Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have not discussed specifically what actions Mr. Obey--Mr. Obey is looking at the supplemental. It was sent over to us. And he's discussing it with the various subcommittee chairs, I know. I don't know whether he's discussed it with Mr. Lewis at this point in time. But I do know that, as you know, he had a markup scheduled on our supplemental the week before we left. That was canceled, so it didn't go forward; and then the Senate passed its bill. But I would certainly hope that your side has input on what they want, what you want, what you think ought to be in there. Obviously, we want to respond to some of the crisis not only offshore in Iraq--well, this is mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan as the gentleman knows, but my belief is Mr. Obey will want to have input as well. So I can't give you specifically because Mr. Obey has not indicated to me at this point in time what his specific plans are. But I understand the gentleman's interest.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield just to clarify?

Mr. HOYER. We all voted for more spending than that over that period of time, given the size of our budget. What I said was, to be precise, you voted for $2 trillion of unpaid spending. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. As I am sure most people know, the gentleman and I agreed--I made a statement on the floor last night, and I made a statement immediately after--Israel, like any other nation in the world that is assaulted by a terrorist organization that wants its demise, wants to kill its people and push it from its country, any nation on Earth, including ours, would defend itself. That is what they did. They gave 2 weeks' notice, of course, as the gentleman knows, to the Turks and to the individuals who were undertaking this so-called humanitarian mission. And I might say that the gentleman and I share a humanitarian concern about the plight of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, they are ill-served by some of those who have, by force, taken over their leadership in Gaza. But Israel did what any nation would do. It gave notice and said, if you will deliver those to Ashdod, the port, we will offload the humanitarian material and make sure that it's delivered to its recipients, not to a terrorist organization that would use it for purposes of terror and attacks on civilians, but use it for the purposes of relieving those in some distress. I would point out, as the gentleman well knows, international reports are that, in fact, there are sufficient food and medicine in Gaza today. It is my view that that mission, in effect, accomplished its objective, and its objective was to create confrontation and to put at risk the security of Israel and its people. So that the answer to your question is that I have talked to Mr. Berman and I want to talk to you, as well, so that we can determine what is the best course of action for us to take.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you know, Mr. Spratt and I and others have been working on this for many months now to try to see if there is a budget that can garner majority support. There was some indication, I will tell the gentleman--he's usually at the White House with us. He wasn't with us today. But Mr. Cantor is usually joining us at the White House in our meetings with the President. But the fact is that the Senate Republican leader indicated he'd like to see some bipartisan agreement, at least on spending levels and observed that he thought the spending levels the President had sent down for our consideration were--he would like to see a lower number but he appreciated the fact that that number was sent down and was a constraint on spending, in fact, froze non-defense, non-security spending at last year's levels and did so for a number of years. So I made the observation at that point in time that I was hopeful that we in fact could perhaps reach some bipartisan agreement. I will be discussing with the gentleman probably early next week that possibility. But I will tell you that Mr. Spratt continues to work very, very hard at trying to see if he can come up with a budget resolution that reflects something that can get agreement. I want to tell the gentleman that one of the problems we have, as the gentleman knows, is we have created a situation of where the budget will have some very tough numbers on it. They are realistic numbers. They are the numbers. They are what they are. We are where we are. As the gentleman knows, I believe that we need to work very, very hard to get back to the place where we were when we started in 2001 when we had a balanced budget and a surplus projected. I would call attention to a statement of Doug Holtz-Eagen, as I am sure the gentleman knows, who was with the last administration and indicated that this budget would have occurred under Senator McCain as well no matter what he did. We inherited an extraordinarily depressed economy, an exploding deficit and a substantial decrease in revenues. So we have an extraordinarily difficult situation that we've inherited that we're trying to deal with. The President, as you know, has appointed a commission to try to deal with that. We put in place statutory PAYGO to try to constrain spending so that we can get back to where I said we were in 4 years before the Bush administration where we had 4 years of surplus. And, regrettably, we're not there now; but we're working on it.