Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have just come through a wrenching election. Wrenching, in large part, because of the pain being experienced by our constituents, some more than others. A pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. We all heard that pain. We all heard that concern. At the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt. And so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges: growing our economy and creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. The American public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree, that on which we can compromise. This House, in fact, passed two pieces of legislation weeks ago and months ago. Months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my Republican colleagues talk about certainty and I agree with them. We need to give certainty to families, certainty to businesses, and, yes, certainty to those who are worried about estates. They ought to expect that of us, and we passed 12 months ago a continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption and a 45 percent rate. But that languished in the United States Senate. It languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. That was unfortunate, in my view, because I think that was an appropriate rate, and I will vote for it on this floor, embodied in the Pomeroy amendment. And then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all Americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. All individuals, no matter how rich, no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped, and very frankly, there were only a few Members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition. But as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we won't take something we want. That's not good for the American people, and it's not good for our country. And very frankly, only three or four Members on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, notwithstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate, and we agreed. But it was not enough. The President of the United States has a responsibility to all Americans, and like every President he can't get everything he wants. To that extent, he's like us. We don't get everything we want, and this bill does not represent everything I want. Those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned I am about this debt and deficit, and you have seen me vote on this floor sometimes in the small minority against steps that I thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return. This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we need that. And unlike some of my colleagues, whose views I share but I have reached a different conclusion, I will vote for this bill because I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax increase because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up. But I am also concerned about the deficit, and I know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. I'm for PAYGO. My children, if you ask them, would say they're for PAYGO because they don't want to pay our bills. They're going to have their own bills. Unfortunately, the President and we were confronted with alternatives: Do we extend unemployment insurance when unemployment is at a 9.6 to 9.8 percent rate, or do we let them languish with no certainty? Not certainty about planning whether or not their $7 million estate can be excluded from taxes, but worrying about whether they can put food on the table tomorrow. But unemployment insurance has languished because we haven't had a deal on upper-income taxes or estate taxes being increased from $7 million to $10 million for a couple. My friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together. We need to come together in dealing with this debt. We need to come together in dealing with tax reform. We need to come together in growing jobs. That ought to be the agenda of this next Congress and every Congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the American people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have. Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side, very frankly, I have not seen your economic philosophy work. Jack Kemp and I served on the Appropriations Committee, but I don't think supply side is working. Supply side, in my opinion, has the proposition that, if you do less, you get more. Nothing that I have done in life instructs me that, if I do less, I get more. And because of that, because of the concept, if you simply cut taxes on those who are the wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated. Not one year did that happen. It happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1 percent was going to pay just a little more in 1993, and all of you opposed it--all of you, to a person. And you said it would destroy the economy. Your leader at that point in time--I'm not sure it was the majority leader at that time--Dick Armey said that this would tank the economy. He was 180 degrees wrong. In fact, we experienced the best economy we have seen in this country in my lifetime, with 22 million new jobs in 8 years--216,000 jobs per month in the private sector. But unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover. Now, I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the economy, but we are paying too great a price for it because, very frankly, I don't need a tax cut. That's not to say I don't want a tax cut. But it will not affect my life, and it will not affect the economy. It will exacerbate the debt. That's not good for my children or for our country. So I would urge all of us, as we vote on this piece of legislation-- whatever decision we make--to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. That is why the President has made this deal that a lot of us don't like, because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion. And because we have limited it to 2 years--it's less than that in terms of just the upper income--we did not have to pay that price. But we needed to pay the price. We needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving, to get the middle income people having dollars in their pockets so they can grow the economy. And that's worth the price because we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing. We cannot depress at the same time we try to grow, but we grow in the short term, and we solve the deficit in a little longer term. So I'm going to vote for the Pomeroy amendment. And then in the final analysis, I will vote for this bill. I believe that folks need certainty, as has been said. I urge my colleagues, as we vote on this legislation, to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what America wants us to do--to come together as we did. In 1993, we didn't. Some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness. Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill; and therefore, the judgment is: Is it better than doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe that it will help. I hope they are right. Not only do I hope they are right, I hope if we pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they have the resources to do. This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we are giving to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help those who have been unemployed week after week after week and whose angst has grown and grown and grown. Ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it, but let us when we do so pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is never too late to do the right thing. And that is the proposition that is before this House, the proposition that we are going to, as Barry Goldwater said, worry about whether people can shoot straight, not whether they are straight. What he meant by that is: Are they competent? Are they committed? Are they patriotic? Are they willing to fight? Have they trained well? Are they prepared to defend our country? That is the litmus test. Now, that wasn't always the litmus test. There were some times when that group over there could fight over there and the other group over here could fight over here because, after all, if we mixed those groups, it would be damaging to the national security. That proposition was wrong then and it is wrong now. We passed, some time ago, a defense bill. We passed a defense bill through this House. We adopted an amendment to that bill. That bill is still in the Senate. It is still in the Senate, very frankly, because the minority party has not allowed it to move. It has the votes to move; it simply doesn't have almost two-thirds to move. This May, the House approved the repeal of our Armed Forces' policy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell adopted some 17 years ago by a vote of 234- 194. We voted to end the outdated policy that, frankly, undermines our national security, pending a comprehensive Defense Department report that would review the issues associated with implementing repeal and study our troops' attitudes towards open service. That study was undertaken. That study has been reported. That study showed that some 70 percent of the members surveyed