Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. How I miss my magic minute. I want to say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, how often he and I have said, you know, when we have these impasses, we need a clean CR. This CR is unclean. This CR will not get us to where you say you want to get, Mr. Chairman, and that's not shutting down the government, because you know and I know the President will not sign this bill. Why? Because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. Why? So you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the government open. Why is that difficult? Because so many of your folks, unless they get 100 percent, are prepared to shut down the government. You and I both know that, Mr. Chairman. I have great respect for you. Very frankly, I think you and I could go in a room and solve this in the next 30 seconds, but you and I are not in that room. It is time, as the Speaker has said, to be adults. Why is this viable piece of legislation on the floor? Because you think you can hold the government ransom for an additional $12 billion. I said that I would not support, after supporting the first two--which I thought were reasonable to try to give us an opportunity to solve the differences that exist between us--that I would not vote for a third one, and I'm not going to vote for this one. It won't matter because it's dead anyway, and you all know it's dead. But you're banking on the fact that you know we don't want to shut down government. What's the proof in the pudding? We did not shut it down when we had disagreements with George Bush because we believed that reasonable people elected by a diverse community in America who had differences of opinion were expected by our public to come together, reason together, and act productively together. Now very frankly, I don't take a back seat to anybody on this floor in my support of defense or the men and women in uniform, and Mr. Young knows that, my dear friend, not a back seat to anyone. And yes, if we passed a unanimous consent request to fund at present levels, defense would continue. Should we have passed a defense bill last year? I think we should have. I'm sorry we didn't. I urged that we do it. But the Senate, as you might recall, would not allow any bills to come to the floor, any bills--that is, the Republicans in the United States Senate would not allow that to happen. So now we are faced with not a let's-reason-together bill but an additional $12 billion in cuts, which means that week by week by week you think you will get to what you want, not a compromise, not an agreement, but what you want. And you will do it $5 billion a week, $2 billion a week--this one is $12 billion a week. And you have no expectation that that will pass or be signed by the President, but you do it to pretend you want to keep government in operations. Newt Gingrich has said don't worry about shutting down the government, as he shut it down in 1995--and over Christmas--for 3 weeks, in '95 and '96. Ladies and gentlemen on my side of the aisle, we ought to reject this specious political act which pretends that we want to keep the government open.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to ask the chairman if he will yield to me for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request that we proceed with what we would call a clean CR, which would provide for the funding of the troops, provide for the funding of all other government agencies at the levels that we are currently at, which of course involve all the cuts that have been made to date in the last two CRs that we passed and for which I voted. I tell my friend, the reason I want to propound this unanimous consent, it will in fact provide for a document, an act, to pass this House which I believe will in fact pass the Senate and will in fact be signed by the President. As a result, we will protect our troops and we will protect all other services that government has available for the American people. I ask my friend if he will yield to me for that purpose.

Mr. HOYER. I think I have concluded, Madam Speaker, in asking the chairman whether he would yield to me for the purposes of making that unanimous consent so that we could have an act pass this House that we know will be signed by the President and will protect the troops and will keep the government open.

Mr. HOYER. Will the chairman yield simply for me to clarify my request?

