Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. Madam Speaker, 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 Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.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 all suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Mr. Taylor's bill, H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2009. We're also expecting to consider several items from the Senate, including Senate amendments to H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act; and Senate amendments to H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. Lastly, Madam Speaker, we expect to consider several bills addressing the oil spill in the gulf, including H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.

Mr. HOYER. I say to the gentleman that will, again, depend on what our colleagues in the Senate send over to us and whether or not we can complete the business that we have before us that I've announced by Thursday. In the event that we don't have legislation coming back from the Senate that we needed to deal with on Friday, or our business that is scheduled does not take longer than Thursday, then it is possible that we would not be in session. But, again, I would caution Members that we have 2 weeks left to go and those days will be scheduled and will be utilized if needed.

Mr. HOYER. In addition to the bills that we've already mentioned for next week, including the unemployment extension, the supplemental coming from the Senate, and the Science and Technology bills addressing the oil spill, we'll also likely consider a number of other bills addressing oil spill legislation. In addition, I expect we will consider several bills from the Appropriations Committee. I've talked to the chairman about which bills would be most likely for floor action before August, and he's looking at the Veterans and Military Construction and the Transportation-HUD bills. As the gentleman I'm sure knows, they have marked up now seven, I believe is the accurate number of appropriations bills--excuse me. I think it's nine because they marked up two today, or are in the process of marking them up today, and I expect by the end of the day there will have been nine appropriation bills marked up. They will proceed. But I think those two bills are probably the first ones that will come forward.

Mr. HOYER. Those bills, as you know, have not been reported out of committee yet and I've not discussed with the chairman his plans on how he would hope to bring those to the floor. I will be discussing it with him probably the latter part of next week, and perhaps we will have more information for you next week. Again, we expect the bills to come to the floor not next week, but the week after.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question and for his observation and for his assurances as well in terms of the number of votes we may have available for that alternative. I say to the gentleman that it is my intention that certainly by the time we leave here that we will have made sure that the troops have the resources they need to prosecute the mission that we have given them as a Congress and the administration. There's no doubt that we will have 218-plus--a large plus, I think--of votes to accomplish that objective. As the gentleman knows, however, we have passed a supplemental which does fund the troops. It wasn't the Senate supplemental. The House obviously has its own view on policy, and I'm sure the gentleman would want the House to prosecute its policies and redeem the majority of the House's view and try to reach agreement with the Senate. The House acted on the supplemental before the break, including all of the President's request for troop funding, as the gentleman knows. It also included the administration's request for FEMA, Haiti, oil spill, and border security. In addition, as the gentleman knows, we added money to take care of almost 140,000 teachers and offset the additional money with spending cuts. So those were paid for. I'm hopeful that the Senate will not make significant changes to the bill that the House passed and will be able to pass that bill before the August work period begins. Again, however, I want to emphasize that I am fully committed and intend to ensure that the troops have the resources they need. With respect to the gentleman's observation, he is absolutely correct. I was hopeful we would do it before Memorial Day, and then I was hopeful we would do it before the July 4th break. Interestingly enough, however, as we kept going along and I kept in contact with the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks, as to when the funding was needed, the date kept moving. And the date that we now have, as the gentleman probably knows as well as I do, is August 7. But certainly I want to see us pass the funding for the troops and for the prosecution of the effort that the Congress has supported and the administration has set forth for our troops prior to that time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank you for that effort. We will look forward to working with you to make sure that our troops are fully funded.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. We have a very strict leave policy in my office, but we were convinced that getting off for his wedding was an appropriate use of that leave. Austin is a wonderful member of the staff. I am very pleased that you mentioned it. He has a wonderful new bride. His demeanor has changed markedly. He is much happier, and we're all happier to work with him. So Austin, congratulations to you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam 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, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Lynch and certainly my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Sarbanes, for his leadership and for his efforts on this bill. I also want to thank those members of the subcommittee and Mr. Issa for facilitating this bill coming to the floor. I have been working on this issue along with Frank Wolf for a very long time, indeed over two decades. Congressman Wolf and I, Congressman Wolf from Virginia, a Republican, and myself served on the Treasury and Postal Committee, which is now called the Financial Services Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. That committee many, many years ago, and interesting enough John Berry, who is now the director of the Office of Personnel Management, was on my staff at that point in time. And we worked on this issue of telework, which makes so much sense for so many reasons. It saves gas. That's an important issue. It helps the environment in doing so. Reduces road congestion, lowers commuting costs for all drivers, helps employees balance work and family, and saves employers money. Now, let me speak about the family aspect of this. Think to yourself the average commuter certainly in the Washington metropolitan area spends some 35 minutes on the road. If you are in my district, you spend 45 minutes to an hour on the road. Mr. Connolly is shaking his head. Many of his constituents do the same. The gentleman from Virginia is in the same aspect. Think of that time that is not necessarily very productive, but could be family time. And a less stressed-out worker could be performing their services, when now we deal with so much work being done from a technology aspect