Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information and would ask him on the timing. The conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the so-called ``doc fix,'' or to ensure the fact that doctors are compensated and will be available for Medicare patients. The conference committee, Mr. Leader, has met twice since December 23. We adopted a motion to instruct, overwhelmingly, through the House to make sure that they reported back by February 17. I think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not do it by the 17th, then we're off for a week and we will be back the 27th, 28th, and 29th, come back the night of the 27th, and we'll be jammed at the end on Wednesday, the 29th. We only have 6 full days left before the February break. Now, that does not include our 6:30 start times. House Democrats, Mr. Leader, stand ready to, frankly, I think, work through the weekend if that were necessary. But I'm very concerned that something that we all want to get done--and I've made the suggestion to my Democratic conferees, and they were equally amused as you are. I understand that. I will tell you that I have great concerns that we're going to get to the 27th, 28th, and 29th and be in the same kind of confrontation and debacle that we found ourselves in in December. That's not good for your party. In my opinion, it's not good for our party. It's not good for the House and Senate; but it is certainly not good for the 160 million people who are going to be concerned about whether or not, in fact, their tax cut is going to continue, or the Medicare people who are going to be concerned about whether their doc is going to be available, or the unemployed who are going to be concerned. Now, of course, for the unemployed, we had some very good news. You didn't mention it in your opening comments, but I'm sure you were as excited as I was about the 257,000 new private sector jobs that were created last month; showed real progress. But I will tell you that I'm very concerned about the timing and would be delighted to hear the gentleman's thoughts on the success and the progress of the conference committee.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Of course we have long been a supporter of small business. We believe small business is the engine of our economy. We believe we need to grow entrepreneurs. We need to expand, frankly, small business and the middle class. It was interesting what the gentleman referred to in response to my question. Yes, we understand that cutting the pay of average working Americans--who happen to be Federal employees, but they're average working Americans--is the way you want to pay for what we do. We, of course, want to pay for it with some of the wealthiest people in our country just contributing a little bit more as opposed to average working people who are struggling by. And, by the way, the sponsor of that piece of legislation to which you referred indicated he was having a tough time getting by supporting his family on the salary that he makes here in Congress. Now, frankly, we offered, as you know, to have a vote on freezing Members of Congress' salary straight up--not hidden in another bill, but straight up--which I would have supported and my side would have supported overwhelmingly, I presume your side would have supported overwhelmingly. We, of course, didn't get that opportunity because, frankly, our priorities do, in fact, differ. Average working people as opposed to the best off in America, that's the choice in this conference committee, apparently; because you want to pay for it with average working people taking a hit, and we want to pay for it by just asking just a little more from the wealthiest in America to help us through this tough patch that we're in. Things are getting better. The gentleman--I haven't seen his release, but I will certainly look at his release. He says we ought to do better. I will tell the gentleman we're doing a lot better. The gentleman knows that during the last 5 months of the Bush administration, we lost 3,192,000 jobs. The gentleman smiles because, oh, that's history. Well, it is history, and we ought to learn from it because we were following the economic policies the gentleman still continues to press upon the American people. We lost 3,192,000 jobs in 5 months. In the last 5 months, however, we have gained now over 1 million jobs. That's progress. In fact, over the last 22 months, we've gained over 3 million jobs so that we are making significant progress. Not enough. We dug a very, very deep hole and we're trying to get out of it, but the fact of the matter is losing 3 million jobs in 5 months and gaining 1 million jobs in 5 months is about a 4 million job difference. So I tell my friend both in terms of who ought to pay for the investments that we have agreed we need to make. We don't want to raise taxes on these folks as the economy is still coming back, obviously showing great progress, but we don't want to pay for it with average working people having to pay the price. I will tell my friend, I was disappointed that we didn't have a separate vote so that Members of Congress could vote straight up on their being frozen. And I will tell my friend that I will work with him, perhaps towards that end. Now having said that, I am sure the gentleman has been in conversations with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). Is the gentleman expecting a relatively early report back from the conference committee, hopefully prior to the 18th of February when we might be voting on this?