Mr. HOYER. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, budgets are not simply about dollars and cents. They are about values and priorities. And the debate over spending has revealed Republican priorities, in my opinion, in the worst possible light. First, Republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple America's ability to out-innovate, out- educate, and out-build its competitors. That spending plan would cut billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, kick 200,000 children out of Head Start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 States, infrastructure projects which provide American jobs. A consensus of nonpartisan economists has found that the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. And Mark Zandi, Moody's Analytics chief economist and an adviser to Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, said that it would cost almost 700,000 jobs. In addition to these skewed priorities, Republicans are insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include controversial social policy provisions that have little, if anything, to do with the deficit, even though their own Pledge to America promised to ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must- pass' legislation,'' bills that should pass on their merits, not as related to some extraneous issue. Rather than compromise with President Obama, with the Democrats in the Senate and the House, Republicans are threatening, once again, to shut down government as they did in 1995. Now they tell us that they will back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, 1-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government open. In other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week-to-week bill did. It also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget. Frankly, Madam Speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility, especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the Secretary of Defense himself has called the Pentagon's ``culture of endless money.'' This partisan patch contradicts Republicans' own promises to put everything on the table, defense spending included. Listen to their own words, as reported by the Associated Press on January 23: ``The House's new majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.'' But, of course, they haven't done that. New York Times, January 27: ``Representative Chris Gibson, a tea party-endorsed freshman Republican and retired Army colonel, made it clear that no part of the Pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was immune. `This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.' '' However, they have not done that. Congressman Mike Pence, on January 7, said: ``If we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense.'' We need a strong defense. I am a supporter of a strong defense. But to take those dollars off the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our Republican friends have made. Those words are sounding very hollow, however, today. Why are Republicans breaking their word, Madam Speaker? Because, in my opinion, they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending left untouched and a divisive social policy provision as well, which is what they said they would not do. What we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours, now over the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise. That's our job. ``My way or the highway'' is never going to get it done. Finally, Republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year. We will have a lot to say about that in the days ahead. Their budget ends Medicare as we know it. Seniors thought that they were going to protect Medicare. Well, their way of protecting it is ending it. It dismantles Medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. We will talk a lot about that in the coming days. And on top of that, it includes yet trillions more in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We can do better. Rather than using our debt as an excuse to pass a nakedly partisan agenda, we need to take a bipartisan approach that puts everything on the table: Keeping our entitlement programs solvent; scrutinizing our spending, defense and non-defense, for waste and low priorities; and passing deficit-reducing tax reform. Those are the hard choices and shared sacrifices that Americans have a right to expect.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the problem and take away America's tools for responding to it. This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy independence wake-up call. I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act over its 40-year span. The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits. That is a pretty good return on our investment. And according to the American Medical Association, ``If physicians want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own offices. Patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only in warmer areas. Chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more frequent and extended heat waves. Allergy and asthma seasons are getting longer.'' The gentleman from New Hampshire said he doesn't doubt global warming. I agree with that conclusion. It is a shame this bill doesn't take that perspective. The Republican response is to make pollution easier, frankly. Finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the environment and human health, which has been confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists. A partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants. I understand that. But it cannot legislate the facts out of existence, facts that as recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. What changed? The science or the politics? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which recklessly endangers our air, our health, our climate, and our energy independence.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Garamendi, I thank you not only for your yielding, but more importantly for the extraordinary time you have invested in educating all of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle in what can truly be perceived I think as an absolutely nonpartisan, bipartisan, pro-American agenda that says we ought to make it in America. And if we do, we are going to make it in America. We're going to succeed in America. You've got our logo up there, Manufacturing Matters. I want to congratulate you, and I want to congratulate Ms. Sutton from Ohio, who has been such an extraordinary advocate. Her legislation in many respects took the automobile industry and put it back on track. That was an action that saved literally hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of jobs in the automobile industry, but all the jobs that are related to the automobile industry. And I congratulate Betty Sutton for the leadership she showed. That legislation of course was passed in a bipartisan fashion. Not a partisan divide on that issue. Mr. Garamendi has been not only educating the Members of this House, but as the American public watches the proceedings in this House, educating them as well. I go all over America and talk to groups, and there is not a group that I have talked to, no matter how liberal, how conservative, whether it's a Democratic group, a nonpartisan group, anywhere in this country, and I have talked to a number of the heads of major corporations, and I have talked to a lot of heads of small corporations, 200, 300, 400 members, and all of them are appreciative of the fact that we have focused the Congress of the United States and the administration and America on the importance of making things in