Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn for the year, there are a number of important items that we must address. The most pressing is the expiration of unemployment benefits at the end of December. Should Congress fail to act, millions of Americans who rely on emergency unemployment compensation will begin to see their payments disappear starting in January. 2.1 million of our fellow Americans will have lost their benefits by the middle of February, and over 6 million by the end of 2012. However, we have the power to prevent that from happening by extending those benefits. These emergency benefits were put in place at the start of the recession in December of '07; and with so many Americans still out of work, now is certainly not the time to let them come to an end. The number one challenge we must address in the Congress remains job creation. Americans out of work have been doing their part to find jobs. Congress must do its part as well. Some Republicans have unfairly and incorrectly blamed those who have been laid off for their continued difficulty in finding jobs. However, there are over four people looking for every one job that is available. At the same time, there are nearly 7 million fewer jobs today than there were in 2007. Instead of blaming the victims, we ought to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to find solutions. Congress has never allowed emergency unemployment benefits to lapse with our jobless rate anywhere close to where it is today. If it did, over 17,000 people in my State of Maryland would see their lifeline cut off by February. In Ohio, Speaker Boehner's State, 80,000 people are at risk. Among African Americans, Latinos and other minorities, a disproportionate number have been affected by long-term unemployment and are especially vulnerable if these benefits were to end. Every State would see more Americans who are out of work slip into poverty. Local communities would be affected, too, with residual job losses. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that allowing these benefits to expire would cost us another 500,000 jobs--a half a million. I sincerely hope that Republicans will work with us to prevent so many Americans from being left out in the cold as they continue to seek jobs but can't find them. It's long past the time that they start working with us to pass a real jobs plan to get Americans back to work and grow our economy. The President put a jobs bill on our desk in September. It is now December. We've yet to see that bill or any other jobs bill put on this House floor by the Republican leadership. Democrats have multiple jobs plans on the table--the President's American Jobs Act and the House Democrats' Make It in America plan. Both will help create jobs right away and invest in long-term economic competitiveness. If Republicans continue to be unwilling to work with us on a plan to create jobs, I hope they will at least work with us to pass a measure that will prevent further losses as a result of expiring unemployment benefits. I strongly urge my Republican friends to help us stop the looming and entirely preventable disaster of millions having no support. It is the responsibility we have to our constituents and to those looking to us for leadership during this challenging time. Let us not go home. Let us not celebrate Christmas or other holidays without ensuring the extension of unemployment benefits for those Americans who cannot find jobs, notwithstanding the fact they are looking for jobs. They're counting on us. Let's be sure that their reliance was well placed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. First of all, we ought to be talking about jobs. The contention that this bill funds bills that are about jobs is spurious, in my opinion; and no economist, in my opinion, will assert that that is the fact. We ought to be dealing with jobs. But what are we dealing with? Now, I know of what I speak, I tell the gentleman from Georgia. I understand. I was a Member of the House Administration Committee for, I think, some 15 years. I, along with Bob Ney, was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance Commission. So I know something about the Election Assistance Commission. It was created because in the year 2000 we had a disastrous election which was resolved finally but not very acceptably by most people, whether your candidate won or lost. So the Election Assistance Commission was created for the purpose, for the first time in history, of having some Federal presence in the oversight of Federal elections. Not mandatory, but advisory. Now, what we see, frankly, throughout America in Republican- controlled legislatures in many, many States is an effort to make voting more difficult to, in my opinion, suppress the vote, to require more and more documentation of people who have already registered to vote and claiming problems that exist that do not exist. Now, if you want to obfuscate the election process, if you want to suppress the vote, if you want to make it more difficult, what is one of the things you want to do? Eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, whose responsibility it is to advise and counsel on best practices to assure that every American not only has the right to vote but is facilitated in casting that vote and in making sure that that vote is counted. That's what the Election Assistance Commission does. And what do they want to do with the Election Assistance Commission's responsibility? Transfer it to the Federal Election Commission, whose sole responsibility is to oversee the flow of money into elections. They neither have the expertise nor, frankly, do they have the time. They hardly have the time to do what they're supposed to do right now. Now, the Bush administration did not fund the Election Assistance Commission very robustly. Like every agency, it requires and should have proper oversight, and should, in my view, be more vigorous in the carrying out of its responsibilities. That is not, however, a reason for eliminating it. The only reason for eliminating it is to make voting more obscure, with less oversight and less assurance to our citizens that they not only have the right to vote but that a vote will be cast and counted correctly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, while the Republican sponsors of the two bills before us contend they will create jobs, their claim is spurious. Economists have told us again and again that easing regulations has a negligible effect on job creation. The only thing these bills will do is make it harder for federal agencies to protect Americans through safety standards and environmental protections. One of the bills adds 35 pages to what is currently a 45 page law, and is likely to add 21 to 39 months to the rulemaking process. Agencies will be tied in knots and leave businesses without the certainty they need. To pay for this expansion of the federal regulatory process, Republicans would have us eliminate the Election Assistance Commission. I was proud to be one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act, which established the EAC in order to fix the flawed system that led to the electoral debacle of 2000. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 357-48. The Commission's sole purpose is to provide states with the resources they need to ensure everyone eligible to vote can cast their ballots and have them counted. We cannot risk having our elections determined by ``hanging chads.'' Instead of trying to erode our ability to protect voters, and instead of promoting regulatory bills that will not put Americans back to work, Republicans should join with Democrats to pass real jobs legislation. Democrats have two plans on the table to create jobs and grow our economy--the President's American Jobs Act and our Make It In America plan. We should be debating and voting on those. I strongly urge the defeat of these bills and hope Republicans will finally set partisanship aside and work with us to help businesses hire workers and to invest in our economy's future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, a number of us have come to the floor today to remember a great American who passed away earlier this month. Hal Bruno made a real difference in people's lives, both by keeping them informed about our world and by serving as an advocate for firefighters and their families. Hal was ABC News Political Director through the 1980's and 1990's, covering major national events and keeping Americans engaged with their government. He skillfully moderated the vice-presidential debate in 1992 after having covered presidential campaigns since Kennedy ran against Nixon. He had the respect and admiration of leaders from both parties. As a journalist, Hal made a reputation for himself as a truth-teller, even when the truth was difficult. That began in Chicago, when as a young reporter he uncovered how poor safety standards in the building code had contributed to a fire that claimed 95 lives. He became a respected voice for fire safety, and that experience led him to become a volunteer firefighter himself, which he continued to do for decades. After retiring from ABC News in 1999, Hal dedicated himself to serving our communities' firefighters and their families. He chaired the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation at a time when we lost so many brave first responders in the September 11 attacks. Hal was a champion for the families of firefighters who lost their lives in service to their communities, and he fought for and won the passage of legislation to provide them survivor benefits. I know that Hal will be both dearly missed and dearly remembered by many in government, those who turned to him for their news for so many years, and by the families of firefighters on whose behalf he worked so tirelessly. I join in remembering Hal and celebrating his life. I offer my condolences to his wife Meg and their children and grandchildren.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of Gabby Giffords' closest friends. I acknowledge the presence of Gabby Giffords' extraordinary staffer and extraordinary leader on her staff, who herself lost a valued member of her staff and Gabby's staff. Madam Speaker, all of us who serve in this House know that we could not do the work we do without the help of our extraordinarily able and highly motivated staffs. They work long hours with pay below their counterparts in the executive branch and in the private sector. Many are young, in their twenties and thirties, with an energy and a passion for public service that give us all great hope for the future. Gabe Zimmerman was one of those passionate and dedicated staffers who loved his job, who loved his fellow staffers, and who loved his Congresswoman. He was working for a beloved friend and colleague of all of ours, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Gabe Zimmerman was a bridge between the Congresswoman and individuals and constituent groups in her district, fostering and expanding each day the most important relationships Members of Congress maintain: those with their constituents, with the people who have entrusted them with the responsibility of representing them in this great body. Gabe Zimmerman was the first congressional staffer in history, as has been said a number of times, to lose his life in the line of duty, in the 222 years of the history of this body. He lost his life protecting, promoting, and defending democracy. Gabe Zimmerman, along with six others, was not the object of attack, but a victim of a domestic terrorist intent on assassinating Congresswoman Giffords and intent on randomly killing people participating in one of democracy's most basic activities--the discussion between constituents and their Representatives. Members of my own staff--and I'm sure the members of the staffs of every Member here--were profoundly shaken by this event, realizing that it could have been them or, indeed, any staffer, participating with their Members in any public or even private event. It is entirely fitting, therefore, that we rename in his memory a room where, every day, Members and our staffs come together to further the representation of the American people. Every day, when we enter that room, we will remember Gabe Zimmerman. Gabe Zimmerman died while serving his country, and we honor him for that service. But let me say to every staffer who serves with us that, by doing so, we honor you as well--your contributions and the contributions of all staffs--who, like Gabe, strive to make this country a better one for all Americans. We send to Gabe's parents our deepest sympathy for a loss that cannot be compensated, but tell them that we share their extraordinary pride in this American hero.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misnamed bill, which would promote neither democracy nor fairness in the workplace. Now, I have just been on this floor a few minutes, but it is ironic that I have heard speaker after speaker in favor of this bill but who vote consistently against working men and women's right to organize and bargain collectively. Ironic, perhaps, the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better and fairer conditions has been protected by our laws since the era of the New Deal, which was opposed by so many. This legislation is part of an agenda, frankly, that the Republican Party continues to pursue, which no economist believes creates jobs in the coming year. This bill before us won't do anything to help the economy or create jobs, period; and it places obstacles in front of workers seeking to exercise their right to organize. I want to point out to my friends that interestingly enough, in terms of trying to protect elections, there's all about you can't have an election before, but there's nothing in this legislation you have to have an election by. That would perhaps be more credible, if it said not sooner than this, but not later than this. That would show that you really wanted to pursue elections for working men and women so they could organize and bargain collectively for pay and benefits and working conditions. But it doesn't say that. It says you simply can't have it before. It never says you have to have it. It never says you can't delay it by suit after suit after suit. It never says you've got to get to issue. It never says you've got to give the employees the right by a certain date.

