Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Let me repeat the process that I'm sure the gentleman knows well. The Budget Committee will meet. They will report out the bills that are to be reconciled. The Rules Committee will then take them under consideration shortly thereafter and will present a reconciliation bill. We will all see it at that point in time. It will obviously do exactly what the instructions that we adopted in the budget a year ago instructed it to do, and that is to reconcile these bills. And it will have a fiscally positive effect, in my view. I haven't seen it yet finally, but my expectation is it will have a positive fiscal impact, and we will all see that. But it will be simply following the instructions that the Budget Committee in the budget passed. I don't think the gentleman voted for it; but, nevertheless, the majority of the House did vote for it. I know that the other body doesn't like majority will. Maybe that is not the case here. But I will tell the gentleman that, yes, he is going to see the reconciliation bill. And as I said, the reconciliation bill, which will be drafted by the Rules Committee after the Budget Committee reports to it, the process that you followed on a regular basis when you utilized reconciliation. We will hope to have as much notice of that particular piece of legislation as possible. But I tell my friend, again, when he refers to the health care bill, the Senate bill or the House bill, you have had months to review the substance of that bill. You don't like it. We understand it. You're going to oppose it. We understand that as well. But the fact of the matter is you cannot say that you have not had notice of each and every one of its provisions for over 2 months.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, 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 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, including a number of bills focused on improving government operations: the Plain Language Act, H.R. 946, by Representative Braley; H.R. 4720, Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act, by Representative Kirkpatrick of Arizona. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today, as is the custom. In addition, we will consider further action on H.R. 1586, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Further action on the jobs agenda is possible, and further action on health care legislation is also possible.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, let me say to the gentleman from Virginia that Maryland and Virginia and a lot of other States think the bill we passed through this House on algae is critically important to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. I'm sure the gentleman shares that view with me, a critically important bill for the health of our bay and its estuaries. I happen to live on a river, the Patuxent River, and the gentleman's State feels the Chesapeake Bay is a major asset of his, as well and of his State. So I know that he is pleased that we passed that bill. It was an important bill. We are here trying to make sure that we have the time to get ready to pass a major historic piece of legislation that Teddy Roosevelt set us on the path to accomplish over a century ago so that we have accomplished, I think, a significant piece of legislation today. Let me say that in addition to that, we believe the jobs agenda is very important. We passed a bill through here last week. The Senate passed a bill over to us. We are in the process of considering those bills. And I want to say to the gentleman that I share his view, that we look forward to working together to try to get Americans back to work. I won't go through the litany of how we got here. The gentleman has heard it before. But I will tell the gentleman this part of it, that in 4 months of the last administration, as he well knows, we lost over 700,000 jobs per month. During the last 4 months here, we have lost 27,000 jobs per month. That is a 95 percent reduction in the loss of jobs. Surely anybody who is fair-minded will say that is progress. It is not success. We need to create jobs. We have lost 8 million jobs over the last 2 years. People are hurting in America. Families are hurting in America. We need to get people back to work. We are going to keep continuing to make sure that when they can't find a job because they are not available that they don't go hungry, that they can support themselves and their families, not to the level that they would if they were working, but certainly support themselves in a way that we think is humanitarian. So those are included in those bills, as the gentleman knows. I will tell the gentleman that we feel keenly the pain of the American public confronting this historic great recession, the deepest recession that we have seen in 75 years. The gentleman knows that in the decade of the 1990s, we saw the best economy that you and I have seen in our lifetime, and I, of course, am very substantially older than you are. That is an admission against interest, but it nevertheless is true. So I will yield back to the gentleman saying we share your view. We want to continue to work on this jobs agenda.