Mr. HOYER. I yield, certainly.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And we all look forward to working together in a bipartisan way. We sure have found great difficulty doing it, however, because we have trouble having a meeting of the minds. I will tell my friend that what I advocate over and over and over again is paying for what we buy. That's what I advocate. And if you don't want it, don't buy it. You controlled this town for 8 years from an economic-policy standpoint. I know we were in charge of the Congress for the last 2 years. We couldn't pass anything over George Bush's veto. You and I both know that. So for 8 years, we didn't pay for what we bought; and we went from surplus to deficit. We went from a debt of $5.6 trillion to a debt of almost $11 trillion. Have we added to the debt? Yes, we did. Why? Because we went into the deepest depression, starting in '07, that this country has been in in your lifetime and my lifetime; and I'm a lot older than you. So that's what I advocate: paying for what we buy and having the courage to make decisions on doing exactly that. And very frankly, on your side of the aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do you go to? You go to your Members, and you go to people who have some resources that they can contribute to an effort you think is very important. I think America's efforts are very important. And I think those of us who have done better ought to pay a little more than those who are struggling, as the gentleman refers to. Yes, that's the difference. I believe it's the difference, and I will continue to advocate paying for what we buy. That's why I was for statutory PAYGO, which George Bush abandoned and which essentially is not being followed today, as I think all of us should do. So I will tell my friend that I think we ought to do better. I agree with him. And we did do better. We did do better under policies that I supported. We grew 22 million jobs in the nineties. We lost jobs in the 2000s. We went backwards. And the stock market went up 216 percent in the nineties. Under George Bush, it went down 26 percent. Yes, I think we can do better, and we ought to do better. And we ought to do better by investing. Let me talk a little bit about the bill that the Speaker's talked about, you've talked about, it's been in the news: infrastructure and jobs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up a controversial highway bill--the gentleman says we want to work together. I agree with that. He and I try to do that. We don't always succeed, but we try to do it. They marked up the bill yesterday for 17 hours and finished around 3 a.m. I don't know whether the gentleman knows this, but at the start of that debate, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, asked all the members of the Transportation Committee, when the bill was put on, to raise their hand if they had read the bill. You know how many people raised their hand--that's a rhetorical question because I think the gentleman probably hasn't inquired of this--none. On an 800-page bill, not one person raised their hand that they had read the bill. There was a lot of discussion about reading the bill. There was, of course, as you know, a bipartisan ``no'' vote. One of the senior members voted against it. This is in stark contrast to the unanimous vote that occurred in the United States Senate on the bill. The Committee on Natural Resources also completed a controversial markup on opening ANWR to drilling--as I understand it, you are going to put that in the infrastructure bill--with the clear knowledge that that is a very controversial item that will not pass the United States Senate. You may have the votes here. That is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last December. If you are going to work on a bipartisan basis, we ought to understand that we are going to have to not try to push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable and won't pass and don't have the votes. The reason that George Bush signed so many bills that we passed in the Congress in '07 and '08 was because we worked with the administration, and we worked with the Senate. The Senate and the House were controlled by Democrats; President Bush was in office. He signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. Why? Because we worked with him. We would urge you to do the same. Is the gentleman planning to bring up the infrastructure bill to the floor soon? And can he tell the Members if it will be considered under an open process? Furthermore, is the majority leader expecting there to be bipartisan cooperation on the infrastructure package so that we do not have to go up