Mr. HOYER. This bill before us won't do anything to help the economy or create jobs, as I said. I continue to have the strongest faith in the American worker, that they are the most talented and most productive in the world. We should not be rolling back their protections. Instead, we should focus on helping to get more Americans back to work. And as for the NLRB, the real trauma is it is now a pro-worker and employer NLRB, as opposed to simply a pro-employer NLRB. That's the problem you have. The courts ought to ensure equal treatment. The NLRB ought to ensure equal treatment. It has not been doing that for some period of time; and now, in my view, it is. God bless them. That's what they should do. Employers and employees ought to get a fair shake and a fair election, and I agree with that premise. Timing is obviously of concern to both parties. I would hope we would defeat this bill, and then if we want to talk about assuring elections, let us do so to protect democracy and protect workers.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I spoke yesterday on this issue. My good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, and I have talked a number of times about this. In 1995, as I said yesterday, I voted for an amendment very similar to this, almost exactly like it. I had a confidence at that point in time that, in an emergency, three-fifths of us would come together and vote to do that which the country needed to keep it stable and safe. Regrettably, over the 16 years, I have lost that confidence. I've lost that confidence this year, where, frankly, on the majority's side of the aisle we would not have passed a CR to keep the government open once. We wouldn't have passed it a second time; and, very frankly, had we had to rely on the votes solely of the majority side, as we have in the past on my side, we would have defaulted on our debt. That is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts the country at risk if three-fifths are not available to act in an emergency. As a result, I will not vote for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We are engaged at this very day in an effort to try to come to agreement on how we balance the budget; and, very frankly, we only need 51 percent, and 51 percent is not there. But we have balanced the budget, and we balanced it without an amendment. We balanced it in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. And my Republican colleagues rightfully say, ``Well, we offered those budgets.'' Yes, they did. But I will tell you, I have no doubt, not a single doubt, that if the surpluses that were created by those budgets had been available in 1998 and Bill Clinton had not said save Social Security first, that what we would have done is cut revenues deeply and had deficits during those 4 years. Now, you may disagree, but I have no doubt, based upon the philosophy that I have heard since 1981 from my Republican friends, that that would have been the case. I said yesterday that what we need is not a balanced budget amendment, that what we need is a balanced budget. How do we get to a balanced budget? The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) pointed out he was a county commissioner. Now, I'll bet as a county commissioner he probably had to pay for what he bought. He gave the analogy, if you've got X coming in, then that's what you spend, not X plus Y. The fact of the matter is his party has spent X plus Y, plus Z, plus A, plus B, plus C, and has run a deficit for every single year they had the Presidency during the last 30 years I've been in the Congress--without fail. Now, what happened to bring us a balanced budget? First of all, we had two parties responsible. I don't think we could have done it with just one party--my party or your party. We had two parties responsible, and we constrained one another. Then we had extraordinary growth in our economy, and that's what brought us a balanced budget. But we also adopted in 1990, again in 1993 and in 1997--and I tell my good friend, the sponsor of this, sometimes he voted for PAYGO and sometimes he did not, and your party abandoned the principle of paying for what you bought in 2001.