America. Betty Sutton, as I walked on the floor, was talking about the kinds of jobs that we create in manufacturing, which have on average a 22 percent higher salary. That middle income, middle class workers, working Americans can have the kind of quality of life that they deserve. And when you see Ford bringing jobs back to America, you see Whirlpool bringing jobs back to America, you see other corporations bringing jobs back to America, why are they bringing them back to America? Because they are finding out that they get better quality and higher productivity. The gentleman from California mentioned the steel in the bridge that's being built. We make the best steel in America. I was visiting the president of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh. Extraordinary technology. And we are the most productive producer of steel now. We frankly in the fifties sort of rested on our laurels. And then in the sixties and seventies, the Japanese, the Koreans, and others built new plants and they overtook us in technology. But it wasn't because we couldn't compete; it was that we weren't competing. What Make It In America says is American workers can compete with anybody in the world. And we are prepared to do so. And this Congress hopefully is going to give them the incentives and the tools to do that. So I wanted to come on the floor and join you, as I have in evenings past, to thank you, because I believe this agenda, if it's known to our Republican colleagues fully and our Democratic colleagues, but much more importantly to the American people, it's an agenda that I have found has the support of 8 to 9 of every Americans who shake their head and say, yes, that's the deal. I don't mean that the 1 or 10 percent are against it. It's just that about 85 percent say, yes, that's what we need to do. America can compete. America can be again the center of manufacturing and growth and the creation of jobs. We know that we've lost some 8 million jobs over the last few years, 3 or 4 years. We know that Americans are struggling to find employment. Well, if we want to find employment for them we need to create jobs for them. We need to focus on creating jobs. I am hopeful that as we move on in the coming months that we will in fact start focusing on jobs, on job creation. We have created, as you know, 1.75 million new private sector jobs over the last 13 months. But that's not enough. It's progress, but it's not enough. So I congratulate the gentleman and thank him for his leadership. And I thank Ms. Sutton for hers as well. Two giants in focusing on an agenda that we call Make It In America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. I did not know that he was taking a Special Order, but I was here on the floor, went over to say hello to my dear friend and he indicated this Special Order was being taken for John Adler. John Adler died too young. John Adler contributed extraordinarily to his family, to his community, to his State and to his Nation. He served here too short a time. He was full of energy and of ideas, of intellect, of integrity; and he became a good friend in a short period of time. And I counted him as one of the assets of this Congress, not a Democratic asset or a Republican asset, but someone who cared about his country and who wanted to see it adopt policies that were productive for its people. It is appropriate that we remember this too short a life that, notwithstanding its brevity, was filled with great productivity, service and commitment. I appreciate the fact that the members of the New Jersey delegation have allowed me to join them, Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute to this great American. I want to say to his family, I called Shelley the other day and didn't get her but left a message, four children are missing their father tonight, a loving wife, whom I got to know as well, missing her husband. While our loss is certainly not as personal or as keen as their loss, we share that loss in a very real sense. Not only have we lost an American public servant; we have lost a friend and a colleague. For that we will say a prayer for his family, and we will be there for his family whenever they need us. So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, my friend Mr. Lance, for giving me this time to join him and Mr. Pallone and Mr. Holt in paying tribute to this wonderful human being whom we had the privilege of serving with, for too brief a time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. April fools, America. This is a joke, America. This is not real, America. As a matter of fact, Mr. Woodall of Georgia says it's not real. It's not going to pass the Senate. He made that very clear. The majority leader just said if the Senate won't take what we give them, we're going to shut down the government. That's what he just said. And that's what I believe to be the case. The last time the government shut down was not when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress but when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. They shut down the government in 1995 and 1996. They shut down the government over Christmas, as a matter of fact, the Grinch who stole the government's operations for almost 3 weeks. We're about to do it again. The gentleman from Georgia, who has been here now a few months, was 10 years old when I came to the Congress of the United States. He mentioned something about the debt, this $14 trillion of debt. Well, I've only been here, I tell my friend, 30 years, but during the course of those 30 years, Republican Presidents have signed bills spending $4.8 trillion in deficit spending. During the course of the Clinton administration, we had a surplus, as the gentleman probably knows. Now he will say, presumably, because we had a Republican Congress. But, of course, the Republicans not only took the Congress but they took the Presidency in 2001, and they ran up 2\1/2\ trillion dollars of deficit and increased the national debt by 115 percent, notwithstanding the fact that they inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. And now they pass this April fools joke on America that the gentleman who is one of the cosponsors says won't pass the Senate. We know it won't pass the Senate. But they pretend in their language what is clearly contrary to the Constitution, because they say if it doesn't pass, the provisions of H.R. 1, the bill they have sent to the Senate, passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. In other words, we're going to deem it passed. Let me tell you what Eric Cantor said about deeming it passed: ``Malfeasant manner. Did not discharge the duties of their office.'' Then Speaker Boehner said this about these deeming pieces of legislation, which this is. He said it was a scheme and plot that set a precedent and was, quote, one of the most outrageous things that he had seen since he had been in Congress and erroneously claimed that it had never happened in American history. In fact, it had happened before. This has never happened, where the House of Representatives took the position if you don't pass what we want, ours goes into law anyway. I'm sure our Tea Party friends are shocked, because they will find nowhere in the Constitution, my friends, does that provide for. Furthermore, Mike Pence denounced deem and pass as, quote, trampling on the traditional rules of the House and Senate and even on the Constitution of the United States of America. Michelle Bachmann, who apparently may be a candidate for President, said this, that deem and pass, quote, ignored the Constitution and warranted the impeachment of the House Speaker. Quote, there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this.