against another deadline? As the gentleman knows, on March 31 the highway authorization bill ends. We temporarily included it. And let me end with this before you answer your question, because Ray LaHood was a leader in this Congress. Ray LaHood was a leader on your side of the aisle. Ray LaHood and I served together for a long time. I don't know whether you've seen his quote, but I think it bears consideration by your side of the aisle of a Republican from middle America--Peoria, Illinois--who your minority leader, Bob Michel, had as his chief of staff. Here is what he said about the infrastructure bill that was marked up: ``This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen, and it is also the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen.'' This is a direct quote from Ray LaHood, Republican, former Member of this House for many years, and former chief of staff to the minority leader Bob Michel. ``It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety; and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last 3 years. It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years in public service,'' Ray LaHood, Politico, February 3. That's today. He said it today, in realtime. This is real breaking news from the Transportation Secretary: the worst transportation bill he has seen in 35 years. That does not, I tell my friend, bode well for bipartisan cooperation on a piece of legislation that nobody in the committee had read. So I'd ask my friend, do we expect to bring that bill up under those conditions in the near term?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Wonderful, wonderful logic. A Republican leader in this House is appointed to include bipartisan--and the Secretary of Transportation, who was a leader in this House, and the chief of staff of the minority leader of this House, says that the bill you have drafted, that your Members didn't read before they passed it out of committee--and the public, I'm sure, is glad that at least we're going to read it before we pass it. I hope that's the case. I've heard a lot of talk about reading the bills. Nobody read it before they passed it out of committee. And the Republican Secretary of Transportation, former chief of staff of the minority leader, says, my friend, it's the most partisan bill he has ever seen in 35 years. And then you say, well, I know we passed the most partisan bill in 35 years, but, gee, the administration won't work with us. You don't accept that premise. I understand that. But it's ironic that you say the administration won't work with you. You and I both know Ray LaHood happens to be one of the more bipartisan people with whom you and I have served. I've worked frequently with Congressman LaHood when he represented Peoria, as a Republican in the House of Representatives. He and I worked together on a lot of issues. Why? Because he wanted to get things done. He wasn't just simply interested in making political points. Now, you bring up ANWR in terms of pay-for. I'm for paying this. You didn't hear me say anything about offshore drilling, this and that. I did about ANWR because you and I both know, in a bipartisan way, many of your Members have voted against opening up ANWR, and we have, as the gentleman knows, millions of acres, millions of acres currently available for drilling in Alaska right now as we speak. So we want to have a bipartisan--but putting an 800-page bill on the table, no chance to read it, passing it in a 17-hour marathon session, and then having clearly no--having not worked at all with Ray LaHood, and if you're telling me that Ray LaHood won't work with Republicans, I simply do not accept that premise. I think that's a disservice to Ray LaHood if that's what you are saying. He is the Secretary of Transportation. And there is no doubt in my mind, none, zero, that if Mr. Mica wants to work with Ray LaHood on a bipartisan bill, Ray LaHood will be here as many hours, days, and weeks as Mr. Mica needs him here, and I think you would, hopefully, agree with that proposition. Ray LaHood is a Republican, but he is a bipartisan American who wants to get things done for our country and create those jobs of which you speak, which all of us want to do. We have a jobs bill, by the way, that you have not brought to the floor. What's one of the aspects of that jobs bill? Infrastructure, investing in infrastructure. That bill has languished for 5 months now, not brought to the floor by the majority leader, who has the authority to bring it to the floor, and I've, of course, been urging him to do so. Now, if he'd like to comment--I have another point, but if he wants to comment on what I have said, I yield.

