Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from two Members on each side of the aisle who, without respect of course to any partisan differences, raised their voices in sadness about the loss of two of our brave Americans in the defense of freedom. I join their sentiments. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. Those two Americans whose lives we have now lost showed extraordinary courage, extraordinary honesty in their willingness to serve. We in this body will now be called upon to show such courage and honesty as we address the extraordinary fiscal crisis that confronts us. Today, President Obama is speaking on a plan to confront our Nation's unsustainable deficits. I believe it will stand in stark contrast to the budget that is going to be offered by Mr. Ryan, a budget of disastrous priorities, in my opinion, that concentrates its plan on middle and working class Americans in terms of its cuts, while creating yet another windfall for the wealthiest in our country, at a time when income inequality is at a height we haven't seen since the 1920s. The Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it, transforming a system of guaranteed health care into a system that provides seniors with less coverage and greater expenses year after year after year. It dismantles Medicaid, putting seniors' nursing home care at very substantial risk, and, in fact, with an inability to pay, and cutting off care for disabled and poor Americans. These entitlements must be addressed, but we must address them in a way that both keeps them sustainable and makes them available for generations to come. Somehow, however--after undermining the social compact of Medicare, after cutting care for the most vulnerable, after sending more than 30 million Americans back to the ranks of the uninsured--the Republican budget finds trillions of dollars to give as tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. Republicans say we are too broke to afford the promise of Medicare, but we are flush enough to spend trillions in tax cuts for those of us who are the best off. In fact, the Republican budget spends so much on corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and loses so many savings by repealing the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act that it fails to balance the budget for 10 years or even 20 years. We have been down this so-called ``Path to Prosperity'' before. It leads to skyrocketing deficits because the supply-side dogma that lower taxes mean higher revenues has proven false over the last three decades. Read the facts. If Republican tax dogma made sense, then our debt would not have increased 200 percent under Ronald Reagan or 115 percent under the second President Bush, but it did. In fact, we've seen Republican promises of prosperity proven wrong time and time again over the 30 years that I have served here in Congress. In 2007, now-Majority Leader Cantor said that the Bush tax cuts ``have spurred spectacular economic growth.'' That was in 2007. Let me remind all the Members of this body, it was in December of 2007 that we fell into the Great Recession, the deepest recession we've had since Herbert Hoover. The growth was spectacular only for the top 1 percent, but for the rest of America, the Bush economy produced what The Wall Street Journal called ``the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.'' That's what The Wall Street Journal said of the Bush economic program, which Cantor said would be a job creator. Throughout the Bush years, middle class incomes stayed stagnant and deficits soared. What did Republicans say about a budget that actually helped create unprecedented prosperity, the 1993 Clinton budget? Here's what now-Speaker Boehner said: ``How does this create any real new jobs? Who does this spending stimulate except maybe the liberal faculty at Harvard or Berkeley?'' Of course, contrary to the Speaker's assertion, the Clinton years saw the biggest production of jobs since I have been serving in Congress of 22.7 million new jobs--in the private sector, almost 21 million jobs as opposed to the private sector loss of jobs under President Bush, about 7,000 loss of jobs per month, versus 216,000 new jobs every month on average under Bill Clinton. Those words represent the same flawed priorities we see in this new Republican budget: tax breaks for the wealthy, a failure to invest in the future, and a heavier burden on working families. Our country deserves better, Mr. Speaker. Let's reform our entitlement programs with a scalpel, not an axe. Let's look for savings in every part of the budget, defense included. Let's close tax loopholes, but let's also use the Tax Code to reduce the deficit and ensure that all of us, even the most privileged, pay their fair share. Republicans have taken us down this primrose path before, Mr. Speaker. It has demonstrably led to higher debt, stagnation for working Americans, and, most recently, an economic implosion. We must not choose that dead end again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I submit these inaugural remarks by an outstanding educational leader in Maryland's Fifth District, Joe Urgo, the new President of St. Mary's College. Inaugural Address as President of St. Mary's College--March 26, 2011 (By Joe Urgo) Thank you, Madame Chair, for your charge to me, which I accept with pleasure and with full knowledge of the weight of responsibility it entails. Madame Chair and board of trustees, Congressman Hoyer, elected officials and their representatives, academic delegates, alumni, faculty, staff, students, friends, neighbors and family: I want to welcome each and every one of you and thank you for the honor of your company on this day. It is traditional at this point in the ceremony for the new president to deliver an inaugural address. We're going to do that, but in a different fashion, which I will explain shortly. I'd like my inaugural address to drive home three linked points, and I'll need some help doing so. First, that our past informs our present--we cannot be effective agents of progress or change without an awareness of how we came to be, and of what came before us. On the institutional level, we know that the original St. Mary's school