Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. And I hate to keep pressing him, but if his hopes are not realized--and I don't know the answer as to whether they will be, but at some point in time we will be confronted with an alternative of whatever the facts may be with respect to what we are able to pass through this House, the Senate, and get signed by the President, we will be confronted with the consequences of our past behavior, and I underline ``our,'' o-u-r, spending that we have incurred. And I don't want to go through the entire debate that you and I always go through, so I won't do it, but we will be confronted with, as the Speaker says, an adult moment as to whether or not we will, in light of the consequences of past behavior, take actions necessary to preclude America from defaulting on its debts. And I simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on that issue under the circumstances where we have reached, as the gentleman points out--we don't know the exact date--the extent of present authority?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American, my friend Sargent Shriver, a son of Maryland, who passed away this week at the age of 95. He was a public servant who lived a full life dedicated to promoting justice and opportunity in America and, indeed, throughout the world. As the first director of the Peace Corps, Mr. Shriver skillfully launched an organization that has strengthened respect for America across the world and has for half a century exposed generations of Americans to the world beyond their borders. Sargent Shriver also made his mark as the director of important anti-poverty programs and as the leader of the Special Olympics movement, a movement that he joined his extraordinary bride, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, in heading. In the words of his biographer, Scott Stossel: ``Often the things that Sargent Shriver accomplished, starting the Peace Corps in just a few months, or getting 500,000 kids into Head Start programs its first summer when the experts said that 10,000 kids was the maximum feasible, were things that everyone beforehand had said were not realistic, or were downright impossible, Sarge Shriver did.'' Sarge Shriver had a gift for what one of the old War on Poverty colleagues called ``expanding the horizons of the possible.'' I am reminded of Robert Kennedy's quote that he used so often that ``some men see things as they are and say, `Why?' '' Robert Kennedy said: ``I dream things that never were and ask, `Why not?' '' Sarge Shriver mirrored that quote. May we all learn from his example. May we honor his legacy of public service by expanding our own horizons of the possible, by caring for those who need our help here and around the world. Sargent Shriver brought to American life a singular commitment to service. His good work and his historic example will long outlive his 95 years.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill to repeal. Last year, we acted to reform health care in America to make it easier for small businesses to cover their employees, to take important steps to bring down costs, and to stop insurance company abuses that bankrupt sick Americans and deny them coverage. We acted in the face of a crisis, a cost crisis, which saw premiums more than double over the last decade; a coverage crisis, which saw more than 40 million Americans without health care insurance; and a fiscal crisis, which saw the cost of health care driving our country deeper and deeper into the red. A constituent of mine from southern Maryland recently wrote to thank us for health reform that now lets her carry her 21-year-old daughter on her insurance, but she wrote that something else also inspired her to support this piece of legislation, seeing ``a lot of other people who are hardworking, honest people who were going bankrupt because of unexpected medical expenses.'' Those were the stories we had in mind last year when we passed the health reform law--and today, as we fight to protect it. Nonpartisan observers tell us it will reduce the rise in premiums for millions, cover 95 percent of Americans, and contribute to reducing our deficit. The opponents of health care reform have spent more than a year painting it in apocalyptic terms, but they can't erase the history that proves that bringing affordable care to all Americans has long been the goal of both parties. Just yesterday, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, said that the Affordable Care Act ``is the law of the land, the fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that system better will be based.'' That was Senator Republican leader of the Senate, Bill Frist from Tennessee, one of the great medical practitioners in this country, a doctor. In 2008, Senator John McCain said this: ``We should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen.'' There has been no alternative offered to accomplish that objective. And in 2006, when signing a State bill remarkably similar to the Affordable Care Act, Governor Mitt Romney, Republican, a leading candidate for President of the United States in the Republican Party, said this of that bill, almost exactly like this one: ``An achievement like this comes around once in a generation.'' While our Republican colleagues in Congress failed to take action on health care during a decade of doubling premiums and mounting debt, Congress acted last year. Now my Republican friends have come to the floor with a plan to put insurance companies back in charge of American health care and to strip Americans of their hard-won freedom to make health choices for themselves. Once again, families would face insurance companies' unfair caps on their coverage--or find their coverage canceled altogether. Once again, insurance companies could discriminate against children with disabilities and pregnant women. Once again, prescription drug costs for our seniors will go up. And once again, small businesses will be without any help to cover their employees in a world of skyrocketing premiums. There's no arguing with the facts: repeal would cost our economy as many as 400,000 jobs per year, notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side. They would be lost under the burden of crushing health care costs, and repeal would pile up over $1.2 trillion of additional debt on our children over the next two decades. I urge my colleagues, preserve Americans' freedoms to control their own care. Join together to protect a system that meets the objectives set by generations of American Presidents: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, as well as President Obama. Oppose this repeal bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Madam Speaker, this week, we pause the work of the House to mourn the lost lives of six of our fellow citizens--one of those born on that day of tragedy and carnage when thousands were slain in an equally indiscriminate, heinous act of hate--citizens shot dead on Saturday in Tucson in pursuit of the ``right to peaceably assemble,'' the amendment which Gabby Giffords read on this floor. We come as well to honor those who risked their lives to save others, to pray for the lives of the wounded, and to pray for our colleague and friend, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Today, this temple of representative democracy is a sadder place. But Congresswoman Giffords' intelligence and her toughness, her