Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, is there anything I said that you believe is factually inaccurate? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I'll take that as a ``no.''

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we have seen, I think, in that last discussion a very significant discussion between our two parties. Indeed, the Republicans did offer a budget bill which privatized Social Security. They call it a premium support program. It eliminated the guarantee that people would have access to affordable health insurance coverage. We don't agree with that. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We've rejected that. I would suggest the voters have rejected it. But I will tell the gentleman that we also reject the notion that you can spend great sums of money, as we did in the last decade when your party was in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and not pay the bill. That's why we went from $5.6 trillion of projected surplus to a $10 trillion debt when this President took over. I will tell the gentleman that paying for what we buy is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren. And the way you pay for that is called taxes. And we're not for raising taxes. However, we are for paying our bills. And if we want to buy stuff, if we want to confront terrorists in Iraq--which I supported--and if we want to confront terrorists in Afghanistan--which I supported--and if we want to make sure that seniors have prescription drugs, we ought to pay for those, not pass those along to my grandchildren. And you don't have grandchildren yet, but at some point in time you may well have them. And I hope you do have grandchildren. It's a wonderful joy. But we're simply passing the expenses along to them. As the gentleman knows, we're now collecting somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues, 3 percent below average for the last 40 years. But we continue to buy things. And we bought things at a greater rate in the decade that has just passed than we did in the 1990s. We increased spending at a greater rate. The gentleman knows that. That's not history; those are facts, maybe historical facts, but they're facts. What I'm telling the gentleman is, with respect to a balanced approach--he then says, well, all that means is you want to raise taxes. No. What it means is I want to make sure that we put everything on the table that is giving us the challenge that we're seeing all over the world of balancing our budget, getting our expenditures in line with our revenues, and that we do so in a way that does not undermine America's national security, its economic well-being, and the welfare of our people. That's what we believe in, that's what we hope this select committee will do, and, yes, we believe that everything needs to be on the table. If that is not consistent with what your view is, it is consistent with the views of every bipartisan group, the Big Three, if you will-- Pete Domenici, former Republican chairman of the Budget Committee in the United States Senate; Alice Rivlin, former CBO director; Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff for the White House; Alan Simpson, former U.S. Republican Senator from Wyoming; and the Gang of Six that now has over 18 or 19 Republicans and 18 or 19 Democrats saying we need to do. I hope we can join together to do that. I personally believe that is the most important effort that we could make in bringing confidence back to America and to the perception of America around the world.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that answer. What I took from that answer is there is no estimate of jobs that might be created in the next 24 months. That's what I took from your answer. In terms of not creating jobs but creating an environment, I agree with the gentleman that we need to create an environment for jobs, but I don't believe that I've seen any estimates that your agenda will create jobs. As a matter of fact, I've seen the opposite. Mr. Bruce Bartlett, the former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was quoted just a few days ago. I know the gentleman is smiling because he knows this quote: ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them,'' Mr. Bartlett said, not me. ``The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that,'' Mr. Bartlett said, ``would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government.'' He goes on to say: ``Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration''--of course, we lost 8 million jobs, as the gentleman will recall, during that period of time--``and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today.'' He goes on to say: ``And the Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House Republican Conference telling them to make the repeal of job- destroying regulations.'' This is Mr. Bartlett, former Reagan aide and former aide to George H.W. Bush, both Republican Presidents. Mr. Bartlett goes on to say: ``Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would increase employment is very weak. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.'' Mr. Reagan was quoted, we have a nice quote, I am sure you have seen it, that indicates that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes as well. The President has offered the American Jobs Act. He has offered the American Jobs Act and economist after economist after economist says that it will create jobs. It will create jobs by creating an environment, by giving more money to small businesses, giving more money to consumers in their pocket. I know your side has talked a lot about that and that as a result of both businesses having more money in their pocket and consumers having more money in their pocket, that that environment of which you speak will be created, and a number of people think that they will create significant numbers of jobs as a result. As a matter of fact, the macroeconomic advisers projected the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to