said, No problem. Not an issue. Again, I am worried about somebody who can shoot straight, who has the courage and willingness and the commitment to defend our country. That, from their perspective, is the criteria. That report was released on November 30, as I said, and included an exhaustive survey of the views of more than 115,000 people. When we take a poll, you are talking about 500, maybe 1,000, if it is a big poll, and you rely on that and you make some pretty important decisions based upon those polls. You spend money based upon those polls. You decide to run based upon those polls. You decide to emphasize issue A or issue B based upon those polls. And, frankly, in some respects, your career depends upon that. So you rely on those surveys. This survey, 70 percent came to an unambiguous conclusion, quote, ``The risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.'' Now, I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle who have debated this issue say, Oh, no, that is not right; and, very frankly, I have heard generals quoted. But this is, after all, who the generals are concerned about, the people in the field, the men and women who are actually in the battle. And they come back and say, No problem. Our troops stand with our military leaders and the vast majority of Americans in calling for repeal. The majority of them would be baffled by the fear with which some of my colleagues tar them every time Don't Ask, Don't Tell is discussed. Some say that our troops are unwilling or apprehensive about serving with gays in the military; yet 92 percent of them who have done so have called that experience very good, good, or neutral. Now, let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, you are serving with gays in this body. You are interfacing with gays every day in the staffs on both sides of this Capitol. You may know or you may not know, but disabuse yourself of the theory that somehow you are bothered by that, because you are not. They serve here with distinction, they serve here with dedication, and they serve here at no risk to any one of us or their colleagues either as employees, as Members, or as visitors to this Capitol. There are surely countless stories that prove that point. ``We have gay men and women,'' one fighter said, ``in my unit. He is big, he is mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared he was gay.'' Why? Because what they focused on was whether or not he did the job, whether he was patriotic, committed, and effective. That is the test. That ought to be the test for every American: the test of character, the test of performance, the test of compliance with the rules and regulations and the laws. That ought to be our test. That certainly is what we expect, I think, of others in judging us. Despite all of this, the Senate has failed to pass the defense authorization bill. As I said, we passed one last June, I think. Above all, we must pass this bill because our choice is between a thoughtful, responsible repeal plan developed over months of study or a sudden disruptive review imposed by the courts. Our military leaders understand that the courts are likely to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that is exactly why they are urging Congress to pass a legislative solution instead. I tell my friends, I talked to Secretary Gates earlier this week, and he said, Pass this bill. And he said, Pass this bill because we need a legislative, not a court-imposed, solution. Admiral Mike Mullen, who supports repeal, wants it to come, and I quote, ``through the same process with which the law was enacted rather than precipitously through the courts.'' So I tell my friends that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, who, by the way, as we all know, is not of my party, but he is not a partisan. He is a promoter of the military security and welfare of the troops. And I refer to Bob Gates, for whom I think we all have a great deal of respect and confidence.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I will tell you what I think about that. Their concern seems to be for the morale of the troops, of the performance of the troops, which is exactly why we said, and I tell my friend, in May, Let's ask the troops. And that is why we surveyed 115,000 of the troops and said, Is this a problem? And they responded, overwhelmingly, it is not a problem. There are some who apparently do not accept that. I understand the gentleman. I am not necessarily surprised by that. My friend and my colleague, I don't know exactly your age. You are much younger than I am. This is not a new phenomenon, I tell my young friend. When we have made changes in the service sector in the past, there had been voices who said this would undermine morale and performance. I suggest to my friend, it did not. And I tell my friend, for those who believe it will, I believe this survey indicates the contrary, and I believe the contrary, based upon experience, based upon observation, and based upon history. It is a hard choice, it seems to me, to reject--to reject--a considered, thoughtful, planned approach to implementing a policy that Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen believes is going to happen. And I will tell my friends in this body, my conversations with Members of the Senate indicate that there are sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass this policy. More than that, Mr. Speaker, it is time to end a policy of official discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and women who wore our uniform with honor. They were not discharged because they did not perform their duties or because they were not honorable in their service; they were discharged simply because they were gay. One of those young men who deserves better is a constituent named Ian Goldin. Actually, he was not dismissed, but I will tell you his story. He wrote to me a compelling letter, and I want to close with his words: ``Congressman Hoyer, I joined the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps last year after President Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I have always known that I wanted to serve my country in the Armed Forces, but one thing was always holding me back: I'm gay. ``I've been open about that part of my life since high school, and I was not willing to go back into the closet. But after the President promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I decided to finally join ROTC, hopeful that I would not have to hide my sexuality for long. I quickly realized that I had made the right choice. Although I was a new recruit, I was already in the top of my class of cadet privates first class in land navigation. ``But it became increasingly difficult to hide such an important part of who I am.'' Because, of course, the policy that we have in place asks people to lie. Honor, duty, country. Lying is not a component part of that philosophy. But that is what we expect people, if they want to serve their country in the Armed Forces of the United States, to do. ``After learning about the continual delays in Congress, I decided I needed to quit ROTC until the ban was repealed. ``I have spent this past semester studying abroad, and I will spend next semester in Cairo. I have invaluable experience abroad. I'm an advanced Arabic speaker. I'm an ``A'' student at a top national university. ``Most importantly,'' he says, ``I want to serve my country. When I can serve openly, I will finish ROTC and be commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. And there are many others like me--I've met them.'' He concluded, ``So please, do whatever you can to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country, yes, in harm's way. Let us take this action. It is the right thing to do and the right time. In closing, let me say to my friend Mr. McKeon: Mr. McKeon, when I ended my debate, when we passed this in May, you will recall you mentioned General Colin Powell. I did not respond. But as you know, General Colin Powell over these 17 years has changed his perspective. I didn't respond at that time to that fact, but he has done so because he has come to the conclusion that now is the time to act--for our country, for our principles, and for our men and women in the service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara A. Stinnett, a Member of the Calvert County Board of Commissioners from 1986 through 1990; 1998 through 2002; and most recently from 2006 to 2010. It is my distinct honor to show our appreciation for her commitment, dedication and public service to Calvert County, to our great State of Maryland and to our Nation. Commissioner Stinnett was born in Chicago, Illinois, graduated from Calvert High School and has been a resident of Calvert County for 60 years. Commissioner Stinnett is the mother of 4, a grandmother of 11 grandchildren, and a great-grandmother of 7. In addition to serving three terms as a County Commissioner, Mrs. Stinnett was employed by State Senator Roy Dyson for 14 years, serving as legislative and administrative assistant in his Congressional Office and his State Senate office. She is the owner-operator of an income tax and accounting service and was previously employed at Wayson's Amusement Company in a financial management position for 17 years. Calvert County has been well served by Commissioner Stinnett's more than 20 years of dedicated public service. She is an active member of the community in a variety of capacities. She served on the Calvert County Democratic Central Committee, as President of the Calvert County Democratic Women's Club, and as Secretary of the Maryland State Democratic Women's Clubs. In addition, Mrs. Stinnett has been a director of the American Red Cross, Calvert Hospice, the Special Olympics, and the Northern High School Boosters. She has held memberships in numerous organizations ranging from the Calvert Farmland Trust and Calvert Historical Society to the Calvert County Fire and Rescue Commission and the Calvert County Farm Bureau. In addition, Mrs. Stinnett has been Director of the Calvert County Fair Board, Charter President of Ducks Unlimited and a charter member of Stallings-Williams American Legion Auxiliary, Unit #206. Through her years of service she has been an advocate of maintaining Calvert County's rich agricultural heritage and assuring that those without a voice are heard. Her energy, frank and realistic approach and ability to connect with people have made her an outstanding public servant who has an unwavering respect for those she represents. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Commissioner Barbara A. Stinnett for her years of public service, dedicated work and commitment to excellence on behalf of the people of Calvert County.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Capitol features statutes 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 statutes, 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank the two distinguished United States Senators from Minnesota for joining us this evening on the floor. This is a sad day for America--not this particular day--but it is a sad event that an individual of the extraordinary quality and depth and courage and empathy and understanding will not be serving in the 112th Congress. This election saw the defeat of many, many very qualified people--not on their merits, but on the angst of the American public, concerned about jobs and the economy, concerned about the deficit, concerned about many things, and making a statement that they wanted to change. But, unfortunately, some babies got thrown out with the bath water. Jim Oberstar is a giant in this body. There is no person who chairs any committee in the time that I have been a Member of the House of Representatives, which covers a period of 30 years, no chairman with whom I have served during that period of time has known his subject, has worked harder, studied harder, and focused us on investing in building America any more than Jim Oberstar of Minnesota. Jim Oberstar graduated from college summa cum laude. Jim Oberstar has been in many places in this world. He taught in Haiti. His family comes from Slovenia. Jim Oberstar is not only a giant when it comes to how we make America a stronger country, how we build our country, how we make sure that we can get goods and services to and from and we can get our citizens to and from places where they need to be, but Jim Oberstar also is a giant when it comes to understanding the world in which we live. Jim Oberstar has been a continually unwavering voice on behalf of working people in America. Jim Oberstar, in my view, is the definition of a Democrat--someone who puts as his highest priority the interest of men and women in this country, who, as Bill Clinton so famously said, go to work every day and play by the rules and want us to be on their side. I have served with no individual in the Congress of the United States who has been more on the side of average working men and women who make this country a great country and who in fact are not average at all but extraordinary citizens who care for their country, care for their communities, care for their family, and care for their faith. Jim Oberstar has represented all of those values for every single day he has served in the Congress of the United States and for every single day he served as the chief of staff of his predecessor, John Blatnik. This is a sad day because we recognize the loss of an extraordinary asset to America, to this House, to this Congress; and I count it as a personal loss to lose someone who has been such a close friend, an extraordinary adviser, a person who has set an example for what every American wants a Member of Congress to be--honest, committed, and on their side. Jim Oberstar, you have blessed this House and blessed this country. Jim Oberstar, you have much to give in the years to come. Jim Oberstar, I want you to know that I, for one, will continue to rely on your advice and counsel as a partner on the side of every American that makes this country the land we love. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wilson H. Parran, a member of the Calvert County Board of Commissioners since 2002 and president of that commission from 2006-2010. It is my distinct honor to share his story of commitment, dedication and public service to Calvert County, to our great State of Maryland and to our Nation. Commissioner Parran was born and raised in Calvert County, where he still resides today with his wife Deborah. The youngest of ten children, he grew up on a tobacco farm where his parents were sharecroppers. Wilson grew up under segregation. At the age of six, he had to walk a mile to catch the school bus every day, even though some buses stopped on his street. Wilson learned at an early age, as he watched his mother go before the County Board of Education to get a her son a bus ride to school, that you must be an advocate and in so doing you can see government in action. Twenty-five years later, Wilson was serving on that same Calvert County Board of Education, motivated by his experiences to give back to his community and support education for the betterment of all students. Following his parents' model of hard work and high expectations to reach for your dreams, Wilson worked his way from entry-level technology positions to a top telecommunications executive. In 1969 he went on leave to join the military, serving in the Air Force for 4 years during the Vietnam War era. Wilson had been out of high school for 12 years before he received his first degree. While serving on the school boards he was going to school himself, and became the first member of his family to graduate from college. An advocate of lifelong learning, Wilson served on the Calvert County Board of Education for 6 years and the Maryland Board of Education for 5 years. Commissioner Parran is past president of the Maryland Association of Counties, MACo, and represented Calvert County on the MACo Legislative Committee. He has served on numerous civic organizations including being on the Calvert Memorial Hospital Foundation Board and president of the Maryland Association of Board of Education, MABE. He is a member of the NAACP and was the recipient of the MABE 2007 Charles W. Willis Award for outstanding School Board Leadership. Mr. Parran was elected to the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners in 2002, and achieved re-election in 2006. Following his re-election, board members crossed party lines to elect him as president, a position in which he has demonstrated courage, judgment, and integrity. Calvert County has been well served by Commissioner Parran's two decades of dedicated public service. He has been an ardent advocate for maintaining Calvert County's quality of life, assuring a balance between its rich agricultural heritage and its expanded economic base. We are indebted to his service and leadership and know that his parent's would be so proud to see that the foundation they set of strong family values and commitment to community have reaped many fruits. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Commissioner Wilson H. Parran for his years of public service, dedicated work and commitment to excellence on behalf of the people of Calvert County.