was founded as a monument to freedom and inclusiveness. We may be free, but we are not alone. This brings me to my second link, that none of us exists as an island, even if we are surrounded by water. On a personal level, we open our awareness to full recognition of who worked to clear a path for us to arrive here, on this spot, at this time. And third, to reflect on our work over the past twenty-four hours, at yesterday's symposium, work done by people who love this place and this College, and by whose passion and dedication we shall deliver on the promise of the liberal arts as a public trust. These are the three links: (1) an acceptance of the ongoing challenge of our profound origins; (2) a shared belief that education is a collaboration; and (3) the conviction that it is passion that will move us forward. Such is the essence of the inaugural, which is, above all else, a readiness--to be prepared, together, in the fullness of the present, inspired by an old verity: that our love for St. Mary's College will move us to accomplish something fine. Today marks a new beginning, and a reaffirmation. But first, let's talk about me. Why me? Product of what past, and by whose assistance, have I come to this podium this afternoon? To help answer those questions, and to illustrate that none among us stands alone, I have asked the assistance of George Monteiro, professor emeritus at Brown University, and Cecelia Tichi, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of English at Vanderbilt University. These scholars have built magnificent careers, about which you may read in the program. In 1980, two years after my college graduation and two years into post-baccalaureate wandering, Professor Monteiro agreed to be my graduate school advisor and gave me the idea that I might have an academic career. Some of it was spoken but most of it was in temperament, sensibility, and an assumption of inclusion. I would never have conceived of and completed the PhD without George Monteiro's support--he'll deny it, but that's the kind of support I am talking about. In 1988, I was three years past receiving my PhD, and in the second of two contingent faculty appointments. That year the English department at Vanderbilt University hired Professor Tichi into a senior level, endowed professorship--a signal accomplishment for her career. I was on a three-year non-tenure track fellowship in the department and would be gone in a year or so--a lowly accomplishment in mine. Professor Tichi became a mentor and guide, and for reasons I am not certain I know, took an interest in me, saw me through difficult early career times, and continued as confidante through the next decade of career decisions. I have asked George and Cecelia to help me once more, by each taking a portion of the time allotted for this inaugural. They are but two individuals who have made it possible for me to be here today, as St. Mary's president; many others are in the audience. My undergraduate thesis advisor is one--Haverford professor of political science, emeritus, Harvey Glickman; my collaborator from Bryant University, Roger Anderson, professor of management; my Fulbright host from Leon, Spain, Professor Manuel Broncano-- que tal estas, Manolo?; my former colleagues and good friends from Hamilton College, Art Massolo, Susan Skerritt (of Kirkland College) Karen Leach, Dick Tantillo, Pat Reynolds, Dave Smallen, Ellie Wertimer, William Billiter, and Mary Lyons and Ed Bradley. These kind spirits inform my own--I have them with me all the time; it is an honor to share this installation with them today. I also note the love and support of my parents, Joe & Rose Urgo--although not with us physically, they accompany me today. I also share this day with my lover, my partner, and my best friend, Lesley Dretar Urgo, as we have shared 28 years of marriage, six job changes for me, at least that many for her, nine household moves--and throughout the day-to-dayness of our marriage, truly a partnership of mind, body, and spirit. That 28-year partnership produced our son, George Urgo. As every parent knows, we are also the products of our children, who supplant our childhood and replace it with renewed life as a parent. George has been a good friend since 1986, when he was born in Syracuse one day before our health insurance was to expire. His timing has always been dramatic and he has been able to masterfully infuse that quality into his life's passion. It is with a father's pride that I ask his assistance this afternoon. And I could not ask for a more suitable blues rendition on my behalf, as both a representative of my love and of my confidence in the future. Professor Monteiro will speak first; followed without further introduction by Professor Tichi. Once George has us ready, I'll come back to the podium with my inaugural remarks to follow. [Remarks were made by George Monteiro, Cecelia Tichi, followed by a musical performance by George Urgo] [Joe returned to the podium] To borrow from the cadences of our students, ``I do, I do believe, I do believe I am ready to be the president of St. Mary's College''--and yes, I hope you are ready for me! In the past nine months there has gestated in me a love for this college and a passion for its mission. And now I am ready to talk to you about it. In the middle of William Faulkner's great novel, Absalom, Absalom!, after repeated failures on the part of college students Quentin and Shreve to understand the human motivations behind events they seek to comprehend, Shreve says, ``And now we're going to talk about love.'' At that point, the roommates begin to realize that understanding, unlike regurgitation, demands emotional investment, and more, requires interpersonal, collaborative creativity. Yes, we need data; yes, we need technical skills; yes, we need assessment measures. But none of these processes and admonitions will move us forward without emotionally invested human beings. You have heard from individuals whom I have loved, depended upon, learned from, and in turn, influenced. As the president of St. Mary's College, I pledge to take this model of personal interaction, of investment in collaboration and influence, and make of it the the core value of what we do here--in learning, in