Mr. HOYER. No, you said a number of things before that which I was responding to. But, yes, Members should prepare to be here next weekend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which would urge the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, in my opinion, at great cost to America's security and, indeed, the Afghan people. But I want to rise as well to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), with whom I work closely. This issue needs to be debated. This issue needs to be raised. The American people have a right to have us debate this issue. Their young men and young women are in harm's way. They are in harm's way at our insistence, or at least at our sufferance. So it is right to have this debate. And while I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio, I appreciate the fact that he provides this opportunity to discuss this very, very important issue. Madam Speaker, after years in which Afghanistan was a secondary concern, in my view, President Obama has set our policy on a new course which is already showing significant results. I believe that this is not the time to change that policy. There is vast agreement that an indefinite presence in Afghanistan or Iraq is unacceptable. In Iraq we have reached the transition point of handing over responsibility to the central Government to take care of its own people. We see positive signs, such as the recent Iraq election in which 62 percent of the voters turned out in the face of terrorist violence. Was it perfect? It was not. Are there concerns yet about who could run and who could not? There are, appropriate concerns. But nevertheless, we see progress. Given the increasing stability of the Iraq Government, President Obama is proceeding with responsible troop withdrawals. Today, 96,000 American troops remain, down from 140,000 troops, and calculated and careful drawdowns continue. All American combat troops are set to leave Iraq by the end of August. At the same time, the President conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of our Afghanistan policy, one in which all viewpoints were heard. Some thought it took too long; some of us believed it was a careful, thoughtful, and correct attention to an important decision. The Obama administration came to the conclusion that a failed Afghanistan was the launching pad for terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans as well as a source of regional instability, and that a newly failed Afghan state could pose the same danger again. That is why we, in a bipartisan way, authorized troops to go to Afghanistan about a decade ago. That is why the President committed to a strategy of troop increases, not as an open-ended commitment, but as part of a limited strategy of counterinsurgency with withdrawals set to begin in the summer of 2011. This is not a war we fight alone. Our allies understand that the threat of terrorism affects us all and have pitched in accordingly. Since the President's December 1 speech announcing his new policy, we have seen a sharp increase in international cooperation with our allies, pledging approximately 10,000 additional troops and more military trainees. Our new Afghan strategy has already seen real success in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which demonstrates that this resolution is especially ill-timed. Among the highlights of that success have been the capture of Mullah Baradar, the second-highest ranking member of the Taliban and most significant Taliban capture since the beginning of the war, and Mullah Abdul Kabir, a senior Taliban leader. Both were captured in Pakistan, which illustrates increased cooperation from the Pakistan Government, thanks in large part to the administration's careful diplomacy. As The Washington Post put it on February 23, ``Pakistani security forces have long supported or turned a blind eye to Afghan Taliban members seeking sanctuary in Pakistan. The recent arrests seem to mark a change in that attitude.'' Clearly, success in Afghanistan will be posited on the success of those in Pakistan to act against sanctuaries. At the same time, the leadership of al Qaeda and Taliban has been severely damaged through strikes in Pakistan. And the new counterinsurgency strategy has been put to work in Marjah, an important district in Helmand province, where American, coalition, and Afghan troops have worked and fought successfully together to strengthen the central Government against Taliban fighters. Let me say, the gentleman has made some comments about the Afghan central Government. All of us share the gentleman's concerns about the central Government. These are concerns that are properly raised and need to be addressed. However, there is no doubt that years of war against the Taliban and terrorists have imposed a heavy cost on the Afghan people. Despite those heavy costs, the Afghan people support the coalition's continued presence in their country, perhaps because they know that reprisals from an unchecked Taliban would be fierce and unforgiving. In fact, our failure to follow through when the Soviets withdrew resulted, very frankly, in the Taliban's presence. According to a recent poll conducted by the BBC, ABC, and German television, 68 percent of Afghans want American troops to stay in their country and 56 percent of Afghans believe their country is headed in the right direction, compared to just 30 percent last spring. Just since last spring, we have seen almost a doubling of the view that Afghanistan is heading in the right direction on behalf of Afghan citizens. Madam Speaker, there is no question that our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has suffered from neglect, poor planning, and minimal diplomacy, but passing this resolution would show that we've learned the wrong lessons from those years of relative neglect. Abandoning Afghanistan just when a new strategy and new leadership has begun to bear fruit I think would be a mistake. And although I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and incisive analysis, which bears listening to, on this issue we disagree. I would urge, therefore, my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank the ranking Republican for his comments. I thank Mr. Cohen for his leadership on this issue. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' So spoke our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers spoke, however, without a clear understanding of the impact of their words. Even as great as our Founding Fathers were, they did not live out the promise of those words in this land. Some were slave owners. Clearly, the contradiction between our words and the actions of our day-to-day lives were a contradiction from our stated values to our practices. Martin Luther King, Jr., called America's attention to that paradox, to that contradiction, to that schizophrenic life that we had led. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a lieutenant who was a giant of a leader in his own right, and we are honored to serve with him; in my view, the most historic figure that serves among the 535 of us who have been given the privilege to represent our people and defend the Constitution and protect and preserve our democracy. John Lewis is a giant among us; a quiet, self-effacing, humble giant, but a giant nonetheless. Forty-five years ago, civil rights activists attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery to demand that their Governor honor their right to vote and their God-given equality. Remember Jefferson's words, that our rights are not given by the majority. They are not given by Congress. They are not even given by the Constitution. They are given to us by a power higher than us. That is the glory of America, that every individual is an important being, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The world knows what happened to those marchers; how they were stopped by State troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, how they were savagely beaten with nightsticks, and how this 23-year-old giant, whose name was then not known, this young man from Troy, Alabama, John Lewis, who was helping to lead the march from the front with Hosea Williams, was beaten to the ground and took life-threatening injuries. Today, as a Member of Congress, John Lewis still bears those scars, but he does not bear resentment. What a lesson for all of us who suffer the verbal slings and arrows almost daily in this public profession which we pursue. But John Lewis took more than rhetorical slings and arrows. He was beaten, subjected to hate, spit upon, subjected to prejudice and division and segregation and rejection. But still, Christ-like, John Lewis, following Gandhi's example, turned the other cheek and said, I seek justice, and I will continue to seek justice for myself and for others, no matter the opposition. I will not do so violently. I will not do so by assaulting those who assault me. But I will appeal to the conscience of the Nation. I will appeal to the promise in our declaration, in our Constitution, and in the principles for which this Nation stands. And it was a powerful appeal. This weekend, I and others--Mr. Cao was with us--were privileged to walk with that giant of a man, John Lewis, across that bridge. It is a bridge across a river, but it is also a bridge to brotherhood; a bridge to a realization of America's promise; a bridge to a better America; a bridge to a better country; a bridge, as my friend and brother John Lewis would say, to the beloved community; a bridge, then, over troubled waters, who have to some degree been stilled, but not silenced. There is still prejudice in this land. There is still division in this land. There is still not the reconciliation that America still strives for. And that is why I return almost every year with my friend John Lewis to walk over that bridge, to remind myself--and I have taken my granddaughter to remind her as well--that although the mission of Martin Luther King, Jr., was extraordinarily successful, and the mission of John Lewis, which continues to this day, has been successful, it is not over. The mission and the commitment must continue. That is what we must remember on this anniversary of March 7, 1965, when a group of our fellow citizens peacefully walked to register to vote. Is there any more sacred right in a democracy than that--the ability to express your opinion, unbowed by government or unbowed or dissuaded by threats? That was John Lewis's mission then. He was so successful. But the mission is not over. And as we vote on this resolution, we ought to all commit ourselves to walking with the wind of justice, of which John Lewis spoke, of which he has written. But, much more importantly, the life that he has led teaches us the power of conscience, the power of peacefully standing up for the rights of which Jefferson spoke: the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. God has blessed America through the life of John Lewis and so many others whose courage and convictions have made us better. Support this resolution. But, more than that, live out its promise for all of our citizens.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, entering its 23rd decade, the U.S. Census is the longest-running national census in the world. Our founders wrote it into the Constitution, because taking a fair count is an essential part of fair government. A comprehensive, accurate Census helps ensure that our common resources are distributed where they are most needed, so that our communities can get the roads, schools, and police protection that they need. There's nothing partisan about that goal. Unfortunately, some groups have set out to deceive Americans by disguising their own private mailings as Census documents. This month, Americans have received envelopes marked ``Census'' and ``official document,'' when the papers inside are nothing of the kind--and sometimes even political fundraising appeals. Groups that send out such mailings are taking advantage of the Census to unfairly promote their own interests. And even worse, they are interfering with a fair and accurate Census by possibly depressing the response. According to Barbara Everitt Bryant, a former Republican appointee to head the U.S. Census Bureau, ``those who respond may feel they have been good citizens and already answered the census when their real questionnaires arrive next month.'' To stop that kind of cynical manipulation, I urge my colleagues to support the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act. It would require any mailing with an envelope marked ``Census'' to clearly indicate the sender, reducing the possibility of deception; it would also trigger an existing legal requirement that the mailing include a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with the U.S. Census. This bill won't prevent any organization from using the word ``Census''--but it will stop private organizations from disguising themselves as the federal government. This bill is an important way to ensure an unbiased count of all Americans, and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House is not in session. On Tuesday, 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 Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Friday, if needed, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow, as is the custom. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H. Con. Res. 248, the Afghanistan war powers resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich, and we will also consider H. Res. 1031, impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It is also possible there will be further action on the jobs agenda, which depends on what the Senate or the House has coming out of committee or out of the Senate.