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I welcome Christilene Whalen, a member of the United States Navy Chaplain Corps. She led us in prayer today. She serves at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River in Maryland, where she ministers to sailors, military families, and, I might add, the greater community in which I have the privilege of living. She is a native of the county in which I live, St. Mary's County. She went to school at Great Mills High School and went to study at Harvard Divinity School. After serving in the ministry for two decades, she joined the Navy as a chaplain 2 years ago. Today, she is proud to serve so closely to the community where she grew up. We thank her, as Members of the House of Representatives, not only for gracing us today with our opening prayer, but also for her service to her country and to her community. We thank her for the guidance she provides to our men and women in uniform. And we thank her for her words of inspiration to the House today. Lieutenant, we appreciate your being with us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 minute. I am about to lose my magic 1 minute, and I lament that fact, but it is a fact. But I have not lost it yet. I am going to use that minute to speak for children who didn't break the law, who had no concept of violating laws. Their parents brought them here like millions of other children who now live in America, and parents who live in America. They were Irish, they were Polish, they were German, they were Asian, they were South Americans, they were Africans. Their parents brought them to this country, and they grew up in this country and they thought to themselves, I am proud to be an American. And I am sure they sing with Lee Greenwood, I am proud to stand up next to you. And they stand next to us almost every day. We may not know who they are, but they go to school, they serve in our Armed Forces. They participate, and they pay taxes. Some of them are far too young to do that. Some of them know no country except the United States of America. And they feel blessed. Mr. Speaker, I understand that immigration is an issue that divides many of us in this House. It is an issue that arouses passion. But the test of governing responsibly is whether even in the face of those divisions we can come together to make progress on the basis of a principle that ought to be universal. I said to my caucus tonight that I had been chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for 10 years and served on that commission for almost 20. That commission, as some of you know, is charged with overseeing the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. The Helsinki Final Act, of course, was signed by President Ford in the summer of 1975. What that act tried to accomplish was a universal understanding of human rights and how nations treated their own citizens, and how we would look to those nations and not say it is simply their business, because if they abused their citizens, it was felt after World War II, that they might soon abuse other citizens not within their borders. And so we said we are our brother's keeper. We do need to make sure that people throughout this world are treated equally. And I have traveled to many countries behind the Iron Curtain over and over and over with my good friend Frank Wolf and others. Mr. Smith from New Jersey, particularly. We went to those countries and said, Treat people fairly. As I was thinking about this impending debate, I thought to myself, what if some other country were taking children who had grown up, gone to school, were in the military, were going to college, and we were kicking them out of the country because their parents had come from another land. Yes, those parents broke the law, and this is not about excusing breaking the law. These children are not culpable. These young people came here because as all of us went anywhere. I am in Maryland. Why am I a Maryland citizen? I am a Maryland citizen because my stepfather was in the United States Air Force and the United States Air Force transferred him to Andrews Air Force base, and so we moved to Maryland, not because I chose to move to Maryland but because my stepfather and mother moved to Maryland, and they brought me with them. That is who we are talking about. That is who we are talking about. One of those principles is I believe that individuals who came to this country as undocumented minors and have lived their lives in America should not suffer because of the actions over which they had no control that brought them to the United States. We all universally adopt that principle. No one holds children culpable for the wrongdoing of their parents unless somehow those children are involved themselves in the perpetration of wrongdoing. So this principle is well known to all of us and ought to be followed. That is the idea behind this legislation. We talk about the American Dream. We have a statue in the harbor in New York. She has a light that she lifts to all the world. And we say: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. And America says to the world: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. We are the keepers of the golden door. When the ambassador from Ireland, and we have many Irish among us, came and spoke, one of the things he said is: Deal with this issue. Deal with it because there are Irish among us who perhaps came because their parents saw opportunity at a time of great strife in their land and came to America. My father came at the age of 32 in 1934 from Denmark to seek opportunity in this country. There are so many of us among this group of 435 who could give similar stories. Our parents came here to seek opportunity. Some came, and our grandparents came, when there was no significant control on their coming here. As immigration has grown, we have had to rightfully make restrictions. And I am one who believes that we need to know who comes into the United States of America. Our choice tonight is between allowing those young people to live their lives in the shadows of America or ensuring that those who want to serve our country and contribute to our economy can stay in the country that is their home. They perceive it to be their home. They were children in school, in our neighborhoods, in our boys' and girls' clubs, who played on our athletic fields, and who think of themselves as Americans. For those young people who have been in our country for 5 continuous years before the enactment of this bill, this is not an inducement to come here; this is not an inducement for somebody to bring their children here. This is to say to those children who are here: We are going to incorporate you if you play by the rules in an opportunity, in this land that we call the land of opportunity. The DREAM Act provides for 6 years of conditional legal status but only if they have completed high school or a GED during those years. Applicants must finish 2 years of college or serve 2 years in the military and must not commit any crime. We are not going to allow wrongdoers. These are people who are playing by the rules; and if they meet those requirements, they will be able to earn permanent residence and be allowed to apply for citizenship. Now, understand again that these are young people who broke no law. These are young people who had no intent to break the law. These are young people who have played by the rules, who have graduated from high school, who have gotten GEDs or who are about to do so in order to qualify. In a competitive world, America's openness to immigration is one, frankly, of its strengths, not of its weaknesses. The beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are the kind of new Americans we want-- young people who speak English, who abide by the law and value education, and in many cases, who are willing to risk their lives for America as members of the Armed Forces. Our military understands the value of a new pool of motivated young men and women committed to serving their country. Clifford Stanley, the Defense Undersecretary in charge of personnel, said that failing to pass this legislation would be, in his words, ``unconscionable.'' Economists also understand the value of these immigrants. A UCLA study found that their income will reach as high as $3.6 trillion over the course of their lives. They're very young now, so that may be 70 or 80 years, which is a long time; but it's an indication of their willingness, as it is of the millions and millions of immigrants throughout our history, to add to the value of America--a Nation, we call ourselves, of immigrants like my father. That's why the DREAM Act is in keeping with the principles that have made America strong and so dynamic. Some of you may know Michael Gerson personally. He was George Bush's speechwriter. I hope you had the opportunity to read the column that appeared just two days ago. If you didn't, let me quote from it. ``It is a principle of democratic capitalism . . . that ambitious human beings are not just mouths but hands and brains. They are a resource--the main source of future wealth.'' He urged his party, his Republican Party, to reach out in this instance of which we are not talking about forgiving wrongdoing to young people who have not done anything wrong. Let us stress that over and over. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that resource, to do what is both in America's interest and in keeping with America's fairness. Some of you know Jeb Bush. I don't know Jeb Bush personally; but Governor Bush--the Governor of Florida twice--has been mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate. ``I think politicians,'' those of us who serve in public office, ``should be supporting the DREAM Act,'' said Governor Bush. ``I think it's a good policy. I think the military is a most impressive and important institution in this country.'' Those who serve and those who are willing to serve should be given the opportunity--again, not speaking of wrongdoers. I hope all of my colleagues hear this and all who are listening. Michael Gerson is George Bush's speechwriter. He says at another point in this article, ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic group of potential Americans; and the choice here is not between the presence of these young immigrants and their absence. No one is proposing the mass deportation of this particular group.'' These are children who have done nothing wrong and who would be the last on the target lists of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionists. In the words of Michael Gerson, ``The actual choice is between allowing these young men and women to develop their talents and serve in the military or not.'' Ladies and gentlemen, I urge my colleagues: Let us join that Lady in the harbor, who lifts her lamp beside this golden door, and understand why the millions and millions and millions and millions of people came from across this Earth to seek opportunity in this great and generous land. Let us reflect that tonight.