teaching, in research and creativity, in daily work and in the responsibilities we share. ``And now we're going to talk about love.'' I speak to all lovers of learning, lovers of creativity, and to those who simply love this place. Above all, the liberal arts is about love: human passion, the engine of human emotion behind all of human history. St. Mary's College of Maryland exists in the public trust, offering the love of liberal learning--an impassioned, dedicated, humanistic endeavor--to all segments of society, supported by enlightened individuals in the great state of Maryland. Where many of our nation's finest liberal arts colleges were established as exclusive, private institutions, this one was founded on the principles of freedom and inclusiveness. As St. Mary's College trustee emeritus J. Frank Raley has reminded me, our mission is to provide an elite education that is not elitist. Our classes are for all classes. Please join me in a salute to Mr. J. Frank Raley. I am cognizant of the work of St. Mary's presidents and principals who have preceded me, visionaries who have guided us from 19th & 20th century seminary to 1960s junior college to 1970s public four-year college--and to today's glimpse into the future, of what will become an ``elite'' liberal arts education, where ``elite'' refers to brainpower, not family wealth. I follow men and women of remarkable dedication and courage, and am humbled by their accomplishments. With us today is the man whose vision of a public liberal arts college animates us now as it has for forty years--please help me acknowledge former St. Mary's College President Renwick Jackson. My goal is to make the academic rigor of an elite residential liberal arts education available to all members of the coming generation who possess the will and the capacity to meet its challenge. At St. Mary's College we do not make class-distinctions for education deemed as ``appropriate'' to the wealthy as apart from that ``appropriate'' to the general population. Our mission is to combine the two greatest educational accomplishments of American civilization: public education, and the residential liberal arts college. We seek to be an engine of class mobility, helping to end the cycle of educational deprivation that afflicts too many American families. Can we do this? Can we sustain this ambition in the face of forces that will urge us to mediocrity, urge us to do something cheaper, easier, something that in the name of efficiency devalues the collaborative, humanistic educational model of the residential liberal arts college? Former trustee, U.S. ambassador, and friend of St. Mary's, Paul Nitze, reflecting on his career, remarked, ``I have been around at a time when important things needed to be done.'' Embedded in that simple, humble statement is an attitude of mind toward one's circumstances. ``I have been around at a time when important things needed to be done.'' Students, faculty, staff members, alumni and friends of the College, there is important work to be done, right here, right now. With passion and a belief in the rightness of our charge, we find there are important things to be done, and we are around to do them--I feel within me a sense that this College and this community are READY, ready for greatness. At St. Mary's College we are the beneficiaries of one of the world's most beautiful campus locations. Our natural surroundings inspire our quest for sustainable living, ordered by a responsiveness to the future of the land we occupy and the waters that surround us. In months since arriving here, Lesley and the College community have answered this beauty with human hands, working to create an arboretum on campus, further marking this site as a destination. The historical project of St. Mary's City reminds us of the significant work done here in the past, and at the same time, warns us with mortality. As well as live and thrive, things die: they perish, they are conquered, they come to an end. Our mission above all else is to embed our ambitions into sustainable systems, so that the future is indebted to us, and not in debt because of us. At a liberal arts college, ``education'' is the name we give to intellectual endeavor, to creative expression, and to the perpetuation of these impulses across generations. And now we're going to talk about love. In Faulkner's novel there is a concern that we are too quick to assign to human motivation overtly rational, design-driven origins. One character observes: Have you noticed how so often when we try to reconstruct the causes which lead up to the actions of men and women, how with a sort of astonishment we find ourselves now and then reduced to the belief, the only possible belief, that they stemmed from some of the old virtues? (Ch 4) Faulkner called these the old virtues--love, passion, sacrifice--the human qualities that produce what matters to humanity, from the forging of a peace agreement between contending nations, to the assistance offered a stranger in need, to the mentoring of a student, a new colleague, or to the simple preparation for class by professor and student alike. At St. Mary's College, embedded in our mission and purpose, is the premise that great things will come of following the heart's desire. Learning to love what you do is a signal achievement of a lifetime. Finding the important thing that needs to be done, and investing yourself in that significance, sacrificing for it, and loving where it leads-- this is the essence of a liberal arts education. Once immersed in poetry, in history, in science and mathematics, you'll find that passion transferable to careers and communities that will depend upon like-minded, invested human hearts and minds for their perpetuation. And in that process, forty years ahead, the community of 2051 will look back on us and say, ``our way was made by the commitments of 2011, and we inherit a college that was loved, nurtured, and cared for by men and women of passion.'' It is in this spirit that I ask all of us who work to maintain and advance this college community on the banks of the St. Mary's River to renew our commitment--to providing an academically elite, liberal arts education that is inclusive, public, and accessible; to