public spirit and her charm will, God willing, and with the extraordinary medical care she is receiving, soon return to this body and again be a practitioner and a model for the principles of civil debate and thoughtful deliberation on which this temple is founded. Congresswoman Giffords was attacked doing the work that is the heart of democracy, as has been so eloquently observed by our Speaker, Mr. Boehner: Listening to her neighbors, listening to those who sent her here to Washington to reflect their views. Each one of us have done that work. Each one of us has come back bearing their fears and their hopes, their convictions and their visions for the future. Some, of course, are everyday hopes; some are matters of life and death. But in each case, we bring these hopes here and speak to our neighbors as best we can. That is what Congresswoman Giffords was doing. We do not know, of course, the specific motive which led the perpetrator of this crime to act, nor can we draw conclusions as to specific causes, but it seems to me it is a time for us to reflect on the heightened anger being projected on our public debate and the daily denigration of those with whom we disagree. And it is appropriate, therefore, that the wrenching, shocking, senseless violence of that day compel us to reflect on our own responsibility to temper our words and respect those with whom we disagree, lest the failure to do so give incitement to the angriest and most unstable among us. Let us speak for our neighbors in a spirit of unity, not a false and shallow unity, not a unity that wishes away our differences or our discords, but a unity founded on our reverence for our democracy's most precious, most fragile gift--its power to resolve without violence our weightiest questions. In a much darker time than ours, from the edge of a great war, President Lincoln addressed these words to the men and women whom, even in the war's depths, he refused to see as anything other than his fellow Americans. He said this: ``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.'' There are, in every society and in every culture and every nation, those who reflect that creed, but if we love our country, if we honor our oath to country, Constitution, and to our Nation of laws, we must live by those words. There is, perhaps, nothing we can do that will prevent the mindless violence committed by the few, but we can and must appeal to the best instincts of the many. To the families of the fallen, we extend our sympathy. To the survivors, we extend our prayers for a full and speedy recovery. And to our colleague, to our beloved colleague, Gabby, we extend our love and our hopes for her early return to the Chamber and our ranks. All of us in this time have come together, reached out to one another, comforted one another, and lifted one another up. May that sentiment not pass quickly from this body or from this country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I want to say to my friend, the continuing rhetoric is Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Americans in every family that I know understand that their revenues directly impact on their spending and vice versa, and if they don't, they have a real problem. If they don't have enough revenue to meet their expenditures, they've got a problem, and if their spending exceeds their revenue, they have a problem. I tell my friend, I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this rhetoric all of my career here in the Congress. When President Reagan was President, we never overrode a Presidential veto of an appropriation bill because it spent too much. If he vetoed it, it spent too much, he never had a veto overridden. Nevertheless, we incurred an additional $1.5 trillion in deficits. Under President George H.W. Bush, we didn't override any veto of his, and we incurred an additional $1 trillion. That was $2.5 trillion plus. Under the Clinton administration, of course, in the economic program as you and I both know that your party universally opposed, we had a surplus, the only President in your lifetime and I think in mine, which is substantially longer, that's had 4 years of surplus. Now, I know you say, the response that Mr. Dreier gave to me, is that, well, yes, we took over the Congress in 1995. That's correct. And of course not only did you take over the Congress in 1995, but in 2000, you took over the Presidency as well and controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency. And during that period of time, we didn't pass any appropriation bills on our side. You were in full charge during the Bush administration's first six years, and $3.5 trillion of deficit spending was incurred, making a total of over $5 trillion of deficit spending during the time that your party took the position that we didn't have a revenue problem, we had a spending problem. Well, it ended up being a $5 trillion deficit problem, adding to the deficit for our children and for my grandchildren and for my great- granddaughter, and I'm concerned about that. And that is why I'm so concerned about statutory PAYGO, sticking with CBO scores, and accommodating our spending and revenue. They are both related, obviously, and to ignore that eliminating revenue without eliminating spending does cause deficits I think is to ignore reality. So I would hope my friend would talk to Mr. Ryan of the Budget Committee and bring us legislation which would, in fact, do what you and I want to do; that is, eliminate the deficit. If we've got two messages during this past election, in my view, it was, A, focus on creating jobs. We've got to get to work. Americans are hurting. We had some good job numbers this month. We've created over 1.3 million jobs this past year as opposed to losing almost 4 million jobs in the last year of the Bush administration. That's progress. But as I've said so often, it's not success. Success will be when every American who wants a job, willing to work, can find a job, and they can support him or her and their families. But we need to not pretend that revenues and spending are not inextricably related, and that if we give up revenues before we do the difficult thing, the tough thing, the adult thing, as Mr. Boehner said, and cut the spending, then cut the revenues if Americans are buying it, then we ought to be paying for it and not passing along the bill to our grandchildren, and I would hope the gentleman would pursue that. If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I want to say something about health care briefly.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia on his election as majority leader of his party. He and I have had the opportunity to work together over the recent years. It's been a positive relationship, and I look forward to continuing that positive relationship, albeit in my diminished status. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for outlining the schedule. There was an interesting article in The Washington Post today about your job- killing comments always being attached to the health care bill. There are obviously some of us who know full well that was not part of the title, as I'm sure the gentleman would admit, and that in fact it does not do that at all. In fact, we think it creates jobs. But, in any event, I thank the gentleman for announcing the schedule. I want to say we're disappointed, however, as he was when he was in my position, that we don't have a committee process for this very important piece of legislation. I think it's important from your perspective and it's important from our perspective, although we may have different perspectives on whether it should pass or fail. But it is an important piece of legislation. There was no committee process and no hearings; no opportunity for the public to be heard on the bill; no opportunity for the Members to testify with respect to that bill; no witnesses were heard. Furthermore, under the rule, of course we have been given no opportunity to amend. The gentleman, when he was in my position, repeatedly indicated how disappointed he was that there were no amendments allowed on certain bills. I want to reiterate that concern. And given the lack of amendments, I want to clarify when he believes will be the finishing of votes on Wednesday. I understand debate will begin on Tuesday and it will conclude on Wednesday.