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to tell my friend that I don't seek contrition. I do seek reconsideration of policies that have not worked, of policies that were projected to grow the economy, bring the deficit down and make us a healthier, wealthier country. Frankly, the policies that we pursued in 2001 through 2006, and actually through 2009 because we couldn't change policy although we were in charge of the House and the Senate, we couldn't override a Presidential veto--again, not contrition, but recognition that the policies did not work. Benjamin Franklin said, It's not a good thing to be penny wise and pound foolish. I tell my friend that he and his colleagues from 2001 and 2006--I think he voted for each one of these--voted for over $2 trillion in unfunded spending. That is the real problem. The gentleman is probably prepared to support, as I am--he and I will probably vote together, I hope, on a supplemental that provides for funding our troops. That won't be paid for. We will expect our children and grandchildren to pay for that. Mr. Obey has suggested a tax to pay for this war. If it is worth fighting, if it's worth protecting this generation, it is worth paying for. I tend to agree with that. As the gentleman knows, I'm a lot older than he is. I have three grandchildren, and I have a great-granddaughter. Tragically, history tells us that my grandchildren and my children are going to have their challenge from a security standpoint, from a health standpoint, from a natural disaster standpoint as we have today, and they're going to have to have resources to respond to that. I don't criticize the gentleman and I applaud him for asking the American public what we all ought to ask the American public, what do you think we ought to cut. The fact of the matter is that your side, your ranking member, has prepared a budget. As I've told you before, I think it's a budget with a great deal of integrity, great deal of political courage, and the gentleman's indicated it's a 75-year budget. It's a budget that affects today, tomorrow, but yes, it has a vision. I applaud Mr. Ryan. As you know, I'm a big fan of Mr. Ryan's. I don't agree with Mr. Ryan, but I don't have to agree with somebody to have great respect for their intellect and their political courage and their willingness to be real, to put something on the table that really will make a difference. My side, for the most part, doesn't agree with his treatment of Social Security, Medicare, and some other things. But I asked the gentleman last time if he wants me to put that budget on the floor with whatever we put on the floor on our side so that both of those can be considered. We're prepared to do that. But my friend, I will tell you, I'm not looking, as I said before, for contrition. I am looking for recognition that we need to work together and be honest. Be honest with those American people that you're asking questions to. The items you put on your list are worthy of consideration, but they will not get us to where we need to get. As Mr. Eakin, who was one of McCain's advisers, former Republican director for the OMB, as the CATO Institute indicates, the policies of the Bush administration dug a very deep hole. You have contrition about it but that doesn't solve it. What's got to solve it is us coming together and being honest with the American people. That's what the commission is hopefully going to do, and it's going to give us tough recommendations, and we will have to clasp hands together frankly if those recommendations are real, honest, and effective because they will be politically controversial because the medicine doesn't always go down very well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Tuesday, June 15, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

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. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank my friend for leading this effort at my request, and I thank those who have joined in in raising our voice to defend actions that really need no defense, actions that any nation on Earth would take if it were similarly threatened, any nation on Earth. Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of Monday, May 31, Israel naval forces intercepted six ships carrying mostly Turkish demonstrators attempting to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip. There was no confusion. That's what they said they were going to do. Israel gave them notice 2 weeks prior to this that they would not allow that to happen. So there was no confusion here about what was happening. Five of the six ships complied with the IDF requests. The largest of them, however, the Mavi Marmara, refused, clearly bent on violent confrontation as it was boarded by Israeli defense forces, as they knew they would be. There was no confusion. These IDF troops were violently attacked with knives, clubs, and other weapons. Let me remind you that in five of the six in this flotilla there was no violence. There was something in common on all of those ships. IDF forces were on all of those ships. But five of those ships, knowing full well that the blockade would not be allowed to be breached, offered no violent resistance. At the end of the skirmish on the Marmara, seven members of the IDF had suffered injuries, including gunshot wounds and head trauma, and nine demonstrators, tragically, on the Mavi Marmara had been killed. No one wanted that result. I think not even those who were committing the violence on the IDF forces wanted that. But once violence is initiated, one cannot predict the outcome. Those deaths are tragic. The events leading up to them deserve a full and scrupulous investigation. But this much, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. To call all the passengers of the Mavi Marmara nonviolent peace activists would be a victory for propaganda, not for fact. Peace activists don't launch attacks with knives and guns, and they certainly don't do so while chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews as an al Jazeera broadcast showed. Not an Israeli broadcast, but an Al- Jazeera broadcast showed the chants from those ships, from this ship, Kill the Jews. However much we lament those nine deaths--and we do so--the fact is that the IDF was faced with an organized, violent assault and responded in self-defense, as we would expect any of our own forces to do wherever they may be sent to defend our country. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, this incident has renewed international condemnation for Israel's blockade of Gaza from countries I suggest to my colleagues that would do exactly the same thing. I cannot believe there's a country in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in South America, or on the North American continent that would not say, If you breach this blockade that we have in place for our own security, we will confront you and stop you. But that blockade exists for a reason: to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to random attacks on Israeli civilians. Mr. Weiner has been pointing out the map. Probably most of us on this floor who are going to speak have been to Sderot. Some of us have been in the gymnasium that is an armed camp where it is the only safe place for the children of Sderot to play. Some have been with me to Sderot. The attack on Israeli civilians has continued without abatement. I don't mean that it hasn't lessened from time to time, but never has there been a time when Israelis felt that the violence was concluded, because Hamas has made it clear that it will not conclude. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to random attacks on Israeli civilians. The blockade was launched with the cooperation of Israel's neighbor Egypt when Hamas staged a violent coup to expel its political rivals and seize total control of Gaza. Who were its political rivals? Palestinians. The elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority. And the blockade could end today, my friends, if Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist--as is the principle of the United Nations-- gave up its commitment to murdering civilians, and released the Israeli soldier it holds captive. To the extent that life is hard for those in Gaza, the prime cause is the terrorist organization that keeps them hostage, holds power through violence, and monopolizes the food and humanitarian supplies that Israel allows across the border. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, pay close attention to this point. Indeed, it is Hamas, not Israel, that is currently preventing the humanitarian goods from this very flotilla from reaching the Palestinians in Gaza. Not the blockade, but Hamas. Finally, the United States should and will resist all one-sided attempts to condemn Israel at the United Nations. The UN, a body committed by its charter to universal human rights, has for much of its history, unfortunately, been sadly fixated on singling Israel out for condemnation--the only democratic nation in that region of the world that recognizes human rights. And we see the Supreme Court of Israel saying, time after time, you cannot do that government. That is a nation of laws. Yet it has been singled out for condemnation as much more serious crimes and crises have gone unaddressed throughout the world. The biased record extends beyond the infamous 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. The U.N. General Assembly has convened an emergency special session 10 times. Not, I would suggest to you, when the North Koreans killed, obviously premeditatedly, 46 individuals in their ship of South Korea in South Korean borders. Six of the times that they met out of 10 have focused on one small besieged nation, Israel, while no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, not held on the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, not held on the genocide in Sudan. The 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism neglected racism around the world to again single out, almost exclusively, Israel and Zionism. The U.N. Human Rights Council, whose members include Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba, has only one permanent topic on its official agenda. Now, I have mentioned three genocides that have occurred. They are not on that agenda. Israel. Even Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Human Rights Council for its ``disproportionate focus on violations by Israel.'' Should Israel comply with international law and the mores and values of the international community? Yes. Does it? Yes, yes, it does. And like every Nation, however, it enjoys the right to self-defense. This troubled history is exactly why I'm skeptical that the United Nations will treat Israel justly now. What happened on Mavi Marmara needs a real investigation, not one colored by years of one-sided bias. Mr. Speaker, despite what happened last Monday, the fundamentals of this conflict remain just as they were the day before. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want to live in peace with the Palestinians side- by-side in two States. So I believe do most Palestinians, but the extremism and hate of groups like Hamas stands in the way. In my view, Mr. Speaker, there were those on those ships who sought this confrontation. Again, not for the purposes of humanitarian relief but for propaganda and for putting Israel at risk from those who wish its destruction. It is not a secret wish. It is an articulated wish. All the world knows the intent of Hamas: to destroy Israel and remove Jews from the Middle East because they say so. Let us not be confused, Mr. Speaker. Finding a way to peace is fiercely difficult. It should not be made more difficult by those who see more propaganda value than human values and these loss of lives. I thank my friend from New York for leading this Special Order that is so important so that our voices are heard here and around the world as it relates to our commitment to the sovereignty, security, and safety of Israel.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for his comments and thank him for his leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the women's lacrosse team of my alma mater, the University of Maryland, on its record tenth national championship. In the March 31st championship game, Maryland defeated Northwestern University, a lacrosse dynasty in its own right, by a score of 13-11. Congratulations are especially due to Coach Cathy Reese, who was rewarded with success after returning to coach at her alma mater; to senior Caitlyn McFadden, who starred in her last collegiate game with two goals and an assist, and was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player; and to the Maryland fans, who turned out to support their Terrapins in record numbers. This championship is the product of outstanding athletes and coaches, untold hours of hard work, and the passionate support of the University of Maryland community. The University of Maryland