GDP, to gross domestic product, and create 1.3 million jobs. JPMorgan Chase estimated the plan would increase growth by almost 2 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Moody's Analytics forecast the package would add almost 2 million jobs, 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point and increase growth by 2 percentage growth points. Now, I know my friend may disagree with those figures, and may disagree with Mr. Bartlett's comment, I am sure you do. My point is this, we don't have any bill on the floor that we have had over the last 9 months or that is projected, that is projected to increase jobs in the short term. The gentleman knows he and I agree on the trade bills. I think long term that's correct; but the American people, as President Obama observed, can't wait 14 months for the next election. They are struggling, in pain, and at risk today. And the gentleman last week, or 2 weeks ago, in our colloquy said that there are a number of things, items in the jobs bill on which the gentleman agrees or his party agrees: bonus depreciation, incentives for veterans jobs training programs, infrastructure, small business tax cuts, unemployment insurance reform. The gentleman referenced those on the floor. Clearly there ought to be some areas where we can get agreement. Yesterday, as the gentleman may have noted on the floor, in the debate I stated that we were debating a regulatory bill that would have no immediate effect on jobs. Your contention is it would depress jobs in the future if that rule were adopted, but I don't think there was any contention during the time of the debate that that would create jobs. Having said that, I am wondering whether the gentleman has any intention of bringing either the President's jobs bill or a jobs bill that your side would offer, or a jobs bill that the President has offered, to the American people and to this Congress which would be open for amendment and change by your side and by our side in an effort to respond to the American people's great concern that we are not taking actions which are effectively growing jobs in this country. I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER. I knew you would be happy to receive it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. First of all, let me say that the gentleman knows full well that the President's jobs bill does not include revenues. The President suggested in the short term--and we ought not to raise revenues, as a matter of fact. In the short term, what we need to do is put more money back into people's pockets. The jobs bill, he did suggest ways to pay for that. And he suggested, as did Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici, that that be paid for in the coming years so we do not dampen down the economy at the same time we are trying to stimulate the economy. The gentleman says that the bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, didn't work, and his comment was that the economy is in bad shape. Yes, the economy is in bad shape. It started being in bad shape in 2007, as the gentleman knows, when we went into the deepest recession he and I have experienced in our lifetime. And it remained in place, and the year that this President took office, we lost 786,000 jobs that month. After we passed the Recovery Act, as the gentleman knows, I'm sure, we created 2 million jobs over the last 24 months. The fact of the matter is it worked. Unfortunately, almost no economist understood the depth to which the recession had taken us. The gentleman didn't support the Recovery Act--I understand that--nor did his party. Perhaps those 2 million jobs would not have been created. In fact, there was another bill, of course--the gentleman hates history, I know--that was passed that created 22 million jobs that no Republican supported. So I tell you, my friend, that when we compare economic performance of policies, one has created a lot of jobs and one lost a lot of jobs in the last decade. And I will tell my friend when he says that the American people don't support the jobs bill, in fact, I want to tell my friend The Washington Post-ABC news poll says 52 percent of Americans support the American Jobs Act, and 58 percent of Americans believe the American Jobs Act will improve the jobs situation, including in that number 52 percent of Independents. In a Gallup poll, Americans support Obama's plan to pay for the American Jobs Act, 70 percent of Americans support increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain deductions. I think some of your Republicans have said the same thing. Sixty-six percent support increasing revenues on individuals earning at least $200,000. Now, again, the President did not suggest doing that now, as the gentleman knows, just as the commissions did not suggest doing that now. But what I have said to the gentleman and what I believe to be the case, and he says the Ways and Means Committee had a hearing today, that hearing was not on a comprehensive jobs package. It was on an important issue, no doubt about that, but there has been no comprehensive effort to put together in the short term a bill which will bring jobs to Americans that they need now. The President's bill, we believe, will do that. We understand that there may be opposition. We also understand that there may be change. But there has been no vehicle brought to this floor since the President spoke over 2 weeks ago to allow this House to work its will. You may have the majority of votes on it, but let the American people see who wants to create jobs. The gentleman says we don't create jobs. He is exactly right in a certain sense; but in another sense, as he says, we create an environment in which jobs are created, in which the economy grows, and in which people feel comfortable. One of the things I want to say to my friend that I hope he would be for, my own belief is that one of the things that will most raise confidence will be to have the select committee of 12 come to an agreement