Mr. HOYER. This resolution says, contrary to the Constitution, if the Senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. Nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. Nobody believes that that joke that we are trying to play on the American people on April Fool's Day will be believed by any of them. And, my friends, do not tell me about your concern about the deficit, because the deficit during my period of time, except for the last 2 years, trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy--don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. Surely my friend knows that's not the case. And if my friend doesn't know it, I would be glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue in any forum he chooses because the facts belie his representation. My friends, reject this bill. Reject this bill because it is a fraud on the American public. Reject this bill because it's an attempt to shift blame from the House of Representatives passing a bill that can, in fact, pass; not to say to the Senate, Our way or no way, and we will shut down the government, because that's what this bill says.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his observation and regret that he felt it was a mischaracterization because I thought it was accurate. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman who just spoke on behalf of General Casey and thank General Casey, with him, for his service to the country. Madam Speaker, in 1998, as a Republican Congress was struggling to compromise with a Democratic President on a budget bill, a Member of the House rose to speak to what he called the ``perfectionist caucus,'' those Members who stood against compromise under any circumstances. Here is what he said: ``Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their own world where they are petty dictators, could write a perfect bill. It would be about 2,200 of their particular projects and their particular interests and their particular goodies, taking care of their particular States. But,'' this speaker said, ``that is not the way life works in a free society. In a free society, where we are sharing power between the legislative and executive branch, compromise is precisely the outcome we should expect to get.'' Those words were true then when Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, said them, and they are still true today. In the last election, Americans voted for shared responsibility. Without both parties' willingness to compromise--to take less than 100 percent of what they want--there will be no solution to our most pressing problems, including our debt; there will be no action on our budget; and the government will be in danger of shutting down, which, in the midst of a fragile economic recovery, would be disastrous. So the question is this, Madam Speaker: Who is willing to compromise and who is standing in the way? Democrats are willing to cut and compromise. We believe that smart, targeted cuts are a part of the solution, and we have offered to meet Republicans more than halfway. The Republican leadership initially proposed $73 billion in spending cuts. Their conference rejected that proposal and demanded $100 billion in cuts. Democrats have offered $51 billion, and signal a willingness to move toward the $70 billion figure suggested by the Republican leadership, very near the Republicans' original goal, provided that we can agree on cuts that don't cripple our economic recovery and undermine our shared values. Cutting 200,000 children from Head Start is not, I believe, a value we ought to support. Adversely affecting 9 million young people's ability to go to college and make us a more competitive society is not one of those values either. Substantially reducing our ability to participate in basic research which will grow our economy, create innovative ideas and spur invention is not one of our values. In my view, H.R. 1 that passed this House did not represent America's values. Yes, we need to become fiscally disciplined, but we need to do it in a smart way that reflects our values. Looking at those numbers, Americans are surely thinking there is clear room to come to an agreement and keep the world's largest enterprise, the United States Government, from being funded on a sporadic, uncertainty-creating 2-week or 3-week increment. So why can't we? Well, read the news. The New York Times March 28 said this: ``Tea Party supporters are coming to the Capitol this week to rally Republicans to not compromise with Democrats on spending cuts.'' That's the perfectionist caucus wing. Politico, on March 27, said this: ``Harsh rhetoric Friday night suggests GOP leaders still fear a tea party rebellion.'' That's what Newt Gingrich was talking about with respect to the perfectionist caucus. The Hill, on March 29 said, ``Striking a deal with Democrats would set off a wave of revolt among the most conservative members of the caucus.'' That's the perfectionist caucus that Newt Gingrich was talking about that brought our government to a standstill and shut down our government in 1995 and early 1996. We are in a dangerous place, I tell my friends, when compromise, which is essentially the job description of a legislator in a free society, is enough to spark revolt. Come, let us reason together, Lyndon Johnson said. That is what we need to do. We face partisan opposition to any compromise on spending levels. Some Members' willingness to shut down the government unless they get their way on divisive social issues, even though the Republican pledge to America promised to, and I quote, ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people.'' In fact, Mitch