where you don't need to be at a given site. That is what this legislation seeks to enhance. And again, I congratulate Mr. Sarbanes from my State for his leadership and for the bipartisan leadership. It would bring flexibility to 21st-century Federal workers by creating guidelines for increased teleworking, or telecommuting as some call it. With today's technology, many employees perform at least some of their work, and indeed some all of their work, functions at their homes or at an alternate worksite closer to their homes, eliminating or reducing the need to commute. That's what the gentleman from Virginia was talking about in terms of a secure site, which could be--we had one in Prince Frederick. We have one at the community college in Waldorf, Maryland. I don't know whether they are secure sites. I think they are not. But a secure site for a group of employees who need such a secure site closer to their home effects all of the same kinds of efficiencies that I have talked about. That's why this bill is such an important encouragement to the Federal Government, one of the world's largest employers, to effect this efficiency. It is also I think a lesson that we have learned from the private sector, many of whom telecommute or telework. Many insurance agencies, when you call your insurance agent for information, you have no idea where they are sitting, and don't care. All you want to know is that they respond to the question you have and can access the information you need, which of course they can do on their computer. So this is a very effective, efficient, family friendly, environmentally friendly action for us to take. I commend Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Lynch and the committee for their leadership on this, and I commend Mr. Issa as well for his leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a difficult rule. It is a difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important subject. This is an extraordinarily important rule. It is important to every Member of this House, on either side of this House, of whatever ideology they bring to this House. It is extraordinarily important to the American people. It deals, as I said, with the lives and welfare of our young people. It deals with the security of this Nation. It deals with the safety of our people. It deals with the objective of not only teaching our children, but in eliminating terrorists who would put them at risk. I rise in support of this rule because I think that the very difficult line of trying to give every Member the opportunity to reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people is very difficult, but I think this rule attempts to do that. We know that the fiscal course that we are on will ultimately lead to bankruptcy unless we act to change it. That is why this rule also projects fiscal discipline in the budget enforcement resolution that is included within the ambit of this rule. Whenever you hear someone blame our debt on this Congress' so-called out-of-control spending, you can be sure they're more interested in pointing fingers and scoring political points than solving problems. That's especially true when you hear those complaints from those who presided over a lot of debt. Some of us voted for a lot of debt along with them, some of us did not. In the long term, our structural deficit stems from the retirement of the baby boomers and spiraling entitlement costs. It is therefore in the budget resolution that we tip our hat in a favorable way to the commission that has been established by the President. It's said that we are hopeful that they will come up with substantive recommendations that will get us from where we are to where we need to be--a return to fiscal balance. It also says that our committees ought to look carefully at the ways and means that we can save dollars, eliminate waste, and make more effective use of the tax dollars--indeed, save tax dollars. The American people want us to do that. This budget enforcement resolution included in this rule will also say that we will honor statutory PAYGO, that we will pay for what we buy, that if this generation deems something an important priority for us to purchase that we will pay for it so that our children and our grandchildren will have the option of making their priorities and will not have their priorities made for them by us. In addition to this bill, it provides for the consideration of domestic spending priorities, largely to save jobs. Particularly, we have teachers in this country who are subject to layoffs because of the severe recession that we have been involved in and because of the precipitous falling of revenues to States, therefore putting the education of our children at risk. The administration asks for far more money than Mr. Obey has been able to include. They also ask for it to be unpaid for, but if we are going to be honest about PAYGO, we need to pay for things. This bill will pay for the increase in teacher assistants. Mr. Obey scrubbed all of the appropriation accounts and has come up with sufficient dollars to do that. I think that is what the American public wanted us to do, and that is what Mr. Obey has done. I congratulate him for that. This bill will provide for additional border security on our southern border. We understand there is a crisis on the southern border. This President has responded to it. This bill responds to it. In addition, we provide, obviously, for FEMA money. FEMA is running out of money. We have had a number of natural disasters around this country, and FEMA has responded. This bill provides for the dollars necessary for FEMA to have the resources to respond to those emergencies. This rule provides for an amendment which will provide money for Haiti. It provides for other priorities of our country. Some will, perhaps, disagree with those priorities, and others will agree with them; but we will consider them on this floor. I say to my friends that this rule provides for three options, as Mr. McGovern, I think, will explain further, so I will not go deeply into them. There will be, perhaps, those who will say we ought not to fund the effort in Afghanistan at all. They will have that option. There will then be an option that says, no, we will appropriate this money, but we need to limit it to extricating ourselves--drawing down our forces from Afghanistan. Mr. McGovern and Mr. Obey have another alternative which will provide for the administration's providing us with information both in a National Intelligence Estimate and in a plan for withdrawal. They will expand upon that; but that gives, I think, almost everyone in this House the opportunity to express their views as to what ought to be done. I urge my colleagues at this hour, on this, perhaps, last day of our session before the July 4 break to approve this rule, which, I believe, gives Members the options that they can be comfortable with in voting ``yes'' or ``no.'' I will urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and certainly a ``yes'' vote on a number of pieces of this legislation. I will not vote for every one of these amendments, but they ought to be made in order. I appreciate the work that Mr. McGovern has done. I appreciate the work that Mr. Dreier has done. I want to thank them both. They may have different views, but it is my understanding that this was brought to the floor in a reasonable