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, last week, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle gathered together to celebrate a special milestone: the 50th anniversary of The Monocle restaurant, located at 107 D Street Northeast. Since 1960, The Monocle has been a Capitol Hill institution--a place where generations of legislators, staff members, and visitors have come together to share stories and good food. As they mark a half-century of success, I offer my congratulations to Connie Valanos, who founded The Monocle and has passed it down as a legacy to his family; John Valanos and his wife Vasiliki, who own and operate The Monocle today; and maitre d' Nick Selimos, who has worked there for more than 30 years. May The Monocle enjoy another 50 years as a Washington landmark.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Maurice J. McDonough High School Rams from Charles County on their victory in the Maryland 2A football State championship. In the December 4 championship game, the Rams defeated Middletown High School by a score of 21-14 at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore. Congratulations are especially due to coach Luke Ethington, who led an outstanding group of athletes to their first championship since 1990, to the players, and to all of the fans. This championship is the product of exceptional athletes and coaches, untold hours of hard work, and the passionate support of the community. I'm very proud of this team, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing home the championship title.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, last month, Calvert County, Maryland, lost a legendary member of its community: John Alfred Prouty, one of Maryland's most successful local farmers. He died at the age of 87, leaving behind a lifetime of wisdom, friendships, and service to his community. After serving in the U.S. Navy in the 1940s, Mr. Prouty took over his father's family farm. He ran it skillfully for decades, growing tobacco, corn, wheat, barley, rye, soybeans, heirloom tomatoes, and flowers--and he passed it on to his own son. He was one of the family farmers who are the backbone of American agriculture; he cared about conserving the land, keeping up with the latest agricultural techniques, and lending a hand to his neighbors. In the words of his son, John Prouty was ``as generous and as honest and as insightful a person as you could meet.'' And in between long hours managing his 160 acres, he took time to serve on the county planning commission and the county and state farm bureaus. For his lifetime of hard work, he was inducted into the Governor's Agricultural Hall of Fame this year. Mr. Prouty represented the best of American farming, and I sincerely hope that the legacy he left behind will inspire all those in Maryland who work to keep their family farms thriving. I know that he will be an inspiration to all those he left behind: his wife Margaret; his children, Susan, John, and Elizabeth; and his four grandchildren.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia is an icon of courage, dignity, and perseverance. He risked his life in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, he stood with Dr. King as one of that movement's most eloquent and inspirational leaders, and he has held steadfast to the principle of equal justice in every part of his public life, from the Freedom Rides to his service in the House. I am proud to call him a dear friend--and I am proud that his leadership has recently been honored with two prestigious awards. On November 17, President Obama announced Congressman Lewis as one of the next recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. The award citation noted his courage on ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, Alabama, and his contributions to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act; it observed that ``John Lewis is an American hero and a giant of the Civil Rights Movement.'' The medal will be presented early next year. On the same day, Congressman Lewis was also honored by the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation as the inaugural recipient of the LBJ Liberty and Justice for All Award. The award marks Congressman Lewis's lifelong commitment to the founding principles that were the watchword of the Civil Rights Movement. It also recognizes the determined legislative leadership that enabled President Johnson to turn the movement's moral vision into political action. The LBJ Foundation honored Congressman Lewis for ``his dedication to the highest ethical standards and moral principles [which] has won him the admiration of many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress.'' I am among those colleagues who have taken regular inspiration from the force of John Lewis's example. He has my sincere congratulations on these recent honors.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Let me say to my friend, if he heard what I had said--I know he was listening, and I thank him for that--he and I both know revenue bills must initiate in this House. So if the Senate is to effect what those 42 Members suggested they wanted to see, then it must have a vehicle from this House on which to act. What I suggested and what I believe is that when you say this bill is dead, I think I am not sure I agree with you, because in my view it will be this bill on which they will ultimately reach whatever compromise is available in the United States Senate. So, in fact, I think this is an important vehicle to reach perhaps the compromise that we all know is ultimately going to be necessary, while at the same time expressing the views of I think the overwhelming numbers of us that certainly the first 250--we may not agree on further, or another level or something, but certainly would the gentleman disagree with me that we all agree on the first 250 ought not to receive an increase?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation. First, let me say that there were two messages that came from this election, in my opinion--maybe others as well, but certainly these two. One, we need to grow jobs. We need to have more jobs for our people. We need to grow our economy. The second was we're very concerned about the deficit. I agree with both of those conclusions in this election, and I think we need to do both of those. To some degree, they're contradictory because, in the short term, in order to grow the economy we've got to invest in the economy and we need not take money out of the pockets of consumers. Now, as a result of the tax bills that were adopted in 2001 and 2003, because we wanted not to have the scoring for a longer period of time and the deficit displayed exploding, they were made to sunset. That is to say, the tax cuts were put in place and then they were sunsetted. It so happens they sunset at the end of this month. That would mean, normally, if we allowed that Republican policy--which I did not vote for--to go into effect, that the taxes would increase on everybody. What this bill does is it says no, we want to cap, and we want to make sure that no American has any tax increase on the first $250,000 of their income. No American. One hundred percent of American taxpayers would be exempt under this bill from any increase in their taxes on January 1 of this year. One of the other messages that the American public said to us: When you can reach common ground, when you can reach agreement, why don't you guys take it? Why don't you move forward where you can agree and then spend time on that which you cannot agree upon? But at least do that on which you can reach common ground. Now, I haven't heard all of the debate--I have been in other meetings--but my suspicion is that almost everybody, if not everybody, on the floor wants to make sure that the first $250,000 of income of any American is not subjected to a tax increase on January 1. That's my conclusion. Now, maybe somebody will come up and say, ``No, you're wrong on that,'' but if so, I stand to be corrected. But we have reached common ground, I believe, on that proposition. That's what this bill carries forward. Now, we have disagreements. As I said, the second message was they're very concerned about the deficit. I'm very concerned about the deficit which I think, as I was quoted in the paper yesterday or the day before as saying, it is the most critical challenge that confronts this country, that