demonstrates excellence in both academics and athletics, and I'm proud of this team for contributing to that legacy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the St. Mary's College of Maryland Varsity Sailing Team on winning the Inter- Collegiate Sailing Association's Team Race National Championship. This year's event was held May 29-31 on Lake Mendota in Madison, WI. Unlike traditional fleet sailing, the team race event pits three boats against three boats. This event is often described as ``chess on water'' as sailors use unconventional tactics like slowing down and trapping their opponents to help teammates who are trailing to catch up. To win a race, the team of three must have a winning combination of finishes which total 10 points or fewer. In the first round of competition, in which each team competes in six races, the Seahawks went undefeated in Group 1. In the second round among the top eight teams, the Seahawks had the best record with 11 wins and three losses. At the end of final round of the four winningest teams, the Seahawks went one and two, had a final record of 12 wins and 5 losses, and won the event. I want to extend my congratulations to the following members of the Varsity Sailing Team who competed in this event: Ted Hale, Francis Kupersmith, Michael Menninger, Kelly Wilbur, Jesse Kirkland, Madeline Jackson, and Mike Kuschner. I want to commend Head Coach Adam Werblow, who has been with this program for 22 years, and Bill Ward, Director of Sailing, for their leadership of this team. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the entire St. Mary's College sailing team for their diligent training, teamwork and dedication to the sport, and for continuing the legacy of excellence in racing at the college.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank Chairman Levin. Chairman Levin has worked, along with his staff, Janice Mays, the staff director and other members of an extraordinary staff, around the clock. And I am sure Mr. Camp would say his Republican staff has worked around the clock, too. We thank all of them for the work that they do. I thank Mr. Levin for his leadership, for his focus, and his tenaciousness in bringing us to this point. Let me make a couple of observations before I speak pointedly about the bill. First of all, ladies and gentlemen of this House, the public understands that there is no bipartisanship in this House. All Republicans are going to vote against this bill, my presumption is. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. But my presumption is they'll vote to a person against this bill. They have voted almost to a person against every bill that we have passed over the last 16 months to try to bring this economy back from the extraordinarily deep recession, the deepest that we have had in 75 years, resulting from the economic policies that they put in place when they were exclusively in control. Yet they come to the floor and talk about deficits. Democrats of course, when we controlled the Presidency, created one of the highest surpluses, and indeed the only administration that had a net surplus after 8 years, the Clinton administration. The Republicans will say, yes, but for 6 of those years we controlled the Congress. And my response is, yes, and for 12 of the years you controlled the Congress, and 6 of those under a Republican President, George Bush. Unfortunately, every year that I have been here serving with a Republican President, every year without exception, we have had large deficits. Every year. However, under Bill Clinton we had the only 4 surplus years that I have been here. We had 4 surplus years as a result of an economic program that was adopted. Again, it was adopted exclusively by Democrats. No Republican voted for that in 1993 either in the House or in the Senate. So we created surpluses. We got the economy moving. And then my friend on the other side talks about jobs; we should have had hearings about job creation. Frankly, the worst period of job creation in the last 30 years was the 8 years of the Bush administration. Without exception the worst. Stark example: the Clinton administration, 216,000 jobs created per month; the Bush administration, 11,000 jobs per month. That's 205,000 jobs per month, over 2 million per year. That is why, of course, because of that disastrous economic performance, we fell into this extraordinary ditch that we have tried to pull ourselves out of. And we are coming out of it. That's the good news, Mr. and Mrs. America, my colleagues. We are coming out of it. It's slow, it's not as fast as we would like, but it's successful. Now, I give you an interesting fact: over the last 4 months of an economic program, the Recovery Act and other jobs bills that we passed, we have created 573,000 jobs in the last 4 months. All positive months. If the next two-thirds of the year replicate that production, we will create more jobs this year after this deepest recession any of us in this Chamber have experienced ever in our lifetimes, we will create more jobs this year, if we replicate the first third of the year, than the Bush administration created in its 8 years. Hear that statistic and check me if I am wrong. About 1.7 million jobs versus a little over a million jobs over the 96 months were net created during the Bush administration. So when we talk about jobs and deficits, I think we have some credibility. We have some credibility because we created surpluses; the only 4 years of surplus, again, under the Clinton administration, that we had in my 30 years in Congress. And in terms of jobs, Bill Clinton created 21 million private-sector jobs during the course of his Presidency. George Bush? Approximately a million. A stark difference in the impact of the economic policies pursued by the two parties. I would hope some of you would say to yourselves that--not because we're trying to place blame, but because we're probably trying to learn, hopefully, from our experience. And you might come to the conclusion at some point in time, You know what? What they have suggested works. What they have pursued works, contrary to what Mr. Armey, who was your former majority leader who, when