Daniels, candidate for President, Governor of Indiana, said they ought to be considered separately. He is right. Madam Speaker, the perfectionist caucus, unfortunately, seems to be alive and well. It just has a new name. Just listen to its own words. One Republican Member said this: ``If we can't defund health care reform in the spending bill, then we have just got to dig in.'' In other words, shut down government if you can't repeal the health care bill. Is that an item for substantial, substantive debate? It is. But should we shut down the government while that debate is occurring? I say no. Another said, ``I think we have to have a fight. I think this is the moment.'' In other words, our way or no way. I don't think that's what the American people voted for. Another said this: ``I don't see any room for compromise.'' Democracies cannot work that way. As Newt Gingrich said, we're elected from different constituencies by different people with different views, and they expect us to come here, all 435 all of us, and all 100 in the Senate, and make reasonable compromises to move our government forward. Yes, to reduce the deficit we must do that, but let us do so in a way that honors our values and honors our democracy. For the rest of us, Members of both parties who understand that legislating means compromise, it's time to find common ground and prevent government shutdown.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Last week, as I have been doing for a number of weeks, I have been speaking about our budget and the crisis that confronts us and the challenge that confronts us. Last week, former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough said this about the hard work of getting America out of debt: ``The belief of some on the right that America can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and home heating assistance to the poor is tantamount to budgetary witchcraft.'' That was Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican Member of Congress from northern Florida. Last week, Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan expressed a similar thought when he said this: ``If you literally think you can just balance the budget by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, and NPR, it doesn't work like that,'' said Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee. Both Congressman Scarborough and Congressman Ryan are exactly right. Last week I explained why Republicans' spending plan, even as it cripples America's competitiveness, barely makes a dent in our debt. That is because the spending targeted by Republicans, non-security discretionary spending, only amounts to 14 percent of the entire budget. Should we focus on that? Yes. Can we get to where we need to be from there? No. If you want to meet an arbitrary goal of cutting $100 billion and you confine yourself to just 14 percent of the budget, you severely damage investments in education, in innovation, and in competitiveness without making our fiscal condition significantly healthier. That is why, to really get our debt under control, we have to go beyond that 14 percent. We have to stop making the cuts that, while reckless, are politically easy. We have to start doing what is in the best interests of our country even though it is politically hard. That means addressing the defense spending that takes in more than one quarter of our budget. It means making hard choices that can keep our entitlements strong for generations to come. But we also need to pass deficit-reducing tax reform. Our Tax Code is a monumental collection of rules and regulations riddled with loopholes and preferences which are a drain on job creation and, frankly, exacerbate the deficit. Many of those loopholes, or tax expenditures, as they are also called, are popular with all sorts of special interests. But they exact a high price from the rest of us: billions of dollars and more than 225 million collective hours spent on tax preparation, money and time that could be invested in more productive activity. Just as importantly, when the Tax Code is full of loopholes, businesses and families start making decisions on maximizing tax breaks, not on their economic common sense. Closing those loopholes in return for lower tax rates frees us all to make more economically sensible choices; in other words, fewer preferences, lower rates. Closing those loopholes can also reduce the deficit. In the spending bill on the floor this week, total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2011 adds up to $1.1 trillion, an awful lot of money. How much do our tax expenditures cost for the same fiscal year? Coincidentally, $1.1 trillion. This chart reflects that realty: $1.077 trillion in expenditures, $1.068 trillion, almost exactly the same sum, in tax expenditures. How much do our tax expenditures cost for the same fiscal year? Just as much as we spend on non-security discretionary spending and security spending. Clearly, tax expenditures must be part of the answer. The two commissions that met to try to focus on getting our deficit under control, making sure that we are economically viable into the next century and making sure that our children are not left in a deep economic hole, that they will have the resources necessary to meet the challenges of their time and will not look at our generation as the generation of debt, said as much. It must be part of the answer, tax expenditures, because if we attempt to solve our debt without addressing defense, entitlements, and revenues, we are fighting with one hand and four fingers behind our back.