Mr. HOYER. What time do you expect to conclude business on Wednesday?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response. In light of the fact that your side has made a pledge to allow ample time for Members to read and consider it, and notwithstanding that they have already not pursued that as vigorously as I think you would have hoped and perhaps we would have hoped as well in the 112th Congress, I was wondering if the gentleman can enlighten us on what he expects to consider the rest of January, after next week, so that Members might have opportunities to anticipate issues that you're going to be bringing forward.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Obviously, the health care bill that he and his party seek to repeal had probably more consideration, more open debate, more transparency, more amendments, and more hearings than almost any bill that I have considered as a Member of this Congress over the last three decades-- full and open consideration, amendments offered from both sides in committee on a very ample basis; but I am glad to hear that you agree that there has been ample debate time for that. There has not been any debate time in committees--or amendments--on the repeal of that law. I am certainly hopeful that the gentleman does not mean to say that if the majority party concludes that the American people have already decided on the issue that that will be the exception to the rule that you have put forth in terms of full and ample notice, debate, the amendment process, and transparency. I would certainly hope that that would not be the case. I don't expect it will be the case, and I hope it won't be. Let me say in addition that I am very pleased that the majority party allowed in order the amendment by Mr. Matheson. As you know, we tried to have a permanent fix to the reimbursement of doctors who took Medicare patients. Unfortunately, the minority party in the Senate, which had the opportunity to do that, precluded us from accomplishing that objective. So I am pleased. That needs to be done. We need to have a stable funding expectation by doctors when they provide services to Medicare patients--to seniors--as we want them to do and as we want them to continue to do. So I am pleased that you allowed that amendment, and I would hope Members on your side will be supporting that amendment as we will on this side. Let me ask you now, Mr. Majority Leader, as I am very concerned, and I expressed this on the floor. Your rules, in my view, provide for some $5 trillion to be incurred in additional deficits. They allow that because you have exempted almost all of the possible reductions in revenues--tax cuts, reductions in revenues--notwithstanding no reduction in spending. Well, if you reduce revenues and you don't reduce spending commensurately, inevitably, you will create large deficits, which inevitably will be paid by future generations. That has been the experience that, again, I have had when we had significant tax cuts in the 1980s and in the last decade of 2000--2001 to 2003--when we created very large deficits. My presumption is that you will be finding commensurate reductions in spending to your tax cuts that you will want to continue. If you don't do that, deficits will inevitably follow. The majority party has not done that in years past. Is it your expectation that that will occur in the future? The question I want to ask you as well is that you have provided in your rules for essentially ignoring CBO scores--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has issued a preliminary score for the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. They believe it will increase the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years by repeal and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. My question is: Having deemed in the rule today a provision allowing the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, to ignore the CBO score, will the majority continue to ignore CBO scores on legislation for the rest of Congress or will we be fiscally responsible, in my view, and adhere to the advice and counsel we receive from CBO? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and briefly in closing, Madam Speaker, let me say this. I hope we can cooperate, but we do have a divergence, as my friend pointed out, and that's of course the nature of what the House of Representatives does, debates different points of view. Frankly, my experience, as I have said, is that when we diverged in a point of view in 1993, when my Republican friends took the position that accommodating revenues to spending would, in fact, from their perspective, be a job killer--they talk a lot about job- killing legislation. They all voted against that legislation in 1993, and in fact, some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle lost their election because of voting for that piece of legislation. In fact, however, it helped create the most robust economy anybody in this Chamber has experienced in their lifetime. It created over 22 million jobs, as opposed to losing 8 million jobs in the last administration under President Bush, so that there was a substantial difference which you can see, touch, and feel and read about and know about. So I tell my friend, yes, there's a difference of opinion, but there's no difference of opinion on what happened, and when Winston Churchill, who you quoted before and of whom I'm a great fan, one of the things that Winston Churchill was most known for was trying to remind his British friends: don't forget what dictators and despots do--and I make no aspersions, I want to make that clear. I'm simply saying he believed strongly in learning from the past and not continuing to make mistakes and not continue to do what failed in years before. So I agree with the gentleman in looking at the past for instruction on how to make the future better and to create those jobs that both he and I want to create and that America certainly is looking for us to create. I thank the gentleman for this colloquy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Article I, continuation of section 2: ``The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. ``When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. ``The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, that's true, so I'll be very respectful. I've heard that argument that you just made made in 1981, in 1989, and again in 2001. I tell my friend, my experience has been that it hasn't worked, and we have incurred substantial trillions of dollars of debt pursuing the Rules Committee philosophy that is represented in your rule. On the other hand, a bill that you opposed, and every member of your party opposed in 1993, which you say was pursuing a job-killing policy, in fact created more jobs than any other administration since you and I have served here, some 22 million jobs and, additionally, balanced the budget. Did we work together to do that? We did. But I will tell you my experience and yours has been that we did, in fact, balance the budget on the philosophy of statutory PAYGO.