we adopted that program in 1993, said we would have deep deficits and exploding unemployment. We had exactly the opposite. We had declining deficits and 4 years of surplus and an explosion of job creation; 216,000 a month. We continue to pursue creation of jobs. That's what this bill is about, creation of jobs. We're also pursuing closing tax loopholes and making sure people don't offshore jobs so we keep jobs here in America, since inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and an economy shedding almost 800,000 jobs per month. That's not creating jobs; that's losing. During the last 3 months of the Bush administration, we lost about 750,000 jobs per month, 1\1/2\ million in 3 months, as opposed to creating 573,000 in the last 4 months. President Obama and the 111th Congress have been dedicated to standing up for the middle class, its interests, and its future. The work continues today with the American Jobs Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act, which will support millions of American jobs. This bill is a significant investment in America's entrepreneurs and its workers. It helps to restore the flow of credit to small businesses, which hire the majority of America's workers. It extends the important R&D tax credit, research and development, which helps businesses innovate, grow, and create jobs. That's what we need to be about, creating jobs for our people. It invests in the successful Build America Bonds and Recovery Zone Bonds, which create jobs and build much needed projects, like schools, hospitals, roads, and public transit. It puts young people to work with summer jobs programs so that they're not out in the streets, so they start to learn some skills, so that they have something to do with their time. That's good for them to learn job skills, that's good to get projects done that need to be done, and it provides for idle hands having work. This bill also protects the safety net for Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. It extends their unemployment insurance and helps them keep their health coverage. That's not only the right thing to do; it is also one of the most effective ways to boost local economies. In addition, by preventing physician reimbursement rates from falling, it ensures that millions of seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors. Now, let me say something about what the ranking member said, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He said the docs don't like this. I don't like this. Unfortunately, none of your colleagues in the United States Senate voted for a bill that we sent to them. I don't think any of you voted over here for it either, which made a permanent fix to this doctors' roller coaster of pretending that we're going to cut doctors' reimbursement. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do it because we want to make sure that our seniors, that our folks with disabilities and others have access to their doctors. So we're not going to do that. So we play a game. It is a game of dollars, of course, an important game. But we play a game that we're somehow not going to do it, so we do it in short stretches. You did the same thing when you were in charge. We're doing it again. We should do this permanently. The Speaker is for permanent fix. I'm for permanent fix. And if we need to pay for it, I will vote to pay for it. And we do need to pay for it. Now, whether we need to pay for it immediately all up front or we pay for it as we do sporadically, but either way, we all know we're going to do this. So I say to my friend, I understand the doctors are not pleased. I am not pleased. The Speaker's not pleased. Mr. Levin is not pleased. And certainly Mr. Waxman is not pleased. And my colleagues on this side of the aisle are not pleased. I presume your colleagues are not either. But, frankly, this is what you did when you were in charge. And we're doing it for the same reason: We need to get the votes. And I'm hopeful that we can join together in a bipartisan way at some point in time, and because we don't have a bipartisan way, frankly, we've got to carry the load ourselves. I've been in the minority. It's easy to say ``no.'' It's much easier being in the minority. When I was the minority whip, nobody ever asked me did I lose by 1 or did I lose by 20. They assumed I was going to lose, and it didn't matter how much I lost by. Now, of course, if I lose by 1, they know that and I get a lot of flack, properly so. So we could do better policy if we would do bipartisan policy, if we could do a broader outlook. So I invite you to engage. I don't think you'll do so today, but I hope you will in the future. That's not the only right thing to do. It's also one of the most effective ways to boost our local economies. In addition, by preventing physician reimbursement rates from falling, it insures that millions of seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors. We hope you don't vote against that. It will be a separate vote. You won't have to vote for the rest of the stuff if you don't like it, but vote for the SGR. Vote at least for the next 19 months to say to doctors, We're going to reimburse you at a proper rate to serve seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities. At least vote for that one if you think docs ought to be reimbursed. Or if you think docs ought to have a 21-percent cut, vote against it. Those are some of the many steps this bill takes to create jobs and protect Americans struggling in hard times. But just as importantly, this job creation is funded by efforts to close unfair tax loopholes and enforce corporate accountability. This bill would close the loophole that enables Wall Street fund managers to pay taxes at a rate 20 percent lower than the rate for ordinary working Americans. We differ on that. I understand that. And a lot of people have talked about how we can tweak that, if you will. It's a question, however, of basic fairness of taxing people on money they earn at similar rates. And I want to say something on that, because I think there's been some misinterpretation. I can't speak for every one of my Democratic colleagues, but I'm