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Adrienne Thomas, the Deputy Archivist of the United States who is retiring after 41 years of distinguished service with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Ms. Thomas began her career of federal service straight out of Iowa State University as an archivist trainee in the Office of Presidential Libraries. Since then, she has held a number of important policy and administrative positions. Early in her career, she was instrumental in transforming the Archives into an institution at the forefront of a revolution in public access to records, following the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. During the 1980s, she served as the Director of Planning and Analysis and, in 1985, she was instrumental in putting in place the structure that allowed the Archives to operate as a newly created independent agency, no longer under the direction of the General Services Administration. Perhaps her most celebrated contributions to this nation are the magnificent public spaces where she was intimately involved in overseeing construction and renovation during her time as NARA's head of Administration and Chief Financial Officer. Her vision has shown the world that archives don't have to be dark dusty repositories. This year alone, one million people will see her attention to detail and love of history when they visit the historic National Archives Building in Washington, DC to view the Charters of Freedom and other American milestone documents, respectfully and accessibly displayed following a building renovation in 2003. Another place where her dedication to excellence for the American people can be seen is just up the road in College Park, Maryland, home to NARA's state-of-the-art facility known as ``Archives II,'' which opened in 1994. Ms. Thomas oversaw Archives II from concept to ribbon cutting. It stands today as the premier archival research center in the world--the gold standard--and a great source of pride in my congressional district. From archivist trainee to Deputy Archivist of the United States, Ms. Thomas has mentored hundreds of employees and inspired millions of people who visit our National Archives buildings across the country. It is truly my honor to pay tribute today to Ms. Adrienne Thomas, a real ``National Treasure'' who worked for the American people for 41 years.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am not sure whether I rise for or against this, very frankly, because I think this process is not the process that we ought to be pursuing. I think in that context I speak for the chairman and for the ranking member and for most Members in this body. I was going to wait a while, but then I heard Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania speak and I want to reiterate this point that he made, because I made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader. I made the point that we are about to make the largest single reduction in discretionary spending that we have made, the gentleman said in history; I was more modest and said in the 30 years that I have been here. But in any event, this is not an insubstantial cut. The problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is it is not enough for a large number of your folks, and they have said so, and the Heritage Foundation has said so, and the Family Research Council has said so, and some of your Members have said so. Now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. We are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in 2-week segments. It is costly to the private sector, it is extraordinarily inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the private sector who deals with the government and for the public employees we have asked to perform the services that we have set forth as policy. And so I say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of this type. We need to reach agreement. Now I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, because it is the largest cut, we think we've come a long way. You said you wanted to cut $100 billion. Now, you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. You were using the 2011 baseline. That's how you got your $100 billion. $41 billion, we have all agreed, is gone. We're going to freeze at 2010 and go below that. So we have come $41 billion away, and we agree on that. Now, you used the 2011. That wasn't our figure first. You used it September; we used it in December. So my view is we have agreed on $41 billion. You don't say that. You say we're between zero and 60. I understand your rationale. But it's your figure, it's your baseline that you used in September in your Pledge to America. If we have gone 41 and we are now going to go another 10 or 15, what I ask of you is, in light of the fact, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points out, we've already done the deepest cut under Republicans, under Democrats, under any of us, it is time to hear from you, what is your alternative to make a deal? Now, ``compromise'' is a prettier word, but we need to come to agreement. If we're going to serve our country, and those who serve our country, then we need to come to agreement, because they elected all of us. None of us has any greater superiority. We're all the same. And we need to come to agreement.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the people in the other body. But I will tell you, under the Constitution of the United States, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. Read the Constitution. We sent H.R. 1 over there, as my good friend, the former Speaker of Idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. It's not their responsibility to initiate. That didn't go anywhere.