and considered way. In closing, I want to thank David Obey. No one in this House works harder. No one, frankly, is under more pressure than Mr. Obey. Everybody in every State, every locality, every city and every person who wants a road, a bridge or a public facility talks to Mr. Obey on a regular basis. I know that Mr. Boehner and I, as the leaders, have a lot of people talking to us when we come on this floor, but nobody talks to anybody more than they talk to Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey has focused on this, has worked on this, and has brought to the floor, I think, a bill that we can be proud of, that we think will move America forward, a bill that will help stop the loss of jobs, particularly in our educational community. So I thank Mr. Obey for the leadership that he has shown and for the commitment that he has made. Now, I want to tell my friends on our side of the aisle that the administration is not happy with some of the pay-fors which we are committed to. The administration and our side of the aisle overwhelmingly were for statutory PAYGO, saying that we would pay for what we bought. The administration, understandably, has some reservations about some of the offsets. However, nobody is ever happy with all of the tough decisions that have to be made. So I would urge my colleagues to pass this bill and to pass the amendment that Mr. Obey will offer on domestic discretionary spending. I would ask us to send this bill to the Senate. I regret that the Senate has gone home. I am sorry that the Senate has gone home. I am sorry the Senate is not available tonight or tomorrow to consider this legislation. I understand that we have lost a great Senator and a dear friend in Robert C. Byrd. I will be going tomorrow to the memorial service for Senator Byrd, and then I will return here. I would have returned ready for business, as I think we should complete this piece of legislation, and I would have hoped that that might have been the case. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this important piece of legislation, not only for the safety and security of our troops, not only for the effort to ensure that terrorists are hunted down and defeated, but also to ensure that, here at home, we take care of the people and that we pay for those who we take care of here at home. We are not going to pay for the emergency that exists overseas, but this is a good rule. The options are clear for all, and the effort that we make here is important for our country and for our people. I urge adoption of the rule. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment. I urge the careful consideration of the other three amendments that will be offered as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I congratulate the chairman for the extraordinary work he has done. I thank Mr. Bachus too, who is, I think, one of the really responsible leaders in the minority in terms of issues of substance. And when there are differences, they are honest differences. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, and when I do, I hear portions of the debate, sometimes not all of the debate. I want to make an observation, though. I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey, and he remarked on what the people were saying. And I think that, frankly, his remarks reflected the difference in the perspective between the two parties. Indeed, that perspective has been reflected in my three decades here, under Mr. Reagan and others who have served as President and lastly with Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama's immediate predecessor. And that perspective was, if the regulators would simply get out of the way, things would be fine. Mr. Royce indicates that the market will take care of things. ``The market will discipline itself,'' he said. Phil Gramm said that with respect to the derivatives. Unfortunately, I voted for that bill that Mr. Gramm was for. I made a mistake. Brooksley Born was correct. The market did not discipline itself. In fact, the market took extraordinarily irresponsible steps. What I hear, I tell my friend from New Jersey, the people saying is, Don't let the big guys trample on us. Don't let the big guys put us at great risk. Don't let the big guys make decisions that they take the risk and we take the loss. That's what I hear the people saying, and that's what I think this bill is designed to respond to. This week Mr. Boehner compared reforming Wall Street to killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. Well, that may sound colorful, but this is the greatest economic crisis that any of us--I'm looking around on this floor--have experienced in our lifetimes. And I am closer to experiencing the last one than any of you, I think, on the floor are. But none of us, even at my advanced age, were alive during the Great Depression. So this is the first time that we have experienced such a deep, deep recession. But I will tell you, the 8 million Americans whose jobs it took away think it was a mighty big ant that squashed them and their families, or the millions more who saw their savings devastated or the families in every one of our districts who have lost their homes. They're thinking to themselves, Mr. Boehner, that was a mighty big ant that came my way. And not to more than half of the Nation's working adults who report that they have been pushed by the recession into ``unemployment, pay cuts, reduced hours at work or part-time jobs,'' according to a Pew Research Center Survey reported in today's Washington Post. Now, some of you may think that was an ant that walked through here, but some think it was a pretty big elephant. It squashed them and hurt them. I don't mean an elephant in the symbol of your party, a respected animal with a long memory. But we have differences, and the differences are, as I've said before, that you perceive regulation as harmful. My analogy is, if you take the referee off the football field, I guarantee the split end's going to leave early. He's going to try to get an advantage. And I guarantee the little guys on the field are going to get trampled on by the big guys because there's no referee to say, Time out. You broke the rules. This bill is about putting the referee back on the field and saying, Obey the rules. Do not trample on the little people. Don't take risks that you will expect them to pay for. More than half, Mr. Speaker, of today's families have been affected. There is no way to overstate what happened to them, and there is no mistaking the cause of the crisis: The Wall Street culture of reckless gambling, and a culture of regulatory neglect that the last administration wants to perpetuate it, and some want to return to. I simply think that would be a mistake. I tell my friend from New Jersey, the people I talk to think it would be a mistake as well. They don't like what's happened. They don't want it to happen again, and this is an effort to make sure that's the case. Never again. Never again should Wall Street greed bring such suffering to our country. And never again should Washington stand by as that greed manifests itself as irresponsible risk taking where a few share the profits, but Main Street bears the brunt of Wall Street's lost bets. Now, let me say that I voted for that bill--I was wrong--the Gramm bill that said Brooksley Born was wrong, we didn't need to regulate derivatives. And by the way, there were a number of Democrat leaders who said that as well, that we didn't need to, and Mr. Greenspan said it as well. He's admitted he made a mistake, and he was distressed by that mistake. Now, we can't erase that crisis, but we can work to rebuild what we lost. As Democrats have done every time, we've supported job creation, from the Recovery Act to ``Cash for Clunkers'' to the HIRE Act to the additional tax relief for small businesses, that's, frankly, been obstructed by the minority party in the other body who have made a high-stakes political bet on recovery's failure. That would be a shame. We can also, just as any responsible family would, ensure ourselves against a repeat crisis and protect America's jobs from another devastating collapse. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd have led to this point, means an end to the irresponsible practices of the big banks. And I want to say the community banks, which I think Mr. Royce referred to, he's absolutely right. They were not the problem, none of our community banks. They, frankly, cared that people could pay their money back, and they were careful in giving loans and careful in making sure that people to whom they gave loans could pay them back. It was those who securitized them, that put them in these big, fancy documents, that didn't care whether they could pay them back because, for the most part, they made their money on the transaction, not on the long-term responsibility of the debtor. I'm happy that among our financial institutions there are responsible actors who appreciate effective oversight and understand that it stimulates investment, enterprise, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Why? Because people can trust the system because they know the referee is on the field watching, and they know, therefore, the game will be honest. No bill, of course, can create an economy without risk, nor should it. But this bill will bring accountability to Wall Street and Washington, protect and empower consumers, forestall future financial meltdowns, and prevent taxpayer money from being put on the line again to bail out Wall Street excess. I want to say to my friend who mentioned that we bailed out Wall Street, how quickly you forget that it was President Bush and Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke, appointed as Chair of the Federal Reserve by President Bush, that asked for that bill; and that your leadership, for the most part, supported and urged its adoption. So, with all due respect, it was President Bush's administration that asked for that bailout, not Democrats. What Democrats did, when they said there was a crisis, acted in a bipartisan way to respond to that crisis. And, very frankly, I think we precluded a depression. Americans have an obligation of responsible borrowing, but financial companies also have responsibilities to make loans fair and transparent. By creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we can make sure that both sides live up to that bargain. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will strengthen and modernize oversight of Wall Street by putting the functions of seven different agencies in one accountable place. It seems to me that that would appeal to people who want not so much proliferation of various agencies crossing one another. In addition, corporations like AIG and Lehman Brothers will no longer be able to make the kind of gambles that risk the health of our entire economy and, indeed, the world's. Institutions that place the biggest economic bets will be required to keep capital on hand to meet their obligations, should those bets fail, and not expect the taxpayer to do that. This bill also reduces the conflicts of interest that allowed credit rating agencies to wrongfully declare such institutions in good health long after they were dangerously overloaded. Of course, the regulators weren't watching. There was a philosophy, of course, that regulation got in the way. And it prudently regulates the inherently dangerous derivatives that Warren Buffett called, and I quote, ``weapons of financial mass destruction'' for the ability to bring down entire economies when bets go bad. Should a major firm still find itself on the verge of collapse, this bill insulates the rest of the economy and keeps taxpayers off the hook, off the hook for any future bailouts. Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of irresponsibility in Washington and on Wall Street went into the crisis from which we are still struggling to recover. That crisis, of course, started in December 2007. Actually, it started long before that, as I said, in the late nineties. Middle class families who worked hard and played by the rules overwhelmingly paid the price. But there's a kind of irresponsibility even worse, failure to learn. We know what greed and neglect can do. None of us can plead ignorance. Let's show, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this House, that we've learned something from the crisis. Let's keep it from happening again. That is, I tell my friend, what I hear from my constituents. They want to have us stop it from happening again. They're angry about it. I'm angry about it. I'm sure that the ladies and gentlemen on both sides of the aisle are angry about it. This is an opportunity to ensure, to the extent we possibly can, that this tragedy to so many millions of families does not happen again.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his question. As I said at the outset, I do believe we come from a different place. And I do believe it is accurate to state that all of the Republican Presidents who have served during the time that I have served have advanced the proposition that regulation at the Federal level was overburdensome and it ought to be reduced. Certainly, we ought to reduce regulation that is neither effective and is intrusive to the growth of our economy and to the effective operation of businesses. But with respect to that, I say to my friend, I think what we saw during the last decade was an excessive commitment, as Mr. Greenspan pointed out, to the proposition, as Mr. Royce stated, Just get out of the way; they will discipline themselves. Frankly, the split end that leaves 2 seconds early because the referee is not on the field is not a bad person. He is trying to get an advantage. And that's the difference I think between our perspectives. I understand that difference of the perspectives, so I agree with you that we do have a difference in perspective. I believe this strikes the right balance. And I yield to my friend the chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I will now leave the stage after a little more than my minute, I will say to my friend that the chairman's answer, I think, reflects my view of our different perspectives.