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule not for small reasons of this rule or that rule but because it authorizes trillions of dollars of new debt without paying for it. There are two ways to create debt: You can buy things and not pay for it, or you can simply cut revenues and make yourself unable to pay for things. Statutory PAYGO was designed to accomplish the objective of having us do what is difficult to do--pay for what we buy. If we are honest with one another, it doesn't matter whether you want to spend or simply cut revenues. If you don't do both--cut spending and either maintain or cut revenues consistent with your cutting of spending--then you will inevitably create new debt. Now, all of you have heard about my three children, my three grandchildren, and my one great-granddaughter. They, frankly, won't care how the debt was created, whether it was created because we cut revenues but didn't cut spending, which is what happened, of course, in the 2000s, or what happened in the eighties, where we incurred trillions of dollars of additional debt. During the Clinton administration, we didn't do that, and we restrained spending. Our Republican colleagues were very helpful in doing that, obviously, and we continued to pay for what we bought. We created 4 years of surplus. So I oppose this rule because of the trillions of dollars that it will authorize, be incurred in new debt. Secondly, I oppose this rule, as do my friends from the various territories, from Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Pacific Islands. We talked about, during the course of the campaign, listening to people. We have almost 5 million people who are American citizens. How do we listen to them? We listen to them when their Representatives put their green or red on the board. I will be introducing a resolution tomorrow, which will be referred to the Rules Committee, and I hope you will consider it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady. I was telling my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, congratulations to him for his obtaining the chairmanship. A thoughtful and hardworking Member of this House will chair the Rules Committee. I am going to be introducing an amendment to the rules that, my presumption is, we will adopt today which will return this symbol of respect, this symbol of inclusion, this symbol of colleagueship, if you will, to our six representatives of American citizens. I hope my friend will hold hearings on that. I would like to testify on that issue. And I say to my friends that I hope we reject these rules so that we can correct both the trillions of dollars of exposure that it creates and to ensure the inclusion, in a real and meaningful way, but not constitutionally objectionable way, our friends who represent the District of Columbia and our territories.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding. I tell my friend, you and I have been here some period of time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, Senator Barbara Mikulski, my colleague from the State of Maryland, becomes the longest-serving woman Senator in American history. It's a fitting milestone for a public servant who has been a trailblazer for her entire career. From her beginnings as a social worker and community activist, Senator Mikulski's career has always been motivated by a deep commitment to open doors of opportunity, to serve the people of Maryland, and to carry their voices to Washington. In 1986, Senator Mikulski became the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right, as well as the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland's history. Since then, her constituents have returned her to office four times--a sign of the seriousness and skill she brings to her work in the Senate. For decades, Barbara Mikulski has been an inspiration and a role model to women in public life, mentoring generations of women leaders. I congratulate her on today's important milestone, and I wish her all the best in her continuing service to our State and its people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hesitate to speak of course, lest we get off message, but I am going to take that chance in any event. I have had the opportunity of serving for a long period of time with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks on the Appropriations Committee. I am not sure I see anybody else who served on that Appropriations Committee with us. And I served on the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. And I went on in January of 1983. I won't go all through every year from 1983 to today. That would take too long and would bore you stiff. But I had the great privilege of sitting just a couple of chairs from the gentleman from Wisconsin, who had been in the Congress some 12 years before I came, having been elected in 1969. Served over four decades in this body. I will adopt all the words that were ascribed to him by the gentlewoman from New York, but three words that I would use are ``tough,'' ``courageous,'' and ``effective.'' I think the gentleman from Kentucky caught it as well. He is a difference maker. I think, Congressman Rogers, your words were very appropriate, not because you agreed or others agreed necessarily with the difference he wanted to make, but you knew if David Obey was engaged in an issue, he would make a difference on that issue. From my perspective, the good news is David Obey was almost invariably engaged on the issues he thought affected average people, who were not so average at all. Whether it was their education, their health, their housing, making sure the NIH was trying to find cures for diseases that afflicted them, whether he was standing up to make sure that people in the cold of winter had heat or in the scorching heat of summer had air conditioning to keep them healthy, David Obey could always be counted on as a strong, unwavering, uncowering voice on behalf of people who needed a voice. They had a special interest, but they did not have money to hire voices. They needed voices in this body that we know as the people's House. The people on some 20 occasions returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States. Maybe it was one more than that, 21 occasions. They returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States because they saw in David Obey that voice that they needed and wanted and respected. David Obey, in addition to the three attributes I ascribed to him, is honest. One of the things I most admire in David Obey and one of the things I most cherished was his slaying of the dragon of hypocrisy. I don't think anything angered David Obey more than seeing hypocrisy. There is too much hypocrisy, where we say, Oh, we are for this, and then we vote for that, or vice versa. We could always count on David saying, Hey, you want to be honest? Stop