on cutting $4 trillion over the next 10 years so that we can get the fiscal house in America in order and to do so by a balanced approach with everything, all of our expenses and revenues, on the table. I would hope my friend would join me in urging the select committee to do that, because I frankly think that is the one thing we could do that will raise the most confidence--not only here at home among Americans, but around the world--in America's ability to address tough questions. So I would urge my friend to, one, try to come to an agreement with his committee chairs to have a comprehensive jobs bill brought to the floor, whatever you think that jobs bill may be, and then allow us to offer amendments, have the House of Representatives work its will on that; and then, secondly, to join in urging the select committee to work on getting us back to where we were in 2001 with a projected surplus in this country.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. Before I talk about the American Jobs Act, does the majority leader have an estimate from either CBO or any economist on how many jobs over the next 24 months might be created as a result of the passage of those bills, the bills to which you refer as the House Republican plan for America's job creators?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in support of the Rush amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. First of all, let us lament the fact that we are not considering on the floor today a jobs bill. Now, I understand that my friend from Kentucky believes this affects jobs. He may well be right. But it doesn't affect jobs in the short term. In fact, as the gentleman knows, one of these regulations that is the subject of legislation this week has been stayed until next year, and the EPA is working very closely with the cement industry and particular individuals in the cement industry to try to work towards an implementation which they can in fact comply with. What is lamentable, however, and the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned it, that somehow, and he pointed at the Senators, the Senators don't agree with the President's jobs bill. In fact, the Senators do agree with the jobs bill; they don't agree with how it's paid for. And so they have a different pay-for. That, I suggest to you, is the legislative process. But what I tell my friend from Kentucky, what my friends on the Democratic side in the Senate and the Democrats in the House both agree on, we ought to be considering jobs legislation. We ought to have every day on this floor, 5 days a week, legislation trying to get Americans back to work; millions of Americans who can't find jobs, who can't support their families, who psychologically are being damaged daily by their inability to have a job. That's what we ought to be doing. We've been in this Congress now for almost 10 months, 9 months plus, and we haven't had a jobs bill on this floor. The President of the United States came before the Congress and the American people and said: I've got a bill, the Americans Jobs Act, and it invests in creating jobs, invests in putting money in people's pockets, and invests in making small businesses more able to expand their base, expand jobs, and grow their businesses. It invests in making sure that our schools are appropriate for our kids, and it invests in making sure that 240,000 teachers stay on the job educating our kids so when they get out of school they can get a job. And yet, my friends, we're here talking about two industries vital to America's well-being. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Kentucky, we need to have regulations and rules that are consistent with Americans being able to grow their businesses. And the gentleman from Kentucky said you're concerned about the air. I'm absolutely convinced of that. I know you are. But I'm also convinced that the gentleman from California, who's been such a giant in this effort for clean air in America, was correct when he said the witness said you ought to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act. I have a granddaughter who has asthma. Now, luckily, we have an intervention that she puffs on every morning and every evening that helps her. But throughout the rest of the day, she puffs on the air in our country, in our State and in our county. And Americans expect us as their Representatives to try, to the extent we can, to make sure that air is healthy and breathable and life-sustaining. And so, yes, we have to make a balance. And that balance is between making sure that our people are healthy and making sure also, hopefully, that they're wealthy; not wealthy in the sense of being rich, but wealthy in terms of having a job, having the self-respect of a job and the ability to support themselves and their families. We ought to be considering a jobs bill. I know you say these regulatory bills are jobs bills, but I want to call your attention to an article written by somebody who you may know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett. As you know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett was in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He has never been on our press staff. He says the focus on these regulations as if they are job creators or job destroyers is inaccurate. That does not mean we shouldn't pay attention to them; we should. But, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to have on this floor jobs legislation, job creation legislation. Bring to the floor the President's bill. If you don't like it, vote against it. If you don't like it, amend it, but give the American public, the American people the chance to have a jobs bill considered on this floor to give them hope and opportunity. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a talented team of students from my alma mater, the University of Maryland, who this weekend won first place at the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon 2011 here in Washington. The U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon is a competition among collegiate teams to design and build solar-powered houses that combine affordability and appeal to consumers with energy-efficiency and design excellence. The University of Maryland team's house, WaterShed, was awarded first place in recognition of its innovative use of solar energy and water conservation, excellent design, and strong performance in daily competitions. In addition to winning the overall competition, the Maryland team also proved victorious in the Architecture Contest and tied for first with perfect scores in both the Hot Water and Energy Balance contests. Over 200 students, representing a wide variety of disciplines including architecture, engineering, environmental science and plant sciences, contributed to WaterShed, making Maryland's victory a truly collaborative effort. By blending innovation and technology with sustainability and conservation, these students demonstrated the creativity, teamwork, technical knowledge, and determination that are essential as we work to revive our economy and regain our nation's place as a leader in high tech and sustainable manufacturing. The hard work of the Maryland team, and the work of the 19 other teams involved in the competition, illustrate the goals of the Make It In America plan that my Democratic colleagues and I are pursuing. The Make It In America plan emphasizes support for American firms developing new clean energy technologies, creating jobs while investing in a more sustainable future. This competition, with its focus on both cost-effectiveness and energy-efficiency, is an excellent example of the approach we need to pursue to achieve our economic and sustainability goals. I would like to recognize the work of student leaders Jay Chmilewski, David Daily, Leah Davies, Steve Emling, Isabel Enerson, Tamir Ezzat, Michael Feldman, David Gavin, Jeff Gipson, Newton Gorrell, Joseph Ijjas, Moshe Katz, Yehuda Katz, Lynn Khuu, Zachary Klipstein, Parlin Meyer, Jeff Rappaport, Matt Sickle, Evan Smith, Scott Tjaden, Kevin Vandeman, Nick Weadock, Allison Wilson, and Veronika Zhiteneva and faculty team members Mike Binder, Patricia Kosco Cossard, Amy Gardner, Brian Grieb, Dr. Keith Herold, Madlen Simon, Dr. David Tilley and Brittany Williams. The University of Maryland team--including students, faculty, and professional mentors--should be congratulated for their impressive accomplishments, and I am proud to honor these exceptional individuals. I urge my colleagues to join with me in applauding this impressive feat, and I ask unanimous consent that the names of the team members, the extended team and the mentors be included in the Record following my statement. Team Members: Ali Alaswadi, Benjamin Bates, Amy Chen, Brennan Clark, Linda Clark Michael Craton, Natalya Dikhanov, Eric Gellman, James Han, Justin Heil, Justin Huang, Erik Kornfeld, John Kucia, Allen Meizlish, Jeffrey Sze and Andrew Taverner. Extended Team: Sahin Arikoglu, Alex Atahua, Rishi Banerjee, Justin Bare, Katherine Beisler, Jacob Bialek, Paul Bilger, Christoper Binkley, Ian Black, Andrew Bruno, Victoria Chang, Wen-Hui Chen, Ethan Cowan, Justin Cullen, Diana Daisey, Adam Davies, Aleron Dsilva, Mariam Eshete, Eric Faughnan, Ryan Fitch, Meredith Friedman, Holman Gao, Louis Gbone, Philip Geilman, Phil Geiman, Marisa Gomez; Karen Hillis, Ananya Hiremath, Vanessa Hoffman, Amy Hudson, Phil Jacks, Peter James, Eric Joerdens, Christine Kandigian, Jacob Kunken, Christopher Leung, Arik Lubkin, Christopher Luther, Ryan Maisel, Bracha Mandel, Maria Martello, Zachary Martinez, Abe Massad, Mark Matovich, Shakira Mccall, Kenneth Morgan, Christopher Myers, Zachary Nerenberg, Matthew Newman, Yuchen Nie, Albert Palmer, Daniel Perdomo, Robert Pettit, Chau Pham, Georgina Pinnock, Kaitlin Pless, Olga Pushkareva, James Ramil, Mark Reese, Raheena Rehman, Nicolas Roldos, Boateng Rosemond, Michele Rubenstein, Michael Satoh, Charles Schupler, Juliet Serem, Valerie Smith, Jacob Steinberg, Michael Taylor, Alexander Tonetti, Marcela Trice, Katherine Vocke, Nader Wallerich, Luxi Wang, Amy Weber, Sofia Weller, Christine Wertz, Kiley Wilfong, Christine Wirth, Fawna Xiao, Diane Ye, and Jesse Yurow. Mentors: Deborah Bauer, Grant Baxter, Charlie Berliner, Dan Blankfeld, Joe Bolewski, Brian Borak, Erin Carlisle, John Cartagirone, Chris Cobb, John Coventry, Adam Eurich, Taz Ezzat, George Fritz, Julie Gabrielli, Aditya Gaddam, Jennifer Gilmer, Anne Hicks Harney, Maggie Haslam, Ray Hayleck, Joan Honeyman, Ming Hu, Adam Keith, Peter Kelley, Benson Kwong, Mike Lawrence, Dale Leidich, John Love, Kristen Markham, Evan Merkel, John Morris, Frank Plummer, Don Posson, Kristin Potterton, Tyler Sines, Niklas Vigener, Dan Vlacich, Fred Werth, Bill Wiley, Jay Williams, and Dan Zimmerman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Hyattsville, Maryland, as it celebrates its 125th anniversary. Throughout its long and rich history, the growing population of the city of Hyattsville has seen advances in education, industry, as well as preservation, illustrating the important role the city and its citizens have played in the economic and historic nature of our region. Before its founding, the area was a pivotal settlement in the development of the region due to the area's waterways and American Indian trails. In the early 1700s European settlers had begun making land purchases in the region and in March of 1885, Christopher Clark Hyatt became the first landowner in the district which was later designated Hyattsville in his honor. Although its name was unofficial, Hyattsville became a distinguished community due to its proximity to railroad tracks and telegraph lines, and quickly established itself as a celebrated city among its year-round residents. Due to easy access to the Anacostia River and Victorian mansions, Hyattsville also held a reputation as a summer residence for those living nearby. In April of 1886, the Act of Incorporation of the City of Hyattsville was enacted, and since then