fostering an egalitarian spirit on campus characterized by collaboration and cooperation, seeking methods of compromise over conquest; to installing procedures and systems, as well as bricks and mortar, that are sustainable beyond our lifetime; to considering future generations to be our partners, not our creditors; to maintaining the liberal arts in the public trust, dedicated to the young people who seek the rigors of a liberal arts education, in whose creative spirit and intellectual audacity we entrust the future of this state, this nation, and the world. I ask you, gathered here today: Are you ready? Because I am ready--ready for the future of St. Mary's College of Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. My friend and colleague Jim Moran gave these insightful remarks at his 20-Year Gala Celebration on March 29th. Congressman Jim Moran's Speech at his 20-Year Gala Celebration--March 29, 2011 I have the best job in the world--representing the best educated, most diverse workforce in the strongest economy in the country. Of course, there's always going to be a gap between what business can produce and what government can provide. In Northern Virginia much of that gap is filled with the personal generosity of most of you in this room. So, on behalf of the beneficiaries of your generosity, let me thank you again for your unselfishness. After 65 years of life and 30 years in politics, I've come to realize some things that may have not been as apparent when I started out. First of all, the tragedy of so many lives I've come into contact with, didn't occur when they drew their last breath, but rather when they dreamt their last dream. The tragedy of life is what we let die inside us while we live. Societies have many of the same organic qualities as individuals and what strikes me as I speak tonight is that this nation, which our founding fathers intended to serve as the brightest and most moral beacon of hope and enlightenment for all mankind, is in danger of losing its energy and its luster. It's not lights out time, but the light is dimming. Confidence and optimism is giving way to pessimism and cynicism. The fact that we can't even see our way through to funding the Federal Government is an example of what I'm talking about. Many in today's Congress have said they will not vote to fund our Treasury obligations when we hit our national debt ceiling in a matter of weeks. The seed corn for our future growth--education, Head Start, research and development, roads, rails, clean water infrastructure, environmental preservation, the arts and humanities, are all being cut into the bone in the pending HR1 Appropriations Bill. I'm in this job because I believe deeply in my heart in the American dream and I believe in the essential role of the Federal Government in the fulfillment of that dream. Government can't and shouldn't try to solve every problem, right every wrong, or even rectify every inequality. Its job is to be a catalyst and a gap-filler and the option of last resort. To do the things that the private sector can't or won't. For example, the private sector alone can't afford the kind of basic research that DARPA and the National Science Foundation invested in that produced the internet, GPS, the human genome, and cures for so many of our diseases. And if we want to unravel the mysteries of what lies under the sea and above the sky, if we want to find a permanent cure for Alzheimer's and cancer and autism, and if we're going to secure clean, sustainable sources of energy, then the Federal Government needs to be seen as a partner worth the trust and the investment of the American people and its politicians. The private sector can't finance all our interstate roads and high-speed rail and mass transit systems. The private sector can't fund the infrastructure to separate storm water from drinking water or salvage Puget Sound or the Chesapeake Bay or the Great Lakes. And neither the private sector nor most of the parents of this country can take on the task of educating our future workforce. Those are inherently governmental responsibilities and we ought not shrink from them. If we truly believe in the future of this country then we have to be willing to make the investments necessary to ensure that brighter future. That means you don't cut corners on research opportunities, you don't shortchange your transportation systems, and you don't lay off more than 200,000 teachers, as we've done over the last two years, while the number of students has increased by 750,000. Of course, we have to reduce the deficit and ultimately balance our budget--but you can't fight two wars, expand Medicare and invest billions in our homeland's security with two deep tax cuts. We're bringing in revenue today that amounts to 15% of GDP. We've never had a strong, stable, modern economy without investing at least 20% of our GDP in military security and in our domestic physical and human infrastructure. But, as the Bowles/Simpson Commission emphasized, spending at 25% of GDP is just as unsustainable as taxing at 15%. Our tax code has got to be made simpler and fairer. Warren Buffet is right to ask why his secretary pays 25% of her income while he only pays taxes on 10% of his wealth. And it's fair to ask why Exxon Mobil, GE, NewsCorp, Bank of America, and dozens of other multinational corporations are paying zero taxes to the U.S. during some of their most profitable years, while other corporations with much less profit are paying 35%. It's not their fault. It's ours in the Congress. We lose a trillion dollars a year in so-called tax expenditures, much of which can only be justified in a political context. And while I'm an ardent capitalist, I don't think we should be taxing those making $250,000 a year at the same rate as we tax those making $25 million a year. We also have to rein in health care costs. They're crippling our economy. Medicare and Medicaid spending has doubled over the last 25 years as a percent of GDP. It doesn't make sense that we should be living shorter, less healthy lives, while spending twice what any other country is spending on its health care. The reason is that we reimburse for the quantity of services provided, rather than the quality of care