posing for holy pictures. I am sure that has been mentioned during the course of this, because there is a famous phrase that we all remember by David Obey. By that, he meant, of course, be real. Don't try to flim-flam the public. Stand up for what you believe in, not what you think people want to hear. And we had no better example and no more faithful example of that performance than David Obey. I want to thank David Obey. I want to thank him for being my friend. I want to thank him for being an example of what Members of Congress ought to be. I want to thank him for being a steadfast, faithful voice for the people who needed a voice, a leader on behalf of the principles that I think this country was speaking about when it said that we establish a government to protect the general welfare. David Obey believed that to his very core, and every day of his service his belief was manifest in his actions. I also want to thank my friend Jerry Lewis. Every day that I served on the Appropriations Committee, I served with Jerry Lewis, and almost every day with Hal Rogers. Hal came a little after Jerry and I came to the committee. One of the things that I recall to people about this committee is that for most of my service, not all of my service, unfortunately, but for most of my service it was arguably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress of the United States, where we worked together, made determinations together. And, yes, there were differences, but we did so in a civil, collegiate way that the American public I think would have appreciated. Jerry Lewis has been someone who has focused on our institution. For many of the years that I served, Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio from California were chairs of the Legislative appropriations committee, and they worked together as a team to make this institution more effective, better serving its Members and better enabling its Members to serve the Nation. Jerry, I want to thank you for your service as chairman of the committee, but as a member of the committee and certainly as chair of the committee that didn't get much publicity and sometimes was a thankless job, but was a job that you and Vic did in the best traditions of what the American public says it wants--bipartisan cooperation, positive partnership--and I thank you for that. Hal, I wish you the best of luck as you undertake these responsibilities. We are losing a giant as David Obey retires. David Obey chose to retire. There is no doubt in my mind if he had chosen to run again, his people would have sent him back. So, David Obey, you have been a great Member of this Congress. You have served your country, your State, and our people well. We are, all of us, in your debt. Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Speaker Halvorson. I appreciate your presiding over this historic piece of legislation. I want to thank my friend Bart Gordon. Chairman Gordon has been an extraordinary leader of this committee, an extraordinary member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and in both of those venues he has focused on making sure that America could in fact compete and compete successfully and be the great Nation it has been, is now, and will continue to be as long as we keep investing in that which grows an economy--education, science, mathematics and engineering. I know that he has worked with some of the great industrial leaders of our Nation on this legislation. Mr. Augustine comes to mind. We're very proud of him in Maryland. But I want you to know how proud I am of Bart Gordon. He said that I was one of his close friends. I think Bart Gordon is one of my closest friends, not just in Congress, but in life. He and I have been here for a long time together. The good news is the ranking--used to be Democrat, now Republican-- Ralph Hall, is also a very close and dear friend of mine whom I have known all of my service here. He and I came together in the same class. He is a very good friend of Bob Slagle, who is a good friend of mine as well, and I want to thank him for his service to our country. The America COMPETES Act expands support for research and development, helping the United States to remain the world's innovation leader. It creates jobs for the short-term and lays a foundation for long-term prosperity. That is its key, of course. And it is an important part of the Make It In America agenda, a series of important bills designed to help America regain its manufacturing strength. Let me say just a word about Make It In America. We heard a lot about made in America, things that were made yesterday in America, things that we did in the past. Make It In America is about what we are going to do in the future. Make It In America is a non-ideological, non-party, nonpartisan premise; and that premise is shared widely by the American public: that if we are going to be successful in the future and continue to grow our economy, it is going to be in part because we make it in America; we make things in America, we manufacture things in America, we grow it in America, and we sell it abroad. Our products, whether they be hard products or soft products, we sell them throughout the world. America is the innovative center of the world, one of the enterprising nations of the world. We invent things, innovate and bring to scale. Strike that. We don't bring them to scale often enough. Andy Grove, who was one of the co-founders of Intel, wrote an excellent article in the New Yorker. I tell my friends on the Republican side and on the Democratic side, this is an issue that can bring us together to make America better, to grow America, to provide the kinds of jobs that Americans need. Make It In America not only means manufacturing in America, but that we make it, that we succeed, that people believe and have the confidence that there will be an American economy which will provide them with jobs and they will be able to provide for themselves and their families. This is a significant step in making sure that America makes it in America. One of the things that Andy Grove said in his article in the New Yorker was that the problem we have is innovation, invention, enterprise exists here more than any other place in the world; but what we are doing is we are inventing, innovating and enterprising, and then we are taking it overseas to take it to scale, to manufacture it. The Kindle, I bought a Kindle for my grandson last Christmas, about $185. About 40 to 45 of those dollars are U.S. The rest is overseas. Andy Grove's premise is if we do that, what is essentially going to happen over the years is the innovators and the ``enterprisers'' and the inventors are going to follow where we're making it, whether it's in China or any other place. America, we cannot let that happen. This bill is a critical step in ensuring America's prosperity and job creating capacity in the long term. Bart Gordon, congratulations to you. You will leave here in a few days. You will not be a Member of the Congress of the United States. You will never leave here in the sense you will always be in our hearts, and you are going to be on this floor, and we're going to see you regularly. But you will leave an extraordinary legacy for your country for decades and a century to come in this bill. The bill establishes innovative technology and Federal loan guarantees for small and medium-sized manufacturers. Make It In America. Those loans will help