a strong believer that if people take money out of their pocket, take capital at risk, that there ought to be a differential tax rate, and there is and there will continue to be. At least with my support, there will continue to be. Further, this bill closes the tax loophole that lets multinational corporations profit by shipping jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work. I believe most of you on the other side of the aisle, my friends and colleagues, don't believe that's a proper thing for us to do. I hope you will join us on that. By taking advantage of the foreign tax credit, these corporations are able to avoid American and foreign taxes, giving them incentives to move offshore and take jobs from people here at home. Again, tax fairness and the needs of our middle class both urge us to close this loophole. Another loophole for the privileged that Republicans have defended for years. Finally, this bill takes the first step to hold the oil industry accountable for the historic mess it made in the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum will be millions of dollars in debt when this concludes. It increases the amount the oil industry must pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It's a good bill for jobs. It's a good bill for closing tax loopholes. It's a good bill for dissuading people from taking jobs overseas. Take this step for America, and continue to build on the economic progress that we have made over the last 17 months.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for yielding. I have the honor of representing Herb in the Congress of the United States. He was born in Aquasco in April of 1936. In my view, he's a young man. For those of you who are much younger, I want you to know he's still a young man. Herb, let me say to you, as the Speaker has pointed out, Herb has served with seven Speakers of the House, from Speaker Albert to Speaker Pelosi. For those of you in the Republican Cloakroom, I've had the opportunity to come over to your side, and I love the folks that you have working on your side. Like Herb, they treat us all alike. There are no Republicans or Democrats for them. They're just Members of Congress who serve together and work together on behalf of our country. Herb, you have been a wonderful friend, and you have made everybody's day brighter every time they come in contact with you. You have been someone who has been so thoughtful, so courteous, so kind that all of us have been advantaged and our lives have been made better by your service. And Herb, as you leave--not our hearts, but this House, at least the Cloakroom--we know that you will hopefully come back from time to time and visit with us, and we will be again enriched with your presence and your demeanor. We wish you God speed. And we say to you, thank you, good friend. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank the chairman, who is one of the giants on behalf of national security, military defense, quality of life for our troops, who for decades has been one of the outstanding spokespersons for making sure that we had the defense we needed and that our troops had the equipment, the resources, the quality of life that we would expect to have our young people have. So I congratulate him. I thank Mr. McKeon, as well, for his cooperative spirit in bringing this bill to the floor. Democrats in Congress have worked closely with President Obama to fight our enemies, promote our interests, and support our troops and their families, compiling a record of securing our Nation in stronger and smarter ways. We have strengthened America's military by putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, like more aerial drones. We have killed or captured much of the top leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban. And for the first time, there is a clear plan for a way forward in Afghanistan, which, frankly, was neglected for years under the previous administration. Democrats, often in the face of Republican opposition, have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. All of this was necessary and appropriate. We are looking out for our troops, our veterans, and our families. Again, I say there is no Member of this body, and almost every Member, indeed, of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them the resources they need; none more so than Chairman Skelton, however. Democrats are making sure that our troops get the body armor and mine-resistant vehicles they need when they are in the field, and the health care and opportunity for college education they deserve when they return home. That's good for them and it's good for our country. Today's defense authorization bill builds on that record, authorizing crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. It promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. It increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the same time, it also insists on accountability, requiring semiannual reports from the administration on the status of the Taliban and the capacity of the Afghan Government and security forces. That accountability is important and necessary. Because the threats we face have changed in a post-Cold War world, this bill also supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the President's effort to secure all of the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years. The conference the President convened here in Washington was an extraordinary step forward in that effort. Further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and the strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that the military families can keep their children on TRICARE policies up to the age of 26, just as all Americans can do under the health reform law that we passed. It also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more personnel for the Army and 500 for the Air Force, while helping all of the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been severely worn down by two wars. Now, maybe because there is an agreement on that we haven't talked about it very much. Finally, the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process