needed. Hopefully, the health care reform bill that was fought over so vehemently will fix that. A couple other things I have come to realize over the last 20 years is that the best social program is a good job and the key to economic prosperity and social stability is a strong middle class. Neither a survival of the fittest society nor a winner-take-all economy is in anyone's long- term best interest. Carrying on the theme of societies functioning very much like individuals, I think we all have kind of a burning flame inside of us. Some call it our soul or the human spirit, but it does seem as though when we look the other way from the poor, shut our doors to the homeless, close our consciences to the sick and needy, that flame burns less bright, and eventually goes out. . . I think that can apply to our nation as well. And in that regard, let me say a word about immigration. I just came from a ten-day trip to Colombia, Panama, Guatemala, and Mexico City. The Chinese, Canadians and Europeans are all filling the gap in Colombia and Panama left by our inability to reach a deal with them--a free trade deal that primarily lowers their tariffs on our goods and services. But in Guatemala, fully half the population is stunted from malnutrition and crime is so pervasive a young person is more likely to be shot in a crime than to study in a college. In Mexico, 97% of the crimes committed are never prosecuted. The kids go to school for only four hours a day, but only 13% of their teachers can pass a high school equivalency exam. What would you do as a parent in a situation like that? I think I know what you would do, because it is exactly what I would do for my own children--you would risk everything to pursue your dream of a better life for your kids. And that's exactly what the bravest, boldest and most entrepreneurial do. And it is because people from all over the world have made that decision to come to America for the same reasons our ancestors did, that we've been able to constantly renew and reinvigorate our population and our workforce. That's why I'm a cosponsor of a bill that makes the highest achieving children of immigrants eligible for college, regardless of their parents' status and why I support the bill that requires English fluency, civics knowledge, paid-up back taxes, and no criminal record to get in the back of the line for citizenship. That's what they say amnesty is all about. I think it's what America is all about. And finally--Libya. Who among you, if you saw a well-known bully beating up on defenseless people with a tire iron, wouldn't grab that tire iron out of his hands? Gaddafi is not Mubarack of Egypt or King Hussein of Jordan, or President Saleh of Yemen or the Khalifa family of Bahrain. He's a truly bad guy. He's using foreign mercenaries to torture and kill his people, who I believe just want some semblance of dignity, opportunity and human rights. Human rights that their peers throughout the Middle East are now willing to risk their lives for. President Obama has done the right thing by leveling the playing field. The reason we've made the extraordinary investments we've made to create the strongest, smartest military in the world is to make this a better, safer world for everyone, and in so doing, to insure a more peaceful world for ourselves. And when we seize the moral high ground, we will always win not just the battle, but the war of ideals and values. Those same values and ideals motivated my father to serve in World War II and to take advantage of the GI Bill and to save and sacrifice to get all seven of his children through college, and it's why I'm so genuinely humbled by the idea that I've been able to serve in the U.S. Congress for the last 20 years--and why I am so deeply grateful to all of you for affording me that opportunity. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, isn't it a shame, I tell my friend who just spoke, that his colleagues objected to a unanimous consent request yesterday which would have taken care of the problem he raises today. There's not a person on this floor that doesn't want to make sure that our men and women in harm's way and in uniform ready to be put in harm's way are paid on time. But we're playing a political game here, a game of gotcha, a game of my way or the highway, not a game of coming together from all over the country and trying to make laws for our country that require compromise. Henry Clay, one of the first Speakers of this House, from the State of Kentucky, said that if you can't compromise, you cannot govern. That's why we are on the brink of shutting down government. We asked for a unanimous consent. I'm going to tell you we're going to ask for another unanimous consent that will accomplish exactly what the gentleman from Texas wanted to accomplish. I hope that none of you object. I hope that all of you will say, yes, enough of these games. Let's do what Republicans and Democrats have historically done when they've reached an impasse at this time. They said, well, we'll keep things in place and we'll create a bridge across which we can all pass to get to compromise, to get to an agreement. That's what the American people expect us to do. Mr. Speaker, I understand that to some in this Chamber, shutting down the government is an ideological game or a way of making a point. That's why they've included in this bill to fund the troops some of their social agenda. That's why they want to shut down the government, because they want to force the President to do something he has told the American people he would not do. Now, ladies and gentlemen, when the Democrats were in charge of the House and the Senate and we disagreed with George Bush, we did not shut down the government. We said, Mr. President, we understand you disagree with this so we can't do it. Not, because you won't do it, Mr. President, we're going to shut down the government. That's what's happening here. It's not about dollars and cents and, very frankly, it's not about funding the military. That's the image that's being created because we are all sympathetic and committed to funding our men and women in harm's way. That's the right thing to do. It's the moral thing to do. It's what we ought to be doing. And I hope