American businesses respond to the needs of a changing economy, increase productivity, and keep pace with overseas competition. Further, the COMPETES Act makes important investments in science, technology, engineering and math, as I said earlier, because helping our children excel in these fields is absolutely crucial to our economic competitiveness. Finally, the bill strengthens the crucial national Science Foundation, which funds cutting-edge research in fields from computer science and mathematics to genomics. That's our future. America does it well. Let's do it here. Let's make sure that we're investing so that that will be the future as well as the present. Federal support for research and innovation is one of the best investments we can make. Federal support helped create GPS, the computer mouse, computer-aided design, and the Internet; and there's no telling the ways in which it might shape our lives in the years to come. But, surely, there is no doubt that shape it, it will. And that's why we must invest. I urge my colleagues to boost American innovation by supporting this bill. I end again as I started, by congratulating Bart Gordon, my good friend, an individual who's given so much to his country for so long, an individual that makes us proud to be his colleague and who has given added luster to service in this House by his own service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I know the consternation that exists with respect to our schedule and when we are going to leave. I want to announce what I believe to be the balance of the schedule tonight. I would hope that it would include, but cannot assert at this point in time because I don't know--and I don't believe it's the case--that 9/11 will be ready for us. They are still talking about it in the Senate. I just talked to Senator Reid. We will go to a suspension bill, the child sex trafficking bill. We will then go to the rule for the continuing resolution. We will then do the continuing resolution. That would, unless we get 9/11, conclude the business for today. It is, as Senator Reid indicates to me, a high likelihood that they will complete 9/11 sometime tomorrow. Now ``sometime tomorrow'' is, he says, no later than 4, as early as 2. Ladies and gentlemen, I know we would all like to say that, well, let's go home. As you know, the 9/11 bill does, in fact, impact literally tens of thousands of people who participated subsequent to 9/ 11 in going into that building and initially looking for those who might still be surviving, and to look for those who did not survive and bring them out. So this is not a matter that does not have serious consequences for people who volunteered and, as a result of the atmosphere which confronted them as they went in, they became ill. So I think all of us understand the seriousness of this bill and the consequences of not doing it. So I would ask you to bear with us. We will have these votes, and we will be in constant touch with Senator Reid, the majority leader. But my expectation is that there is a high likelihood of a vote on 9/ 11 sometime tomorrow. As a result, I would be asking all of you to stay tonight and be here tomorrow so that we can convene and do this very, very important business, which is not just important to the New Yorkers; this is important to our country. At any time we may have a catastrophe in which people would volunteer and show heroic effort to save lives and to rescue people. That is the schedule for the balance of the day. If 9/11 moves over here at any point and, frankly, what is happening now, I tell my friends, is that they're seeing whether or not, during the course of the START debate, which is going on now, whether they can get a time agreement and bring START to a close and a vote. If they can do that and then go to 9/11 and have a debate which is relatively brief, they've obviously had a long-term debate on that, and bring this bill to us tonight, I know that all of you would want and I would want and we will do it tonight. But I cannot assert that I think the Senate is going to move it in that time frame. That is our schedule. And, hopefully, our business will be concluded tomorrow on the passage of 9/11.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of my good friend James (Jim) Muldoon for his commitment, leadership, and achievements in the field of recreational boating and boating safety. I would like to express my appreciation for his dedication to making sailing accessible for everyone, regardless of economic status and physical or intellectual ability. Mr. Muldoon grew up in Gary, Indiana and didn't learn how to sail until he finished his Air Force service and graduated from the University of Maryland. Since then, Muldoon has been an advocate of community sailing programs at the grassroots level, especially in the areas of youth sailing, training, and safety. He has long been actively involved in international sailing and boating-related organizations. He has captained his own 73-foot yacht, DONNYBROOK, with a highly competitive amateur team in hundreds of races and has accrued over 75,000 miles of ocean racing. In August, more than two dozen, sailing and boating-related organizations assembled to honor Mr. Muldoon for his lifelong contributions to boating safety. During the ceremony, Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland, awarded Mr. Muldoon with the Chesapeake Bay Ambassador Award. Peter Franchot, Comptroller of the State of Maryland also presented Mr. Muldoon with a Certificate of Recognition for his outstanding contributions to the State. Organizations paying tribute to Mr. Muldoon included the U.S. Coast Guard, Special Olympics of Maryland, American Red Cross, Annapolis Community Boating, Annapolis Community Foundation, Annapolis Sailing School, Chesapeake Bay Yacht Racing Association, Coast Guard Foundation, Downtown Sailing Center Baltimore, Kidship, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, National Boating Federation, National Boating Safety Advisory Council, National Maritime Heritage Foundation, National Safe Boating Council, National Sailing Hall of Fame, National Water Safety Congress, Sailing Center Chesapeakei, Shearwater Sailing Club, Spirit of America, United Safe Boating Institute, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Power Squadrons, and United States Sailing Association (US SAILING), join together to honor Mr. Muldoon's contributions to the sailing world. Shelia Hixson, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, presided over the ceremony and said, ``We have no doubt that Mr. Muldoon will make many more contributions to the recreational boating community in years to come, but we wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for all he has done over the past four decades.'' In October, US SAILING awarded Mr. Muldoon its most prestigious award, the Nathanael G. Herreshoff trophy, for his outstanding contributions to the sport of sailing in the U.S. over many years. Since being founded in 1897, U.S. SAILING has been the national governing body (NGB) for sailing and provides leadership for the sport in the United States. Past winners of the Herreshoff trophy have included Harold Sterling Vanderbilt, Harry C. Melges Jr., Gary Jobson, and Roy E. Disney. US SAILING has also awarded Mr. Muldoon the Timothea Larr trophy for the outstanding vision and guidance he has provided to the advancement of sailor education in the