Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for yielding. Mr. Levin has been one of our hardest workers and leaders in the effort to make sure that American business can succeed and expand and create good-paying jobs for our economy. I just heard the last of his remarks, but my presumption is he was saying, as we all know is the case, there is not a place that any of us travel in the United States of America, when we talk to small businesses all over this country, that they don't say: Congressman, one of the real problems I have is I can't get capital. I want to put an additional room on my restaurant so I can have some additional tables, and I'll have to hire some additional--maybe a cook and a waiter and waitresses and a receptionist, but I can't get capital. I know I can get the customers, but I can't expand. That's what this bill is about. This bill is about empowering small businesses to do what they do so well. In our work to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a result of the economic policies we put in place in the last administration, we're suffering under the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Only the Great Depression is analogous. Businesses will play an extraordinarily important role in bringing us back; they are our economy's job-creating engine. Over the past year, 64 percent of new jobs came from small businesses. Keeping small businesses growing and creating jobs is essential to our economic recovery, and supporting small businesses is an essential part of rebuilding American industry, which is why this important small business lending bill is part of the Democrats' ``Make It in America'' agenda. You're going to be hearing a lot about that agenda: ``Make It in America.'' There are an awful lot of people in our country right now who, understandably, are not sure they're going to make it in America. They're not sure their kids are going to be able to make it in America. They're not sure they're going to have a retirement on which they counted. ``Make It in America.'' Now, that has another meet meaning as well: make it in America; manufacture it in America; create good-paying jobs through manufacturing things in America that Americans will buy, and yes, the rest of the world will buy. This is a plan to strengthen American manufacturing and its ability to create well-paying middle class jobs. Six Make It in America bills have already been signed into law. In addition, Democrats have voted for investments in job-creating infrastructure projects, lower taxes for 98 percent of America, expanded Small Business Administration lending, a tax credit for small businesses that hire unemployed workers, and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employer health care. And we've done it in the face of a year and a half of near unanimous Republican opposition. The challenges faced by small businesses are still, of course, significant ones. Last year, for instance, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even stay in business were turned down for a loan, which had an obvious impact on employment. To expand the job-creating flow of credit, I urge each of my colleagues, not Republicans or Democrats but all of my colleagues, who all want to see small businesses grow, who all want to see jobs created, and, therefore, I urge all of my colleagues on either side of the aisle of whatever ideology, support this bill. I talked to my small bankers last week. They say if they get this capital, they're going to lend to small businesses. I talked to my small businesses, and they say if this bill passes, they believe that they'll be able to get a loan to expand their business or to keep in business. First, this bill creates a small business lending fund that makes it easier for small businesses to access the capital they need. It also establishes $12 billion in tax cuts for small business. I've heard a lot of talk throughout my 30 years here in the Congress of the United States from the other side of the aisle about cutting taxes on small businesses. Well, this cuts $12 billion in taxes on small businesses. I would hope that you would feel that was consistent with what you said ought to be done. We agree. And we've done it. And we're trying to do it again. These tax credits encourage small business investments by eliminating small business capital gains taxes in many cases; they encourage innovation by helping entrepreneurs deduct more startup expenses; they make it more affordable for business owners to invest in the equipment they need to expand; and, as I said, they make health care more affordable for the self-employed--all designed to grow and expand small businesses and to create jobs for the millions of Americans who have been hardworking Americans, lost their job, and they want to work and they're looking for work, and they can't find it. This is an opportunity for us to expand that job pool by an estimated 500,000. In addition, this bill strengthens State and SBA programs that lend to small businesses. We have such a program in the State of Maryland. We think this will help. And it strengthens overseas competitiveness by funding export-promoting programs and by fighting for market access and a level playing field for American companies that compete abroad. In all, this bill's provisions are projected, as I said, to save or create as many as a half million jobs. Passing this bill is a test of every Member's commitment to the businesses that are the backbone of our districts. It is a measure of our support for their ability to innovate, grow, and employ more workers. But as important as this bill is, it is not the end of our work to create small business jobs. For instance, the House will soon debate Congressman Miller's bill to support lending for home construction--another example of Democratic efforts to support small businesses and create jobs. I hope that every one of my colleagues sees fit to support this bill, not because it perfectly represents every view that you have--none of us vote for bills that reflect our views perfectly--but because the consensus of the business community is this will move us forward. Vote for this bill. It's good for America. It's good for our people. It's good for jobs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding and for leading this Special Order. I was pleased to, with him, undertake this Special Order because of the timeliness of the crisis that confronts Sudan and the implementation of the agreement. I want to thank all of the Members for participating in this Special Order as well. It is important that we in the Congress stay focused and send a message, as I will here, that we are focused. And I applaud the gentleman for his statement tonight. I applaud him even further for his continuing leadership. Nobody in the Congress, in either the House or the Senate, has been more focused over a longer period of time, has traveled more extensively throughout the world, and to some of the most troubled spots in the world, and to Sudan, than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and I thank him for his leadership. In fewer than 4 months, Southern Sudan will hold a referendum on independence, which was guaranteed by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The CPA ended Africa's bloodiest civil war, a war which took almost 2 million lives and displaced 4 million. Yet the risk of descending into war again seems all too real. Now, as on my congressional delegation to Sudan 3 years ago, our focus remains the same: Promoting peace, stability, and reconstruction across the whole of Sudan. This is not only our moral obligation but an important national security goal as well. We must work to ensure that Sudan does not become a safe haven for terrorists. Tonight we are here to send a message to all those who live in and care about Sudan. We support full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We support a timely, peaceful, free, and fair referendum on independence. And we support an end to the violence in Darfur. These are immense challenges, to be sure. But Sudan's central government has shown that it pays close attention to the international community's intentions and actions, which is why we must present a unified, comprehensive position in our response to both the ongoing violence in Darfur and the north-south conflict. I want to be absolutely clear: Darfur remains and will remain a point of focus for this Congress. We recognize that peacekeepers are struggling and in many cases failing to fulfill their civilian protection mandate, and that humanitarian groups are swimming in redtape and facing daunting security challenges. President Obama and the international community must continue to push Khartoum on the issue of humanitarian access and independent human rights monitoring in the region. In the wake of what appears to be a near collapse of the latest efforts in Doha, we must continue to strive for a viable peace process. Congress is watching. Congress will hold you accountable. Tonight, however, I want to focus my remarks on the need for full CPA implementation and specifically on ensuring that the referendum on southern independence takes place on time and, as I said, in a free, fair and peaceful manner and that results are respected by Khartoum and the international