Mr. HOYER. We could make some progress if, frankly, the majority leader could get 60 votes to enact the legislation and transact business on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, as the gentleman very well knows, the majority leader, Harry Reid, has had very great difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of the House of the United States Senate. I think that's unfortunate. But let me move on because the gentleman went from an infrastructure bill, which, as Secretary LaHood said, was the most partisan bill he's seen in 35 years, and shifted to the jobs, on which we agree. The fact of the matter is that I want to talk about another piece of legislation that the Senate has worked on. We have a bill here. We've asked that it be taken from the floor, from the desk and put on the floor, and that's the STOCK Act. The gentleman has expressed support for the STOCK Act. I'm hopeful that we can pass a House bill and then go to conference with the Senate on a bill in the near future. Would the gentleman comment on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response, and he says the earliest day possible. I tell my friend that Tim Walz of Minnesota has had a bill, as the gentleman probably knows, of the STOCK Act--also, Louise Slaughter, ranking member of the Rules Committee, has worked on for literally a decade or more--so we have legislation which is available to take, frankly, from the desk, pass that, and go immediately to conference with the Senate. The gentleman indicates he wants to change the Senate bill. I think that that may be appropriate; but if he does, we're going to have to go to conference in any event. So my suggestion is you take Tim Walz's bill, act on that, a House bill, and we go to conference on that bill. That seems to me that's the most expeditious way to accomplish what the gentleman says he wants to accomplish in a very quick fashion. I think Tim Walz of Minnesota would be happy to hear that and available to work towards that end, along with Louise Slaughter.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us, hopefully, agree with what the leader has just said. We clearly want to make sure the American public has confidence and trust in the actions we take in that they are not driven by personal interests but by public interests, by a concern for the welfare of the people we represent in our country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I simply don't think this bill or any other bill will get us to that end if we do not have the courage and, your word, ``discipline,'' to effect that end.

Mr. HOYER. I was just going to kid him that he's just now trying to get to things that we can all agree on.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, for yielding. I, unfortunately, have not been able to listen to all of the debate, but I've listened to enough of it. This week we're playing let's pretend. We're playing the game of let's pretend that if we solve the process, we'll solve the problem. There's an excellent article that I think everybody ought to read. Stan Collender, who is a real expert on the budget process and who has been involved in this budget process for a long, long period of time, quotes in an article that he wrote--that I hope most of you read--in Roll Call. He quotes Rudy Penner. Rudy Penner was the Director of CBO-- not a partisan individual, in my view--that I've had the opportunity of dealing with for some period of time. And his quote is: A process, no matter how well designed, cannot make difficult problems easy. I think my friend, Paul Ryan, would agree with that. It's not the process that's the problem. The problem is we don't have the courage to make decisions which are clearly necessary for us to make, and no amount of jiggering around the edges is going to change that. Now, as all of you know, I'm a strong supporter of a Bowles-Simpson approach to bringing our country to a fiscally sustainable path. Unlike many of you, I believe that revenues have to be part of that process and cuts have to be part of that process and restraints of entitlements have to be part of that process. I've been saying that for 2\1/2\ years now. It's somewhat controversial, but I have three children, three grandchildren, two great-grandchildren. If we don't do that, they're going to be hurting. But, frankly, we ought not to pretend that the process is the problem. The problem is the problem, as Rudy Penner's said. The problem is the problem, and we ought to address it. And we ought to have the courage to tell the American people that it's not a question of process, not a question that we don't have the right process in place in Washington. The problem is we don't have the votes in Washington. This Congress is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean we don't pass things. We do. But this week, frankly, what we're dealing with will not affect any of the significant problems that we have, whether it be jobs or fiscal responsibility. So I'm opposed to this bill. Why? Because I think it's a let's pretend. It's a let's pretend that if you have $100 to spend on defense this year, that you can get that same defense for $100 next year. You can't.

Mr. HOYER. You can't, and the American public knows that. We talk about, well, we ought to operate like a family. Family understands that. They know their electricity bill goes up, and they know they can't get the same kind of heat this year or next year that they got last year because they know their electric bill has gone up, and they need to know what that is. So what we said, the Congress said, we want a baseline budget. What does it cost to get that $100 of value next year? And so we get that. The previous speaker I heard speaking--I don't know who it was; I apologize for that--said, you know, we ought to have an honest budget. Well, you can argue it's honest both ways. Either it's honest that that's what we spent last year, 100 bucks, or it's honest that, in order to do next year what we did last year, you need $101.50. Both of those are honest answers. Nobody ought to think that that's a dishonest answer. The answer is: Do you want to know what you spent last year? Look at the budgets. Do you want to know what it would cost you to do the same thing? Then you get the baseline. So either one is honest. It's just a judgment. But you're pretending that you're saving money by having that kind of budget. Baloney. Baloney. The only way you're going to save money is to have the courage to vote to do so. My friend, Paul Ryan, is shaking his head. He and I have some significant disagreements, but very great respect, I hope, for one another. I know I have great respect for him. I think we are advantageous as a country having Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Ryan, who are both very bright, able, committed people dealing with this. The trick is coming to agreement irrespective of process. It's substance that matters. The American public will be affected by the substantive judgments we make, not about whether we do it with a baseline budget or a static budget or dynamic scoring.