Mr. HOYER. As a result of abandoning that PAYGO responsibility, you could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for them, not cut spending. It takes no courage, I suggest to my friends, to cut taxes--none whatsoever. Everybody is happy. Paying for bills is a lot tougher. It requires a lot more courage, a lot more responsibility. But you jettisoned statutory PAYGO in the 2000s, and you went on a spending binge. Not only did you blow a hole in the deficit, but you also blew a hole in the economy, and we saw the worst job creation of any administration since Herbert Hoover because the economy, rightfully, was not confident that we would manage our finances correctly. What we need, ladies and gentlemen, in this House is a balanced budget, not a balanced budget amendment. Let us summon the courage, the will, and the ability to work together immediately on this Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, but let us do it day after day after day. Then when the issues come before you, have the courage to either vote against spending or to vote for the revenues to pay for what all of us have wanted to buy. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield? Because the gentleman is not accurate on that.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman, I take it, has no time to yield.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's chart is very interesting. He talks about voting for budgets. I didn't agree with some of the priorities in your budget; that's accurate. He is correct that we didn't cut taxes, but he is incorrect as to when you cut taxes. You cut taxes in April, months before 9/11, and you gave away a lot of money and you didn't pay for it. You didn't cut spending in order to pay for it in your budgets that you offered. Furthermore, what the gentleman doesn't point out is in 1993, to a person, you voted against a program which was designed to pay our bills--to a person. You said it would destroy the economy. We had the best economy and the largest budget surplus that you've had and an administration that is the only administration in your lifetime that ended its 96 months with a surplus, Bill Clinton's.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Veterans Day, I had the privilege of attending the annual parade honoring our veterans in Leonardtown and remembering the fallen service members from St. Mary's County, Maryland. It was a moving and meaningful ceremony, with many who have served our nation in uniform and their families attending. The parade in Leonardtown is the largest in the state, with a long tradition of honoring the service of Maryland veterans. The program included four students from Leonardtown Elementary School, each of whom read a brief statement written to answer the question ``What does Veterans Day mean to me?'' Their words were a powerful affirmation that the ideals our service members have fought to protect continue to be passed on to the next generation, and that with those ideals we teach a love of country and respect for service. I would like to share their statements with my colleagues. Katy Kindley wrote: ``Veterans Day means to honor and love the ones who fought in all wars or to honor someone who didn't fight but served to help those in damaged places. Where do they go when they leave? What places will they visit? Will they ever come back? All armed forces that serve our country take only with them--hope. The hope that they won't let those in need be [needy], the hope to succeed in their job, or the hope to just come home to their families. Navy, Army, Air Force, U.S. Marines, or any other force that serves our country take hope and the will to serve with them. ``If you are the child of a veteran, hold your hand up. How do you feel when your mom or dad leave to go on travel? Do you feel scared they will never come back? Do you wonder if they will bring something back? All of your questions remain with you. I'm glad to say that I too have a brilliant and most valiant veteran to look up to--my dad. My dad does his best to serve in the Navy. A lot of times he leaves for a very long trip. One time, he left for seven months! I was very sad. But I was overjoyed to see him come home. Let's take a day to honor, love, and cherish the ones who served in our country. To all those veterans out there, I say: you rock!'' Liam Byers read his statement: ``Can you imagine what life would be like without our brave veterans? We probably would live in a country where we were not free at all. We couldn't go to school and get a good education for our futures. We couldn't go to the church we wanted or go to church at all. We probably couldn't choose our jobs or even our marriages! ``The brave veterans who risked their lives and health to fight to keep us free are perhaps some of the bravest people in our proud American history. They keep us and our rights safe and free from oppression, such as communism and tyranny. ``We have Veterans Day to honor the brave men and women who fought to keep us and our country free. We have two minutes of silence on Veterans Day called the `Great Silence,' where we remember everybody who fought (and died) for our freedom. My Boy Scout troop marches in a parade for Veterans Day and throws candy to the parade watchers (and sometime we pick up candy on the road for ourselves!). ``On Veterans Day I feel proud to be living in America, where our noble veterans serve in the Armed forces to keep our country free. How do you feel on Veterans Day?'' Lauren Menges shared these thoughts: ``Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor America's servicemen and women for their patriotism, love of their country, and willingness to sacrifice for our freedom. A veteran is anyone who has served in the armed forces, such as: Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, or Air Force. ``Veterans Day used to be called Armistice Day. It honored the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I on November 11, 1918. The end of the war took place on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918 with the German signing of the Armistice. It was declared a legal holiday on May 13, 1938, and was officially declared Veterans Day on November 11. Some people celebrate with a parade. Most schools have the day off. And other countries celebrate by observing two minutes of silence at 11:00. ``I have several family members who served in the military. My great uncle, Gordon Moniz, served in the Korean War, and