community. With the referendum approaching on January 9, 2011, our own Secretary of State has said that we can hear the loud sound of a ticking time bomb--Secretary Clinton's words--the possibility of new bloodshed. What can we do to prevent it? The U.S. has stepped up its diplomatic efforts in southern Sudan, and is providing $12 million for elections security, allowing the government of southern Sudan to establish 11 joint operation centers in Juba and in the 10 states in collaboration with other partners. I also want to applaud President Obama for attending Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high-level meeting on Sudan this Friday at the United Nations in order to discuss what more the international community can do to ensure a fair and safe vote. My hope is that a powerful package of multilateral pressures and incentives will come out of this meeting and those that follow. I also support the administration's efforts to prepare for January with former South African President Mbeki, who is leading the African Union's efforts in Sudan as well as with international financial institutions and international development agencies; but more can and must be done. We must hurry to establish a formal mechanism to help get the north and south to agreement on all of the outstanding issues. Such a mechanism must include buy-in from civil society in an organized way. The CPA is a positive model on this front. The international community, including our own administration, must continue to remind those countries with a stake in the outcome, including Russia, Egypt and especially China, that it is in their own best interests to advance peace and stability in Sudan. This is an international responsibility. We must support U.N. peacekeepers and urge them to do more to protect civilians. We cannot simply throw our hands up in complaint about a relatively ineffective peacekeeping system. We must fix it. Finally, efforts in south Sudan must not be solely focused on the day of the referendum but also, of course, on the day after. The international community must step up efforts to prevent southern Sudan from becoming what the economists called a ``pre-failed state.'' We know the dangers that failed states pose to our own national security. We have seen that. If we want to prevent the emergence of a new one, the international efforts on everything from road building to literacy education to establishing a viable economy in one of the world's most underdeveloped areas deserves and should have our support. Regardless of the steps we and the international community take, the decision to turn this vote into a foundation for peace instead of one for further war ultimately rests in the hands of the Sudanese. So my message to Khartoum is this: Step up. Step up, Khartoum. At the risk of sounding cynical, surprise us. This referendum is part of a peace agreement that you signed in 2005. Come to the table. Work to advance a peaceful outcome, and don't lead your country back into war. The administration has clearly communicated to you that there are both painful pressures and real incentives on the table. It is your choice, of course, and rest assured that the United States Congress is watching your choice and will hold you accountable. To the government of south Sudan: The U.S. Congress is committed to the referendum, and firmly believes that it is the best mechanism for you to express your right of self- determination. Alternative approaches will only renew the turmoil that the CPA was designed to end--and will severely weaken the future of your people. We need you to step up as well. We need you to come to the table as a ready and willing partner, and we need you to devote resources, time and energy to finalizing an operational plan and budget, agreeing on voter registration criteria and procedures, and hiring and training registration workers. There is hard work in front of you, but the reward in the form of your people's right to choose their own future is clearly precious. To the Obama administration and the international community: Thank you. Thank you for your efforts to strengthen peace in Sudan but to keep them going. We will all have to work vigorously to ensure that the referendum is a success, but the consequences of failure should be more than ample motivation for us all. Friday's high-level meeting at the United Nations must be a productive and serious one, and more conversations must follow. They must be focused on how the international community will work together to assist in the technical, logistical and operational stages of the vote; to monitor and observe the process from start to finish; to guarantee implementation of the results; and to mediate in case of any disagreement. You have the Congress' full support in this effort. To the humanitarian community, especially to the American-based NGOs working on the ground in Sudan: You represent the best of American selflessness and generosity. You do God's work. Thank you for that. This Congress pledges to continue advocating for improved humanitarian access so that you can continue to do your jobs and advance the goals for which you have put your safety and, yes, even your lives on the line. Improving the daily lives of people living in one of the world's most war-torn regions is a moral responsibility for us all. Finally, to the people of Sudan: We stand with you. You deserve far more than the bloodshed and death and dislocation that year after year have brought you. You deserve what we all deserve--a chance to live our lives and raise our children in peace. America will do everything in its power to ensure that January is the beginning of that chance, not its untimely end. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey--one of the senior Members of this Congress, the leader of our effort on the African continent--a continent so critically important to the future of the global community. I thank him for yielding me this time. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 9/11 will remain a day of infamy, as December 7, 1941, lives. It will also live as a day that we will always remember, lament the loss of life, and rededicate ourselves to the defense of freedom. As we did 9 years ago, today we stand united, one people--united in memory of the dead of September 11; united in awe at the heroic sacrifices that graced that dark day and so many since; and united in resolve to defend our Nation, its ideals, that animated spirit, defend its people, defend its shores. September 11 was a day of grief, of shock, and of fear. But as we reflect back on the terror of that day, these things are within our power: to keep alive the names and memories of the dead--they were read in New York, in Virginia at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania--to reclaim the unity of a day on which neighbor reached out to neighbor and our divisions were submerged; and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals that, no less than buildings, were the targets of the attack. Ideals were under attack, like freedom, freedom of conscience; rule of law; and, yes, religious tolerance. For those reasons, I am proud to introduce, along with the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, this resolution commemorating the attack on America--its institutions, its values, its people. For many, the shock of that day perhaps has faded. For some, however, especially those who loved and lost one of the 3,000, the grief is still fresh. But for all of us, the memory of September 11 is one we will carry with us, as I have said, as long as we live. It is a memory compounded of mourning for the victims, deep sympathy for those who held them dear; and profound pride for the first responders, firefighters, and police officers, and, yes, average citizens who came to the help of those in need. They served and they sacrificed--some their health, some their lives. Terrorism is intended, of course, to provoke the worst in those it targets, but on that day their service showed America at its very best. So we remember. We remember in honor the 343 firefighters, 37 Port Authority officers, and 23 police officers who lost their lives along, of course, with the passengers on Flight 93. How proud we can be of those passengers who learned what was happening, unlike most of us, unlike the people in the towers, unlike the people in the Pentagon. The brave Americans on Flight 93 knew what was happening, and they acted, and they gave their lives to save others who would have otherwise been targeted. And, yes, perhaps they saved this symbol of democracy. Many of us believe that is where Flight 93 was headed--to decapitate this Capitol. A building, yes, but a powerful symbol of the values of this country that are not just this country's but universal in scope. We also honor those troops who have served far from home. They too have shown America at its best; not only those who have lost their lives in our country's service in Afghanistan and Iraq, but all those who have served and are serving, as we speak, in harm's way, at the point of the spear, to make sure that any fanatics, whether they base their fanaticism on a faith or they base it on hate and prejudice, we will confront them. We will defeat them. We will protect our country. We will protect our