impacts on every other challenge we have in this country, including our ability to bring taxes down and create tax reform. Now, we don't have agreement on other elements of the Republican tax program of 2001 and 2003 which will sunset pursuant to that policy on December 31. And the issue, therefore, before this House right now is whether we're going to hold hostage the first $250,000 of income of every American or we're going to say no, we have agreement, we'll resolve that, and we will then contend on the other issues. Whether we argue about the necessity to cut taxes on those over $250,000, on impacting small business, on growth of the economy, all of that is legitimate argument. But I really do not believe we have disagreement on what this bill intends to do. It's just that some people think it doesn't do enough. I understand that. But very frankly, my friends, in the House and in the other body, we have been holding hostage American policy to agreement on 100 percent-- or in the case of the Senate, on 60 percent. The American public are frustrated by that. I'm frustrated by that. I think that's not the way a legislative body works. A legislative body works by when you can create consensus, move forward. Now, maybe somebody will get up and say no, we should increase the first $250,000 of income and let that sunset. I doubt that anybody said that. I doubt that anybody believes it. But if you don't believe it, any Member of this House, then vote for this bill. Not only does it say income, but it takes earned income tax credits, it takes capital gains, it takes child care tax credits and says that the first $250,000 of income will not be subjected to an increase. I can't believe we don't agree on that. And I am hopeful that every Member will vote for this. Now, I frankly want to say I don't think this is the final package. We know that the Senate has disagreement. We know that the White House has its own view. But this vehicle is going to be critically important if we are going to move this issue forward. And some people on the other side say let's act and let's act now. Fine. Then let's give them a vehicle on which to act. Revenue issues, as we know, have to initiate in the House. Now, this vehicle is a vehicle that I think will be used and can be used by the other body to effect consensus policy. But let us not hold hostage that on which we agree to that on which we do not agree. So I would urge my colleagues, vote for this legislation. Let's move this forward. Let's give the confidence to American working people that we are united in the conviction that in this tough economy at this time they ought not to see an increase in their taxes on January 1. That's what this vote is about. And I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, and, yes, Mr. Camp, the ranking member, who will soon be chairman of this committee, for their efforts on this bill, notwithstanding their disagreement on its substance. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to congratulate the chairman, as the Speaker did, for a lifetime of dedication to children, to education, and to health care. He has been a giant in all three of those activities and, in fact, understands the relationship between all those activities. I also want to thank the ranking member for his work. I know that he's not for this bill, so we have a difference there; but I do not believe, as the previous speaker said on his side of the aisle, that he's not also for making sure that children have the proper nutrition and grow up healthy. We have a different perspective on how to get there. The Centers for Disease Control tell us that over the past three decades childhood obesity rates have tripled. Nearly one out of every five American children between the ages of 6 and 19 is obese. That is a national crisis. That is a national security crisis. That is a crisis that we owe morally, ethically, fiscally, and as a national policy to address. That doesn't just mean a lifetime of health problems for those children. It means a public health crisis that we all pay for. One of my favorite phrases is, Life is a series of alternatives, series of choices, but they're not free choices. Ted Agnew was elected Governor of the State of Maryland at the same time I was elected to the Maryland State Senate, and he gave a speech on the east front of the capitol of our State in Annapolis. One of the phrases in that speech has stuck with me since January of 1967. He said, The cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. I want you to think about that: the cost of failure far exceeds the cost of progress. The cost of unhealthy children is far greater than keeping those children healthy, to facilitating their not only nutritional but health needs. We pay for the failure to do so in the billions of dollars in health care costs each year, and we even pay for it in military readiness, with at least 9 million young adults, think about it, 9 million young adults in America who are too overweight to serve in our Armed Forces, nine million, according to a coalition of retired senior military leaders. So, again, a health issue but a national security issue as well. We can't reverse the obesity epidemic or solve child hunger overnight. We recognize that. But we can take an important step towards getting our children healthier food by passing this particular piece of legislation. And as has been pointed out time after time, this bill was passed unanimously in the other body. That means that this is not a partisan bill. This is not a bill on which there was great disagreement, and we know in the United States Senate there are people who are very concerned about the budget deficit, very concerned about growth of government, very concerned about many of the things that were expressed on this floor. They unanimously said this is a priority for our country and we're going to pass it. This legislation takes important steps to increase access to school meal programs, improve the standards of the food provided and sold to our children, and strengthen accountability to produce healthier results for our children. Among the bill's most important provisions, it increases reimbursements for school meal programs so that the food offered can meet today's health standards, not outdated standards. We've learned a lot in the last 15 to 20 years. We understand better what creates healthy children, is helpful or is not, food that may taste good but leads to obesity. Now, we all have the opportunity to purchase that. I'm a big McDonald's eater myself. I understand that luckily whatever metabolism I have seems to work with respect to my ingesting all of those McDonald's hamburgers and french fries. I love them and I don't want to be told I can't have them. But I do know this: I have a great- granddaughter who's 4 years of age. She's going to be in school pretty soon. I want to make sure the food she gets in school, whether she buys it or it's provided for her because she can't afford it--luckily our family will be able to afford it--is food that will enhance her health, her well-being, her growth, her intellectual abilities because she will feel well. This is a critically important piece of legislation that so many Members of the Senate and the House have worked so hard on. The bill also helps schools create and expand breakfast programs because nutritious breakfasts have been shown to correlate strongly with improved academic outcomes. George Bush I was a big proponent of Head Start. One of the reasons he was a big supporter of Head Start is because he thought it worked. He thought it worked to make sure that young people have opportunities. One of those, of course, is having a breakfast so that when they're in a classroom they're not agonized about hunger. They're focused on learning. When families face food insecurity and when schools do too little to pick up the slack, we are condemning children to higher chances of poor performance in school and poor health throughout life. This bill will also provide grants and outreach to increase participation in summer food service programs so that children can eat healthier food year- round. I learned about the importance of those programs firsthand. I'm sure many of you have done the same on both sides of the aisle. You have visited programs in your communities that provide children with healthy meals. I was in La Plata, Maryland, a few months ago, and I saw the direct benefit to those children of the program that was available to them there. Finally, this bill would continue school districts' role in creating local nutrition and physical activity programs, but it will also ensure follow-up to see these programs are implemented and that they meet their goals. The health of our children has a distinct and direct impact on all of us, and all of us care about that. It's not a partisan issue. Every Republican, every Democrat cares about the health of our children. But caring is not enough. We need to act as well. Saying that we care, as the Bible tells, faith without works is dead. It's nice to say you have faith, but if you don't follow that with action, that's somewhat empty. This is an opportunity to act. This is an