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished Member from West Virginia, the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee, Nick Joe Rahall, of whom Robert Byrd was very proud. I also am pleased to recognize the Speaker pro tempore, Alan Mollohan, of whom Robert Byrd was very proud, and who he considered a partner. I thank Congresswoman Capito for allowing me to speak--in fact, out of order--on the passing of the distinguished American who was larger than life in so many respects. Today, we honor the life of Senator Robert Byrd. History will reflect him as the longest-serving Member Congress has ever seen. But, of course, if it were only longevity that we were honoring, it would simply be the hand of fate that allowed that to happen. But what we really honor is that Robert C. Byrd used his longevity to such extraordinary benefit of the people he served in the State of West Virginia, the people of this Nation, and the legislative branch of government. I doubt that there have been any peers to Robert C. Byrd in standing on the floor of the United States Senate or of the House of Representatives or in any forum in which he was temporarily present, that any more strong advocacy of the equality and separateness of the legislative branch was made clear. Robert C. Byrd was a giant. He was a giant in terms of character. He grew during the course of his lifetime, which is a mark of a great man. All of us are, to some degree, captives of the environment in which we are raised and in which we live. Robert C. Byrd is no different. But Robert C. Byrd grew. He grew intellectually. He grew culturally. But he did not, in growing, leave his base. He did not forget the values that he learned in West Virginia--the values of courtesy; of kindness; of caring; of helping; of making sure that the people who were not famous, who did not have power, who did not have positions of note were never, never forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I remember an incident that I'm sure was not unique to me. Early on in my career I went over on an appropriation matter--like you, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd invited me in. He was then majority leader. He invited me into his office. We sat down. And for the next 45 minutes--which, as a junior Member of the House, I found extraordinary--he regaled me on the history of the Senate and the books he had written. I was mesmerized in the presence of this giant of the legislative body. At the end, as I'm sure he did to so many of us, he gave me a rectangular painting of a covered bridge in West Virginia. Mr. Obey is going to speak at some point in time--and Mr. Obey has a similar painting hanging in his office. Now it's not the original because Bob Byrd gave it to so many of us. But I looked at that and I thought to myself, What a kind gesture. How impressed I was, this young Member of Congress being accorded this kind of respect from this giant in the United States Senate. Robert C. Byrd will be dearly missed by us all, and he will be missed most of all when very difficult issues confront the legislative body and there is a clamor that the legislature agree with the executive, for whatever reasons; a clamor that all too often emanates from fear of this, that, or the other, and that fear would ignore the constitutional role played by the Congress of the United States. It is then that we will miss Senator Byrd's clarity of intellect, of conscience, of commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as well to the rules of the United States Senate. He was a passionate advocate for people, for principle, for the Constitution, and for our country. Senator Byrd, we will miss you. But we will remember fondly your contribution and be ever thankful that we had the opportunity to serve with you. Some of you remember my dog Charlotte. My dog Charlotte was with me for 15\1/2\ years. Some of you will recall for 10 of those years Charlotte came to work with me every day. Charlotte was an English Springer Spaniel. I planted a tree in my yard--it's a dogwood tree--and there's a stone and a bronze plaque for Charlotte. Charlotte was one of the loves of my life. I lived alone with her for 10\1/2\ years after Judy passed away. The first call I got the day after Charlotte passed was from Robert C. Byrd saying how sorry he was that I had lost Charlotte. That was an indication of his humanity, of his caring for others. Yes, he was a great man. But he was a man who understood the pain, the aspirations, and the hopes of all with whom he came in contact. Thank you, Robert C. Byrd, our good and faithful servant.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of one of Maryland's finest, a member of our Maryland State Police, Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown, who was shot to death without warning while working on an off-duty security detail in the early morning of June 11. He was 24 years of age. Though his life was cut far too short, Trooper Brown filled the years he was given with service to his community, mentoring young men, and love for his family. It wasn't enough for Wesley to serve as a decorated State Trooper for more than 3 years. He also founded an organization called ``Young Men Enlightening Younger Men,'' a group dedicated to teaching life and leadership skills to boys in Wesley's Seat Pleasant neighborhood, just a couple of miles from where I grew up in District Heights, Maryland. Many of them came to regard Trooper Brown as a father figure. ``I became a squared-away young man,'' said one of the pupils at his memorial service, ``and I'll never forget that smile.'' Wesley Brown's death was sudden and deeply unfair, but his community is better because he lived, and the seeds he sowed will outlive him. As the pastor said in Wesley's eulogy, ``He showed us how to serve his brother man, and no one had to beg him to do it.'' May all of those whom Trooper Brown left behind--his mother, Patricia Bell; his father, Sylvester Brown, Sr.; his fiancee, Ebony Norris; his seven brothers and sisters; and his grandmother, Rosella Bell--find comfort in the memory of his service and the greatness of his contribution to other young people. We are protected every day by those who have the courage and commitment and love of country and neighbors to defend us here, our domestic defenders. Wesley Brown was one of those. God bless his soul.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my good friend, for the leadership she continues to show on a repeated basis on this issue and so many other issues. I want to thank Mr. Berman. I very much wanted to get this to the floor to move this week. He has done that. I want to thank Senator Dodd as well for his work. And I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee. I also want to thank Rob Andrews of New Jersey, who was so vital to the central idea of how we could put appropriate pressure on this. I want to say to my Republican friends who have been talking about the Obama administration, frankly, the Bush administration and the Obama administration have both been working towards trying to resolve this issue with Iran. Frankly, the Obama administration has, for the first time, gotten a strong resolution through the Security Council. We had the opportunity of just meeting with the President of Russia, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, the Speaker and I, and others, and Mr. Berman. He said it was a tough thing to do, but he worked very closely with President Obama and they were able to get it done. So this is not a time for pointing fingers. We're united on this. This is not a difference, but this is a unity, a unity of purpose and commitment. Every one of us understands the deep danger of a nuclear Iran. That danger includes a new nuclear arms race as Iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing arsenals, plunging the world into a new era of proliferation. No one wants that. The