Mr. HOYER. We believe that the number one priority for us is to continue to grow the economy so that we will create jobs in this economy. As the gentleman knows, my perception is we have gone from losing an average of 726,000 jobs in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, to the last 3 months of losing, on average, 35,000 jobs. That is 95 percent in the right direction, but we need to continue to create jobs. As you know in the bill that was just passed, which was passed in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate and to some degree here, we are trying to encourage the hiring of those who are unemployed through giving tax credits, and also tried to spur investment by giving businesses the right to write off items. We also ensure the continuation of the Highway Act; and in addition to that, as you know, we provided for a less expensive way for communities to expand public works and hire people to do that, public buildings and construction of public facilities. So when I say the agenda, that was obviously a part of the agenda. We still are very concerned about lending, capital being available to small, particularly, but medium-sized businesses as well. The Senate is considering a jobs bill now, as you know, with a number of component parts. So when I talk about the jobs agenda, I am talking about ways and means and efforts to grow the economy and create jobs.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Just for accuracy, it's my understanding that the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has introduced is by December 31, I believe, not 30 days. And I yield back.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I've expressed support for the policy being pursued by President Obama, and I certainly intend to continue to support that policy. The resolution is not consistent with that. So I think the gentleman is not going to be surprised at my expectation that this will be a bipartisan vote--perhaps on both sides of the proposition, yea and nay, but I certainly think it's going to be a bipartisan vote. I believe the President's policy that he has articulated is a thoughtful, measured policy. And very frankly, I think he has done what perhaps we should have been doing for some period of time, focused on where terrorism was organized against the United States to ensure that we eliminate al Qaeda and prevent the Taliban from resurgence and reestablishing a base wherefrom terrorists might attack us. I think that is an appropriate policy that the President is pursuing, and I would hope that the House would support that policy on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. HOYER. We hope that the budget resolution will come to the floor--and we're working on that--by the end of the month before we leave for the Easter break. As you can well imagine, given the fiscal situation that confronts us, that's a very difficult document to put together. But Mr. Spratt is working very hard at that with the committee. I know Mr. Ryan, I'm sure, the ranking member, is also working hard on that. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to bring that to the floor before the Easter break.

Mr. HOYER. It is the President's hope and our hope that that will be the case. As you know, the President has expressed that objective, and we have said that would be our objective as well. As you know, we have been working on this issue for well over a year. We passed a bill many months ago; the Senate passed a bill over 2 months ago. Many of us have been working on that bill. As you know, we had a very substantial--historic, really, in many respects--discussion with the President at Blair House last week. I understand the President has incorporated a number of ideas that he felt were good ideas that Republicans put on the table at that meeting. My expectation is we will be moving on this bill in the near future. And what I mean by that is, again, hopefully, that we would be able to consider this prior to the April break, the Easter break.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, we provided for reconciliation in the budget resolution that was adopted last year, so that is available to us. That has been used 22 times, as the gentleman knows, since 1980; 16 of those times it was used when your party was in the majority. You utilized that to do what the American people think is usually the case: we pass things by majority vote, up or down, and the majority rules. Now, here, of course, when the majority rules, it really does represent a majority of the country. In the Senate, of course, even when a majority votes, it doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the people of the country because obviously every State, no matter how large or small, is represented. But having said that, we believe that the Republicans, when you used it for a tax bill or welfare or other very important pieces of legislation--the tax bill obviously having trillions of dollars of economic impact on the economy--you felt that that process of passing it by a majority vote in the United States Senate made sense. We share your view.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me repeat, his 180 was incorporated as a way to go forward last year when we adopted the budget almost 1 year ago. So this is nothing new for the gentleman. I told the gentleman his party has used this procedure 16 times out of 22 times that it has been used, which means your party has used it two-thirds of the time--over two-thirds of the time--that it's been employed. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, a Member of your party, a leader of the Budget Committee on your side, was chairman of the Budget Committee, now ranking member, when an objection was raised on that-- we're using quotes--when an objection was raised to that said, as he turned to the Democratic side, ``What's wrong with a majority vote? I thought a majority vote was what should prevail.'' That was Judd Gregg of your party. I think it's ironic when we're saying, okay, you think a majority vote is good, we'll take a majority vote. Now, the President's quote is a demonstration that we all say things that, unfortunately, then don't become reality. Well, I will tell you the reason they don't become reality is because, as Jim DeMint said, I think many of your party hope this is President Obama's Waterloo. That's a direct quote--you used quotes--from Mr. DeMint. Your belief is, in my view--I do not attribute it to you--but my belief is, as Mr. Gingrich pointed out over and over again, if we fail, you win. The problem is if we fail, we believe the American people lose, and we think that is not fair. I want to use one more quote and then I will cease and yield back to you. October of 2008, Presidential campaign debate, national television, John McCain, your candidate, said, ``I want to see a plan that gives all Americans, all families availability of affordable health care.'' That was a quote that Senator McCain, your candidate for President, made just a few months ago. It was almost exactly what Mr. Obama said. So, from my perception, there was a consensus with respect to where we needed to go. As a matter of fact, I think almost every Member on this floor believes that we need to reform the health care system. We've had a very vigorous debate, a very open debate, a very transparent debate over 1 year now on how this ought to be done. We have disagreement, and that is the nature of democracy. But if a majority of the representatives in this body and the majority of the representatives in the other body believe a policy ought to be adopted, then, frankly, that is the way our system should work. There is nothing in the Constitution, as the gentleman well knows, about having--except for some rare instances--a supermajority, and certainly none on policy. There are on confirmations and overriding a President's veto, but other than that, the perception is the majority vote rules. So it's a procedure that you used, and it's a procedure that we anticipated last March. We hoped that wouldn't be the case. Very frankly, we would hope that we could work in a bipartisan way to effect this end that at this point hasn't been possible, and Senator McConnell has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of participating in that kind of effort. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are still discussing exactly what procedure will be employed to effect a majority vote in both Houses and send something to the President in the same form, so I can't specifically answer that question at this particular time. But let me say to the gentleman, he mentioned the forum we went to, and Republicans did put ideas on the table. We thought they were constructive. As a matter of fact, as you may recall, I responded to Senator Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, when we mentioned about fraud, waste and abuse. As you know, there is substantial investment in both the House bill and the Senate bill to eliminating fraud, waste and abuse. Senator Coburn observed he thought there was a lot of money that could be saved there. We think that is the case as well, so we have provided to go after that. We also, I think, agree that reform ought to be based on a private, market-based system. As the gentleman knows, the exchanges that are set up both in the House bill and the Senate bill, they differ; but they are both based on private sector competition by private insurance companies. We talked about wellness programs. Dr. Coburn also talked about that as did others. I think Dr. Boustany, Congressman Boustany, also talked about that. We have a very substantial investment in wellness and, as Dr. Coburn pointed out, in practices that give cooperative care and are not reimbursed piecemeal but are reimbursed by the quality of care that is given, by the outcomes that are given as opposed to simply being process-oriented. We also agree, I think, Mr. Cantor, on mechanisms to have competition across State lines. We believe the exchanges do that, but we also believe there is room for discussion in looking at how we might do that in other ways as well. So we think that that's an idea, and the pooling with respect to small businesses so they can create large groups so that they can have better competitive advantages. We believe that, when we put small businesses into the exchange, that's exactly what we give them. For instance, in a large group, as all of us know and as we have in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, we don't have preexisting conditions, because we are a large group. Most large groups don't. In the legislation you offered as a substitute to ours, of course, you did not cover preexisting conditions. Your legislation provided for about 3 million people having greater access to the system; ours for about 30 million. So, while we agree that we ought to have people have access, frankly, we believe that what we have proposed provides greater access. Insurance pooling to acquire health insurance at lower prices, it seems to me we agreed on that as an objective. You disagree with the way we have done it in terms of our exchanges, which is, of course, what the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan is that you and I participate in. It's a large exchange with many different insurers. In our area, we have about 25 or 26 different options that we can choose from. For the most part, they're private sector. As a matter of fact, for all parts, they're private sector to choose from. So, yes, we have differences, but as I've told you before, I'm still prepared to discuss with you and to work with you on suggestions you have that get us to an objective that we think is appropriate. Let me just lastly, in closing, say a recent polling shows a majority wants to keep working. You indicate, as you do on a regular basis, that there are polls that show people are against this bill. My view is what they are really against is this confrontation and contention regarding these bills, which is, of course, why the President said he thought having 60 percent would give a greater level of confidence. I agree with that. I would hope that we would have created that kind of consensus. I want to read to you: 63 percent in a Washington poll said that we ought to pass comprehensive health reform; 57 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. February 22, 2010, Kaiser poll also finds overwhelming support for key elements of the reforms in our bill; 76 percent support reforming the way health insurance works in our bill; 71 percent support creating a health insurance exchange, which is in our bill; and 70 percent support expanding high-risk insurance pools. So, when you go to the individual elements of our bill, we find very significant support for those individual elements, I tell my friend. I continue to look forward to working with my friend to reach common ground.