Hyattsville, Maryland, has been transformed into a thriving suburb of Washington, DC. Hyattsville has certainly progressed throughout its 125 years, yet still maintains its historic magnetism. Existing inside of the Capital Beltway, Hyattsville provides its residents easy access to Washington, DC, and still utilizes its long-standing railroads with Metro access and light rail service. Contemporary town homes, apartments, and condominiums have blossomed throughout the recent history of Hyattsville, while its Historic District maintains structures that exhibit late-19th and early-20th century style. Although new shopping centers like University Town Center and The Mall at Prince Georges provide modernized entertainment and employment opportunity, revitalization of businesses in downtown Hyattsville allow conservation of the city's 125 year history. It is my honor to recognize and congratulate the city of Hyattsville, Maryland, and its residents on its 125th Anniversary and acknowledge its many achievements.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, for decades public health has been the basis for how we enact emissions standards. The bill before us today, the TRAIN Act, represents a view of environmental protection that is simply off the rails. Initially drafted to study the effect of new and proposed clean air rules, it has troublingly morphed into a bill blocking action on them indefinitely. First, it would prohibit the EPA from finalizing its rule to reduce mercury emissions. This rule had its origin in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which passed this House with a strong bipartisan vote of 401- 25. An American Lung Association study earlier this year found that today 70 percent of Republicans still support stricter limits on mercury. Second, the TRAIN Act would prevent the implementation of new rules protecting communities from pollutants drifting over from out-of- state. Clean air regulations are ultimately investments in our economy. They save us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in health costs from associated lung ailments. Even further, they incentivize the growth of clean technologies that will help us remain competitive and increase our innovation and manufacturing strength here in America. While I oppose this bill overall, Congressmen Connolly and McNerney have proposed amendments that would refocus the bill where Congress's attention belongs--job creation. Their amendments would support Democrats' Make It in America plan by studying the job-creating effects of pollution controls. Additionally, Congresswoman Richardson's amendment would prevent a cut in the program reauthorized just last year by voice vote that supports American-made technology to reduce diesel bus exhaust. Now is not the time to debate the environmental protections supported overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, which carry tangible health and economic benefits. Instead we should be focusing on serious steps to get more Americans back to work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor and the privilege of serving in this house with Carrie Meek for ten years. The granddaughter of a slave and a daughter of sharecroppers, Carrie has always held in her heart a deep and abiding concern for the rights and the welfare of others. She made public service a life's calling, and her time as a member of this body was but one chapter in a lengthy career doing what she loves most: fighting for justice and the advancement of those who have something to contribute but are not given the chance. When Carrie was determined to pursue a graduate degree, the high obstacle of segregation was the first of many she would overcome. Her fourteen years of service in the Florida legislature, in both the House and Senate, helped make Floridians safer from crime, opened new opportunities to Florida's students to achieve higher education, and provided affordable housing to those facing financial difficulty. Her historic election in 1992 as the first African American to represent a Florida district in Congress since Reconstruction began a decade of distinguished service here in Washington. In Congress, Carrie championed economic development, housing, education, and access to affordable health care. Her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew brought over $100 million in assistance to rebuild communities across Miami-Dade County and South Florida. Since her retirement from Congress in 2003, Carrie has continued her work at the helm of the Carrie Meek Foundation, a charitable venture committed to improving the lives of Americans by supporting programs in housing, education, health care, and community development. I am grateful to call Carrie my friend, and I join with my colleagues in celebrating her service to the people of Florida in Congress and her continuing commitment to her fellow Americans across the country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a legislative arena, not a coliseum to attack one another. It is a legislative arena to try to come together to do what the American public expects us to do. There are at least two crises confronting the American people, and perhaps three. First of all, they are concerned about the fiscal posture of this country. They're right. We need to address that. Secondly, they're concerned about jobs. And immediately, as the gentleman from Mississippi just pointed out, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke earlier, they are concerned about the disasters that have put them at risk. And I suggest to you the people in your district and in my district who don't have a job, who aren't sure how they are going to pay their mortgage and aren't sure that they are going to be able to buy food tomorrow believe that they too have been confronted with a disaster. They want us to deal with all three of those items and, yes, perhaps more. Many of you have stood on this floor and said we need to act now to help these people who have been