my uncle, Bryan Menges, served during Operation Desert Storm. My first cousin, Joshua Menges, graduated last year from West Point and is now actively serving his country. I love that my family members served in the military. I am grateful for all the veterans and for their bravery. ``I would like to quote from a poem by Linda Ellis called `Mommy, What is a Veteran?' `How do you describe a veteran and the sacrifices they made so that you and your children's children could live free . . .and unafraid? How do you describe a veteran for a child's sake? You say: A veteran is a person to whom we owe every breath we take.' '' Also, we heard a statement from Maddie McCauley: ``To many people, Veterans Day is special. Veterans Day all started on November 11, 1919, as Armistice Day. Armistice Day was to celebrate the first anniversary of World War I. Armistice Day was to honor all the brave soldiers who fought in World War I, keeping the United States safe. Now, Veterans Day is to honor all the brave souls who fought in all wars, who gave us our freedom, which many people elsewhere do not have. ``Veterans Day is celebrated with speeches, parades, special church services or ceremonies, visiting graves, and having the Great Silence. Many people visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This tomb holds the body of a U.S. soldier who was killed in battle. Nobody knew who this fearless man was. ``Veterans Day to me is an important holiday. I do have a few veterans in my family. My Great-Grandpa Hal was a fighting ace in the Air Force for many years. My family and I hang our American flag from our house. We also wear red, white, and blue to honor America. I think of many soldiers who endured many tough days away from their family fighting. I think, `Thank you for all you have suffered just to keep us free and safe.' '' Katy, Liam, Lauren, Maddie, and their classmates, even at their young age, understand the sacrifices made by our veterans. I was glad they were able to participate in the ceremony alongside other public officials, and the many veterans who were on hand. Together, we all thanked the families of three St. Mary's County fallen heroes for their sons' service and sacrifice. SPC Raymond J. Faulstich Jr. and CPL Matthew Wallace gave their lives serving in Iraq, and SGT Ryan Patrick Baumann fell in combat in Afghanistan. We also applauded a recently-returned wounded warrior, Thomas Caleb Getscher, who lost both legs and part of an arm in Afghanistan. Patuxent Habitat for Humanity will soon be helping to renovate his home to make it more accessible. In their memory, and in honor of the veterans who returned home, we continue to recommit ourselves every Veterans Day to meeting our obligations to those who served our nation and put their lives on the line for the freedoms we hold dear.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 I spoke on the floor in support of a balanced budget amendment. That was 16 years ago. There's a lot of water over the bridge since that time. I said then and I quote: ``I do so because I believe this country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits.'' I believed that then, and I believe it now. And I have voted against tax cuts that weren't paid for, I have voted against Social Security benefits that weren't paid for, and I have voted against other items that weren't paid for. I stand by my 1995 statement today. However, as I've said, events in the last 16 years lead me to oppose today's balanced budget amendment. Only months after we had that debate, my Republican colleagues shut down the government. In 1997 we passed an amendment with bipartisan agreement reaffirming the 1990 agreement that we would have a PAYGO process in place. And without having passed a balanced budget amendment, we did in fact balance the budget 4 years in a row. Why? Because we paid for what we bought, we didn't cut revenues before we cut spending, and we restrained spending--4 years in a row. I tell my Republican friends, none of you in your lifetime has lived during the course of a President who had four balanced budgets. Were you partially responsible? Absolutely. Were we partially responsible? Absolutely. But what was the lesson? That we didn't need an amendment; we needed the will and the courage. Without having passed that balanced budget amendment under President Clinton, not only were we able to balance the budget, but we also achieved the only President term in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber or listening to me that had 4 years of balance and a net surplus--hear me--a net surplus at the end of 96 months as President of the United States. We made it happen not with a balanced budget amendment, but because we had the will to do so and by following PAYGO rules. Sadly, I tell my colleagues and the American people, Mr. Speaker, under President Bush, Republicans exploded the deficit and abandoned PAYGO, along with the principle that we ought to pay for what we buy. We do not have a spending problem or a revenue problem; we have a pay-for problem. The Republican Congress spent enormous sums on two wars, a prescription drug program, and tax cuts without paying for them. If you have the courage of your convictions, you pay for things. Spending rose at a level nearly twice the inflation rate that Bill Clinton's rose in spending during the 8 years of the Bush administration when Republicans were in charge of everything for 6 years and had a President who could veto anything that we did. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, President Bush told us that if we failed to act, there would be a high risk of depression. What did the President's party do? You say you have a three-fifths vote if there's an emergency. President Bush told us that if we did not act there would be a depression and, in fact, we had a vote, and that vote was 205-228, with two-thirds of the President's party voting against the President in what he called a crisis. That gives me, I tell my friends on the Republican side, no confidence that in time of danger and crisis, that we could summons three-fifths vote. I believed in 1995 we could summon those votes because, frankly, we were a much more bipartisan and, in my opinion, responsible body. But I do not have that confidence today, and I am not prepared to take that risk. My party, of course, voted with President Bush because we thought there was a crisis. Now, a few days after that, we came back to vote, and we did pass it.