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, March 5, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the lifetime accomplishments of my good friend, Ms. Elizabeth (Liz) Smith, who retired last week from the American Federation of Teachers, AFT. Bringing opportunity and respect to working men and women across America was the driving force in Liz's more than 4 decades of public service. And this commitment never waned. Workers fighting for fair wages, high-quality healthcare and a secure retirement always had a strong ally in Liz Smith. She fought for them every day. Liz began her professional career working for two of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. She served as chief of staff to Representative James O'Hara of Michigan, and later as legislative director to Representative Dale Kildee of Michigan; both benefited greatly from her energy and commitment. In those positions, Liz worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of constituents were heard in Washington and that the federal government responded to their needs. Deciding to leave the Congress she loved was a tough choice for Liz. But it was a natural progression to join the labor movement. She knew that her next assignment as legislative and political director at the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union was in keeping with her values and unwavering commitment to the men and women of the American labor movement. In this position, Liz worked with passion and moved with dispatch to ensure that the interests of the country's clothing and textile workers were fully represented not only before the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch, but internationally as well. In 1995, Liz accepted a position as political director at the American Federation of Teachers in what would become the final and perhaps most important stop in her accomplished career. During her 15 years there, Liz's work on behalf of the more than 1.4 million members of the AFT included many accomplishments and milestones. She carried with her an intimate knowledge of the important work performed by AFT members and an ability to advance with unmatched skill and grace the causes she cared about most. Liz is a true leader, always doing the right thing in a manner that is respectful of others and in turn earning others' respect. She is a wonderful woman and will be missed dearly by all of us who have had the pleasure of working with her. I wish Liz all the best in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, last year, President Obama and the 111th Congress took their oaths of office as America faced the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Since then, our work has been defined by our response to the crisis--by the overriding job of getting Americans back to work. Of course, the most important step toward putting Americans back to work has been the Recovery Act. It cut taxes for small businesses and 95% of families, started thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved states from laying off teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and more. And despite the efforts of some partisan critics to call it a failure--even as many of those same critics eagerly take credit for the funds it has provided for their districts-- the Recovery Act is working. The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President Obama took office, job losses are down 90%. Our economy is growing again: in the most recent quarter, it grew by 5.9%, the fastest rate in six years, and the second straight quarter of growth under President Obama. All of that is real progress for our economy--but it is not yet success. In recession after recession, employment has been the last sign of growth to turn around. Far too many Americans remain unemployed through no fault of their own, caught in the effects of an economic collapse they did not create. For working families, few challenges are more trying than unemployment, especially unemployment that grinds on for month after month. For Washington, few challenges demand our action more urgently. That's why I urge my colleagues to pass this bill--a clear, focused effort at putting Americans back to work. It provides strong incentives for businesses to start hiring again. They include a tax exemption that will eliminate businesses' 2010 payroll taxes for every unemployed worker hired. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that such tax credits are one of the most effective ways of creating jobs: ``Providing tax credits for increases in payrolls would increase both output and employment.'' Businesses will also receive further tax credits for keeping new employees on the payroll for the next year. And small businesses will be able to take advantage of tax incentives to finance their expansion. This bill also extends the highway programs that have created jobs for so many Americans, while bringing our vital infrastructure up to par with the rest of the world's. This bill will mean billions more invested in job-creating highway projects, which will save one million jobs. It will ensure that states direct some of their transportation investment to minority-owned contractors. And it will make it easier for states and local communities to finance their own job-creating projects by selling Build America Bonds. Finally, I want to point out that this bill