the victims of hurricane, of quake, of fire, of flood. Now, if you want to act now, what you bring to this floor is a bill that is not controversial so it does not get mired in this bickering back and forth, because we care deeply about responding now. This bill has never enjoyed bipartisan support from my perspective, and I told your whip that on Tuesday. There was no surprise. We believe strongly that the provision that you have put in this bill is detrimental to working people and the expansion of our economy. You perhaps do not agree on that. Perhaps we have a legitimate item of disagreement. And so if you were really concerned about those flood victims, about those hurricane victims, you would have taken that out and met that issue another day. But you chose not to do that. You chose to continue the partisan path of placing at risk the continued funding of government through November 18, which you have all expressed a desire to do, and jobs, not that Democrats say are advantaged by the provision you want to strike, but the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. They say it puts jobs at risk. Your folks in Pennsylvania, I tell my friend, will not be helped if this bill continues to be mired in partisan differences. And you knew there was a partisan difference, and notwithstanding that, you brought it back to this floor. Now I understand there are some of you that were concerned that this was $1.043 trillion rather than $1.019 trillion. That's been changed for you now. And I'm sure all your Tea Party friends are going to be very enthusiastic that for four-tenths of a percent you perhaps have changed your vote. My, my, my. Four-tenths of a percent. That's the difference in this bill from a fiscal perspective. My friends, Americans need our help. They don't need Republican help or Democratic help; they need all of our help. They need it now. They need it not mired in partisan bickering, as my friend said from Arkansas. They need us to come together on that which we can agree, giving our folks help when they need it--now. And I will tell you that the Senate determined that there was twice the need--indeed, three times the need--that you have determined. Ladies and gentlemen, let's defeat this bill and let's bring tonight or tomorrow morning a bill that I guarantee you will pass overwhelmingly in this House. Yesterday, we were hoping to vote--Democrats and Republicans together--on a bipartisan bill to fund the Government through November according to the budget deal we had agreed upon. We did vote together, as it turns out, in bipartisan opposition, though for very different reasons. Democrats opposed it because it was too extreme, endangering emergency funding to help our constituents hit by disasters and threatening to cut from a program that actually creates jobs. Some Republicans voted against the CR because it wasn't extreme enough. Now, we have been waiting all day for the Republican leadership to send us a bipartisan bill that should have voted on yesterday. Unfortunately, the bill we're voting on tonight shows they didn't receive the message. Not only have they put forward the same bill that failed yesterday, with the same troublesome offset and cuts as before, they have worsened it by casting a line to extreme members of their party. Those Members who wanted an additional $24 billion cut yesterday, I suspect, will not be lured by $100 million tonight. That is just four tenths of one percent of what they were demanding. This new addition to the bill, which would cut loans for the construction of renewable energy projects that create jobs, is essentially an empty political attack on the administration. Now is not the time for political games. The American people want us to get serious on the deficit, and we had agreed on a way to do so. They want us to get serious on jobs and this CR does just the opposite. The CR we need to pass is one that adheres to the August budget deal. There is already bipartisan agreement in the Senate on how to handle emergency disaster assistance, and we should follow that example. Let's have a vote on a CR we can pass, one the senate can pass, and one that isn't set up to drive the parties further apart on budgetary issues. Let's see a version that will bring us together. As I said yesterday, I am ready to cast my vote for that CR, and I know other Democrats feel the same way. I urge my colleagues to oppose this version, and I sincerely hope the Republican leadership will recognize why and work with us to do what's best for our country. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill. Now, all of us are for a continuing resolution which keeps the government in business. In the past, on both sides of the aisle, we have talked about clean CRs, clean CRs in the short term--this going to November 18--to keep government running. I was hopeful that we would have such a CR this time so we would not continue to give to the American public the feeling that we can't come to agreement. I was not in the Appropriations Committee. The gentleman, my good friend from Idaho, said this was an amendment that was not opposed in committee. I don't know whether Mr. Price would agree with that. I don't know what the facts on that were. But let me say this: This is a pay-for that is extraordinarily controversial on our side of the aisle, extraordinarily controversial because the message we got from America as we were home, and as we get today, is we need to create jobs. We need to grow the economy. We perceive on this side of the aisle as having selected a pay-for, which, by the way, pay-for for FEMA disaster aid, as I understand it from staff, has never happened before. No precedent for doing this. Let me give you an example that we all ought to all understand. Your water heater goes out at 2 a.m. in the morning. Your family is going to get up the next day and they need to take a shower and they need to get ready, and you need a water heater right away. So what do you do? You go out and buy the water