to repeal a discriminatory provision. Now, I want my friends to listen to this, and they are not going to be happy with me. I am 70 years of age. I was in college in the late fifties and early sixties. Now, Bill Clinton was in college in the late sixties. His generation of Americans were motivated by the Vietnam war one way or the other. Now, frankly, I was a member of the State senate and supported that effort in the State senate. But in the late fifties and early sixties, the motivating force for young people in this country was civil rights. It was about living out the promise of American equality. It was about a commitment of this country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were created equal and endowed not by us, but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And I will tell my friends, I have some rhetoric here that was used in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, when there were some Americans you didn't have to ask, they didn't have to tell, because you knew they were African Americans. There was no hiding that. And we segregated them. And I heard Strom Thurmond stand on the floor of the Senate, he was a Democrat, speaking about discriminating against people because of the color of their skin. Separate but equal. I have heard the same rhetoric. Let me read some of it. ``The Army is the wrong place for social experiments. Keep African Americans in their place.'' I was angered in the 1950s and 1960s when I saw that kind of rhetoric because I thought that was not the America that I was so proud of. Hear that language that was used back in 1948 and read the transcripts today. In 1990, I was the sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was an amendment offered that said people with AIDS could not be waiters and waitresses. Why? Because people wouldn't come into restaurants if they knew that somebody with AIDS was serving them. Of course all the scientists, all the medical personnel said there was no way to transmit AIDS by handling plates or food. And I pulled out some rhetoric, interesting enough, from 1965, when the public accommodations law was considered on this floor. And guess what they said? They said, If we have African American waiters and waitresses, people won't come into our restaurant. That's why we don't have African American waiters and African American restaurants. That was not the America for which I stand. Strom Thurmond, however, said, and other Democrats--now, he didn't stay a Democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career--said no, we will keep people separate. And because you are driving down Route 1 from New York to Florida, and you stop and your little girl asked when the Howard Johnson's comes by, ``Can I have an ice cream cone?'' And you say to your little child, ``I am sorry, you can't go in there. You are the wrong color. Can't stay at that hotel.'' Now, in their era they thought they were being good Americans, I presume, and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating people as people with their God-given, unalienable rights. Ladies and gentlemen, look to your hearts and your conscience. Look at the debates of 1948. Is there one of us, is there one of us that would say General Powell, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undermined the morale and the effectiveness of the United States Army? Is there one of us? I will yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our services. No one? No one? This is not a social experiment any more than that was a social experiment. Anymore than 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with disabilities. It was a social experiment. It was the bedrock of what America is. Now, I think it's unfortunate that we've spent so much time on this issue. Almost every speaker. In the beginning of my talk, I talked about the substance of this bill: fighting terrorists, keeping America safe, making sure that we have the strongest Armed Forces in the world bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy, anywhere, any time because we owe that to the American public to keep them safe. That is what we're committed to, a strong defense. Barry Goldwater said when this issue came up, I care whether they can shoot straight, not whether they are straight. Why? Because he wanted to look at the content of their character, the content of their ability, the content of their commitment to this country and to their service. They were patriots. And he thought if they're patriots and they shoot straight--now let me tell you, something, friends. I don't want anybody bothering me. I don't care who they are. You hear me? And I don't want any male member of the Armed Forces bothering any female member of the Armed Forces, and I don't want anybody else bothering anybody else. Why? Because that's against the law, and it's against morality. But I tell you, my friends, this bill is about our national security. This bill is about people who perform their service to our country. This bill is about making sure that America is safe. This bill is about making sure that we defeat terrorism and keep America safe. Let's focus on that. Let's not be distracted. Let's focus on protecting America, defeating terrorists, and taking care of our troops.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't quote Mr. Powell. I referred to him.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I agree with my friend. As a matter of fact, I talked to Bob Gates today, and I talked to him 2 weeks ago about this issue. I was concerned about this issue and shared his view that we certainly ought to solicit the views of how and why we ought to proceed. That is why I worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the exact same amendment adopted in the Senate Armed Services Committee a little earlier today, did in fact provide that both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen--who has made his comments on this pretty clear, as you know--Secretary Gates, and the President of the United States have to certify that the processes are in place. I understand the difference of opinion here is that, and I am sympathetic with your view.