Mr. HOYER. I don't believe in dynamic scoring. I think dynamic scoring is a liberal, radical idea. Why? Because it pretends something you don't know. George Bush said we had $5.6 trillion we could rely on and therefore have very deep tax cuts. Didn't work out. I would much prefer to not use dynamic scoring and have more money than I thought I was going to have that I could apply either to reduction of the deficit or some other priority that I thought was important, rather than find out, oops, I was wrong on dynamic scoring, I have less money and I'm deeper in the hole. Now, you can differ on that, but that's my view. I'd rather be conservative and say, Gee, I hope investing in infrastructure, cutting taxes, doing whatever you think is going to get better education is going to get you better results; I hope it does get better results. That's the purpose of investing in it. If it does, you're benefited if you didn't count on it because you have more than you thought you would. That's the place to be, not having less than you thought you would. So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, to adopt reality. It cost us to do this yesterday, and now it cost us to do it today. I think that's a responsible, smart way to budget. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your light touch.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Frankly, this issue is of such importance, it is a shame we don't have a lot of time to discuss it because I think in many respects we do agree. Where we disagree, however, is when you say that body that is dysfunctional--the gentleman just referred to that. I kidded about it. Both parties are dysfunctional to the extent that we are not making determinations to spend just the money we have. We haven't done that for some period of time.

Mr. HOYER. Yes. Not spending money we don't have. From my perspective, we did that when we cut taxes. We didn't pay for that. It wasn't like we had a real surplus. We had a projected surplus. We banked on that; and as I said earlier, we lost on that proposition. I suggest that whether or not, as I said, you use what you think is the bias towards not spending as opposed to a bias for spending, as someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we all know what will happen. The agency will come in and say this is what we are doing for 100 bucks, and this year we need 150 if you want us to continue to do that. My point is the Congress has the authority to say, no, we want you to do less. It is the Congress' role to make priorities. I suggest to the gentleman it won't be easier for us to do it under either scenario because it is hard to do. I agree with the gentleman that we ought to do it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Would my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding. If Members in fact, not for political gamesmanship, want to vote to restrain and eliminate their COLA this year, they have an opportunity to do that segregated from any other issue on the previous question. I would urge Members, if they want to cap congressional salaries next year at current levels, they vote against the previous question when it is called.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I listened to the gentleman's comments. The gentleman is new to the Congress and probably doesn't have the background in terms of how this developed as to how we pay Federal employees. As the sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990, signed by George Bush who worked with President Bush's OMB and OPM on this legislation, obviously one of the things we did was to say if the private sector doesn't get an increase, the public sector won't get an increase. We keyed the increases to the economic cost index, which is all to say that we need to tighten our belts when the private sector tightens their belts. Which is why, as I think I caught the gentleman's reference, that over the last 2 years, Federal employees have in fact received cuts to existing law which will result in a $60 billion savings. I think the gentleman said that, but it bears repeating. It's not as if the Federal employees haven't tightened their belts. They have. In point of fact, the pay council to which he referred believes on average that Federal employees are in fact behind, not ahead. Now, I'm aware of the CBO report that was just issued. Mr. Cummings has responded to that. Clearly, what they said is there is a disparity. Those on the lower end of the scale are doing better. Those on the upper end of the scale aren't doing so well. None of them are getting paid as much as the gentleman is who made this speech or that I'm getting. None of them are making as much as we are. Now, what we have here is a very clever political effort to have Members vote either for their pay or against their pay being adjusted by a cost-of-living adjustment. I'm going to vote against this bill. I am for bringing a bill to this floor which will freeze our salaries, and I would hope that a unanimous consent to do so would not be objected to on your side of the aisle. I've been for that for the last 2 years, and I have worked in a bipartisan way over the years not to demagogue Members and have Members get cost-of-living adjustment. The sponsor of this bill, as a matter of fact, is quoted as saying how much difficulty he's having supporting his family on his salary. Now, the fact of the matter is we ought to put a bill on this floor and freeze our salaries. Federal employees have already contributed $60 billion of benefits to which they otherwise would have been entitled because we, for the last 2 years, with my support, have frozen their salaries at the cost-of-living adjustment. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would hope that the bill that is sponsored by Mr. Van Hollen, that there would not be an objection to a unanimous consent request to bring that bill to the floor so that Members could express that, yes, we're prepared to tighten our belts one more notch.