opportunity to not only say that we care about children and their health and their nutrition and their welfare but it is an opportunity to act and make it so. Let us do that. I congratulate all of those who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen, we all want to pursue the legislative process. One of the things that has undermined the legislative process in this House perhaps on both sides is the ``gotcha'' amendments. This amendment has a worthwhile objective, obviously, of protecting our children. We're going to give everybody an opportunity to vote on this amendment in just a few short hours, and then we're going to pass this bill--because the gentleman's debate had nothing to do with this amendment until the last few seconds of his remarks. His remarks went to the substance of this bill. He's opposed to this bill. He said he's opposed to this bill. This bill passed unanimously. Unanimously means that every Republican, as well as every Democrat, wanted to reach out to provide for child nutrition for America's children. This bill, I believe, enjoys the majority's support on this floor. We'll pass this bill, and we will pass it tomorrow, but we're going to give Members on this side of the aisle, as well as on your side of the aisle, an opportunity to pass an amendment that in effect says, okay, if you want to put these regulations on these small providers in these small jurisdictions, fine, we will do it; we want to protect children as much as you do. And I've said that during the substance of our debate, that we wanted to protect children, and I'm sure you want to make sure the children are well fed. So, my belief is that we will rise now. We will come back on this amendment, which is not related. We'll give you an opportunity to vote on your amendment, and then we are going to pass this bill and send it to the President of the United States, as the Senate of the United States unanimously voted to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Ike Skelton is my brother. He and I are both Sigma Chi's. There's a lot of misinformation and misapprehension about fraternities and sororities. Sigma Chi was founded by seven individuals, one of whom was a gentleman named Jordan, and the Jordan standard requires of those who pledge that fraternity to live by certain standards. Those standards are what we would expect of all of us and hope for all of us. I have been a member of that fraternity for over half a century. No Sigma Chi that I have met has been more faithful to meeting the standards of conduct and character and courage and fidelity to purpose than my brother Ike Skelton. Ike Skelton is the father of a Sigma Chi and the son of a Sigma Chi and the grandfather of a Sigma Chi. Is that correct, Ike? I think I have it in order. But Ike Skelton has been a colleague in this Congress. Ike Skelton, as Mrs. Emerson said and as Speaker Pelosi said, and as others will say, is the quintessential example of what the American public would hope all of us would be. He's thoughtful, a great intellect, faithful, patriotic, and he teared, of course, as he mentioned the troops, the men and women who serve this country in uniform, the men and women who have had no greater advocate than Ike Skelton of Missouri, the men and women of our Armed Forces who have had no greater advocate in terms of not only the quality of their lives, their housing, their health care, their benefits, but also the assurance that they had the best technology that was available to make them not only as effective but, as importantly, as secure and safe as they could possibly be. Ike Skelton is a good and decent man who has served his country extraordinarily well. He quoted the Tennyson poem, ``Ulysses.'' What a wonderful poem. He didn't quote the end of it, which is essentially that Ulysses, then old, Telemachus, the king, left to his son the duties of being king and brought his band of brothers together to go forth to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that Ike Skelton will continue to be an extraordinarily faithful citizen of this country, an unswerving supporter of those in uniform, of our Armed Forces, and of our national security, and one who will uphold the highest standards that this institution would hope all of its Members maintain, and he will continue to strive to seek to find and we know he will not yield. But in not yielding on principle, he will be faithfully courteous and respectful of others, as he has been every day on this floor, in his committee, and in the hallways of our offices. His late wife was named Susan. My oldest daughter is named Susan. Susan Skelton, in the spring of 1981, came to Bowie, Maryland, and knocked on doors, and the doors opened and she said, I would like you to vote for Steny Hoyer for Congress. I loved Susan. We lost Susan a few years ago. She was like her husband--a beautiful, beautiful person. It is a sad day that Ike Skelton leaves this Chamber. It will not be today but in a few weeks, but it is a wonderful day for all of us to count ourselves blessed by being part of the life of this extraordinary, good, and decent man, Ike Skelton of Missouri. Ike Skelton, patriot. Ike Skelton, a wonderful, great American. Thank you, Ike Skelton.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this legislation. This legislation is years late in passing. The injustices that it addresses are long term in being. Today the House has an opportunity to bring an end to two historic injustices. We can do so by approving the settlement in the Pigford and Cobell class action lawsuits, helping to make amends to African American farmers and more than 300,000 Native Americans. Few people in this Nation have been treated as poorly by their Nation as have African Americans and Native Americans. This was a continuing injustice that should have been addressed decades ago and, indeed, of course, should not have happened. The Pigford settlement concerns a decades-old pattern of racial discrimination in Department of Agriculture loans to black farmers. For too long, farmers were denied loans because of their race. Even black farmers who received loans were paid significantly less than their white counterparts. In some cases, I am told that the amount of the loan on paper did not reflect the proceeds that were received. In fact, the proceeds were far below the face amount of the loan. The Cobell settlement concerns mismanagement of Federal trust funds in which billions of dollars, billions of dollars in fees and royalties on reservation land were unaccounted for. This bill can ensure that the individual account holders are properly paid. Now, I just said that, but unfortunately there are some who we will never be able to properly pay because they died before this injustice was righted. This will prevent similar mismanagement, hopefully, from reoccurring and resolve other outstanding land and water rights disputes that are deeply concerning to tribal governments. Above all, passing this bill means living up to our obligation to those who have deserved better from the Federal Government. These settlements have been reached in court, and now it is our job to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its end of the bargain. I am glad that this bill funds the Pigford and Cobell settlements without adding to the deficit, and I am also glad this bill can bring to a close an unfortunate blemish on the record of this government in dealing with its people. It closes an unfortunate chapter in our history. I urge my colleagues, hopefully unanimously, to pass this piece of legislation. We did the wrong thing, but all of us acknowledge it is never too late to do the right thing. So that although this is late, this legislation is the right thing to do. Let us do it now.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a sad occasion, but an appropriate occasion. I rise to pay tribute to two proud natives of Maryland who lost their lives in Afghanistan this fall, Navy Lieutenant Brendan Looney of Owings and Marine Lance Corporal Terry Honeycutt of Waldorf. I attended both of their burials at Arlington Cemetery. As I say, it was a mixture of deep sadness to lose these two young, extraordinarily capable, patriotic Americans, to be with their families, to learn what committed young men they were. At the same time, to be filled with pride that America has people like these two brave souls, willing to give their lives in the defense of freedom and justice and democracy and the safety and security of our people. I know that the grief their family feels is still fresh and that nothing can replace the loss they have suffered. But I want them to know the honor and awe in which we hold their sons' sacrifices. Now it is our responsibility to keep their names, their memories, and their examples alive. Lieutenant Looney, a 29-year-old Navy SEAL, died with nine other American servicemembers in a helicopter crash in southern Afghanistan. Most of you read about that incident. He was a star lacrosse player at the Naval Academy and then chose to complete the grueling training required to become a Navy SEAL. Lieutenant Looney was recognized as the Honor Man, or top member of his SEAL class. And