Mr. HOYER. I smile only because that rhetoric was the same rhetoric that was used in 1946.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we will soon bring to the floor a defense authorization bill that invests in our most important security needs: disrupting terrorists networks, countering nuclear proliferation, strengthening international cooperation to defeat the Taliban, preparing the Iraqi Government to stand on its own, and investing in the needs of our troops and their families. This bill builds on Democrats' strong defense record. Under President Obama, we have killed or captured some of the highest ranking leaders in al Qaeda--many more than we did under the last administration--and the Taliban; laid out a clear way forward in Afghanistan; disrupted terrorism with the full resources of our intelligence community and justice system; and increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. This bill offers us a chance to improve on the flawed record of the Bush administration, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip 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 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as is usual. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Senate amendments to H.R. 4213, the American Jobs Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act, and H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011. And we will take further action on the America COMPETES legislation to make our economy more vibrant.

Mr. HOYER. I expect us to reserve that day for session. I have urged Members, and I would urge Members on both sides of the aisle, to reserve that day, not to plan for that day. Clearly, if we can complete the week's business then we will not have to meet. But I remind the gentleman, as I am sure he knows, there are a number of items that have expiration dates either on the 31st of May or the 1st of June: unemployment insurance, COBRA health insurance, the sustainable growth rate for doctors' reimbursement for services, and other items that are critical to continue. So that I do not want to give away Friday because it is the last day we will be here for 10 days, and therefore we need to address those issues.

Mr. HOYER. We expect to take such time as is necessary to complete the appropriate debate on that bill. If we can do it in 1 day, we will do it in 1 day. If it takes more than that, we will allot more time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question and for yielding. With respect to the budget, as the gentleman knows, I personally want to see a budget move forward. Mr. Spratt has been working very hard to try to see if we can reach consensus on the parameters of such a budget. He continues to do that. I frankly want to tell the gentleman honestly that my assessment is that that probably will not be done by Thursday or Wednesday of next week, and therefore even if it were completed Wednesday, not appropriate time for notice to be given. So that my expectation is that will not be done next week, but my expectation is that we will continue to work on that, and hopefully do that shortly after our return.

Mr. HOYER. You asked another question I didn't answer. I apologize. On the war supplemental, very important bill that I know the gentleman and I are very interested in. As you know, the Senate has marked up its supplemental in committee. Chairman Obey I know is working to get a bill ready for committee consideration. It is possible that we would consider that next week if, in fact, Mr. Obey and the committee are ready to report that out.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I take that as a ``no,'' that you're not interested in having that bill brought up. But $2.5 billion is a lot of money, and to the extent we cut $2.5 billion or $2.5 million, we ought to do it. You are going to have an opportunity to vote on that $2.4 billion, 185,000 job-creation bill probably next week. We're going to have it on the floor. So you'll have a chance to vote on that, I tell my friend. We do want to work together. And the reason I keep bringing up is not to blame--I said this a couple of weeks ago--not to blame, but to point out the failure of the premise under which you have operated to do what you said it was going to do: create jobs, lower the deficit. In fact, it did the opposite. We followed that economic policy for 6 years. The American public said, We don't like this. And we couldn't change it because President Bush didn't want to change it. In 2008, they said, We want new leadership. Unfortunately, the legacy we were left was the deepest economic recession as a result of those policies that this country has seen in 75 years. We're trying to dig out. It's difficult to dig out. We have a responsibility, however, to make the tough decisions to dig out. You and I made a tough decision at President Bush's request in September. In February, we had to make another tough decision. You and I disagreed on that, and that was trying to put money into the economy, trying to stabilize it and bring jobs back. I suggest to the gentleman that that is working. It's not working as well as we would have liked, but we've had 4 months of job growth. Those 4 months, if they're replicated over the next two-thirds of the year, would create more jobs than were created in the 96 months of the Bush administration--1.7 million jobs. One million were created during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration, net. We have a hole. We need to dig out. The gentleman is absolutely correct: to the extent that we dig together, America will be better. We want to do that.