Mr. HOYER. But what we should not do is pretend that we're going to balance the budget by undermining middle class workers, middle class workers who work for, in my opinion, the finest country on Earth and who give excellent service, extraordinary service to the people of this country, and who, per capita, are fewer than they were 20 years ago per capita. The fact of the matter is that we ought to have a bill, we ought to pass Mr. Van Hollen's bill, we ought to take the politics out of this.

Mr. HOYER. Then I tell my friends what we ought to do is we ought to pass a big deal. We ought to pass a $4 trillion to $5 trillion to $6 trillion big deal to get the fiscal house of the United States of America in order. It ought to include all things on the table including Federal employee pay and benefits, including the military pay and benefits and expenditures, and domestic expenditures, as well as entitlements. I've said that. That's what we ought to do. We ought not to piecemeal it as this bill reflects. I hope that we'll support Mr. Van Hollen's bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for yielding. I thank the Speaker for ensuring that we would have this opportunity to speak to our friend, Gabby Giffords. I thank the majority leader for his comments. None of us on this floor are talented enough to summon the rhetoric that all of us feel in our hearts. We have young men and women arrayed on the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan and other troubled spots in the world. They are fighting for freedom and democracy, and too many of them are injured on those fields. Our beloved colleague Gabby Giffords was injured on the field in the exercise of that democracy, and in being injured, she has become an example for us, for all Americans--and, indeed, all the world--of courage, of clarity of purpose, of grace, of responsibility, of a sense of duty, which she exercises this day. I love Gabby Giffords. I was honored when she first ran for office, before she was elected, to go to her district, as I have done for so many others in this country, to stand by her side, to walk down the streets of her community with her, to see in her the beauty not only of person. Many of us see the outward visage of us all, but Gabby's beauty is in the heart, in the soul, in the spirit. The House of Representatives of America has been made proud by this extraordinary daughter of this House who served so well during her tenure here, who felt so deeply about her constituents and cared so much for her country. Gabby, we love you. We have missed you.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you were able to hear that response. As Gabby looked with that extraordinary smile, the twinkle in her eyes, she said to me and to all of us, ``I miss you.'' Do any of us doubt that that is the case? Pia, we are blessed in this House to be served by extraordinary people, of which you are a perfect example, by people who love us but love their country even more, who serve our constituents so extraordinarily well, who evidence every day care for us and care for the work that we do, which we could not do, Pia, without people like yourself and all of your colleagues that we call staff. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, God has blessed Gabrielle Giffords, and he has sent a blessing to all of us in the person of Gabrielle Giffords. And God blessed Gabby as well with an extraordinary mom and dad and an extraordinary partner in life. Mark, we owe you a debt of gratitude. Our country owes you a debt of gratitude. I look forward to the day when you and Gabby will be returning here, returned to full health and full ability to serve. Gabby, America thanks you. It thanks you for the example that you have given of overcoming adversity, and doing so with a spirit unparalleled. God bless you and Godspeed.