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 at 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 at 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including the very important H.R. 3393, Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 5013, Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010, and H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman would like to pretend that the Bush administration didn't exist. He doesn't like to look back. He doesn't like history. He doesn't like to learn from our mistakes. I notice he doesn't outline the mistakes that the Bush administration made and that he made in supporting the Bush economic policies, but presumably he believes they existed, which led to such a disastrous performance of our economy. The turning of a $5.6 trillion surplus that the Bush administration inherited, which allowed it to do some of the things that it did without paying for them because they inherited surpluses, unfortunately, they left a $5 trillion deficit to this administration. They left a deep, deep, deep hole that we have been trying to dig out, without much help, frankly, from your side of the aisle, I will tell my friend. And we are getting out of that hole. Almost every indicator indicates that, including a growth in jobs. Not nearly to where people are feeling it. So we need to make sure that we continue to create jobs and create an economy that is working much better than it worked during the Bush administration. The gentleman mentions that we were in charge of Congress in 2007. Yes, in 2006 the American public said we don't like the policies that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress are pursuing; we want a change. We did change. But the gentleman well knows that no veto of President Bush was overridden to change the economic policies you were pursuing, period. We couldn't do that. We couldn't do it until such time as January of 2009 occurred. When it occurred, unfortunately and tragically for the American people and the millions, 8 million- plus, to be exact, lost their jobs, a financial system that was suffering from egregious regulatory neglect and had, as a result, put many, many taxpayers, millions of taxpayers, to the responsibility of trying to stabilize the ship of state. And we have done that. The good news is that money is being paid back. And the good news is that in terms of the bill that you and I both supported but two-thirds of your party did not, we did stabilize, at the request of the Bush administration, the financial community. So when the gentleman says that we need to grow jobs, we do. But very frankly, if the gentleman is proposing the same policies that were pursued for 8 years under the Bush administration, then that won't get it and didn't get it. And that's why it is important to learn, not to place blame, but to learn, as I said the other day, from those failures and not repeat them, to invest in the growth of our economy.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. HOYER. Well, I hope that we act on a budget certainly before the end of this work period. I think it's important to pass a budget. I have said that. I am working towards that end.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman indicates that we want to stop spending. Every economist from his side of the aisle to our side of the aisle said that if we did not spend money last year that we wouldn't have grown the economy. In fact, Ben Bernanke, the Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by President Bush; and Secretary Paulson all said you had better invest or you are going to go into a depression, not a recession. The gentleman talks about job creation, and it is very interesting because, generally speaking, he wants to return to the policies of the Bush administration. And the Bush administration, of course, was the worst job-performing administration since Herbert Hoover. I know the gentleman knows that because those statistics are pretty clear. It created 19,400 jobs per month. You talk about 400 and some odd thousand jobs. I agree with the gentleman. We need to create that level if we are going to get the jobs that your economic program lost, 19,400 jobs, and you need 100,000 to stay even. That was average over 96 months of the policies that were pursued during the Bush administration that my friend supported. Very frankly, if you will remember, during the Clinton administration, in an economic program that your party didn't support to a person--everyone voted against it--we created 216,000 jobs per month. Now, there's no secret as to where those jobs were lost. If you create 10 percent of the number of jobs you need to stay even, you're going to go behind and we have a real deficit. The CBO says that the program that was adopted that, of course, your party opposed, created 2 million new jobs or retained jobs in our economy. Over the last 5 months, we have had a net positive growth in jobs. We grew 162,000 jobs last month. The gentleman is absolutely correct, not nearly enough, but much better than the 779,000 jobs that were lost in the last month of the Bush administration or the average 726,000 jobs that were lost in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We are now in the pluses. We are starting to grow. We need to do much, much more. And that's why I responded to the gentleman, when he asked me what we were going to do, we're going to continue to focus on bringing jobs back to America and to our people.

Mr. HOYER. If I can, I think you anticipated what the facts are as you know. I didn't say that but you anticipated I might say it.

Mr. HOYER. Before the gentleman asks another question, would you yield so I might comment on the comments that the gentleman made?