Mr. HOYER. I will say to you, we can wring our hands and say that the Senate's not doing its job. We're not in the Senate. We're here. Let us come to agreement. And we know the agreement is going to be someplace in between where you are and where we are. We know that. But what we don't know is what you can pass. What you don't know is what you can pass. You don't know what your caucus will do. I understand that. You are deeply divided, in my opinion, and we need to know, because it is not just us here that are adversely affected. Let us come to agreement. Let us stop this process of funding government in very short cycles. It is not good for our country, it is not good for the people who work for our country, and it is not good for the people who are doing work around the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Garamendi has been as faithful in bringing before the American people the concept of the Make It in America agenda. And, of course, the gentlelady from Illinois pointed out that it means two things: that we're going to succeed. We're going to grab opportunity. We're going to expand our quality of life. We're going to make it, in other words. And we're going to make it in America. We're going to manufacture it in America. We're going to grow it in America, and we're going to sell it here and across the world. We can compete with anybody in the world, frankly, given the proper environment. And I have talked to numerous members of the corporate community. I have talked to labor. I have talked to the National Association of Manufacturers. And we are going to pursue this Make It in America agenda because Americans know that we need to be focused on jobs, on expanding opportunity and providing for good wages and good benefits for working American families so they can provide a good life for themselves and their families; and, as a consequence of doing so, will create communities and States and a Nation which will be and will continue to be the envy of the world. Democrats believe, Mr. Garamendi, that when more products are made in America, more families will be able to make it in America, as I said. That's why we've worked hard since the last Congress to advance the Make It in America agenda--nobody has worked harder than you have to do that--a legislative agenda that helps create conditions for American companies to stay here, innovate here, and create jobs here. When more products are made in America, more families have access to well-paying middle class jobs. And when more products are made in America, we are able to turn expertise in manufacturing them into the new products and new industries of the future. ``Make It in America'' is about creating middle class opportunity and about keeping America's innovators here and keeping our innovative edge. Mr. Grove, who founded Intel, made the observation that the problem that we have in America today is we are still the inventive center of the world. We're still the innovative and development center of the world. But too often what we're doing is taking the products that we've invented, innovated, and developed and taking them to scale overseas. His proposition is--and I think Andy Grove is absolutely right on this--if you continue to do that, the inventors, innovators, and developers will move to where the product is being taken to scale. The president of Dow recently wrote a book--by the way, in January, the publishers named it--and the name of that book is ``Make It in America.'' As a matter of fact, I think I am going to get copies of that book for all our Members. So far, President Obama has signed seven Make It in America pieces of legislation that we passed last year. They speed up the patent process for inventors; help small businesses with loans and tax cuts that enable them to innovate, grow, and create new jobs; and strengthen science, technology, engineering, and math education, much of which is on your poster there. One thing I would add that I'd say to my friend is, and I'm not sure where you want to add it, but regulatory policy is going to be critical. And what I have said is that in the last administration the financial community got way out of hand. Why? We took the referee off the field. We need to put the referee back on the field but make sure the referee doesn't get in the way of the game being played within the rules. And that's of a critical nature. Some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about the environment. Some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about fair wages. Some people want to take the referee off the field and not worry about a safe working place. All of those things are important, but it's important to make sure that, within the rules--and we can do so profitably in America. I've talked to Alan Mulally at Ford. Whirlpool has brought enterprises back from offshore. GE has brought enterprises up. They still have a lot offshore, but they brought some back. And the proof of the pudding is foreign manufacturers have come to the United States and are exporting their cars to other places. They're selling them here but exporting, which shows, clearly, that you can make it in America and do so profitably. In the weeks to come we will be proposing more ``Make It in America'' legislation. And we hope that it will win support of both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan agenda. There's not a Republican who doesn't want to make sure Americans make it in America. But we haven't, frankly, in the first 3 months of this session, and we're about to leave. But there's nothing on the schedule that's focused on jobs. So we will have taken up January, February, and March, and not focused on jobs. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, the only thing we have done is pass H.R. 1, which, Mr. Zandi, John McCain's advisor, says will cost us 700,000 jobs. So I'm hopeful that we can pursue, in a bipartisan basis, the Make It in America agenda, expand our manufacturing capability, grow those jobs that pay well, and provide good benefits, and make America the kind of country it has been, is now, and we want to be in the future. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for focusing America's attention on this critical agenda.