Mr. HOYER. I tell my friends that even on the second vote, when we did, in fact, pass that bill that President Bush asked us to pass because there was a crisis, he could not summon the majority of your party to support him. Barely three-fifths, notwithstanding the President's assertion of crisis, voted to meet that crisis, with 172 Democrats voting with President Bush in a bipartisan response to crisis. Earlier this year, again, in control of the House, Republicans brought the government to the brink of shutdown. Over the summer we saw them hold the country hostage by pushing us to the brink of default, in the first time in my memory, the United States of America to the brink of default. I have not changed my beliefs about balancing the budget, and I invite all of you to vote with me on paying for things that we buy, not passing those costs along to my children, my grandchildren, and my two great grandchildren. We have shown we can do it. We balanced the budget for 4 years. Don't talk about it. Just do it. Don't refuse to pay for it. Don't cut taxes and increase spending.

Mr. HOYER. Don't just preach fiscal responsibility; practice it. It will take no courage to vote for this amendment. But it will take courage to balance our budget by paying for what we buy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him for his leadership on this effort. I thank my friend, Chairman Bachus, for his facilitating the passage of this legislation. Community banks, Mr. Speaker, are the life blood of our local economies. They are locally owned and operated. They know their local businesses and residents intimately, and lend to them, not just because it's a sound business decision, but also because it benefits the greater community. With the credit and lending crisis we have experienced over the past couple of years, the small banks that operate in our local communities face numerous challenges just to stay afloat. These are the banks we need to see lending to small businesses and homeowners, but they are hamstrung in their attempt to raise capital by outdated SEC registration requirements. This one is over half a century old. Under the nearly 50-year-old 500 investor exemption rule, banks have to register with the SEC if they have more than 500 shareholders. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), whose bill this is, explained why that is difficult and why it changes as people who have stock die and leave their stock to more people and to heirs. Banks that have exceeded this low threshold must provide extensive and costly financial disclosure under our Federal securities laws. Now, over the years, we have upped the threshold in terms of dollars that the bank assets have, but we have not affected the number of shareholders. To reverse this registration, they are then forced to lower their number of shareholders by buying back stock which, all too often, means losing local shareholders who keep these banks connected with their local communities. The rationale behind SEC registration rules generally is to provide effective and timely disclosure to protect investors, which of course all of us support. However, as Maryland's Banking Supervisor Mark Kaufman notes, the current rule adds to banks' cost with little associated benefits, especially considering that, unlike most private companies, banks file public disclosure already on a quarterly basis and do so on a more timely basis than public companies, as the gentleman from Connecticut pointed out in his remarks. The American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, State groups like the Maryland Bankers Association and small banks throughout Maryland and the Nation support raising this threshold to 2,000, which is what this bipartisan legislation would do. This will lift a significant regulatory burden on our community banks without any offsetting price in regulatory oversight and make it easier for them to raise capital so they can continue to lend and support job growth in our communities. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1965. I note that my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) is also on the floor. I want to thank him for his leadership in this effort as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Fudge. I'm honored to be on the floor with John Lewis, who came close to losing his life to make sure that Americans could register and could vote. Mr. Speaker, we're a year away from an election, one that will shape the course of our Nation for years ahead. The choice we make will be pivotal. And in order to make certain that it reflects the direction our people want to take, we ought to do everything we can to ensure that all who have the right to cast a ballot can do so. Equal access to the ballot is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. It is what preserves our democracy and instills confidence in our system of government. Some of our greatest national struggles have been over suffrage--from votes for African Americans and women to votes for the young people who risk their lives for us in uniform. The right to vote, however, is today, as we have heard by so many, under threat in a number of States seeking to place obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families, young people, and seniors seeking to exercise that basic right to vote. They claim we need to crack down on an epidemic of voter fraud that does not exist. There is simply no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. As many as a quarter of African Americans do not have the necessary forms of identification now being required by some States. Data from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice shows that African Americans and Latinos make use of early voting at a far higher rate than other groups, especially opportunities to vote on the Sunday before election day. At the same time, there has been an assault on voter registration. The right to vote does not exist for political expediency. It is a constitutional right and a moral right for all of our citizens. It is the pride of America, this American franchise. For that reason, we are vigorously pursuing ways to protect an American's right to vote by drawing attention to efforts which attempt to restrict that right. We will be working closely with the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and with voting rights groups across the country. Throughout our history, Mr. Speaker, Americans have given their lives to protect the right to vote. It is worth fighting for. It is our fight. I thank Congresswoman Fudge for her leadership, and I thank all those who have spoken tonight and will be speaking out every day, every week, every