Mr. HOYER. First of all, the gentleman does this often. I never said there has been enough tax relief. What you just said I said, I never said that. Nobody heard me say that.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield one more time?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, our number one priority has been and continues to be the progress on the creation of jobs. Last month's report was a positive report. We gained 162,000 jobs, and the economy is showing signs of very substantial improvement as a result of the Recovery Act and of other actions that we've taken to get Americans back to work. So that will continue to be our focus. Having said that, we also have passed already the HIRE Act, which we think will have a very substantial, positive effect, which includes payroll tax forgiveness for the hiring of new employees who have been unemployed for some period of time. If they are kept on for 52 weeks, there will be a $1,000 additional payment, which we hope will encourage employers to hire new people. Additionally in that bill, we gave an extension of the Highway Trust Fund to allow for continued and increased investment in infrastructure and the Build America Bonds legislation, as well as giving a boost to small business growth in terms of expensing. In addition, the House passed the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, which is pending in the Senate. We hope that it is coming back to us this work period. We would like to build on our record of job-creating legislation with additional relief to small businesses. The President has proposed, as the gentleman knows, the Small Business Lending Fund that would take $30 billion of TARP funds, which was obviously designed to try to get our economy moving again, and provide capital infusion to local banks, and provide assets of $10 billion or less to incentivize small business lending. Also, we hope to complete action with the Senate on a long-term extension of unemployment insurance, COBRA benefits and tax extenders for businesses, large and small. Obviously, those pieces of legislation have passed the House. I expect the House will also take action this work period on the COMPETES Act, which is relatively noncontroversial, but invests in growing our economy, particularly in technology innovations, math, and science. Other items on our agenda for this work period are budget resolution, defense acquisition reform, which I announced we would do next week, defense authorization, the Afghanistan/Pakistan supplemental, the Haiti supplemental, and of course the Iran sanctions conference report, which I hope to have done. As to the resolution that you and I just voted for, the motion to instruct, I urge that that be reported back by the Memorial Day break.

Mr. HOYER. Ninety-five percent of the American public, 95 percent of the American working people, got a tax cut, as you recall, in the legislation that you voted against, $280 billion in tax relief. That went into the pockets of Americans, helped them get through some very, very tough times which we inherited, did not create, which we inherited, and moving forward. Now, with respect to the tax increases that you referred to earlier, they are going into effect because of a policy that I voted against but I think you voted for. You were here in 2001 and 2003. And why did you do that? You talk about budgeting. You did it because you couldn't conform to your budget requirements. So what you simply did was you did the artifice, with all due respect, to saying, well, they will expire in 2010. So what is projected to happen in 2010 is a direct result of the budget and the policies that you promoted and voted for, I tell my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. HOYER. When you say taxes have gone up in this period, what period are you referring to?

Mr. HOYER. And what were those taxes?

Mr. HOYER. The health care bill has not gone into effect. You're saying this year taxes have been increased.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. It is a new time. We're paying our bills. Now, we had to borrow a lot of money because we were in a very deep hole. And everybody said if you didn't, all economists, Marty Feldstein, conservative adviser to Ronald Reagan, said you need to put more money back into the economy. We didn't have any money. You had a $5.6 trillion surplus that you inherited. We inherited a $5 trillion deficit. So we had no money. Your administration spent it all. But you didn't pay for things you bought. You didn't pay for your tax cuts. Very nice to give tax cuts, but if you don't pay for them and they create deficits, then who's going to pay for them? Our children. And that's what happened. We went to war. One was absolutely essential. We went to another war that some say was of choice, that is, in Iraq. We somewhat abandoned Afghanistan when we went to Iraq, and we didn't succeed in Afghanistan; but we didn't pay for either one of those wars. Who are we expecting to pay for those wars? Our children. You adopted a drug prescription program which, very frankly, we made better in the health care bill. We made seniors more secure in getting their prescription drugs. But you didn't pay for it. Your economy that you left us, very frankly, is responsible for 38 percent of that deficit to which you referred; 90 percent-plus of the deficit that confronts this country are direct results of the policies pursued in the last administration. Just as when Roosevelt inherited from the Hoover administration a very substantial downturn, it took him time to turn that economy around. So I say to my friend, we are prepared to work together, but we're not prepared to pretend that--when you say times are different, they are different. They are very different. The difference between a $5.6 trillion surplus and a $5 trillion deficit, the Bush administration inheritance and our inheritance. And that has made it tough. It's made it tough on us, tough on the American people. And we're trying to get out of this. I think we are. And again I repeat to my friend, Larry Kudlow gave you some good advice, very conservative guy, on television. You know him; I know him. We appear on his program. And he urged those of you on the conservative side of the ledger, don't deny the facts. That's what Larry Kudlow said. Don't deny the progress that has been made because if you deny it and people believe that denial, they won't think things are getting better and they won't act accordingly. And that's not going to be good for our economy. It won't be good for our country. So I caution my friend to, when things are positive, have the ability to say, yes, we've made some positive progress from where we were before this administration came into office. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman perhaps believes if he says it enough that I said there's been enough tax relief maybe people will believe it. I have never said that on this floor or any other place. So I wish the gentleman would stop mischaracterizing what I say. Now, very frankly, what I have said is the policies we pursued were not working demonstrably when we took over the Presidency of the United States, and could change policy, which we did. We changed policy consistent with, frankly, what Senator McCain said ought to be done during the course of the election, not the same way, but that we had to invest in our economy. Mark Zandi, Senator McCain's economic adviser, along with others, said we needed to do what we did. Now, the gentleman voted against it. But it has, I tell you, worked demonstrably, 2 million new jobs according to the CBO--not new jobs, retained or created. In fact, over 2 million jobs; 162,000 jobs created last month. Not enough. He is correct. But to ignore the fact that we are making some progress, I don't know whether you saw Larry Kudlow, he said, you know, stop talking down the economy, stop saying that things aren't getting better because the psychology of the economy is very important. And, in fact, whether it's the stock market indication going up, they have confidence, whether it's the growth in our economy from a 6.4 percent decline in the economy that we took over from the Bush administration, to now, a 5.6 percent growth, that figure doesn't mean anything to anybody unless they get jobs. I understand that. We need to get jobs. What it does mean, however, with the economy growing, that jobs will follow. And that's important. So please don't put words in my mouth. We need to cut taxes for the American public. In fact, as you know--I want to remark on something that you said. Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the earned income tax credit. Why was he a supporter of the earned income tax credit? Because he thought making sure people had enough money to get by on, buy some food for their family, buy some clothes for their kids to go to school and pay their mortgage payment, was an important thing to happen. That's the difference, frankly, between our two parties. We don't believe that was a handout. It was a hand up in a very difficult economy. We said--and they don't pay taxes. Why don't they pay taxes, I ask my friend rhetorically. The reason they don't pay taxes is they're not making enough money to pay taxes. Under your tax program, I would suggest to you, you did that, we supported it. They didn't pay taxes. But what we said is, they've got to live, their kids have to eat, they have to get by. And to the extent that they have some assistance in doing so and spend that money, as every economist will tell you, and you know this to be the case, it will help the economy grow. Yes, we help those people as well. Maybe you think that was simply a handout and that we shouldn't have done it. But we did it, and it is the difference between our parties in many instances. I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I'll simply say, I agree with the gentleman. And I agree with the gentleman, and certainly want to join together in this effort. And the gentleman will observe, that's why we have adopted, readopted statutory PAYGO. We think that will constrain spending. That's why we've created a commission to look at spending and make recommendations to get a handle on the spending in this country and bring our deficit in line as it was in the nineties. And that is why the President has submitted a budget that freezes discretionary spending at last year's levels. So we agree with you that we need to move in that direction and, in fact, we are. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend of some 45 years, the chairman of the committee, for yielding. And I want to, before I start my remarks, say that I agree with him with respect to his observations regarding the Obama administration's efforts that are bearing positive fruit with respect to our allies around the world. We are not where we need to be and they are not all allies, but they certainly are partners in responding to this threat to the international community. We know what a grave danger a nuclear Iran would pose to America's security, to our ally Israel's security, and, indeed, to the security of the international community. That is why Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros- Lehtinen reported out a bill. That is why we passed a bill. That's why the Senate has passed a bill. And now it's time to go to conference. It's time to resolve the differences that exist and send a clear and unmistakable message. The dangerous consequences of inaction range from a fierce regional arms race to a nuclear umbrella for terrorism, to the unthinkable. With American and international security at stake, Iran's nuclearization is a grave proximate threat and cannot stand. That is why the United States must do everything in its power, Mr. Speaker, to stop Iran's nuclear pursuit. Through years of diplomatic silence, Iran's nuclear program grew. President Obama took a course of patient engagement. And while Iran's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has been exposed to the world, it has grown even closer to its goal. Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency feels that Iran has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs. So time is of the essence. By proceeding with this motion, Congress moves closer to the imposition of sanctions that will hit the Iranian economy at its weakest points: its banking system, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the refined petroleum Iran depends upon. I support, strongly, this motion, knowing full well that sanctions are never a perfectly precise instrument and that they may mean hardship for ordinary Iranians who already suffer under the repressive regime in Iran. But I support sanctions nonetheless because they can work when the international community recognizes that an outlaw nation poses a common threat to us all, a case that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are making persuasively, as was the point of the chairman of the committee, to our fellow Security Council members and a case that the administration continued to make at this month's nuclear security summit. An extraordinary summit, I might add, of historical precedence, where 47 nations from around the world came here to Washington to meet together, including the President of China, to say that nuclear proliferation poses a danger to all, not just to a single nation, not just to a regional group of nations, but to all. I support sanctions because Tehran can choose, at any time, to negotiate in good faith and set aside its aggressive nuclear pursuit. And I support sanctions because when properly designed, they can be a source of powerful pressure on the Iranian regime, pressure both external and internal. As Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported on Monday, ``there is now increasing resentment that Iran's once popular nuclear program could be distracting from more urgent needs in the face of economic mismanagement and sanctions. Far from resenting the U.S.-designed sanctions, Iranians blame the slowdown on their own government. `` `Nuclear energy is something that I supported, but why go about it in this way?' asked an Iranian citizen Zori Baghi, a pensioner and father of two.'' He went on to ask, `` `If it is legitimate, then why are we suffering for it in this way? If it's not legitimate, then do it in the right way or give it up. We're paying too heavy a price,' '' so said an Iranian citizen about that country's nuclear ambitions. It is my belief, my colleagues, that if smart sanctions take effect, more and more Iranians will come to the same conclusion and so, hopefully, will the Iranian regime. Sanctions will show the regime that its embrace of nuclear proliferation carries a cost that is far too high. We cannot expect a change of heart from Tehran, but we can demand a change of behavior. My colleagues, this action is timely and perhaps past time, but it is always timely to do the right thing, to speak up, to act, and to encourage our allies as well and our partners and our fellow citizens in this globe to act in a way that will protect them and protect our international community. So I rise in strong support of this motion to go to conference and the motion to instruct, and I thank my chairman for his leadership on this issue. He is working both to have effective action taken by the Congress and to assist the administration in reaching the objective in as positive a way as is possible.

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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the rights of all peoples. His role in the civil rights movement has been extraordinary, and it continues to this date. Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of this resolution and in memory of an extraordinary woman. I had the privilege of knowing Dorothy Height for some four decades. That does not mean that I saw her regularly during those four decades, but I saw her frequently during those four decades. She also exuded the positive, constructive approach that she took to solving problems, to bringing people together. The historian Taylor Branch rightly called Dr. Height's brothers and sisters in the civil rights movement the ``modern founders of democracy.'' Today, we honor the legacy that she leaves behind. What a wonderful, long, productive, constructive, important life we honor in Dorothy Height. Dorothy Height was an extraordinarily gracious human being. When meeting with her, I never failed to leave her side and not feel better. I would feel better about the relationship that I had with her and that she had with others as I saw her interface with others in the room, in the crowd, in the meeting. Dorothy Height was and is a giant. The Washington Post had on its front page today a very large picture of Dorothy Height. It was appropriate that, in the Nation's capital, Dorothy Height would be given such prominence, not for her death but for the life that she lived, for the contributions she made. We are all better for Dorothy Height's life. We are all freer for Dorothy Height's life. We were lifted as a society by Dorothy Height and by those with whom she worked from a segregated society where the perception was that some Americans were not equal to other Americans. That was contrary to the premise articulated by Thomas Jefferson but not lived out by Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers. Their premise was accurate, but their practice was not. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Dorothy Height; John Conyers; John Lewis, who serves with us; Jim Clyburn, our whip; and so many others called America's attention to the fact that it was not living out the reality of its promise, not just to African Americans but to all Americans. Dorothy Height showed extraordinary courage and conviction in the face of bigotry and discrimination. Like so many in this body who faced bigotry and discrimination, they did not allow that to poison their souls. They did not allow that to diminish their relationships even with those whom they saw as oppressors. To that extent, they rose above the conduct directed at them in order to change that conduct through love and positive engagement. Dorothy Height is a perfect example to all of us, young and old, who are participating in this society which, unfortunately, too often we see today falls into anger and confrontation rather than civility and discussion. I am worried about the anger that I see in the society today. In some respects I think not justified at the level that we find it. Yes, there is room for disagreement, but Dorothy Height shows us that notwithstanding the fact that there may be disagreement, notwithstanding the fact that there may be people who do not treat us as we would want to be treated, that the way to