heater. What do you do? You charge it. Because it's an emergency, you've got to get it online. We have a lot of people who have suffered an emergency assault by hurricane, by tornado, by fire, by earthquake, and they need help now. And historically, we have given help now and have not gotten into a debate about what priority do we undermine in that process. We respond to the true emergency. Now, we've had a lot of emergencies, and Mr. Rogers and I have been here a long time, that were not really emergencies. We claimed they were emergencies so we didn't have to pay for them under our rules. But there is no one, I think, in this body or in this country who doesn't believe that Irene caused a legitimate emergency--not feigned, not used for the purposes of justifying where we may go. The longstanding precedent in both Chambers has been to respond to disasters immediately by getting victims the help they need. Just as a family can't budget in advance for a car breaking down or the water heater or something as I mentioned, we have provided in the agreement that we just made just a few weeks ago for headroom for exactly these kinds of emergencies--$11 billion. However, we did not provide that for 2011. But, again, 2011 is when the emergency occurred and when the money is needed now. The Senate just passed a disaster relief bill that adheres to this precedent, and it passed with significant bipartisan support. Unfortunately, Republicans here insist on breaking with this commonsense precedent and with their colleagues in the Senate and demand that responding to an emergency be offset by cutting elsewhere. Now, again, let me precisely say, on emergency, FEMA funding directed at disaster relief. Now, the problem we have is that the target for paying for this is what we perceive to be a job creator. So as a result, I would ask that we reject this bill. We have some time left to do another CR that we ought to agree on in a bipartisan way, a clean CR, short-term, so that, yes, we can, as the gentleman from Idaho said, get on with our business. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Kevin Jefferson, a lifelong community leader and public servant. Through his work on issues from voter registration to gun control community empowerment, and through his service as an Itinerant Elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Kevin made a lasting difference for the better in the time that he was given. Kevin began his career in public service early as a student at Bowie State, where he played an active role in student life. After serving on Rev. Jesse L. Jackson's Presidential campaign staff in 1984 and 1988, Kevin joined the national staff of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, through which he promoted voter registration and education. He went on to become the first National Minority Affairs Coordinator at Handgun Control, Inc., and in this role, traveled the country to help secure support for the Brady Gun Control Bill. His leadership on these important initiatives led to his involvement with President Clinton's Presidential campaign. And in 2000, he was appointed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and later held numerous positions at the State Department. Kevin also served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor, Honorable Alexis Herman, and was appointed to the Office of the President, Community Empowerment Board. Throughout his lifetime, Kevin served on a number of Presidential campaigns, worked closely with the DNC and served as the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee Voting Rights Institute. He is honored and respected by the Democratic Party for his hard work and support. I join Kevin's family, church and all those who knew and loved Kevin in appreciation for his well-lived life and in fond reflection on his memory. I was proud to count him as a friend, and he will be dearly missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the issue here has been raised by a case that is not yet concluded. Let me state that again: the issue raised in this legislation is reference to a case that is not yet concluded and seeks to interpose our judgment for the finder of fact and law's judgment. Normally, we believe that's a bad practice in a Nation of laws, not of men. Secondly, this bill shows clearly a basic difference between many of us on this side and many on that side of the aisle, and that is whether or not you believe that working men and women have the right to come together to organize and to bargain collectively for their pay, their benefits, and their working conditions. In fact, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority of working Americans, whether or not they have joined such an organization, find their workplace safer, healthier, their pay better, and more availability of benefits than they would have if men and women had not been guaranteed the right to bargain collectively, for which they fought and some died in the 1930s and 1940s and later, because people did not want them to do that. They wanted to say: I don't care how much money we make, this is your portion. Now, we see superathletes not stand for that if they're in the NFL or in the NBA or the NHL. We understand that. They see their enterprises making great money because they're great players. But the owners want to pay them what they need to pay them. Why? Because they want to maximize profits. I'm for that. That's the free enterprise system. So we set up a system where we can bargain and we can come to a fair resolution. But this bill says that the concomitant of that right, which is that the employer cannot retaliate for the exercising of a legal right, will be jettisoned. That's what this bill says pretty simply. Yes, you have the right to bargain collectively; but if we don't like what you're doing, we're taking a hike. We're going to retaliate. I do not decide today whether or not that will be the finder of fact and law's conclusion in this case. I don't know that Boeing did that.