month to ensure that every American not only has the right to vote, but does, in fact, have America's willingness to facilitate the casting of that vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 75th anniversary of the Patuxent Research Refuge--established in 1936 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the nation's only National Wildlife Refuge created to support wildlife research. Over the past 75 years, the Patuxent Research Refuge has been the site of countless advances in wildlife and applied environmental research. Scientists working on the refuge have been international leaders in natural resource conservation and their work has improved the health of animals and humans alike. Pioneering work in the field of environmental contaminants undertaken at Patuxent served as the backbone of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and research efforts at the refuge ultimately led to the banning of DDT. Patuxent's research community has also made important contributions in the areas of migratory birds, wildlife population analysis, waterfowl harvest, habitat management, wetlands, coastal zone and flood plain management, endangered species recovery, urban wildlife, ecosystem management, and management of national parks and national wildlife refuges. For those of us who live in this region, the Patuxent Research Refuge is more than a center for the advancement of science. It is an oasis in between two major cities--a site that gives all visitors the opportunity to immerse themselves in nature and reflect on the importance of preserving our environment. Indeed, among my proudest achievements in the Congress is helping to enable increased public access to Patuxent through the expansion of the facility from its original 2,670 acres to its present 12,841 acres. I want to thank the staff and scientists of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey for their continued efforts to preserve this marvelous asset and advance our understanding of our environment. And I urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating all of those gathered at Patuxent this weekend to celebrate this important milestone.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership. I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Protect Life Act. First of all, over and over again we repeat the premise that somehow we're using government funds through the Affordable Care Act for abortion. We are not. No matter how many times you say it, the fact is that we specifically precluded that from happening. What this bill does goes much further. It threatens to make it harder for women across the country to receive health care that they need. I understand the doctor who just said that the termination of a pregnancy is not health care. I understand his premise. But I also understand that we in America have adopted the premise that if a woman comes to the hospital and has at great risk to her life a pregnancy which is causing her health to be at great risk and her life as well, what this bill does is say you don't have to intervene under those circumstances. I don't think that's protecting life, I say to my friend. In fact, I think it is ignoring the protection of life. Moreover, it does nothing to create jobs, which is what Congress should be focusing on during this time when so many Americans are out of work. Very frankly, you have criticized the President of the United States for submitting a jobs bill to this Congress that doesn't have a chance of passage. I have heard that over and over again. All of you know this has no chance of passage. It may pass this House--I hope not; I urge its defeat--but it won't pass. It won't become law. So while millions of Americans' quality of life is put at risk because of the lack of jobs and opportunity that they have, we consider what I believe is simply legislation to speak to a particular interest group in our parties. I understand that. Republicans come to this floor and speak all the time about keeping government out of people's lives, but this bill does exactly the opposite. What it says is that women won't be able to spend their own money on comprehensive reform for reproductive coverage under a new health exchange. You don't want us to tell people they have to have insurance, but you want to tell them what they can't have in an insurance--with their own money. I'm not sure I get the distinction there. Maybe you can come up with a distinction, but it certainly is a very nuanced one, if it exists at all.

Mr. HOYER. Even more unbelievably, the bill will allow a hospital to refuse women emergency care of this kind even when necessary to save their lives. I don't think that's what you intend. I certainly hope it's not. But it is the interpretation that many of us have put on the language of your bill. So, ladies and gentlemen of this House, this issue has been debated over and over again. We adopted a Hyde amendment. The premise of the Hyde amendment was that we shouldn't take taxpayers' money and spend it on abortion. Very frankly, I represent 60,000 Federal employees. We precluded them from using the salary that they receive to buy insurance that has abortion coverage. It's their money. I hear that all the time: It's their money. But you don't allow them to use their money for that purpose. Now you are saying to the private sector women: You can't use your money. You can't have it both ways. Either it's their money for services they constitutionally can receive or it's not. Defeat this bill. This is a difficult issue. Let us let women, doctors, and their faith deal with it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Camp, may I have a minute?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the three trade agreements that are pending before us and in support of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for our working men and women in this country. There is no doubt, as so many of my colleagues have observed, that globalization of the marketplace and the growth of competitors from around the world has put a real stress on America and on American workers. As one of those who has fought very hard to have this floor consider legislation to facilitate making it in America, making sure that American workers are making American goods and selling them here and around the world, it seems to me that, in that process, what we need to do is bring down barriers to exports around the world. I perceive these three agreements accomplishing that objective. I want to congratulate my dear friend, Sandy Levin, as well as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, for working hard on all of these agreements. I particularly want to