solve that is to do so constructively and civilly with debate that states the facts and the truth but does not devolve into hate and division. So I am pleased to join my friend John Conyers. I came to Congress some 30 years ago, and we were talking about making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, not a holiday to play but a holiday to recognize the contribution that was made then and the work that still remains to be done. John Conyers had me out in front of the Capitol on January 15 or close to that time every year, and I was so proud to stand with him and say to America let us recognize those who, as Taylor Branch has said, are the modern founders of democracy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. Thank you for bringing this resolution to the floor to recognize an extraordinary, wonderful, lovely person whose spirit enriched us all and enriched our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I congratulate him for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Camp as well for his work. In the fall, Madam Speaker, of 2008, America did not know whether it was heading for the second Great Depression. Those weren't my words. Those were the words of Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve. Since then, the work of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress has headed off disaster. Most important has been the Recovery Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of families, funded thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved States from laying off teachers, firefighters, police officers, and much more. No matter what its partisan critics say, the facts say it clearly: The Recovery Act is working. The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President Obama took office, monthly job losses are down 96 percent, from 726,000 over a 4-month average during the latter part of the Bush administration, to 27,500 over the last 4 months, a 96 percent improvement of job loss. That is not success, but it is progress. Success will be when we grow jobs, as we did in November. Our economy is growing again. In the most recent quarter, it grew by 5.9 percent. That is the fastest rate in 6 years, and the second straight quarter of growth under President Obama. In addition, it is a 12.3 percent turnaround from the last quarter of 2008 to the last quarter of 2009. The Dow is up some 60 plus percent from the low it hit shortly after President Obama signed the Recovery Act, the S&P 500 is up 72 percent from its low, and the NASDAQ is up 87 percent now, since we passed the Recovery Act. That is progress to be proud of. But as long as millions of Americans remain out of work, through no fault of their own, we have not reached the goal. We have not had the success we want. We know that, to a family struggling through chronic unemployment, all the positive economic numbers in the world must look like they bear little relation to reality. That is because, time and again, employment numbers are the last part of a recession to turn around. The families who are struggling and suffering right now did not create this economic collapse, but they are bearing its brunt. So it is imperative that we act for them. This month, the President signed the HIRE Act, which eliminated the payroll tax for every employed worker who is hired. Now, the good news by that is that we don't pay anything unless we accomplish the objective. If they add the jobs, they get the credit, which the nonpartisan CBO calls one of the most effective methods of job creation. The HIRE Act also gives businesses tax credits for keeping new employees on the payroll, helps small businesses finance their expansion, and extends job-creating and much-needed highway programs. When the House passed the HIRE Act, Democrats made it clear on this floor that it was an important step, but by no means the last one. That is why we are back here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act. This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed projects and put people to work. As of this month, Build America bonds helped State and local governments pay for $78 billion in infrastructure programs, projects that were needed but did not have the funds. Build America bonds assured that they had the funds and created the jobs. This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate and grow. It increases the deduction for business startup expenses, so enterprising Americans all over our country will have stronger incentives to open the books of new businesses, an important measure we owe to my Maryland colleague and friend, Congressman Frank Kratovil. And, it excludes 100 percent of small business capital gains from taxation, which will lead to a new influx of investment, the investment small businesses need to expand and hire new workers. For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job. I think, frankly, Republicans share that sentiment. I think that is a bipartisan sentiment. This bill carries that work forward, and I believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are still feeling the recession's harsh effects. Again, I congratulate Mr. Levin for the work of his committee on bringing this to the floor. I also want to congratulate my friend, Charlie Rangel, who has been so instrumental in working on these jobs bills for so long. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. My colleagues, we have come this far not to be thwarted by a procedural motion that will never have effect. They know that. We know that. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' for the health care of all America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, we have come a far pace. The majority of this House has just voted to do for Americans what a hundred years of Presidents have asked for. We are on the cusp of a great victory for America and for Americans. This motion is inconsistent with reconciliation, a process that 72 percent of the time was pursued by the other party. They know that this motion is not in order and they know this motion would not have support in the Senate, so they are indirectly trying to kill this bill. However, as well, I think they well misstate the case. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.