when I ask for a unanimous consent to do that today that, unlike yesterday, the Republicans will not object. I want every Member to be aware of the consequences for millions of Americans of shutting down government. A shutdown would put our economic recovery, our housing market, and paychecks at risk. And yes, every person listening to me will be affected in one way or another. It's the wrong thing to do. Who said it was the wrong thing to do? Speaker John Boehner, who said it would cost more to shut down the government than to keep it running. He is absolutely right. Goldman Sachs has estimated that, and I quote, ``If a shutdown lasted more than a few days, it should shave 0.2 percent off the growth of the gross domestic product for every week it continued.'' What's that mean? It means jobs. Now, we've been here for 90 days. We're in our fourth month with no jobs legislation. Goldman Sachs went on to say, ``When the government shut down for 20 days in late 1995,'' said James O'Sullivan, chief economist, ``the Nation's economic growth was slowed by as much as a percentage point.'' That means jobs. This is a very inefficient political tactic and prank to play on the American people. As CQ reports, business leaders also understand that averting a shutdown is crucial to our economic recovery. That is why, again, I hope you agree to my unanimous consent to keep the government open while we continue to negotiate, while we continue to try to get to an agreement. Congressional Quarterly also points out that ``In the event of a shutdown, the Small Business Administration would not guarantee loans for business working capital, real estate investment, or job creation activities.'' It makes no sense to shut down the government. And my friends, when they say, oh, well, the Democrats in the Senate, let me tell you why the Democrats in the Senate can't move things forward, because they can't get 60 votes. Why can't they get 60 votes? Because the Republican leader of the United States Senate will not let any of his Republicans join the 53 Democrats in the Senate to get to 60. Ladies and gentlemen, we ought not to shut down this government, and I urge my colleagues to approve a unanimous consent request that I will make a little later today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for the time. I understand that he could have precluded that, and I appreciate the fact that he gave me the time. Mr. Speaker, we've heard on the floor about all the Americans who would suffer the very real effects of a government shutdown. Those effects might include slowed economic growth, which means, of course, fewer jobs; a weakened housing market; delayed pay for our military families; delayed benefits for our veterans; unanswered Social Security applications; proceedings and more. Republicans are holding these government services hostage. Let me repeat that. The Republicans are holding those services hostage. And it turns out that their ransom demand is the passage of divisive social policy, because Mr. and Mrs. America know, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, that we have got an agreement on numbers. We've got an agreement on how much to cut, a compromise. Henry Clay said, ``To compromise is to govern.'' We cannot govern if we do not come to agreement. But we haven't come to agreement now. Democrats have proven more than willing to compromise. We've met Republicans more than halfway, only to find out that Republicans cannot stand up to the most extreme in their party who demand that we have an agreement on a social policy totally unrelated to the deficit. But we're still hopeful that Members of both of our parties can put their responsibility to the American people first, come to a compromise, and keep the government open for the people it serves. To give that work the time it needs, I urge my colleagues for a clean, 1-week spending bill, a bridge to keep the government functioning into next week. That is what this motion will do. It's very simple. It will keep our defense structure intact, make sure that our people on the front line, in harm's way, get paid; make sure that every other government official that is serving the American people stays on the job to do just that. It is free of divisive social policy. It contains no partisan measures. It will ensure that our troops are taken care of and paid on time. And unlike the partisan, divisive, 1-week extension passed by the Republicans, it can and will become law. Those Members who understand that we must compromise in order to govern I think will support this 1- week bridge and support this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that I had the privilege of being on television with your whip, the majority whip, a friend of mine. His assertion was that, well, we had voted for some of these policies when George Bush was President. I didn't agree with those policies, but I allowed them to stay in the bill. Why? Because I knew that I had to compromise. I knew that the American public had elected a Republican President who disagreed with me. And I knew as well that I needed to keep the government running because I had a responsibility to the American public to do so. I had a responsibility to the servicemembers to do so. And so, yes, I compromised. That is all this resolution is asking of all of you. You have a President of our country. Is he a Democrat? He is. But he is elected by the people of the United States, and he disagrees with your provision, just as George Bush agreed with it. But when we were in charge, we did not shut down the government because of that disagreement; we understood that the American public expected us to compromise and come to an agreement. This motion to recommit, if passed, will allow you to do that and keep government open. We have now been debating for almost 2 hours, under the rule and during the course of this debate, an amendment that will make no difference to the American public tomorrow. This motion to recommit will make all the difference to America tomorrow. It is the difference between keeping the government open and shutting it down in just a little less than 9 hours from now. I ask each of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, east, west, north, and south: Support this motion to recommit. It is the responsible, effective way to do what so many of you have said you want to do, and that is to keep this government functioning for the American people, continue to give it stability. And I might add that you criticized us for creating uncertainty. I think that was an apt criticism, my colleagues on the Republican side, that certainty is important in our economy. Nothing will create more uncertainty than defeating this motion to recommit. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form.