congratulate Mr. Levin, who has given such careful consideration and care to the development of agreements that he feels he can support. He is supporting Korea and Panama, as am I. He has concluded that the protections in Colombia are not yet sufficient to protect workers that we all want to protect. I share his concern there. I have transmitted that to the administration, as has Mr. Levin. I would like to read a portion of the submittal correspondence from the President of the United States referencing Colombia. The agreement contains state-of-the-art provisions to help protect and enforce intellectual property rights, reduce regulatory red tape, and eliminate regulatory barriers to U.S. exports. The agreement also contains the highest standard for protecting labor rights, carrying out covered environmental agreements, and ensuring that key domestic labor and environmental laws are enforced, combined with strong remedies for noncompliance. Colombia has already made significant reforms related to the obligations it will have under the labor chapter. A number of these steps have been taken in fulfillment of the commitments Colombia made in the agreed action plan. I want to again say that Mr. Levin has visited Colombia, spent time there and overseen the action plan and its implementation. But then the important sentence for me and I hope for others is, Colombia must successfully implement key elements of the action plan before I will bring the agreement into force. There is a bipartisan consensus, Madam Speaker, in favor of reducing trade barriers. Those who support expanded trade do so because we believe American companies can compete globally and export more of what our workers make right here in America. At the same time, though, trade agreements bring changes which may cause and do cause some workers to lose their jobs. That is why President Kennedy, in 1962, introduced a Trade Adjustment Assistance program to mitigate the negative effects of changes in trade policy. Under this program, the government provides job retraining, relocation allowances, and income assistance for those whose jobs are affected by international trade. For companies that lose business, the Federal Government lends a hand with guidance and financial assistance to help develop recovery plans. President Kennedy called it: ``A program to afford time for American initiative, American adaptability, and American resilience to assert themselves.'' I believe these agreements give us that continuing opportunity, but we must protect our workers in the process.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. As we engage in measures designed to strengthen exports, at the same time Congress must continue to provide assistance to those whose jobs may be lost in the process. We need to do whatever we can to help get our people back to work and safeguard American jobs. I urge a vote in favor of the trade adjustment assistance. That will be the last item we will consider. And I indicate my support of all three of the agreements. In May of '07, we made definite progress with Mr. Levin's leadership and the leadership in a bipartisan way of saying workers' rights were going to be recognized in these agreements. In my view, that is the case in these three agreements. Are they perfect? I think no agreement is ever perfect. But do they move us in a position where the United States will be better able to make it in America and sell it abroad? I think they do; and, therefore, I will support these agreements. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the additional minute.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Wilton Corkern, a good friend, environmental steward, and community leader who, at the end of last month, retired after serving for 21 years as President and CEO of the Accokeek Foundation. This weekend Wilt will be honored by his family, friends, and colleagues at the Foundation's annual Leadership Salute with its National Conservation Leadership Award. The Accokeek Foundation, headquartered in my district, is devoted to the interaction between people and the landscape over time. The Foundation stewards 200 acres of the National Park Service's Piscataway Park, along the Potomac River in Prince George's and Charles Counties. The park was established to preserve the viewshed from George Washington's historic Mount Vernon estate. The Foundation's programs include the National Colonial Farm, a living history museum that preserves heirloom plants, heritage breeds of livestock, and historic buildings of the Chesapeake Tidewater; the Ecosystem Farm, a demonstration of sustainable agriculture; and a number of training programs in organic farming, museum theatre, and related fields. The success and continued growth of these programs are a testament to Wilt's dedication and that of his talented staff and volunteers. Mr. Speaker, Wilt's accomplishments at the Accokeek Foundation are many and lasting. Through the years, Wilt: Established the modern organic Ecosystem Farm, with its innovative new farmer training program, and established what is now the Center for Agricultural and Environmental Stewardship as ``a national model for research, scholarship, education, and public information about sustainability in general and sustainable agriculture in particular.'' Helped to organize and launch the Friends of the Potomac and to secure designation of the Potomac as one of the first ``American Heritage Rivers.'' Relocated and reconstructed the Laurel Branch farmhouse, constructed the colonial outkitchen, and replaced the Saylor Grove fishing pier. Constructed a ``green'' Education Center and demonstration stewardship areas. Installed ``The View from Here: Preservation, Development, and Community in Accokeek, Maryland'' interpretive signage for the Foundation's fiftieth anniversary. Secured Standards of Excellence certification from the Maryland Association of Nonprofits. Reenergized the Foundation's land conservation initiative to focus on the Mount Vernon viewshed, preservation of working landscapes, and stewardship of easements. Launched the Foundation's Piscataway Cultural Landscape Initiative, an effort to transform the concept of ``indigenous cultural landscape'' into a concrete interpretive experience for the public. Wilt has made a real and enduring impact on our community--helping us improve our appreciation of the environment, recognize our role in preserving it, and understanding and experiencing our shared heritage as Americans. On a personal note, I have greatly appreciated his friendship and counsel over the years. I wish him the best in his retirement and ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on a job well done.