danger includes as well a nuclear umbrella for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to stage more brazen and deadly attacks, especially on our ally Israel, but not exclusively. There are 250,000 Americans in harm's way from Iran as we speak. And the danger includes, on a more basic level, a new era of fear for all of those in range of Iran's missiles. All of those consequences will be felt even if Iran's missiles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons remain buried. Could we imagine those weapons being used? We would be foolish not to, as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime whose President denies the Holocaust, stokes hatred, and openly threatens Iran's neighbors. Even so, our administration has pursued a dual-track strategy with respect to Iran. On the one side is the administration's policy of engagement. I support that policy. John Kennedy said that we should never fear to negotiate, but we ought never to negotiate out of fear. I think he was correct. Jim Baker, in the days before we went into Kuwait, was talking to Saddam Hussein to see if the matter could be resolved. On the one side, as I said, is that policy of engagement. This engagement reversed years of diplomatic silence during which Iran's nuclear program grew. It showed the world our patience; it tested Iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith, and it built international support for sanctions. Sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. It is time to pursue the second prong of the dual-track strategy--pressure. The International Atomic Energy Agency tells us that Iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs; Iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities, and has refused to cooperate with the demands of the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to suspend enrichment. Let's be clear: Iran is blatantly defying the will of the international community. This is unacceptable. That is not a partisan position. It is almost a unanimous position of the administration and of this Congress. That is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the Iranian regime. I rise in strong support of this resolution. I urge its support. I, again, thank Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this critical resolution to the floor. I join my colleagues as well in saying that enforcement of the resolutions that Iran has adopted, that our European colleagues have adopted, and this resolution will be critical, and the understanding that it is to be enforced needs to be understood by Iran.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. For more than a century, Mr. Chairman, America has limited the role of private money in public elections. We've done so because we believe that huge sums of money from unknown sources, from unknown sources--I reference that and emphasize it because I'm going to refer to it in some comments of our Republican leadership in years past regarding money from unknown sources--dominates elections; and especially when it does so in the dark, the interests of ordinary citizens are too often the victim. America's work toward open and fair elections has been, as it has been in every country, imperfect but better here than almost anyplace in the world; but it took a severe blow this winter when the Supreme Court voted in the Citizens United case to overturn longstanding precedent, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of their treasury funds--not of private unions that their employees contributed, which I support, but their corporate funds and their union treasury funds--in unrestrained fashion to influence elections directly. The gentleman who is my friend, former Attorney General of the State of California and a good friend of mine--we've served together for a long time--says correctly that we do not want to limit free speech. I agree with that. The First Amendment is one of the sacred amendments that our Founding Fathers adopted to make our country not only unique but one of the freest countries the world has ever seen. But without transparency, without knowing the source of the speech that you hear, without having the ability to analyze who is telling me that this is good or this is bad, what is the source of the interest that is saying that this legislation is bad or this legislation is good--obviously all of us have said from time to time, Consider the source. We all say that. When somebody who we know doesn't like A or doesn't like B says something bad about A or B, we say, Consider the source. But if we don't know the source, we can't consider the source, and if we can't consider the source, we do not know the validity of the information that is transmitted to us. That is the key to this legislation. That is the essence of what we're saying, not that a corporation or a union can't try to influence the American public to support a candidate or a proposition that it believes to be in its best interest. That's the American way. What we are saying, however, is that given the Supreme Court's decision, that we ought to make sure that citizens know who's talking to them; otherwise they will not have the ability to make a judgment on the credibility of the information they are receiving. Now, as I said a little earlier, that is a goal that many of my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, have supported in the past. My friend Eric Cantor, who is the minority whip, said this: ``Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters.'' This tries to do exactly that, restore the confidence of voters that they will know who's spending much money to influence their votes, their opinion, their actions. Former Speaker Gingrich said this, that in an ideal system ``the country knows where the money is coming from. That would be transparent, simple, and fair.'' While he was not speaking on behalf of this bill, that applies to this bill. Minority Leader Boehner said this, ``I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it's spent.'' That's what we're saying in this bill. When you receive a 1-minute or a 30-second ad on TV, who's talking to me? How are they spending their money? If they spend it through a third party, they do so in many ways to hide the source. Whether it's a special interest on the right or the left or in the middle, a business interest, a labor interest, whatever interest it is, as a voter, I need to know who's talking to me so I can judge the credibility of the information that I am receiving. I agree with the thoughts that have just been quoted by my three Republican colleagues, and I think they support the passage of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Brady for the outstanding leadership he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor. I want to thank my other friends who have worked so hard on this. And I would be remiss if I did not mention specifically my friend and colleague from the State of Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who has been tireless in his work on behalf of the DISCLOSE Act. Surely you can do it, surely you can have free speech, you can say anything you want, but tell me who you are. Do not hide under a cloak. Lift that cloak up and find out who's talking. If we do that, America's elections will be better. The people will be better informed and more confident that they can rely on the information they seek. Consider the source, vote for this bill. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for yielding. I want to first thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, Congresswoman Velazquez, for the work that she has done on this bill and for others who have worked on this bill. As I'm sure has been said many times on this floor but bears repeating, small businesses are the job-creating engine of our economy. They employ more than half of all employees in the private sector, and they've created 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. So ensuring that small businesses have the resources they need to keep innovating, growing and creating jobs is essential if we're going to sustain the economic recovery. And small businesses have been at the heart of Democrats' recovery strategy ever since this Congress convened in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, indeed, the deepest recession we've seen in three-quarters of a century. The Recovery Act, which cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and is responsible for some 2 million jobs, gave small businesses tax credits for hiring many unemployed workers and helped them make the capital investments that are essential to their growth. Since the Recovery Act, we've expanded Small Business Administration lending, created further tax credits for hiring unemployed workers, and offered immediate and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employee health care. And yesterday, the House passed the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act, which will exempt 100 percent of small business capital gains from taxation and increase the amount of startup expenses small business owners can deduct from their taxes, all designed to allow small businesses to grow and expand. That means more investment in small businesses, and more entrepreneurs willing and able to start businesses of their own and hire workers to staff it. Today, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we can take another step to help small businesses and workers, establishing a $30 billion fund to expand lending to small businesses looking to make new investments in growth at no cost to the taxpayer. Ladies and gentlemen, I know that those of you who have been not only in your own districts but in your States and throughout the country know that every small businessman and -woman in America who wants to expand has a singular complaint, and that is that they cannot access capital. That's what this bill is about. This bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, invests capital in community and small banks that were not the problem that caused this financial meltdown, investing in those community and small banks under terms that become more favorable to those banks as they make more loans to small businesses. In other words, carrots for giving money to small business. The CBO tells us that all of the money in the Small Business Lending Fund will be repaid with interest and that taxpayers will actually make $1 billion profit over the next decade. Now, that's not too hard to believe, I think, when you understand that in terms of the dollars that the Bush administration asked us to put on the table to stabilize the economy back in 2008, that to the extent that the money has now been paid back--not all of it yet--but to the extent that we have gotten repayment, we have made some 12 percent on that money. Unfortunately, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even just stay afloat were turned down last year, and you can imagine how those denials led directly to unemployment. This bill, ladies and gentlemen of the House, can go a long way towards opening up the flow of credit that helps create jobs. That's what this is about, allowing small businesses to expand, grow their businesses, hire more people, pay good salaries and benefits, and get our economy moving. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to help our small businesses create jobs. I want to congratulate once again the chair of the Small Business Committee, Nydia Velazquez, for her leadership. I thank Ms. Bean from Illinois for her leadership on these issues, and I thank our Republican friends, who I hope will join us in supporting this effort to make sure that small businesses have the capital they need to grow our economy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Good morning and welcome back. Many of you, of course, visit on a relatively regular basis. Others of you we don't get to see as often. I now have been here long enough to know almost all of you, and have served with almost all of you. And I am always pleased to join here to welcome you back to the House. I have my own Connie Morella from Maryland and Bev Byron. You know the story about Bev Byron. We met in 1962. She was wondering who this skinny kid was who had written to her husband, ``Dear President Byron.'' He was president of the Young Democrats of Maryland. And I signed it ``Steny Hamilton Hoyer,'' and she has not let me forget the officiousness of that letter. But I am so pleased to be with all of you. I have lamented on numerous occasions welcoming you here that when I first came here it was 1981, and clearly the partisanship was starting to elevate. All of you know, because I have said on so many different occasions, what respect and deep, deep affection I have for Bob Michel. Respect in the sense that I thought he brought the best of what the American people want and represented to the House of Representatives. He brought a philosophical judgment as to what policies we ought to support, direction the country ought to go, but he also brought a deep conviction that what the American public expected of us was to work together, respect one another, and try to do the best that we could for the American people. Unfortunately, as all of you have seen, we are a deeply polarized Congress. That does not mean that we don't sit down together and talk about issues from time to time. Leader Boehner has just walked in. He and I are working on a joint enterprise that we think may have some real positive effect. And hopefully, we can win the day on that issue. But for the most part, we are not working together as collegially as I think the American public would like us to do. The problems that confront our country, as all of you know, are very, very substantial. We have an immediate crisis, the oil crisis, which has given to the American public a sense of almost helplessness that their government is not responding in a way that can stop this oil from leaking. Clearly, BP and the entire oil industry has extraordinary incentive to do that. They have been technically unable to do it. We are in deep water both figuratively and literally on this issue. John and I were on a television program on Sunday morning together on which we both agreed that, A, BP ought to be held responsible, and B, we need to do everything we possibly could to not only stop the oil, but to help those who have been hurt, which nobody can contemplate exactly how broad that will be. The other issue that we are grappling with that I feel keenly about that has gotten cumulatively worse during the 30 years that I have been here, and that is the fiscal crisis that confronts our country. We are in deep debt. We are approaching or about at 90 percent of GDP in terms of our debt load. We