United States. The president of US SAILING, Gary Jobson, said that Mr. Muldoon ``has been and always will be an outstanding asset to US SAILING and the general sailing community.'' Mr. Muldoon has held more than 30 leadership positions over the years including the following: chair of the Department of Homeland Security's National Boating Safety Advisory Council, member of the Board of Directors and chair of the Development Committee for the Coast Guard Foundation, founder and president of the Brendan Sailing Training Program for Youth with Learning Differences, founding board member and vice president of the National Sailing Hall of Fame, and president, vice president of the Government Relations Committee, administrative division director, and chairman of the Training Committee for US SAILING. As chairman of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council for eleven years, Mr. Muldoon has influenced the direction of boating safety and increased the awareness and value of on-the-water skills- based training. I have the honor of serving with my friend, Jim Muldoon, on the Board of Trustees of St. Mary's College of Maryland. He has been an outstanding Chairman of the Board and continues to contribute his talent, vision and resources to the growth and excellence of Maryland's Honors College. While at St. Mary's, he supported the sailing program and collegiate team. His generosity enabled the school to build its new sailing center which is the training center for St. Mary's 2010 national championship sailing team, as well as, a center with classroom facilities for sailing classes and where any student, faculty or staff member can learn to sail free of charge or use the college boats. St. Mary's sailing coach Adam Werblow said ``Thanks to Mr. Muldoon's passion, vision, and drive, [St. Mary's] now has the best sailing center in the country.'' Mr. Muldoon also facilitated an agreement between St. Mary's College and National Water Safety Congress where Spirit of America's boating safety courses are taught to middle school students. Mr. Muldoon founded the Brendan Sail Training Program for Youth with Learning Differences. Through this program, he has been able to make sailors out of a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity. He has contributed greatly to the Special Olympics Maryland by initiating training Special Olympians and their coaches to sail large yachts in addition to small crafts. This year, for the first time, a boat crewed completely by Special Olympians competed in the Governor's Cup Race. Patricia Fegan, president and CEO of Special Olympics Maryland said, ``Jim has not only donated his boat for Special Olympics Maryland fundraising auctions but he also came to Special Olympics Maryland with the idea of having Special Olympians sail aboard his boat on major bay races.'' He established a National Faculty; while he was chairman of US SAILING's Training Committee, which has become the curriculum and standards development engine for the education and training of students, instructors, coaches, and instructor trainers. He also was a key player in the development and funding approval of US SAILING's national keelboat training and certification program. Mr. Muldoon is credited with significantly strengthening US SAILING's partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard. According to Captain Mark Rizzo, chief of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety for the U.S. Coast Guard, Muldoon is ``one of the Coast Guard's most caring and compassionate partners.'' He assisted with the development of the U.S. Coast Guard's Strategic Plan of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program and most recently he advised the U.S. Coast Guard and its Boating Safety Division that on-the-water skills based training is necessary to increase safety and reduce accidents and fatalities. As a result, more Coast Guard nonprofit grants are being directed toward funding on-the-water programs instead of the previous reliance on classroom only courses and publication of safety brochures. He currently resides in Washington, DC, with his wife Linda. They have one son, two daughters, and five grandchildren. I commend Jim Muldoon for his commitment to the sailing and boating safety community. As evidenced, Jim Muldoon has made tremendous contributions to the boating community and it is an honor to represent someone who has been such a prominent figure in the area of community sailing education throughout the past four decades and will continue to make many more contributions in years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, the House as all of you know, as is too often the case, we are at a point in time in our schedule where, as I said, too often we find ourselves on the brink of a CR or some other document expiring which leaves the government without funds to continue. That will happen tomorrow at midnight. We have been in constant communication with the United States Senate, and we are not exactly sure what they are going to pass and, more importantly, when they are going to pass it. As a result, we are confronted with the challenge of ensuring that we have passed a document which will ensure that government does not shut down tomorrow night. Therefore, it is our intent at this point in time to recess to go to the Rules Committee to obtain a short-term CR, for 3 days, until Tuesday night. Now, there is a lot of grumbling on my side, and I appreciate your courtesy on your side. But having said that, I know there are at least 434 of my colleagues who are not happy about anything right now, and I want you to know I will make that a unanimous judgment. I am not happy, either. But we are in the place where we have a responsibility and we have not yet completed it, for whatever reason. There is a lot of blame to go around, but the fact is we are not where we need to be. So when we come back from recess--it will take probably 1\1/2\, 2 hours, let's say we come back at 3:30 or 4 o'clock to consider this short-term CR which will get us through whatever the Senate is or is not going to do, I will then hope to be able to announce at that point in time the further schedule for tonight and/or tomorrow; and we would like to preclude the necessity to come back next week. I think that would be consistent--even my side would not grumble at that proposition. So that's what we are trying to do. I hope you will bear with me. You understand the problem that we are having. It is not a new problem; it exists all the time. So we are going to recess now. We will come back within a short period of time to do this short-term CR, which will be a simple CR simply extending us through Tuesday. Then at 4 o'clock, we will try to have some more information from the Senate. I will be in communication with Mr. Cantor and Mr. Boehner's office. I talked to Mr. Cantor's floor person about this and Mr. McCarthy about this, and we will have better information at 4 o'clock. I would urge all of you to stay here. I know that everybody wants to get home. I want to get home myself. I don't live far from here, about an hour; but I have not been by my house and haven't decorated a single--as all of you know, I live alone and, therefore, it's up to me and I haven't been there so it's not done. So I want to get home just like you do. So bear with us. This is our responsibility. We have two Houses; we've got to agree. So we will let you know at 4 o'clock as we begin the CR where we're going from there and try to have some final word. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, one of the great leaders with whom I have had the opportunity to serve over these last three decades, a man of great character, extraordinary intellect, and unbridled commitment to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I think all of us who have had the opportunity of serving with Ike Skelton of Missouri have been impressed by his commitment, awed by his depth of knowledge, and encouraged for the security of our country by his leadership. So I rise to pay tribute. This bill is named in his honor. This will be the last bill that he will shepherd as chairman. Two of the Members of the minority side have spoken and lamented the process that we are following today. I shared that lamentation. And I say to my friends, the reason we are in this pickle is because members of your party in the United States Senate would not allow us to proceed under regular order even though regular order had a majority of votes in the United States Senate. So it is nice to complain and wring our hands, but if obstructionism is the objective in the other body, then regular order has been denied us. We have an option. We can say they denied us regular order and, therefore, we failed; or, we can do what we did last night--take something that's not perfect but is better than inaction. Ike Skelton, Carl Levin, and John McCain worked very hard. And, as I understand it, the door was open to an invitation as well on your side. I rise in strong support of this bill, not because I believe it is a perfect bill, but I believe it is a necessary bill. This defense authorization bill is about securing our Nation in stronger and smarter ways. It builds on our strong record of putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, increasing support for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies and our ports and our borders, and looking out for our troops, our veterans, and, importantly, their families as well. This bill authorizes crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011; much better than a CR, short-term or long-term. It promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our Special Forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. It increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because of the changing threats in the post-Cold War world, this bill, as well, invests in ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the President's efforts to secure all of the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years. The defense authorization bill also supports the well-being of our troops and the strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that military families can keep their children on TRICARE until they are 26. It also reduces strain on our forces by providing 7,000 more personnel for the Army and 5,000 for the Air Force, while helping all of the services rebuild their worn-down equipment and weapons systems. This bill is an important bill for us to pass. It will pass on a bipartisan basis, and I appreciate that, and I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his efforts to make sure that we pass it on a bipartisan basis. He recognizes, as I do, as Mr. Skelton recognizes, this is not the best process. We could have done and should have done better. Frankly, we did better. Seven months ago, we passed a bill that has been referred to as the work product of a bipartisan effort to keep our country strong and to make sure that our men and women in uniform were well thought of, well cared for, well equipped, and we made them as safe as possible. That was not to happen. Our responsibility is therefore to do the best we can. This appears to be the best we can. I am not surprised that Ike Skelton never wavered for a minute in trying to make sure that we passed a bill that was worthy of the men and women who risk their lives and are ready to be deployed at a moment's notice to defend our freedom and our country. Ike Skelton, we are proud to be your colleague. You have served your country well, you have served this institution well, and you have been as good a friend as our men and women in the Armed Forces have ever had. America is indeed blessed by God and by the service of men and women of the character, intellect and commitment of people like you. Thank you, Ike Skelton.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the situation we find ourselves in at this point in time is as follows: I have talked to the leader. He has talked to Senator McConnell. They cannot assure us that they will be able to either pass anything tonight or send us anything tomorrow. They don't have an agreement. In light of that, it is my judgment that the only alternative available to us is to pass, obviously, this short-term CR, which will keep the government open through Wednesday. We will leave after the last vote in this series, returning Tuesday at 10, with the first votes expected at 11. Senator Reid believes that by Monday they will be able to pass some continuing resolution or some appropriation process for some period of time. We don't know what that is. I just talked to Senator Reid 10 minutes ago. There is not an agreement on that. I know that this is not a happy circumstance during the holiday period, to have to return here; but it would be less happy if we waited here this evening, tomorrow, Sunday and Monday with the Senate not sending us anything. I don't think that is fair to you. As a result, it is my intent that we will leave here after the last votes on this CR and send it to the Senate. The Senate will take it and will pass it. Senator McConnell and Senator Reid have agreed that they will pass this. It is a simple CR, as Chairman Obey and Mr. Lewis will explain, and I think that will accommodate us, to the extent it is possible to accommodate us at this time. I know everybody would like to finish today and go home for the holidays until we return January 5. I am in that rank myself. But we are where we are. That seems to me the best way to accommodate all of you, while at the same time accommodating our responsibility to take the action that is necessary to keep the government operating.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Capitol features statues from every State in our Union--statues that honor some of the most memorable and influential people in America's history. The people of the District of Columbia are part of our Union, as well: they pay federal taxes, vote in presidential elections, and share citizenship with us. But when it comes to seeing the District's most notable citizens honored here in the Capitol, in their own city, the people of Washington, DC have again been left out. That needs to change. This bill would give the people of the District of Columbia--along with the people of the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--their due in the U.S. Capitol. I believe, in fact, that the District of Columbia deserves two statues, just like any state; but failing that, I believe that some recognition is better than none. The people of the District of Columbia have made remarkable contributions to America's history, its culture, and its ongoing work to guarantee equal rights to all--and it's time that those contributions are recognized here in the heart of our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.