting. In 1960, seeing an opportunity to buy and fix up an old restaurant on Capitol Hill, Connie and his wife, Helen--who passed away in 2005 after a fifty-three year marriage--opened the Monocle. Among their first regular customers were then-Senators John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Over the next fifty years the Monocle would see a steady stream of Senators, Representatives, future Presidents and Vice Presidents, Supreme Court justices, foreign diplomats, and ordinary Americans visiting with their elected officials. After three decades at the helm, Connie and Helen passed the management of the business to their son, John, and daughter-in-law, Vasiliki, who continue to run the Monocle today and provide the same friendly and welcoming environment to all who step through the door. The ancient Greek statesman Pericles said: ``What you leave behind is not what is engraved in monuments of stone but what is woven into the lives of others.'' Connie Valanos leaves behind a legacy not only of a restaurant but also of the countless ways in which he made that restaurant a place where leaders come together to hash out the agreements that help make our Nation great and improve lives around the world. The Monocle, as former Vice President and regular patron Walter Mondale once noted, is ``where laws are debated, where policies are set, and where the course of world history is changed.'' That is Connie's lasting legacy. I join in celebrating Connie's life and in offering my condolences to his wife Judith, his children, John and George, his three grandchildren, and the entire Valanos family.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has been a leader on this issue as has the chair of the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Representative Berman has been a leader in Congress when it comes to reminding us of how important it is to prevent the rise in nuclear war and a nuclear-armed Iran. We are fortunate as a country to have a partnership between the chair and the ranking member focused like a laser on this issue. So I thank my friend, Mr. Berman, and my friend, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman has also been instrumental in securing funding for the deployment of the Iron Dome anti-missile system to counter the threat from Iranian-supplied short-range rockets in the hands of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. I rise in strong support of the chair and ranking member's resolution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor with them of the resolution. The most significant threat to peace, regional security, and American interests in the Middle East is Iran's nuclear program. This resolution makes clear that it is in America's security interest not to contain a nuclear Iran, but to prevent one. A nuclear Iran would destabilize an already volatile region where so many American troops are stationed-- and a region so vital to the world's energy supplies. Iran continues to be a sponsor of groups committed to the destruction of our ally Israel and of groups that threaten Americans throughout the world. Iran is believed to be pursuing not only a nuclear capability but also delivery technologies that could threaten our allies in Europe and the Middle East as well as American assets in the region. Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken a strong lead in confronting Iran. President Obama has built a wide coalition of support that has imposed the strongest sanctions Iran has ever faced. In particular, we are hitting the Iranian Government where it hurts most-- its oil exports and its banking sector. From the very start, his policy has been not containment but prevention.

Mr. HOYER. This resolution reaffirms the administration's prevention policy, and I urge my colleagues to pass it as a strong sign that Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Again, in closing, I want to congratulate the chair, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, and the ranking member, Howard Berman, on their strong and unwavering leadership on this critically important issue to the national security of the United States of America and to international and global security as well.