are moving towards 100 percent. No country in the world can sustain that kind of debt load for very long and remain healthy, vibrant, and growing. So we need your continued wisdom and counsel. Notwithstanding the fact you are not voting, you are all very, very influential people in this country and in your States and in your districts still. And your voice is needed, as we try to reach some bipartisan consensus on how to achieve a more positive fiscal picture confronting our country. But notwithstanding those serious issues, as someone who just turned 71 yesterday, and I am sending the message to my constituents that I have no intention of retiring; I hope they have no intention of retiring me. I enjoy my service here. I continue. And I enjoyed serving with all of you on both sides of the aisle. So on behalf of Speaker Pelosi, John will speak for himself, obviously, but I know in a very bipartisan way we welcome all of you back here. We enjoy seeing you. We enjoy reminiscing about the good times, about the challenges, and about how we got things done, and how we might apply those lessons of the past to the solving of the problems that confront us today. So thank you all very, very much. Enjoy this day, and make sure that you come back on a regular basis to give us, as I said, not only advice and counsel, but perhaps even encouragement. Not everybody in America, as you have noticed, is giving us encouragement. You know, the bad news for Democrats is that we are very low down in the polls. The good news for Democrats is Republicans are there with us. They don't like any of us. They don't think any of us have got it. So working together, perhaps we can reinstate their confidence and reinstate a positive, more confident America as we move forward, as you have done when you served America so well in this body. Thank you very much. I now, if I might, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, I know he wants to recognize him, but I would be pleased to yield to my friend with whom I from time to time have the opportunity to work together, but always try to have a cordial and positive relationship with, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate your confidence, Mr. Speaker.

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 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately for the Former Members Association annual meeting. The House will reconvene at approximately 11:30 a.m. 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. The complete list of all suspension bills will be announced, as is the custom, by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010; and possibly H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act; and, again, possible action on H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.

Mr. HOYER. In addition to the legislation I have announced for next week--the Small Business Lending Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and the supplemental--we will also consider in the future a Wall Street reform conference report. As the gentleman knows, the conference is having its first session today as an open conference, full participation. I expect that to hopefully conclude within the next few weeks, perhaps sooner. And I expect to have that bill on the floor and to the President by the July 4 break. In addition to that, we have the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, which is being considered by the Senate now. We passed this bill, as you know, 2 weeks ago. The Senate, however, had left town, and they could not take action to extend unemployment benefits and to preclude cuts to Medicare payments to ensure seniors would get their doctors. I know the Senate is now working on this bill. And if they amend it, we will look at that and see what House action might be necessary. In addition, we are looking at a budget resolution. We are still working with Chairman Spratt on a budget resolution that shows we have cognizance of the concerns that all of our Members have, A, about the deficit and also about constraining spending. As the gentleman knows, the President has sent to us a budget that for nondefense, nonsecurity spending is frozen not only for this year but for 2 years to come. So we are considering that. In addition, the gentleman and I have been working very hard on Iran sanctions. I was at the White House today. I congratulated the President on the administration's success in having passed through the Security Council the Iran sanctions legislation. It is good legislation. Hopefully, all nations will abide by it, have its impact. On the other hand, I think the gentleman and I both agree there need to be additional efforts made. We urge the Europeans, who will be meeting shortly, to do the same and hopefully have an even stronger resolution. And then it's my expectation--I have talked to Mr. Berman, and I know you have talked to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--my hope is that we will have--and my request, more than a hope, my request is that the conference report be brought to the floor the week of the 21st. And I have indicated that that is my expectation. I want to also congratulate Ambassador Susan Rice for the job that she did in drafting the resolution that was adopted and successfully passing it yesterday. I am looking forward to working with the gentleman. In addition to that, as you know, we have a supplemental that we want to have considered. We need to fund our troops that are in harm's way and make sure they have the resources necessary to carry out the mission they have been given. And I expect the supplemental to be on the floor possibly as early as next week. I would hope that we could get it that early, but certainly I expect it to pass before we leave. It is my understanding that funding is available into July so that we have some flexibility, but my view is that we will pass it. And I will be pushing very hard to pass the supplemental, make sure our troops are funded. And I would hope that we could work on that on a bipartisan basis. That is not all that will be done, but those are the significant parts of what I expect the agenda to be for the next 3 weeks.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. None of us want to commit to not talking to one another privately, I think. I think that's what the chairman was referring to. I am sure he and Mr. Dodd will speak. I am sure that he and the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking Republican, Mr. Shelby, may be speaking. The chairman and I both served with Mr. Shelby, and I am sure that there will be discussions with the ranking Republican from our side. That may not be in the context of the conference itself where there will be cameras, where there will be an open opportunity to offer amendments and fully debate and discuss various options. Frankly, I've not been too pleased personally with the fact that we don't have a lot of conferences. I think conferences are good. I think they accomplish a worthy objective of bringing reconciliation between the two Houses and frankly giving an opportunity for each perspective that's represented on the conference to be articulated. And I think this will be, from that standpoint, a model conference. And I think Mr. Frank does intend, as he has said, to have an open conference with full debate and voting in the light of day on various different proposals.