Mr. HOYER. Could my friend yield just so I can correct, because I will tell my dear friend----

Mr. HOYER. Could you yield just so I can correct the statement? Because it does cut the $51 billion we've already agreed to. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Allen West, a newly elected Republican from Florida, said, ``I'm disgusted at the perception that leaders in my own party are now using the men and women in uniform to pass a short-term budget bill.'' That was a newly elected Republican, a former member of the Armed Forces of the United States. My point being this, Mr. Speaker: This resolution speaks directly to keeping the government of the United States operating for the next 7 days, keeping our men and women in the Armed Forces paid for that week, making sure that every other necessary service for government is available to the American people for the next 7 days. And it is the only vehicle that now appears to be viable to accomplish that objective. And as a result, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not only in order; it is imperative that we pass this motion to recommit. And I would urge the Speaker to find it in order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the chairman as well. I understand he has given me the 5 minutes, and I appreciate that. First of all, I want to say to my friend from Kentucky--and he is my friend and we've worked together for many, many years. He told the story about a gentleman who was in court and he was in court for killing his two parents, and he pled for the mercy of the Court because he was an orphan. I tell my friend from Kentucky, particularly appropriate because he's from Kentucky, because the mess that we have was created because some folks from Kentucky would not give some votes to put appropriation bills on the floor. To that extent I think that analogy is apt. The gentleman complains of a mess that, frankly, was of the Republican Members in the United States Senate refusing to allow bills to come to the floor. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit, if adopted, A, will take care of the troops; B, will keep the government open; and, C, importantly, I would presume, from all of you who have protested how you want to protect the troops, it will pass the Senate and be signed by the President. So it will become law, and it can become law by tomorrow night before 12 midnight when the government's authorization ends. So it should commend itself to all Members of this House as a viable document to protect the troops, keep the government open, and get signed. As the great legislator Henry Clay, who was elected Speaker the first day he served in this House--Henry Clay was from where, Mr. Chairman? From your great State. And Henry Clay said this: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.'' Henry Clay. And let me repeat that to my friends on your side of the aisle: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.'' Too many of our Republican colleagues have refused to compromise. And now you bring to the floor a resolution and say, If you only do what we tell you to do, things will be fine. My, my, my, what a definition of ``compromise.'' Then you say, If the Senate will only do what we say, we'd be fine. The first time, the second time, the third time, and now here we are on the fourth time. Now, I supported you, as you know, on the second time and third time because I thought it was reasonable to give that opportunity, and the cuts you were asking for, yes, I thought would be included at some point in time. The Senate, by the way, passed those two resolutions, as we indicated they would. And the President signed them, as the gentleman is telling me. I'm getting a little help over here from the ranking member, and I appreciate it. But now we are on the brink of bringing the government to a halt. That makes no sense, and anybody here knows that to be the case. My friend Mr. Simpson, for whom I have a great deal of respect, knows that it makes no sense. In fact, many of your folks who have said to shut it down in the past are now saying, We don't want to shut it down, because they know the American people think that makes no sense. Republicans showed their priorities when they passed a spending bill that cuts billions in scientific research, kicks 200,000 children out of Head Start, and cuts college aid for millions of middle class students. Yes, we don't agree with those priorities. They're not our priorities. We think we need to invest in growing this economy and growing jobs. We think we need to invest in young people so that they can have the educational opportunities. Ronald Reagan said Head Start worked. George Bush I said it worked. George Bush II said it worked. We don't want to cut 200,000 children out of that program. We think it's important to make sure the future of our country is secured by educating those children. You have shown your priorities when you threatened a government shutdown over divisive social policy riders. Governor Daniels, Governor of Indiana, and a candidate for President, I understand, said, Take the social issues and consider them on another bill; let's get the finances of our country in order first. That's what you say you want to do. We want to help you do that. We will work with you on that. We have been working with you on it. That's why I voted for the last two CRs, and the Senate passed them and the President signed them. But, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will allow for our troops to be taken care of, as they should be; and, by the way, they will be taken care of even if we have a shutdown because they are critical to our national security.