just 48 hours after marrying his wife, Amy, he deployed to Iraq. He served four deployments, four deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and tragically died just 2 weeks before he was to return home from that fourth deployment. He is buried next to his Naval Academy roommate and best friend, First Lieutenant Travis Manion, who died in Iraq in 2007. Lance Corporal Honeycutt, the other young man to whom I referred, died at the age of 19 in the blast of an improvised explosive device in Helmand province, Afghanistan. As long as his parents could remember, their son wanted to be a marine. He stood out for his commitment in his high school Junior ROTC program, and on graduating, he met his goal. Sadly, his life was cut far too short. But all those who remember Lance Corporal Honeycutt speak of a man who lived to serve his country and who embodied the marines' deepest ideals of service, sacrifice, and inner strength. In the words of his mother Christine, whom I talked to Monday this week, ``We have so much honor and pride and joy, knowing that he was the person that he was, and I can't describe,'' she went on, ``how proud we are of him. We knew him as the type of person that was ready, willing, and waiting to do anything for anybody.'' He did that for his country, for all of us who serve in this Chamber, for every one of our fellow citizens. These two irreplaceable lives are among the latest costs of a war that has lasted more than 9 years. This is not the time or place to speak about that war's future or its end. But I ask my colleagues only this: We must remember that its costs are measured in lives like Brendan's and Terry's, and treat every debate and every decision about this war with a gravity that honors those two souls and the souls who have also been lost and who currently serve. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my deep sympathy for the families who have lost so much: To Lieutenant Looney's wife, Amy; to his parents, Kevin and Maureen; to his brothers, Billy and Steve; and to his sisters, Erin, Kellie and Briget; and to Lance Corporal Honeycutt's parents, Terry and Christine; his sister, Dawn; and to his sister's husband, who currently serves as a member of the United States Marines; and to all the grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, and uncles whom we join in mourning the loss of these two brave, patriotic, extraordinary Americans. May God rest their souls and give strength and peace to their families.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to join particularly with my friend Frank Wolf, who is my good friend. We work very closely together. Owen Pickett was the kind of Member that brought real respect to this institution. He worked on both sides of the aisle. He worked very strongly on behalf of our national security. He was a Member who was popular on both sides of the aisle. Owen Pickett and Norm Sisisky served together on this side of the aisle with Frank and me for many years. Owen Pickett was someone who this institution could have justifiable pride in. We could look to him and say that is the kind of Member, frankly, that we all ought to be, showing respect for one another, working with one another on behalf of the American people and their security. I rise to extend great sympathy to his family, but much more importantly than that, to give thanks on behalf of this institution and on behalf of our country for his extraordinary service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for her question. Clearly, this is, as the gentlelady points out, a very serious matter of great concern. And I want to say that we will join with the lady and with all of those who represent the region on both sides of the aisle to look at this matter to make sure that we give it our earliest possible consideration and action.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for his generous remarks. More importantly, however, I thank him for his very hard, focused, untiring work on making sure that, for the first time since 2004, we pass an authorization bill for intelligence. I want to say that all of us have been engaged in this, but no one more than the chairman, and I thank him for his work. I also thank the staff, the staff director, and members of the staff who have done an extraordinary job as well. I know that the minority staff has worked hard on this as well, and Mr. Hoekstra, of course, who has been on the Intelligence Committee for many, many years. I rise, Madam Speaker, in support of this intelligence authorization bill. The passage of this legislation, as I said earlier, is the first intelligence authorization bill to be passed since 2004. On something as critically important as our national security, national intelligence, it is unfortunate that we haven't been more successful in the past in passing a bill, for whatever reasons. This is a major step to strengthen our national security. The bill continues policies that are working to help keep America safe from terrorist attack, policies which have been supported by two administrations. It also strengthens oversight of our intelligence community. In a democracy, we have recognized in a bipartisan way that intelligence is critical, but in a free and open society it is also important that the people's representatives have meaningful oversight. While this community deserves the support of Congress, and it has always had mine, it also requires oversight by the Congress and direction from the Congress as to what policies the people's representatives believe ought to be followed. In my opinion, this bill does that. The bill creates an independent inspector general with responsibility for the entire intelligence community. It reforms the briefing process for the bipartisan leadership of both Chambers and their Intelligence Committees, ensuring that the full membership of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are informed when briefings occur and making the briefings available to all members of the committees 6 months after the initial briefings. It is critically important that we keep secret those matters which are important to keep secret for our national security. On the other hand, we know from history, we know from experience, that it is critically important, as I have said in the past, that the people's representatives have knowledge and briefings as to those undertakings of this community. This bill provides for the development of a framework that will enable the Government Accountability Office to conduct proper oversight of intelligence activities and reforms the intelligence community's acquisition process to avoid waste of taxpayer money. This bill passed the Senate with unanimous support from both parties. This is not a partisan bill. This is a bill that the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats believed added to the security of our country. In fact, I agree with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, who formerly was, of course, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, with whom I worked very hard in a bipartisan fashion to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the help of my friend the chairman and the support of President Bush. Kit Bond said this about this bill: ``We can do more to protect Americans from attack, and passing the intelligence authorization bill,'' referring to the bill that is on the floor, ``passing the intelligence authorization bill and improving congressional oversight over our spy agencies is an important first step.'' That is what Senator Bond said, the Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee, and now the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee. I want to thank the members of the House Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle, especially, as I have said, Chairman Silvestre Reyes and his staff, for their very hard work in writing and securing support for this legislation. It was not an easy road. There was disagreement. The administration, this House, the Senate, had to come to an agreement. They have come to an agreement, an agreement which I think is, as Kit Bond said, a step in the right direction, an important step, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. This is another contribution to strong and responsible leadership of our national security. I urge my colleagues to support it so that President Obama can sign it into law. There is no higher responsibility than we have when we raise our hands in this Chamber to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. Clearly, one of our major responsibilities is to protect America from adversaries, whether they be domestic or foreign, and in that process have an intelligence community that has the capability of ferreting out those who would harm this country and its people. But we also need to have an active, engaged, and responsible, as we do, Intelligence Committee, both in the House and in the Senate, to ensure that the values that make this country so special are honored even as we take every step that is necessary and proper to defend and protect America and Americans. I urge the passage of this important piece of legislation.