Mr. HOYER. These are, of course, the ones that we have already passed and that have been signed into law. But you have a very important piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for yielding again, but simply to say I thank you for your leadership. You have been one of the most faithful, effective, and articulate spokespersons for an agenda for middle and working class Americans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Fayaz Shawl, who has been widely recognized as one of the world's foremost interventional cardiologists. He currently serves as Director of Interventional Cardiology at Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland, and as Professor and Director of Interventional Cardiovascular Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Shawl, who immigrated to the United States from Kashmir, has performed more than 18,000 cardiac interventional procedures and has written more than 150 important articles, abstracts, editorials, and books. He is also the founder of the ``Dr. Fayaz Shawl Philanthropic Foundation,'' which he founded to treat impoverished patients. Dr. Shawl's life has been dedicated to restoring to good health those who suffer from cardiovascular disease; he has saved countless lives and improved the quality of life for many more. He has our sincere gratitude for all that he has done to preserve his patients' health and longevity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this important piece on early-childhood education into the Congressional Record. Its author is Jack Bailer, an outstanding Maryland educator and President of the Judith P. Hoyer Foundation, which promotes early-childhood education for Maryland's at-risk children. We Must Not Leave Them Wanting By Jack Bailer ``For Want of a Nail'' is a proverbial verse showing that actions--or inactions--which may seem insignificant can often have significant consequences: For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost. For want of a rider, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. I suggest we could draw a strong parallel between the nail in the verse and a young child's having (or not having) the benefit of one or two years' participation in an early childhood (pre-kindergarten) education program. Two examples of such programs would be ``Head Start'' and Maryland's 25 ``Judy Hoyer Family Education Centers,'' aka ``Judy Centers.'' The Judy Centers offer early education for children from birth through five years of age. They also arrange for many other services to be provided to these children and their families--either located on site year- round, or brought in on a visiting basis as needed. The primary candidates for these programs are three- and four-year-old children who are in home environments often referred to as ``economically and/or culturally disadvantaged.'' This includes those who get little or no exposure to learning about the world around them, as well as those families where little or no English is spoken. Lacking experience in an early learning program, these children will enter kindergarten with a very low level of ``readiness to learn.'' You may ask, what is the difference between ``readiness to learn'' and actual learning? Sesame Street provides many examples throughout its episodes. Here are just two: When Grover gets out of breath repeatedly running back and forth from off in the distance yelling ``This is far,'' to face-in-the-camera panting ``This is NEAR,'' the child viewer learns the concept of Near vs. Far. When we see one of their spots with the song, ``One of these things is not like the others; three of these things are kind of the same,'' the child learns the concept of Same vs. Different. If you'd like more examples, ask any early childhood education professional and they'll give you many, all falling under one or more of seven domains: Social Personal; Language; Mathematical Thinking; Physical Development; Scientific Thinking; Social Studies; The Arts. For a child who has not had the pre-kindergarten opportunity to achieve a ``readiness to learn'' so essential for a successful K-12 experience, the sequence of consequences could look something like this: Grades K-3: For want of having acquired few if any readiness-to-learn experiences prior to kindergarten, a child doesn't get the full value of what the teacher is saying. And often neither the child nor the teacher realizes that a point made by the teacher is missed because the child is lacking the benefit of an earlier learning experience. Grades 4-6: For want of the cumulative effects of full value of instruction because of a weaker K-3 foundation, student progress during this period is further diminished-- especially in reading comprehension. Grades 7-8: For want of reading skills which even approach grade level, in the face of an increased need to be able to read to learn, the student slips further behind. Grades 9-10: For want of reading and learning skills which would make school interesting and satisfying, the student becomes increasingly disconnected from class work and school in general. The student shows up less and less frequently, and even then it is more to be around their friends than to go to class. Grades 11-12: For want of any further interest in or hope of ever catching up, the student drops out, drifts for a while, maybe works at a menial job, and/or ends up in the criminal justice system. This discouraging sequence is not an exaggeration. Longitudinal studies have been done--the most notable being the Chicago school system study. That study tracked two groups of students for over 20 years. One group had a strong beginning with the benefit of a pre-kindergarten readiness- to-learn experience. The other group did not. By the time both groups were well beyond high school age, nearly all of those in the group with early childhood education were clearly on their way to living successful, productive lives. Sadly, most of those in the other group were not. As for societal and budgetary impacts, one study showed that, for every one dollar spent on pre-kindergarten preparation for learning, seven dollars are saved on government spending for public safety, the justice system, and the prison system. In the years ahead we will continue to face tough choices among priorities competing for limited public funds. I believe that over-arching all of these is the critical need to give every young child a preparation for learning upon which to grow intellectually for the rest of their lives. Among the benefits we get are: A more highly skilled work force; A highly employable work force; An increase in workers contributing to the tax base; A decreasing percentage of our population who fall into the justice system; A higher quality of life for all. What can you do to make a difference? Contact your local school board members and superintendent and urge them to fully fund early childhood (pre- kindergarten) education for all children in your jurisdiction who need it. Insist that the system determine how many children in your district currently need to be in a readiness-to-learn environment--but are not. Continue following up to see that, using these data, the school system creates and implements an action plan to reallocate funds as necessary, and to deal with staffing, space, and other issues to get all those children into the system by opening of school next year, or the following year at the latest. Clearly the increased funding for this will be a challenge. Nevertheless, if our nation is to survive and thrive, we simply must do this. We must not leave behind a single child who may have succeeded in life, but for want of an early childhood education which got them ready to learn. We must not risk the loss of our nation, for want of giving this our most urgent attention.