Mr. HOYER. I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit that will be signed by the President of the United States. Point of Order

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit speaks directly to the funding of government. The continuing resolution offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, he has repeatedly said its objective is to fund the government and keep the government open. This is an alternative which argues for the fact that we want to pass a piece of legislation that the President of the United States says he will sign. It is simply for 1 week. It is simply a short period of time while we negotiate. I urge the Speaker to find this motion to recommit consistent with the rules and consistent with the objectives of the legislation that is under consideration.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. HOYER. We ought to do, Mr. Chairman, what you and I have done in the past as members of the Appropriations Committee: say we haven't reached an agreement, we will do a clean CR at present levels while we continue to negotiate on behalf of the American people to do what we all want to do.

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. And that would pass the Senate as well. I urge my colleagues to reject this CR and adopt a clean CR that will keep the government in operation and allow us to come together and reason together and pass a reasonable piece of legislation. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority leader for yielding, and I share his view that we ought to keep the government running for not only the sake of our economy, but for the sake of all those that rely on the Federal Government. My friend has made the observation in the past that shutting down the government, and I believe the Speaker has made the same observation, was not a rational policy for us to pursue. I ask the gentleman, because I believe that the resolution that we will be considering will not either pass the Senate nor be signed by the President, in light of that, and in light of the fact that the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker have both indicated that negotiations are ongoing, would the gentleman agree to a unanimous consent, as we have done so often in the past when the majority Democrats that were in control of the House and the Senate disagreed with President Bush, that we would have a hold-in-place unanimous consent continuing resolution, not changing the status on either side of the negotiations, for 7 days, which would give the parties the opportunity to come to an agreement. My understanding from the leader of the Senate is that we have agreed to some $70 billion in cuts, which is a substantial way towards what you wanted and a show that we share the view that we need to have fiscal restraint. So I ask my friend, if I made a unanimous consent request that we continue the government authority to stay running until next Friday without changing the status quo so that neither party would be disadvantaged and that our government would, in fact, as the gentleman observes is his objective, be able to stay in service to the American people?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I want to inform the gentleman that the White House has just issued an intent to veto the resolution that you are offering. I tell my friend that if, in fact, the gentleman wants to keep the government running while negotiations proceed, we have already agreed to substantial billions of dollars in reductions in spending for 2011. We did so, and we've agreed on that. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, I have voted for both of the previous resolutions. I believed both of those could pass; and, in fact, I was correct. They did pass. I tell my friend this resolution, in my view, will not pass. However, it is my understanding that both the Speaker and Mr. Reid and the President are continuing to have discussions to try to overcome this impasse. That is the legislative process. We never shut down the government when we had the majority and President Bush was in power. And I tell my friend the reason we did not shut it down is because we agreed with the premise you have stated and the premise the Speaker has stated that shutting down the government was not a process that was useful for our economy, for jobs, for our people or for the services that are expected of us. What is useful is for us to rationally provide a context in which negotiations, which quite obviously have not yet been completed, are completed. Now, you have heard me talk about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' You can't get it all your way, and we can't get it all our way; but, in fact, the American public overwhelmingly elected President Obama for a 4-year term. He is in office. Mr. Gingrich said that we were ignoring the 2010 election results. We observed that the 2008 election results were regularly ignored by your side of the aisle in the last 2 years. What I am saying to my friend, there is a rational way for us to proceed. And, very frankly, when we were in your shoes, we did so, when we couldn't reach agreement with President Bush.

Mr. HOYER. I tell my friend, we have little doubt on our side of the aisle why we are where we are today.