Mr. HOYER. I do not know whether that will be the ultimate conclusion, whether Boeing in fact violated the law by retaliating. And I've told my friends at Boeing that I don't know that that's going to be the conclusion. But I do know this: I am for working men and women having the right that they've had for some 70 years. And I believe that working men and women in America, organized or unorganized, are better off because we adopted a law to protect that right. Do not jettison. And I close with this. I quote from a letter sent by hundreds of professors with expertise in this area: ``We are dismayed that a single complaint should be the basis for so fundamental a reversal of longstanding law.'' Do not take this step. Reject this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information. I note that he has indicated the CR will be considered sometime next week, either Tuesday, but most likely on Wednesday. It's my understanding that the supplemental for emergency requirements of FEMA will be included in the CR; is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. When you say all of that has been offset, it is my understanding that in fact in the CR for 2011--not for 2012, but for 2011--there is a $1.5 billion offset included; is that accurate?

Mr. HOYER. And it's further my understanding that that offset, which is unusual in that, as the gentleman knows, during the Bush administration, as happens, we had natural disasters and emergencies-- hurricanes, floods, even earthquakes--that require local governments and local agencies and individuals to respond, and we have responded to them with assistance, but the eight times that we did that during the Bush administration, we did not offset it. We did not offset it on the theory that this was an emergency that occurred that was unplanned for and that we would, in fact, obviously pay for it, but pay for it in subsequent years. It's my understanding that the offset that is being considered is $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle fund. The problem with that, as I see it, is we are talking about creating jobs, and the President has presented a jobs bill. I'll talk about that in just a minute. But the fund that is in question to date has created 39,000 jobs, and the loan applications in progress are projected to create 50,000 or 60,000 additional jobs. Therefore, if we use this as an offset, which would set a precedent, although I understand that precedent's not being followed for 2012, what we are doing, in my view, Mr. Leader, is undermining a specific item in the current scheme of things that is, in fact, creating jobs, as I said, 39,000 jobs, with the loan applications that are in progress now expected to create an additional 50,000 to 60,000 jobs, that we undermine that effort. Frankly, on our side, we would hope that we could return to what is precedent, and that is, in an emergency, respond with emergency funding as we did throughout the Bush administration, not with the concept that we wouldn't pay for it. You and I both agree that paying for this is critically important, and in fact, I think you and I are both of the opinion that, hopefully, the committee of 12 is set up to look at how we get our finances back in line with our revenues and expenditures, that that needs to be done. But certainly, this is a new precedent. And, unfortunately, it appears that you have targeted--I don't mean you, personally, but the CR would target a particular item that is exactly what we want to do, and that is creating jobs. Would the gentleman like to comment on that? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course it's money the government doesn't have. As you know, revenues are at the lowest point they've been in some six decades in America--on one hand because we are not collecting revenue and, on the other hand, because people don't have money in their pockets to pay revenues. They're not working; therefore, they're not paying taxes, and therefore, revenues are down for those two reasons. I would say to my friend that it's my understanding that the account that you have targeted has some $3.9 billion in pending requests, which are the items that would lead to 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs. Now, at a time when we're not creating sufficient jobs for our people--let's assume, for the sake of argument, you want to offset this money. You and I both agree it ought to be paid for. The question is: When do you pay for it? Do we pay for it right now? The fact of the matter is, if you target this particular fund, you are targeting a fund which has demonstrably grown jobs in America. Some 39,000 jobs have been created as a result of loans out of this fund. There is $3.9 billion. You indicate there is still money in the account. You're absolutely right on that. But there are pending requests, again, which would result in 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs, which would be revenue creation for the Federal Government. So, in fact, it appears that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face here, and I would urge the gentleman to perhaps revisit this. The gentleman mentioned the Clinton administration. As the gentleman will well recall, the concerns were not as high then because, during the Clinton administration, of course, we were creating over 3 million jobs per year on average so that the private sector was humming along very well and created 22 million jobs during the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, that was not the case in the last administration, nor has it yet been the case in this administration, although there were 2 million jobs, as the gentleman knows, created in the last 20 months. However, the last 2 months have been stagnant, and that's not good for anybody. It's not good for Republicans or Democrats, but, more importantly, it's not good for the country. Therefore, I would urge us to make sure that we do not target a fund which has already demonstrably created jobs.