people, and we will preserve our ideals. With their families, we pray for their safe return. Not all of us can offer sacrifices so profound, but it does not have to be a day of crisis to join with our neighbors in service to our communities. It can be this day. Indeed, it can be every day. As we commemorate the gravest attack in American history, we also renew our resolve in the face of those who still intend us harm. This is a day to remember our commitment to defend America from whatever threats that confront us and to use all of our military force, all of our diplomatic skill, and all of the power of our moral example to keep America safe. Like the Cold War before it, this is a struggle not just of arms but of ideologies. And every demonstration that America is a fearless society, a Nation of law, and a home for every faith is a victory over the fanatics who attacked us or who might attack us. That is our resolve--not as Democrats or Republicans, not as Members of Congress, but as Americans who have pledged ourselves to defend the Constitution of the United States, the laws thereof, and, yes, its principles and ideals. This will be expressed in a vote in this House today. But in the courage of our troops, the watchfulness of our intelligence, and the power of free American citizens to live out the meaning of our ideals every day, that will be the testament of our victory and the display of our resolve. I rise in strong support of this resolution and in memory of those whose lives were taken by fanatics targeting not those individuals, per se, but targeting that in which they believed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. The hour is late and Members have come back, properly so, to address an issue that we addressed months ago. The Senate sent it to us; we were gone. We thought it our responsibility to ask Members to come back because if we hadn't come back, if we didn't pass this bill, what could happen? 160,000 teachers would be at risk of being laid off and probably would be laid off. What would that mean? It would mean larger class sizes for teachers to deal with, children not receiving the kind of education that they need to be competitive in the global marketplace. What might have also happened? Some 160,000 police and fire personnel, emergency response teams, may have had to be laid off. That's why we came back. That's why we believe this is so important. And how we paid for this, because we do not add a nickel to the national debt, notwithstanding the previous speaker, we paid for this because we believe if we're going to invest in our future, we also are going to pay for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. Now, that's a concept that was jettisoned under Republican leadership but we've reestablished. So we pay for this. One of the ways we pay for it is to ask people is, look, if you're going to send jobs overseas we're not going to give you a tax break. I know there are some that apparently are not for that, and they're going to vote against this bill, but my view is what we're doing is making sure that our children have the proper education they need, making sure that our communities are safe, and yes, making sure that we try to keep every job in America so that we can continue to make things in America, so people can make it in America. That's what this bill is all about. The hour is late. I think everyone knows the issue, and I ask my colleagues, vote for this critical piece of legislation. Keep our teachers, our police, our fire personnel on the job. That's why the Senate passed this bill with over 60 percent majority in a bipartisan vote. Let's follow suit. Pass this bill. Make America better. Let's consider what would happen if Republicans had their way and this bill failed. Some 160,000 teachers' jobs would be eliminated. Some 160,000 jobs for police officers, firefighters, nurses, and private-sector employees would go, as well--a total of 320,000 lost jobs. And the impact would extend far beyond the laid-off employees. Our children's educations would be shortchanged--bigger class sizes, programs eliminated, and summer school cancelled in communities across our country. In our neighborhoods, we'd find fewer cops patrolling the streets and longer waits before first responders arrive at the scene of an emergency. More vulnerable Americans--already struggling through the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes--would go without health care. And don't think that the economic impact would be limited to the 320,000 laid-off workers alone. It would mean families struggling to pay the mortgage or their student loans; it would mean local businesses losing customers; it would mean businesses forced into new layoffs of their own as a result. It would mean, in short, a step closer to a double-dip recession. I understand that States are obligated to cut spending when times are hard; but the fact that States' revenues are largely tied to sources that dramatically shrink in bad times, such as property and sales taxes, creates a vicious cycle that helps prolong recessions. When States cut spending, the results include layoffs, less consumer demand, and a struggling private sector--making hard times hard for longer. And if Republicans had succeeded in blocking the Recovery Act and other measures to help pull our economy out of recession, State budgets would be even worse off today. Preventing another vicious cycle of budget cuts and layoffs is exactly why it is both right and smart for the Federal Government to step in and lend a hand today. This bill will do so--and it will prevent the dangerous chain- reaction of layoffs and drastically cut services for families that I've described. And this bill will do so in a fiscally responsible way: it includes savings for all of the dollars it spends, which means that it adds nothing to the deficit. In fact, much of this bill's savings can help keep jobs in America: by passing this bill, we can end the tax loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas. And that's another way this legislation strengthens our economy and our recovery. I don't understand how Republicans can add this bill to their year- and-a-half record of obstructing our recovery. I don't understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat, and keeping firefighters protecting our homes. But some who oppose this bill cynically call teachers, cops, firefighters, and nurses ``special interests.'' That's how they will justify their vote against this bill--but with the very same vote, Mr. Speaker, they will vote to protect corporations that exploit the tax code to outsource American jobs. How first responders are ``special interests'' and those corporations are not, is beyond me--but I'm eager to hear my Republican friends explain it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this fiscally responsible bill, which the communities we represent desperately need.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply say to my friend--and he is my friend and I believe him to be a very positive Member of the Congress of the United States. I would say to him, I don't want to re-litigate. I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and I believe, very frankly, my friend, that the economic policies that you want to pursue have not worked, and I don't want to pursue them again. It's not a question of re-litigation. It's a question of learning from the failures of the past that brought this economy so extraordinarily low. It is time to invest in the creation of jobs. I believe this bill does that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm amused sometimes when I stand on the floor and I hear my Republican colleagues debate the economy. Frankly, the Bush administration, of course, did not happen, you understand. That 8 years really wasn't their economic program, and the dire consequences of that economic program are all Mr. Obama's fault. Hoover probably could have blamed it on Coolidge. Maybe Coolidge could have blamed it on Harding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to follow my friend, Congressman Manzullo, in speaking about the importance of making it in America. Making it in America is not just about manufacturing in America, it's about succeeding in America, making sure that America continues to be the vibrant engine of our economy and the international economy, making things not only for Americans, but for all the world. And I thank Mr. Manzullo for his comments. Americans have always looked to the manufacturing sector as a source of economic vitality and as a source of pride. I want to thank my friend from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who has been such an outstanding leader in this Congress on behalf of growing our economy, jobs for Americans, good pay and good benefits for all Americans. America has long prided itself on being a country that makes things. And Democrats, and I know my Republican friends, are committed to making sure that is true in the future. America agrees on the importance of manufacturing to our economy. You just ask them and they will tell you we need to make it in America. Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe it is one of the most important factors in our economic strength, and 85 percent of Americans believe that creating manufacturing jobs is important to our economic recovery. We need to make it in America. It's true that manufacturing has taken a severe hit in this recession. In fact, it's been taking hits for quite some time, particularly under the previous administration. Over the past decade, America lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. These three bills are designed to turn that status around. If we want American manufacturing to be strong again, if we want to emerge from these hard times with a more competitive, job-creating economy, we need to get serious about our manufacturing strategy. That is the impulse behind the Democrats' Making it in America agenda: creating incentives for investments in industry, strengthening manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthening our workforce, and helping to level the playing field for American companies. That's what our focus is going to be. That's what Mr. Manzullo was talking about. So far, the Make it in America agenda has resulted in the passage of the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act. It passed the House just a few days ago on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and is at the White House. This helps American companies get the affordable materials they need. And it's passed the Senate and is on the way to becoming law, as I said. The House has also passed the SECTORS Act, which invests in 21st- century workforce training, to make sure that our people have the skills to make it in America. Bills like these build on the success we have already in rallying America's manufacturing sector under the Obama administration. Since the beginning of the year, our private sector has actually created 136,000 new manufacturing jobs. This bill, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, can contribute to that job creation. It directs the President to develop a national manufacturing strategy every 4 years, with input from the private sector, from manufacturing leaders, Federal officials, and State governments. They will analyze all of the factors affecting American manufacturing, from financing to trade barriers, and recommend actions that industry and Federal and State and local governments can take to boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs. I spoke about this the other day at the Center for American Progress. And a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr. Speaker, stood and congratulated us on this effort. And I told her that we were looking to work with the National Association of Manufacturers and others to build manufacturing capacity and to create these good- paying jobs with good benefits and making America work better. The bill's sponsor, Congressman Lipinski, from the heartland of America, your State, Mr. Rush, Illinois, points out that similar national strategies are widespread. China, India, the UK, Brazil, Canada, and Germany all have manufacturing strategies; and we need one if we want to stay competitive with them. And as has been true in the past, the ``Made in America'' label will be sought and admired throughout the world. This bill is an important way to take our industries' struggles seriously and begin responding to them constructively. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the two that will follow to make America a more competitive, growing economy. Make it in America, an agenda that the House will consider this week and the 4 weeks when we return from our break: the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act, which will ensure that clean energy technology firms have the information and assistance they need to stay competitive; and the End the Trade Deficit Act, all on the agenda, sponsored by Congresswoman Matsui, which will develop strategies to combat the trade deficit. Through steps like these we can begin to restore America's pride in its manufacturing and in the solid jobs it creates for middle class families. Make it in America is not simply a slogan; it is a commitment, a commitment to reestablish a dynamic engine for job creation. Make it in America is a commitment to ensuring that America's future is one in which America competes successfully and profitably in the new global marketplace. Make it in America is a psychology of excellence, a level playing field in trade relations, and the creation of an environment that facilitates manufacturing projects, expansion, and the sale of American products to the world. America's innovative abilities and the talent and work ethic of our workers have historically led our country to extraordinary economic growth and success. The Make it in America agenda is a commitment, a commitment to making that success not only a proud part of our history, but a reality for our future. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to make it in America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and thank Mr. Scott for yielding to me. I also want to thank the former attorney general from California, Dan Lungren, for working with me on this issue and Jim Sensenbrenner and others. Two decades ago, Congress responded to the addictiveness of crack cocaine, a terrible drug, and the violence it brought in its wake by establishing harsh mandatory sentences for possessing and dealing it. In supporting that policy, Congress also created a wide disparity, however, between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences--both addictive, both illegal. Possessing an amount of crack equal to the weight of two pennies has resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. In order to receive a similar sentence for possessing a chemically similar powder, cocaine, one would have to be carrying 100 times as much cocaine. It has long been clear that 100-to-1 disparity has had a racial dimension as well, helping to fill our prisons with African Americans disproportionately put behind bars for longer. The 100-to-1 disparity is counterproductive and unjust. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Union of Police Associations, and dozens of former Federal judges and prosecutors. They have seen firsthand the damaging effects of our unequal sentencing guidelines up close, and they understand the need to change them. That's what this is about. The Fair Sentencing Act does that. It also strengthens sentences for those who profit by addicting others to drugs, as it should do. This bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. Whatever their opinions on drug policies, members of law enforcement, community advocates, and Members of Congress overwhelmingly support this bill. In fact, it passed the Senate unanimously. In the words of a letter signed by a bipartisan group with sponsors on the Senate Judiciary--Senators Leahy, Sessions, Feinstein, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Durbin, Graham, Cardin, Cornyn and Coburn--a very, very bipartisan and broad spectrum group of supporters, they said this: ``Congress has debated the need to address the crack powder disparity for too long. We now have the ability to address this issue on a bipartisan basis.'' They supported this legislation, which is, again, why it passed in a bipartisan fashion through the United States Senate. My colleagues, I urge support of this legislation. I am pleased that the leadership on both sides of the aisle will be supporting this legislation. We do so for the same reason that Senators Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, and Sessions all support their legislation. It's the right thing to do. It will enhance, not diminish prosecution, and it will lead to better justice in America while at the same time making sure that we penalize and hold accountable those who would addict our children and our fellow citizens. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Speaker Langevin, I congratulate you on taking the podium. I congratulate you on your extraordinary service to the people of Rhode Island and the people of our country. And I congratulate you for being an example of the can-do spirit that has made America such a great country. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be here on this, the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm particularly pleased to be here on the floor with my former colleague and my lifetime friend Tony Coelho of the State of California. Tony Coelho was the Whip on our side of the aisle for a number of years, elected into that position very shortly after he took his seat in the Congress of the United States. He is a person of extraordinary ability, extraordinary energy, extraordinary focus, and extraordinary accomplishment. But early in his life, he fell off, in a farming accident, a tractor and injured his head. As a result of that traumatic injury, he became an epileptic. And because of that, his lifetime dream of becoming a priest was not available to him. That was something of a great trauma, again, to him. However, he overcame that, came to Congress, and has made his life's work opening up America to those who had been discriminated against, to those who had been shut out, to those for whom the pursuit of happiness was made either impossible or very difficult by the barriers and prejudice that existed. Twenty years ago today, the first President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act. I was proud to help pass that legislation. But much more, I was proud to see our country come together to rededicate itself to the principles of equal opportunity, irrespective of race or color, national origin, religion, or any other arbitrary distinction, including disability. The ADA made it possible for Americans with disabilities to use the same public spaces that so many of us take for granted and to succeed as their talent and drive allows them to. Fifty million Americans have gone through the doors of equal opportunity that are open. When I first heard that figure, it sounded awfully high to me because I thought about disabilities being somebody who, like Mr. Langevin, as a result of an accident had been forced to use a wheelchair for mobility purposes. I was used to thinking of disability as somebody who used a cane because they had no sight or somebody who used a hearing aid because their hearing was diminished or nonexistent. Helen Keller, of course, taught us a great and powerful lesson about overcoming disabilities. But I learned quickly that so many of us have a disability that nobody else sees. Mr. Coelho is on the floor. If I asked you to identify Mr. Coelho by his disability you'd be unable to do so because it's not apparent. But the prejudice with respect to his disability was in fact very present. So the Americans With Disabilities Act not only dealt with actual, visual impairments, but also perceived impairments. We know that those doors are not all the way open, however. We strengthened the act in 2008, and today it is our job to live up to its enduring principles, whether it's making the House rostrum wheelchair accessible--thank you, Madam Speaker, for your leadership on making sure that Jim Langevin, our colleague, who has the ability to preside, has the accessibility of the rostrum so that he can exercise that ability. That's what the Disability Act was all about. I thank my colleagues that helped to make the ADA possible. Tony Coelho, of course, in the House was our leader, our spark plug, our visionary, and he enlisted many of the rest of us to assist in this effort. The disability community who fought so hard, who showed so much courage, who spent so much time to let Members of Congress know the discrimination to which they were subjected. I believe that this act is an act which will continue to make America a better country, it will continue to make America a country that is in fact living out the core of its principle, which is equal opportunity for all under the law. I want to thank a number of people, some of whom we will see further today. Mr. Markey, who was so critical on the communications issue. I want to thank my friend Jim Sensenbrenner, who sits on the floor here, who was a leader on the Judiciary Committee, a critical component of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I want to thank my friend Steve Bartlett, who himself was a Member of Congress--not now-- but was my partner in coordinating the various committees and subcommittees and worked together with me in an absolutely nonpartisan--it wasn't bipartisan. It had nothing to do with party or politics; it had to do with our country's principles. I want to thank Augustus Hawkins, who was chair of the Education and Labor Committee; Major Owens; Matthew Martinez; Steve Bartlett, whom I mentioned; Congressman Fawell. I want to thank John Dingell, who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee; Edward Markey, the chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee; Tom Luken; Norm Lent; Bob Whittaker; Matt Renaldo; Glen Anderson, who was the chair of the Public Works Committee; Robert Roe, ranking Democrat; and Norm Mineta. Every time you see a bus that's accessible or train station that's accessible or an airplane that's accessible, remember Norm Lent. Remember Norman Mineta as well, who made that possible. And that was very difficult because there was a cost associated to it, and we wanted to make sure that it was a reasonable cost to be imposed. But we knew that in the long run, that investment would pay off for America. I want to thank John Paul Hammerschmidt as well; Jack Brooks chaired the Judiciary Committee at that time; Don Edwards; Bob Castermire; Hamilton Fish; and, of course, Jim Sensenbrenner. There are many, many others. This resolution recognizes the adoption of a bill 20 years ago. Jim Langevin is the living, breathing, participating example of how that statute made a difference. Not just for Jim Langevin but for all of us who will benefit from the contribution that the Jim Langevins of America will make, and we ought to be proud in America that this bill is now an example to all the world and has been used as a model by many nations in the world that they have followed to make their societies more accessible and make the lives of those with disabilities fuller and more productive There is much that remains to be done. Those with disabilities still are more likely to live in poverty. Those with disabilities are still more likely not to be able to get a job. Those with disabilities are still confronted with a lack of access to some facets of our society. So as we recognize this anniversary, as the President tonight will honor the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, and his son who signed the Amendment Act, so both President Bushes have played a role in making accessibility a reality in America. So as we celebrate this day, let us recommit ourselves as our Founding Fathers talked about equality of opportunity and as we have seen for the 200-plus years of the existence of our constitutional democracy, that periodically we've had to take steps to make sure that the promise of opportunity was the reality of opportunity. So, Speaker Langevin, congratulations to you. Congratulations to our country. Congratulations to our citizens as we all work together to make this a more perfect union.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, thank you. Thank you for the courage that you have shown. I don't know how many of you know Jim Langevin's story. Involved in the police boys club, 16 years of age, at a police station in Rhode Island. Someone was cleaning his gun. It went off by mistake, accidentally, ricocheted off the wall, and went into Mr. Langevin's spine. At 16 years of age, he was rendered unable to walk. Some people could have given up. Some people could have lamented that accident which rendered them unable to walk and have limited mobility. Jim Langevin, of course, as we all see, did not do that. Jim Langevin decided that he was going to succeed and persevere and overcome. And Jim Langevin sits in the chair today presiding over the people's House. Think of what an extraordinary example that is to every person of whatever age who has a mobility impairment for whatever reasons, injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, or someplace at the point of the spear, comes back to this country. My friend Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson just introduced me to a young fellow who in May was injured in Afghanistan and lost both his legs. What an example Jim Langevin must be to him and to millions of others who are similarly situated. The promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act in July of 1990 was that we would open up the doors of opportunity in a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity. As I have said a number of times this week, Thomas Jefferson indicated that the pursuit of happiness was a God-given right. But Thomas Jefferson, in his time, had a limited view. And we have found, in generation after generation, that we had to perfect that view. African Americans, of course, were not given the land of opportunity's opportunities. We fought a Civil War, and we adopted the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments. Notwithstanding that, however, we did not, at that point in time, realize the full scope of the opportunity that we provided in that Declaration of Independence and, theoretically, in that beloved document of ours, the pride of our country, the United States Constitution. So again we perfected it, and in the early part of the last century we said to those who are women in this body and around the country, no, what we really should have said is men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator, and we want to include you and give you the right to vote. It's almost amazing that 90 years ago, or some 100 years ago that women didn't have the right to vote in this country. And we perfected our country by amending our Constitution to expand, further, the opportunities. And then in 1964 and 1965 and 1957 and further, we passed acts which have said, look, we said that African Americans were equal, but we still see discrimination. And Martin Luther King, Jr., called our attention to the fact that this was not yet a perfect Union and that work needed to be done. And 25 years after the 1965 act, we saw a large group of people--we then said 45 million; we now use the figure 50 million people--who have a disability, and because of that disability are excluded, are shut out, are not welcomed in, are not given what this lift is, a reasonable accommodation in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It simply says there are some things we can do to enhance somebody who is challenged with a disability to fully participate. We know that. Ed Markey is right next to me. We are going to pass a bill that we know that technology now is providing greater access to people who can't hear, and indeed to people who can't see, to fully participate in our society. Jim Langevin is the example of the realization of the promise of the July 26, 1990, signing by George Herbert Walker Bush that said that we're going to knock down the walls of discrimination that confront the disabled. But what we were talking about was not the disability. We were talking about the discrimination. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court missed that. But fortunately for our country and those with disabilities, the Congress did not. In every step of the way, this has been a bipartisan effort, led by a Republican President, made better by another Republican President, his son, George W. Bush. Jim Sensenbrenner. But let me mention someone that many of you may not know who are recently here. Steve Bartlett, Congressman from Texas, became the mayor of Dallas, worked with me almost every day for almost a full year in making sure that when we adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act it would be workable, affordable, and effective. Jim Langevin, you are an example of that effectiveness. So I thank you, as I said at the beginning, because you are a representative of literally millions of Americans who had the courage, the tenacity, and the vision to come to Washington or to come to town meetings, to see people in their districts and talk to them about the challenges that they confronted. So this is a great day to recognize what 20 years ago we, who had the privilege of being here, working with President George Herbert Walker Bush, had the opportunity to do. The young man to which I referred was just brought in--you are his Congressman, or is Mike? In any event, Mike and Walt Minnick represent this young man. Jim Sensenbrenner and I and Jim Langevin were with the President a little earlier today. And I took out my cell phone and I punched ``D'' on my phone, and I dialed the phone and I said, ``Hello, Bob,'' because Senator Dole was a critical person in passing this legislation. I passed the phone to President Obama, and President Obama said, ``We're keeping the faith. What you wrought, we're going to continue to make even better.'' Thank you, Jim Langevin. Thank all of those who have a disability who made this happen. God bless you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6 p.m. on Monday. The House, on Tuesday, will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills, as is the practice, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill and the Military Construction and VA appropriations bill of 2011. We're also expected to consider items from the Senate, including Senate amendments to H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. There are obviously other possibilities of bills coming from the Senate, and we will consider those as time permits. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Rather than going into each one of them individually, I will say to the gentleman that each of those bills is under consideration. With respect to oil spills, there are significant discussions going on among the committees of jurisdiction, and we will, if we have a product to move forward, be prepared to do so. We believe responding to the oil spill is critical. We've done so, as you know, with two bills this week, passed unanimously through the House, and so that we will be proceeding to look at the oil spill issue to try to ensure, to the extent we can, A, it doesn't happen again, and B, if it does happen, that we are prepared to respond to it and the industry is prepared to respond to it. With respect to the other pieces of legislation, they are under discussion, some in this House and some in the Senate, as you know.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. Possibly. I say to my friend that, because next week is our last week and we will be recessing for the August break at that point in time, I would put Members on notice that there will be certain matters that we must complete and that we will complete and, as a result, Members ought to make sure that they have flexibility for next Saturday.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be talking to Mr. Obey tomorrow and/or Monday to get his views on consideration of those bills, and at that point in time, I will be able to give you a clearer view on how those bills will be considered.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. As the gentleman knows full well, because he and I have been involved in discussions, I have consistently been for considering the appropriations bills in a timely manner with agreement between the majority and the minority, as occurred in 2006 when Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis reached agreement on the consideration of those bills. The gentleman is accurate when he says that that is my preferred option on the consideration of appropriations bills. But, as I say, I have not talked to the chairman, and I will be talking to him to get his view on how these bills can most effectively be considered.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. The Senate, as you know, has not completed its consideration of the supplemental and are debating other issues, some of which we sent to them, and as a matter of fact, I think some of those have the majority's support. The small business lending bill, in particular, I would hope they would bring to us. We included a number of things, not the least of which is trying to ensure that 140,000 teachers around the country remain on the job for our children and for our schools. I don't know whether the Senate will include that or not. We also included money for border security, which was not in the Senate bill. FEMA and Haiti, and oil spill money, I believe, were in the Senate bill initially. We have also included that. There are other items that we have included to try to grow jobs and expand the economy, which, unfortunately, the Senate at least at this point in time has not supported. But I say to my friend that in light of the fact that the Senate has not yet passed the supplemental, I am not sure what's going to be in it. But I would say to the gentleman, once again, as he knows, it is my intention to ensure that the money for the troops is, in fact, passed before we leave here.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I am going to give him the same answer: I am not going to anticipate. I find it not a very productive endeavor to anticipate what the United States Senate will do. I have been so disappointed so often on that speculation that I am not going to enter into such speculation today. However, I will tell the gentleman, as I have said some weeks running now, that it is my intention that we will have a bill pass this House and pass the Senate, for that matter, that funds the troops prior to our leaving for our August break.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Without getting into a long colloquy, and I appreciate the gentleman's trying to truncate this, let me simply say that I think the suggestions of how we can save money, how we can bring the deficit down from whatever source they come should be welcomed by all of us. Whether they come from your side of the aisle, my side of the aisle, from the public at large, Republicans, Democrats, independents, or totally nonpartisan sources whatsoever, we ought to consider them. We have a very significant deficit problem confronting us. I won't go into the reasons of why I think we have those deficit problems, but we have them and we have been try to go dig out of a deep economic recession, as all of us know. So I simply wanted to say that, as you know, this week we did vote in a very substantial reduction, the Surface Transportation Savings Act, which passed 402-0. We cut $107 million. Next week I expect that we are going to have at least one vote, maybe others, to cut substantial dollars. Betsy Markey has an idea that she has introduced that would save $703-plus million. We hope to consider that. But I want to reiterate, which is all I want to say, that we welcome ideas on how to bring the deficit down. I mentioned, of course, earlier that Mr. Kyl indicated that paying for things were not necessary if they were in the tax field. But cutting other things, the problem is, that was $678 billion that he suggested in borrowed money. And so we are going to have to look, as I said in a speech not too long ago, at all items of expenditure, wherever they may be found, to make sure that we are returned to the fiscal posture, frankly, that we were in when we had a $5.6 trillion surplus in January of 2000. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the timeliness of my opportunity to speak is sometimes good, and I think this is one of them. Mr. Hensarling just spoke. I have great respect for Mr. Hensarling. He works hard. He focuses. He's philosophically well-grounded, and he follows his philosophy. I disagree with his philosophy, his fiscal premises. And his fiscal premises that were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our deficit by 87 percent, from $5 trillion, essentially, a little over $5 trillion, to a little over $10 trillion. They didn't quite double it, but 87 percent more debt under the Bush administration. That I called fiscal child abuse. Why? Because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis with large unemployment. That unemployment was caused by the policies of the last administration. Why do I say that? Because under the Clinton administration, we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 overall, when you include public employment. And during the Bush administration, how did it relate to that 20.1 million new jobs in the private sector? One million. How did it relate per month to job production? 216,000 under the Clinton administration, and 11,000 per month under the Bush administrations. That's what their economic policies wrought. Their economic policies of cutting deeply, not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money, but trillions, with an ``s,'' of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for. They weren't continuations of the Tax Code, as Jon Kyl, the second- ranking Republican leader in the Senate, now argues ought not to be paid for; $687 billion, that we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to put bread on the table. That's what we're talking about in this bill for literally millions of people who have run out of support. Now, will they run out of support in this moral country? They will not ultimately run out of support; they'll be put on welfare and food stamps. And they won't be available for the insurance to which their employer and they participated in, providing for the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three-quarters of a century, wrought by the Bush economic policies, to which Mr. Sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says that they want to return to the exact agenda. I'm so pleased I had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from Texas. It does demonstrate the difference between our two parties. Absolutely. Jon Kyl, who says, we ought to borrow $686 billion from the Chinese to give to the wealthiest in America, and Democrats, who say we want to borrow $34 billion to give to the children of America whose families are in need--yes, that is the difference, if my friend from Texas wants to make that the difference. This is about saying that we have an emergency. And historically, from Ronald Reagan to today, Ronald Reagan, Bush the first and Bush the second, what did you do when you were in charge? You borrowed at times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance. We are doing the same thing. Why did we do that? Because we perceived it to be an emergency. An emergency that people in the richest Nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children. A moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. That's what this vote is all about. This vote is also about, as the gentleman from Texas has said, expressing our values. I agree with that. And I'm going to express my values, and I urge the Members of this House to express their values this day on this vote, as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we could not get 60 votes in the Senate. Had almost every Democrat saying we need to help now. People are running out of ability to support themselves now. We paid insurance for now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. A few months ago, we passed unemployment insurance through this House by unanimous consent. The election wasn't as proximate then as it is today. The deficit is way too high, and we need to get a handle on it. And I just made a speech, and I have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others for saying that we needed to put everything on the table. I reiterate that today. We need to put everything on the table. No sacred cows. I have three children, three grandchildren, as all of you will get tired of hearing, and one great granddaughter. And I owe it to her personally, as a Member of this House, to say ladies and gentlemen of this House and of our country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit. A reporter just asked me as I was walking down the aisle, did I agree with Mr. Bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts? And I said to him this: At a time of fiscal crisis, when our economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this administration took over--how much of a ditch? During the last year of the Clinton administration, we added 1.9 million new jobs, I tell my friend from Texas. Last year, Clinton administration, 1.9 million new jobs in America. And it was a slowdown period. During the last year of the Bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the Congress we couldn't do anything because the President would veto legislation, and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs. That's a difference of 1.9 million new jobs in the last year of Clinton to 3.8 million lost jobs in the last year of Bush, or a 5.7 million jobs turnaround. Is there any wonder why there is a lot of pain in America and families are in great distress and they're angry and they have angst? And we share that. Today does not solve the problem. But today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short-term, on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families in this, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the earth. You worked hard. You paid in. And through no fault of your own, you lost your job. Maybe because of the fault of Wall Street that my friend believes we were too harsh on, we are imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risks that put Wall Street profits before Main Street stability. Yes, and also we're not going to apologize to the BP oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to be in economic distress. We're not going to say sorry. Some people want to say sorry that the President of the United States suggested, hey, you need to help those people. Maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. I don't necessarily think that. I don't want to say that. But if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote ``aye'' to help millions of Americans in deep distress through no fault of their own. I urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you are on their side.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?

Mr. HOYER. It's a good point. I ask my friend--that is true--why couldn't you do it when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from California. I thank my friends from Colorado and from Wisconsin and from New York and certainly from Ohio who are on the floor here with us talking about making it in America. We believe everybody ought to be able to make it in this, the greatest land on the face of the Earth. And we believe one way they're going to make it in America--I tell the gentleman, the Speaker, Mr. Driehaus from Ohio--is to make it in America and sell it throughout the world. Make sure that our manufacturing capacity is as robust as it was in former decades and as it needs to be, and as Americans know it needs to be if our economy is going to give back, and America, which is a great country, can be even greater. And that America, which has been the engine of economic opportunity, will be an even greater engine of economic opportunity for our people. It will create jobs and growth. Manufacturing is critical, and Americans know it, critical to our economic strength. And Democrats are committed to rebuilding it as a part of America's economic recovery. Mr. Perlmutter has a chart there which shows that we were handed a debt of an economy, the deepest recession in three quarters of a century. There are only a couple of Members, a few Members of the House, who were alive 75 years ago. There are some. America understands why they're feeling pain because of this debt left to us by the last administration. You showed the deficit, the figures. I've served with all four of those Presidents, I tell my friend Mr. Garamendi. I served with all four of those Presidents. One of them was a Democrat--the only one who's above the line, the only President in the lifetime of anybody in this institution that has had a net surplus. The only one. Now we show four Presidents here, but very frankly you can go back for as long as you've been alive, no President ended with a net surplus as Bill Clinton did--a $5.6 trillion surplus left by that administration. An ability to address our problems. Unfortunately, we failed to do so. Unfortunately, we had an administration that thought just helping the wealthiest in America, buying things and not paying for them, going to war and not paying for it, doing a prescription drug bill--which has done some good things-- but not paid for, was the thing to do. And, therefore, we find the economy tanked. And in 1 month in America we lost 786,000 jobs. That was the last month of the Bush administration; 3.8 million jobs lost in the last year of the Bush administration. And what does that mean? If you look at the last year of the Clinton administration, we had 1.9 million new jobs created. So Americans know that we've got to put America back to work. And one of the best ways to do that, Americans are telling us--Republicans talk about listening to America--one of the best ways to do that is to start making it in America and sending it to other nations. Not the other way around. Putting our people back to work. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that. In coming weeks we will be bringing to the floor the Make It in America agenda. A comprehensive strategy to boost American manufacturing. It's based on the idea that when more products are made in America, more well-paying, blue collar jobs, white collar jobs, no- collar jobs are going to be created; and it will be possible for more people to make it in America. This bill, the Manufacturing Enhancement Act, is the first piece of that agenda. It includes hundreds of tariff suspensions and reductions so that American companies will find it easier to obtain the materials they need to produce goods, grow, and add workers, which we passed today. So we've already started on that agenda. And by the way, I noticed that our Republican friends out of habit voted ``no.'' Then they started talking to one another and said, Hey, you know what this bill does? It starts to grow our economy. By the way, the National Association of Manufacturers are for this bill these Democrats put on the floor. They're for it because they know it helps to build jobs. And, oh, by the way, the Chamber of Commerce is for this bill. Why? Because it starts to build jobs. That's the agenda the Democrats are on. And did you notice how they sort of all talked and said, Hey, gee, maybe I better vote for that bill and we saw those ``noes'' go to ``aye,'' ``noes'' go to ``yes.'' It was a strange experience for them. I hope it's catching. I hope they will keep doing it. I hope they will keep saying ``yes'' to the American worker. I hope they will keep saying ``yes'' to growing manufacturing capability in America. I hope they will say ``yes'' to the proposition that we can, we should, and we will make it in America. America is the greatest land on the face of the Earth, and our people are some of the most talented, innovative, entrepreneurial people on Earth, and if we give them the tools and we give them the opportunity, they will compete with anybody in the world. That's why we, Democrats, are committed to an agenda that says, yes, we can, we will make it in America, and in that enterprise, a manufacturing expansion, more people will make it in America. I thank the gentleman for yielding. For generations, Americans have looked to our manufacturing sector as a source of pride, a source of economic vitality, and a source of good- paying jobs. Along with every part of our economy, manufacturing has taken a severe hit from the recession--but more than that, many Americans worry that industry and the jobs it provides are gone for good. We have a chance to change that--to emerge from these hard times as a stronger, more competitive company. That's why Democrats are launching the Make It in America Agenda: a comprehensive manufacturing strategy based on the idea that when more products are made in America, more people will be able to make it in America. The Make It in America Agenda will create incentives for investment in industry, strengthen manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, and help to level the playing field for American companies that compete globally. Today, the first part of that agenda passed the House--and, I'm proud to say, it passed with strong bipartisan support. The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act will make it easier for American companies to get the materials they need to produce goods, contributing to a more productive economy and supporting job creation. In the weeks to come, Democrats look forward to introducing a range of similar bills that will help manufacturers invest in clean energy, break down foreign barriers to American goods, ensure that taxpayer money pays for goods made in America, and more. A strong manufacturing sector means a stronger economy and more secure jobs for all of our constituents--so I hope that the Make It in America Agenda will have support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding, thank her for taking this Special Order, and rise in strong support, as the House has already done, saying that we remember those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Nearly 2.5 million out-of-work Americans are without unemployment insurance today. That means they don't have dollars to buy food, they won't have dollars to pay their mortgage, they won't have dollars to buy gas to even look for a job because of one reason: Republicans are blocking those benefits in the United States Senate, period. It's the only reason. We've passed it. Several Republican Members of Congress and candidates have suggested that unemployment insurance makes Americans too lazy or uninterested in looking for work. This is at a time, frankly, when five unemployed Americans are looking for work for every one job that is available. One Republican Member of the House even asked, ``Is the government now creating hobos?'' Is the government creating hobos for those, who through no fault of their own, are unemployed. Why? Because the economy was put into a deep spin in the latter part of the Bush administration. If you believe, as I do, that the unemployed are suffering from an economic crisis they did nothing to create, then we owe them a strong policy on job creation. We owe them something better than the failed Bush policies Republicans want to return to, the same policies that resulted in the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. We owe the unemployed a hand, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because economists agree that there are few more effective ways to stimulate local economies than extending unemployment insurance. Why is that? Because when somebody is unemployed and has no dollars and they get dollars, they spend them. They buy food. They buy prescription drugs, they buy other items for them and their families, they buy gasoline for their cars. As they do, they help the economy grow. Failing to give them the resources to support their families also undermines our economic situation. My Republican friends claim that they are for extending unemployment insurance, but simply believe it needs to be paid for. However, frankly, such a claim rings hollow. Because, after decades of treating unemployment insurance as emergency spending, when they were in charge, when no Democrat could determine what came to the floor, they passed unemployment insurance when Bush's failing economy had large numbers of unemployed, and they didn't pay for it. Both parties, dating back to President Reagan, have passed unemployment insurance unpaid for. Why? Because it's an emergency. It's an emergency not to have a job. It's an emergency not to be able to support yourself and feed your family. It's an emergency when through no fault of your own all of a sudden the boss says, I'm sorry, I can't keep you on the payroll because I can't afford to. That is an emergency. But at the very same time they claim we can't afford $34 billion for the unemployed, which will go right into the economy to stimulate and try to grow our economy and create jobs, they are pushing for a deficit-busting $676 billion in extended tax cuts for the wealthiest in America. Think of that. We cannot have $34 billion for those who are unemployed and struggling in our society, but guess what? For those of us who are not struggling in our society, you get $676 billion and, guess what, we don't have to pay for that. How does anybody think that makes sense? How does anybody think that's a moral judgment to make in our society. Republican leaders are even claiming that tax cuts should never be paid for, and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that tax cuts don't add to the deficit. Alan Greenspan, of course, put the lie to that. He probably shouldn't have testified that the tax cuts would save money. In fact, he has urged us not to cut taxes. My own view is that for middle-income Americans who are working now and struggling and trying to keep their families afloat, we need to continue those tax cuts. Why? So we could continue to grow our economy and not put them deeper in a hole. This is a political party, on the other side, that wants to reiterate and return to the Bush-era fiscal thinking that wiped out a record surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with deep debt, large annual deficits, lost jobs and the worst economy since the Depression. Republicans have made their priorities crystal clear: Billions for the well off, but no help for the longtime unemployed. Sixty-two percent of the American people reject that reasoning and the neglect of families in need through no fault of their own. As we have in the past, let's help those families and our economy at the same time. Let's extend the unemployment benefits. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for taking this time to focus on this issue. Hopefully, hopefully, the other body and the Republican Members of the other body will see their way clear to making sure that Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules, and through no fault of their own are unemployed, will get the help they deserve and need, and that will help our economy as well as help those families.