is paid for--that it fully complies with both the House PAYGO rule and statutory PAYGO, which are so important to restoring our budget to balance. In fact, this bill fixes a minor PAYGO violation in the Senate bill--and that extra effort shows how serious the House is about paying for what our country buys. Unemployment demands action from Congress. And this bill is a part of that effort to create jobs, which began with the Recovery Act and will continue with a wide range of creative policies in the weeks ahead. This bill is not the first step, and it will not be the last; but it is an essential step toward getting America back to work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. It is my position, in the Republican tradition of using reconciliation for very major pieces of legislation, all of your tax bills in 2001 and 2003; as a matter of fact, reconciliation has been used 22 times since 1980. Sixteen of those times it was used by the Republican Party when you were in charge. Apparently you thought that was a procedure that was appropriate to pass. As a matter of fact, Judd Gregg, when he was criticizing us for criticizing reconciliation, said, ``What is wrong with a majority vote?'' We think there is nothing wrong with a majority vote. There is a filibuster in the Senate. That is under their rules. I think those rules are impeding the work of the American people. But be that as it may, they are the rules. There is also a rule that provides for consideration of legislation through a process that is called reconciliation, a fancy name for simply saying there are things that are important, you can put them on the table, you can pass them in a time frame. But, as Americans would expect, a majority of the representatives of the American people have to vote for it. So I am not going to take that off the table. But it has been the President's expression, my expression, the Speaker's expression, the Majority Leader of the Senate's expression we would prefer not to use that, not because we think it is a wrong procedure, but because we would like to create a broader consensus if we can. But I will tell my friend, I think he to some degree misquoted me, I think you could draw that inference, the American people don't like the bill because of what surrounds it. When you ask them about the internals of the legislation, as I said, they respond positively to it. And I will tell my friend about polls. A lot of expression about polls yesterday in our meeting. My friend will recall that we considered expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. You will recall President Bush vetoed that program. You will recall that I stood on this floor and said, ``Do you understand 72 percent of Americans are for expanding SCHIP?'' Notwithstanding that, we couldn't get sufficient votes from your side of the aisle to override the President's veto, notwithstanding the fact that 72 percent of the American people thought children in the richest country on the face of the earth ought to be covered, ought to be healthy, ought to be included in our health care system. So you saw it differently. I understand that. You used your judgment. I frankly think that the American people want us to do what we are trying to do. They want to make sure we do it right and don't undermine the security they now have. And that is our intent as well.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday 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 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. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4247, Keeping All Students Safe Act, and further action on the jobs agenda.

Mr. HOYER. Let me talk to the Speaker about it and see what schedule, and we will talk to you about it. But I think certainly jobs is an absolutely critical objective of ours this year, as you know, as it was last year. The good news, as you know, is that CBO says that over a million jobs were created in the last quarter, or retained in the last quarter as a result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As the gentleman also knows, in the last quarter, the last 3 months of the Bush administration, we lost on average per month 726,000 jobs. As the gentleman also knows, on average over the last 3 months we have lost 35,000 jobs. That is extraordinary. That is 5 percent of what we lost the last 3 months just a year ago. So that is progress. We are moving forward, but that is not success. Success will be, as you and I both know, when we are adding jobs, when we are creating jobs. Unfortunately, over the last 8 years we have had the lowest job production in this country than we have had since Herbert Hoover. As a result, we are very much down in terms of supply of jobs for people who are out of jobs and need jobs to support themselves and their family. I want to also say, I want to thank the gentleman and his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their positive participation yesterday, positive in the sense that yes, we didn't agree, but nobody expected there to be agreement down there, that everybody was all of a sudden going to change their perspective of how you get to where we all want to get. But I thought the American people, as I said, had an opportunity to see some serious people who had differences of opinion discuss them in a civil and, I thought, productive manner. I think that is a good civics opportunity for the American people. Very frankly, we ought to do more of that. Because, unfortunately, all too often they see us on the floor not on the uncontentious, which we do pretty much working together, but they see us on the contentious, where tempers can get pretty hot, and the American public draws the inference that that's all we do. They don't like it, and I don't blame them. I know you and I don't like it either. I want to thank you and your colleagues for your participation.

Mr. HOYER. I think the same letter was sent to both of us, and I was yielding to the Speaker to respond. But I will respond here. I think that is a good idea.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?